twirl.“
. stain Dal! y

{Anzdmm .. iifiax
‘ gufipfimw

too
a: ilk
«Inn-i!) In
, .3 II".
5.

7.1.395! t.
-.I|tl.l‘rb

a...

.5... fiduhum

. ’1‘ F); u

. tramwayiifihfi! Rm
1 . Q i. U

x2253...» my ... iii... $31...

I; . tit

it (£13.02:
{tsulflzli 01‘...an...l I
yvr 11.2.512531 .
ll . 4}
.1;

{"11th \ IDS

Q
ROOOI

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

GROWING FOOD IN THE CITY: TWO APPROACHES TO
EXPLORING SCALING UP URBAN AGRICULTURE
IN DETROIT

presented by

KATHRYN J. A. COLASANTI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Community, Agriculture,
Science Recreation & Resource Studies

 

 

M5114 9

Major Professor’s Signature

S/Z/Qf

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

-- -»¢-.-a---n-----o-u-u-o—n----a---u-o-n----- u-n--.---------c-n---n-u-u-u-.-u----o-

GROWING FOOD IN THE CITY: TWO APPROACHES TO EXPLORING
SCALING UP URBAN AGRICULTURE IN DETROIT

By

Kathryn J. A. Colasanti

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2009

Copyright by
KATHRYN J. A. COLASANTI
2009

ABSTRACT

GROWING FOOD IN THE CITY: TWO APPROACHES TO EXPLORING
SCALING UP URBAN AGRICULTURE IN DETROIT

By
Kathryn J. A. Colasanti

Increased interest in the sustainability of urban landscapes, the rise of community
gardens as a response to degraded neighborhood conditions and marginalized
communities, and dissatisfaction with the conventional food system have all contributed
to an increase in the number of urban farms and gardens across many US cities in recent
decades. As urban agriculture (UA) practices become more widespread and gain support
from a broader range of actor groups, it will be important to understand the impacts of
transitioning from UA at the neighborhood scale to UA at the city scale. This research
explores the dimensions and possibilities of expanded levels of urban food production in
Detroit, MI through two distinct methodological approaches. Drawing on focus groups
with residents and interviews, both with UA practitioners and those professionally
engaged with UA, chapter two reveals the vision for, the dimensions of and the potential
for scaling up urban agriculture in Detroit. Chapter three draws on secondary data
analysis and an inventory of publicly-owned vacant parcels in Detroit to estimate the
extent of the possible contribution to the food supply from urban food production.
Research results show, first, broad support for UA in Detroit but different expectations
for the role and the extent of farms and gardens and, secondly, an apparent potential to
supply a substantial portion of current fresh fruit and vegetable consumption on less than

the cataloged acreage of vacant land if high-productivity biointensive yields are assumed.

The following pages are dedicated to all the Detroitcrs who love their city
and to the urban gardeners everywhere

who plant seeds with hope for greener cities and better tomorrows.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In my journey towards completing this thesis I would like to acknowledge all who
offered support and guidance along the way, including my “foodie” colleagues for
believing in my idea, my advisor for never doubting that it was possible or worthwhile,
my committee members for pushing me to improve both my concepts and my
communication, my course professors for challenging my thinking in innumerable ways,
the “urban ag. book chapter group” for contributing significantly to the insights found in
these pages, the Mott group for their enthusiasm with respect to my research and their
many forms of assistance, Charlotte for taking the lead on the focus groups and
interviews and helping me to process my thoughts on all the drives back to East Lansing,
David and Mike for developing much of the quantitative methodology used here, Betty
for being a wonderful guide through uncharted waters, Cheryl for being my ear in
Detroit, my parents for letting me take my own journey, my brothers for cheerfully
supporting me (even if they never remember the name of the program) and, of course, my

husband for loving me utterly irrespective of my successes or failures in graduate school.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
What is Urban Agriculture? ................................................................................................ 2
Definitions and Dimensions of Urban Agriculture ............................................................. 5
Urban Agriculture in the Literature .................................................................................... 9
History of Urban Agriculture Practice and Research ..................................................... 9
Urban Agriculture and the Cityscape ............................................................................ 12
Urban Agriculture for Food Provision .......................................................................... 14
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 16
Research Methods ............................................................................................................. 17
Research Site ..................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER 2: PERSPECTIVES ON CITY-SCALE URBAN AGRICULTURE ............ 23
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 23
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 23
Scale and Context of Urban Agriculture Practices ........................................................... 27
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 3 1
Methods ............................................................................................................................. 34
Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................... 37
Agrifood System Context and the Influence of Urban Agriculture Participation ........ 38
Vision: The Nature of City-Scale Urban Agriculture ................................................... 43
Structural Context: Obstacles and Supporting Infrastructure ....................................... 53
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 61
CHAPTER 3: PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND EXPANSION POTENTIAL ............. 66
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 66
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 66
Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Urbanization ............................................................. 69
Methods and Results ......................................................................................................... 73
Current and Recommended Consumption .................................................................... 74
Seasonal Availability .................................................................................................... 78
GIS Vacant Land Identification and Mapping .............................................................. 82
Acreage Needed to Meet Consumption Levels ............................................................ 93
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 96
Reflections on Research Results ................................................................................... 96
Reflections on Urban Agriculture at the City Scale ...................................................... 99
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 101
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 103
Discussion of Research Results ...................................................................................... 103

vi

Implications ................................................................................................................. 108

Future Research .......................................................................................................... 109
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 109
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................................................................... 112
APPENDD( B: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE ...................................................................... 114
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 118

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Seasonal Availability of Fruit and Vegetable Crops ....................................... 79
Table 3-2: Number and Acreage of Vacant Parcels by Ownership Category .................. 84
Table 3-3: Acreage Required by Crop .............................................................................. 92
Table 3-4: Acreage Needed to Supply Current and Recommended Consumption .......... 9S

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: The Integration of Urban Agriculture into the City. ........................................ 9
Figure 2-1: Political Ecology Framework of City-Scale Urban Agriculture .................... 32
Figure 3-1: Summary of Local Production Potential Analysis Steps ............................... 75
Figure 3-2: Number and Acreage Total of Vacant Parcels by Detroit Zip Codes. ........... 82
Figure 3-3: Distribution of Vacancy across Detroit ............................................. 88
Figure 3-4: Example of Vacancy Distribution in Low-Vacancy Neighborhood ............ 90
Figure 3-5: Example of Vacancy Distribution in High—Vacancy Neighborhood ........... 91
Figure 3-6: An Illustration of Detroit’s Low Population Density ........................... 100

ix

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION
With populations urbanizing, energy use concerns mounting and cities depending

on food produced in ever more distant hinterlands, it has become increasingly necessary
to address the question of how cities can sustainably meet the food demands of their
citizens. Barely on the heels of the turn of the millennium, we perhaps now more than
ever before have motive to challenge the predominant conception that defines cities in
opposition to agricultural landscapes (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). In the face of
predictions that by 2030 eighty—two percent of the population in developed nations will
live in urban areas (United Nations, 2004), it becomes clear that “sustainable
development is unthinkable without sustainable urbanization” (Smit & Nasr, 1992, p.
152)

In America’s de-industrialized urban cores lies an opportunity to create a new
vision of development. In these places there is an occasion to not only build a template
for sustainable urban landscapes, but to envision a post-industrial city with the capacity to
move towards agricultural self-provisioning. Research on urban agriculture (UA) can
help define this capacity. Furthermore, there are two principal reasons why urban
agriculture deserves greater scholarly attention. First, the academic literature, popular
press articles and a growing number of UA-focused non-profit organizations all testify to
the immense increase in urban agriculture interest in recent years. As further testament to
the growing significance of the movement, in October of 2008 MetroAg: the Alliance for
Urban Agriculture was established to link UA practitioners, advocates and scholars

across the US and Canada (Reynolds, 2008). In light of this growth, research can play a

role in bringing to conceptual maturity the meaning, impact and role of urban farm and
garden spaces and activities. Secondly, as the need to design urban spaces sustainably
and the question of long-term viability of industrial agriculture come to the fore, research
can help define the possibilities and the limitations in bringing food cultivation to our
cities.

There is no better place than Detroit, arguably the epitome of urban decay, to
explore this new vision of possibility. How could expanded UA fit into the landscape of
the city? Could putting unutilized or underutilized public land to productive use through
urban agriculture enable Detroit to be self-sufficient in food resources? Underlying this
research is the hypothesis that if Detroit made use of the vacant public land through urban
agriculture it could meet a substantial portion of the residents’ dietary needs. In exploring
this possibility, research is presented that assesses stakeholder perceptions of this vision
and estimates the amount of land needed to meet the maximum amount of resident fruit
and vegetable consumption seasonally possible. In setting the stage for this research, this
chapter outlines the forms, dimensions and definitions of urban agriculture. This leads to
a definition of city-scale urban agriculture that shapes the nature of this work. A general
overview of the literature on urban agriculture is then presented, highlighting two sub-
themes — the integration of UA with the cityscape and UA as a means of food
provisioning — with particular relevance to the research goals. Finally, the research

questions, research methods and the site of the research are introduced.

WHAT 1s URBAN AGRICULTURE?
Food cultivation in cities is as old as cities themselves (Jacobs, 1969), but urban

agriculture as it is presently practiced can take a number of forms. A land inventory of

spaces suitable for urban food cultivation in Portland, OR offers a helpful typology of
four principal forms (Balmer et a1., 2005). These authors distinguish between 1)
community gardens; 2) small-scale growing operations, such as food bank gardening,
market gardening and farm stands; 3) large-scale growing operations, such as Community
Supported Agriculture operations, urban farms, and urban orchards; and 4) growing on
impervious surfaces or poor soil, such as vertical gardening, indoor production of
mushrooms, aquaculture, container gardening and hydroponics. Backyard gardens are
also often included as a component of UA (Brown & Carter, 2003). Furthermore,
community gardens themselves can range in form and purpose significantly, including
leisure gardens, child and school gardens, entrepreneurial gardens, crime diversion
gardens, healing and therapy gardens, neighborhood pocket parks, ecological restoration
gardens and demonstration gardens (Ferris, Norman, & Sempik, 2001). While raising
livestock and fish can be a part of UA, these activities are far more prevalent abroad than
they are in the US (Brown & Jameton, 2000).

Urban agriculture is of course distinct from rural agriculture in that it takes place
within an urban area. In some cases the term peri-urban agriculture is applied to
agriculture outside of the urban boundary. In other cases the geographical boundaries to
which the descriptor of UA is applied are either indistinct or quite generous. However, it
is when applied to agriculture within the core urban boundary that “urban agriculture”
has the greatest conceptual utility. Beyond its location, UA is also unique in its form and
character. While rural farming has undergone increased capitalization since WWII, urban
cultivation is generally characterized by low-capital, small-scale, intensive production.

Many urban agriculture projects employ innovative techniques to conserve or recycle

resources and to maximize space, such as vermiculture composting and rooftop
gardening. In short, by performing distinct functions and operating under distinct
characteristics, UA is complementary to, rather than a substitute for, rural food
cultivation (Mougeot, 2000).

Comparing urban agriculture in the global South to that of the global North
reveals parallels but also several general distinctions. Research on urban agriculture in
developing countries has highlighted the ways in which these food cultivation practices
contribute to the household economy, whether by providing marketable goods or
enabling a measure of income fungibility (Mougeot, 2005; Moustier & Danso, 2006;
Nugent, 2000), and supplement household nutrition (Altieri et al., 1999; Maxwell, Levin,
& Csete, 1998; Moskow, 1999). Indeed, urban agriculture is thought to provide an
important means of subsistence for impoverished urban dwellers and for this reason is
often practiced illegally in the large metropolises of developing countries (Ellis &
Sumberg, 1998).

In contrast, scholars looking at urban agriculture in countries of the global North
have highlighted the ancillary social and environmental benefits of food growing,
particularly in the form of community gardens. For example, research on community
gardens in the UK found that food production is many times not the main goal driving
garden formation (Holland, 2004). Furthermore, for some, practicing urban agriculture
may also be a way to opt out of the mainstream agrifood system (Abbott, 2009). Urban
farming and gardening as for-profit activity in the United States is a more recent sub-
movement, often referred to as entrepreneurial urban agriculture. But even these forms of

gardening and farming typically have underlying social motivations (Kaufman &

Bailkey, 2000). Entrepreneurial community gardens, in particular, often generate only
modest income and are driven by a mission to productively employ youth or resource-
challenged adults in ways that create opportunities for better quality jobs, finding first
jobs, securing housing, breaking the cycle of recidivism, or pursuing higher education
(Feenstra, McGrew, & Campbell, 1999). These projects also aim to build bridges
between these marginalized populations and the surrounding community (Feenstra et al.,
1999)

Yet, as dissimilar as the urban agriculture movement of the first and third world
may appear, Irvine, Johnson & Peters (1999, p. 38) argue that cities across the globe
share the common realities of “a vast and growing disparity between rich and poor urban
dwellers and a deepening environmental crisis,” conditions which have heightened
advocacy for community gardens. Furthermore, as cities in the first world expand onto
farmland, the concentrated demand and reduced means of production spur the
development of commercial export farming in the third world, displacing subsistence
farmers and leading to increased urbanization in the global south (Irvine et al., 1999).
Thus at the same time that advocates in North America are using urban agriculture as a
means to redevelop a connection to food production for city dwellers, formerly rural
farmers are undertaking their own forms of urban agriculture in the wake of their
displaced livelihood. From this perspective, the urban agriculture movements of
developed and developing countries are linked through the structures of the global
agrifood system.

DEFINITIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE
Having worked through the basic forms and characteristics, it is now appropriate

to move towards more precisely defining UA. In a review of definitions of UA, Quon

(1999) finds that the types of activities included and the boundaries specified vary
considerably but ofi‘ers the definition provided by Smit et a1. as one that has been adopted
by numerous other authors:

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 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, Ratta, & Nasr, 1996, p. 3).
Similarly recognizing the input-output cycle between UA practices and the urban
ecosystem and then extending it firrther to include not just products but resources and
services as a contribution of UA back to the city, Mougeot (2000, p. 10) revises the Smit
et a1. (1996) definition as follows:

UA is an industry located within (intraurban) or on the fiinge

(periurban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows or raises,

processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food products,

(re-)using largely human and material resources, products and

services found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplying

human and material resources, products and services largely to that

urban area.
This latter definition opens the door to considering the multiple ways in which UA affects
and is affected by the socio-cultural, socio-political and ecological dynamics of the city.

At any scale, urban agriculture involves various dimensions by virtue of its

multiple benefit categories, the diverse motivations of its participants and the numerous
ways in which its practice integrates with the urban ecosystem. Yet there are distinct
differences between what at one end of a continuum would be scattered neighborhood

gardens maintained by individual actors and at the opposite end would be city

government agencies, planners, developers and community—based groups working

tog

pm

dcs

sup

. -,.
UN:

Shit

film”:

‘5.)
'Vj’

together in an integrated approach to support and expand urban food cultivation in order
to realize the full potential of its multiple benefits.

The further UA moves towards the latter end of this continuum, whether in
practice or in rhetoric, the more important it becomes to ask questions regarding what is
desired by residents, what is possible to achieve and what policy and infrastructure
supports are needed. In other words, we need to look at how the relevant questions
change if we shift from thinking about UA as serving "a niche function in terms of time
(transitory), space (interstitial) as well as [operating under] specific social (e.g. women
and low income groups) and economic (e. g. financial crisis, food shortage) conditions"
(de Zeeuw, Guendel, & Waibel, 2000, p. 161) to thinking about UA as a municipal- and
community-level investment in creating an urban landscape that challenges an agrifood
system in which the urban locale is merely a throughput of food, that furthers urban
sustainability and that engenders a new relationship between hardscape and natural
spaces. It is to this latter end of the continuum that the phrase city-scale urban agriculture
is applied. For the purposes of this research, then, city-scale urban agriculture is defined
as:

a network of cultivation spaces and production activities in which
food is produced by and for the local community and around which
city government and administrative departments, the private sector,

non-profit coalitions and neighborhood groups are involved in order
to expand, support and integrate these activities into the life of the

Clty.
Following the level of integration into the urban ecosystem indicated by this
definition, it can be argued that there are at least six realms of urban living potentially
impacted by urban agriculture - namely community, economy, environment, health,

agrifood system and education. The influence on these realms occurs at the individual

and the neighborhood scale, as well as at the scale of the city. For example, in the realm
of the food system, gardens can encourage participants to eat a greater number of fruits
and vegetables and can increase the food security in a given neighborhood. At a larger
scale, expanding urban food production necessitates considerations of how the food
grown would be marketed and distributed beyond the growers themselves as well as
considerations of opportunities for local food processing. Likewise, considerations of
socio-cultural foodways in regards to food consumption and purchasing patterns also
become relevant. Within the community realm, scaling up urban food production brings
into play the gardener/farmer networks and their associated organizations, as well as the
advocacy and participation of these groups in shaping the urban agriculture agenda.

Finally, policy measures and infrastructure developments necessary to support
UA become increasingly necessary when moving along the continuum towards city-scale
UA. These, however, tend to be more integrated in nature rather than specific to a
particular realm. Policy measures can include zoning policies along with the larger
planning and legal framework in which UA operates. Infrastructure can include season
extension infrastructure; processing, marketing and distribution infrastructure; and urban
composting facilities. Institutional processes for such components as farmer and gardener
training or soil testing and remediation also become necessary at the city scale.

It is important to bear in mind that the influences of these various dimensions and
the influence of UA operate in a cyclical relationship. That is, as much as UA impacts the
aforementioned dimensions, all of these practices and policies also influence the nature of
UA activities. Essentially, not only are resources, products and services from the city

used by UA and supplied to the city by UA in a functionalist sense (Mougeot, 2000) (see

Figure l-l), but the socio-cultural, political, economic and ecological realities of the city
shape and are, to greater or lesser degrees, shaped by UA. This dimension of the city-
scale UA concept, in particular, seems to hold promising new frontiers for researchers of
urban agriculture. With this understanding of the basic elements of UA and the concept
of UA at the city-scale in mind, a review of the UA literature is now presented, which

will pave the way for introducing the research questions and methods.

 

 

 

Agriculture

 

    
  

 

Hi; i"- "If.
f 15"

Resources vi

Products
Services

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LJ Rural - IPeri-Urban - lntra-Urban

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1-1: The Integration of Urban Agriculture into the City.

As this graphic illustrates, UA is more integrated into the city, in the sense of being
dependent on and contributing to the urban environment, than peri-urban or rural
agriculture. Adapted from (Mougeot, 2000)

URBAN AGRICULTURE IN THE LITERATURE

History of Urban Agriculture Practice and Research
Community gardens originated as a reaction to the widespread privatization of

land accompanying industrialization in late eighteenth century England that drove
enclosures of formerly common land in agricultural areas and development of open
spaces in urban areas. The loss of the capacity for self-sufficiency and the advent of
landlessness prompted parallel philanthropic and self-help efforts to establish community

gardens (Warner, 1987). In the US, the prominence of backyard “victory” gardening

9

during both WW1 and WWII, in which gardening contributed as much as 40% of the
fresh fruits and vegetables consumed in the country, is often highlighted in historical
sketches of UA (see for example Hanna & Oh, 2000; Patel, 1996; Saldivar-Tanaka &
Krasny, 2004). Yet the emphasis on these episodic periods in which UA flourished may
obscure the continuity of urban garden programs (Moore, 2006).

In the decades following WWH, the historical location of marginalized
communities in environmentally degraded neighborhoods without access to urban green
space, coupled with the disinvestrnent in urban cores by the white majority, confronted
the civil rights, women’s liberation, environmental and social justice movements of the
1970s to give rise to the current community garden movement (Hynes, 1996). More
recently, urban agriculture as a social and environmental justice strategy is aligning with
municipal interest in urban agriculture that recognizes the beneficial connections to
public health, holistic urban planning, economic development and sustainable
urbanization (Holland, 2004; Howe & Wheeler, 1999; Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler, &
Rhoads, 2008; Schilling & Logan, 2008).

Within the last two decades, the scholarly literature on urban agriculture has
grown considerably. While much of this literature documents UA in developing
countries, there is an emerging literature from the industrialized nations that can be
broadly divided into two main strains. The first tends to look at urban agriculture through
a specific disciplinary lens in order to generate empirical evidence for particular
dynamics or benefits. This includes research on health promoting dimensions (Alaimo,
Packnett, Miles, & Kruger, 2008; Armstrong, 2000; Brown & Jameton, 2000), improved

mental health and well-being (Kaplan, 1973; Waliczek, Mattson, & Zajicek, 1996),

10

contributions to youth development (Allen, Alaimo, Elam, & Perry, 2008; Hung, 2004),
differential access to social capital (Glover, 2004), expressions of personal (Francis,
1990), cultural (Graham & Connell, 2006) and collective (Glover, 2003) identity, and the
tensions surrounding the claim UA has to spaces and historical narratives of the city
(Moore, 2006; Schmelzkopf, 1995, 2002).

The second strain of literature tends to be more advocacy-oriented in nature.
Scholars in this area have often used case studies or relied on their personal experience to
argue for the role UA can play in cities. Evaluations of particular garden programs often
emphasize their beneficial impacts (Blair, Giesecke, & Sherman, 1991; Patel, 1994, 1996;
Pothukuchi, 2004). Here we also see articles drawing links between UA and socio-
ecological sustainable development (Ferris et al., 2001; Holland, 2004; Howe & Wheeler,
1999; Irvine et al., 1999; Smit & Nasr, 1992; Viljoen, 2005) or positing community
gardens as a means of addressing poverty (Hanna & Oh, 2000; Patel, 1996), revitalizing
vacant lots (Pottharst, 1995; Rosol, 2005; Schilling & Logan, 2008), encouraging cross-
cultural interactions (Patel, 1994; Shinew, Glover, & Parry, 2004; Wakefield, Yeudall,
Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007) and creating healthy, food secure communities
(Connolly & Ross, 2007; Twiss et al., 2003; Wakefield et al., 2007).

Bridging the gap between these two divergent strains are a handful of scholars
who take a broader perspective and look at the future of the UA movement in regards to
the interests, motivations and strategies of its actors. Here we find research that:
evaluates tools through which planners can support expanding UA (Mendes et al., 2008),
positions UA within the discourse on community development, open space and civic

agriculture (Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004), demonstrates the class differences

11

underlying different forms of UA (Domene & Sauri, 2007) and explores the enthusiasm
of UA practitioners and the skepticism of community development professionals in
regards to for-profit UA in US cities (Kaufman & Bailkey, 2000). Taking the UA
literature as a whole, however, makes clear that the field is far from a unifying
framework for or consistent definition of UA.

In moving towards considering urban agriculture at the city scale, there are many
questions that emerge. Two broad questions of interest for the purposes of this research
are: How does urban agriculture fit into urban dwellers’ images of their neighborhoods
and their city? To what extent could urban agriculture supply the food needs of urban
residents? These questions invoke two UA sub-literatures: urban agriculture and the

cityscape and urban agriculture for food provision.

Urban Agriculture and the Cityscape
Since the Renaissance, utopian ideals rather than the natural processes of life in

the city have determined the principles of urban form; as such, productive landscapes
have largely been excluded from the modern city (Hough, 1984). Furthermore, as the
visual connection to the countryside that characterized pre-industrial cities has been lost,
so too has the explicit reminder of the city's dependence on food producing resources
(Hough, 1984). More and more, both explicitly and implicitly, what is urban has come to
be defined as non—agricultural (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). Yet, somewhat ironically,
as cities have expanded onto agricultural land through suburbanization, they have often
left land vacant in the city core, which then becomes available for urban agriculture

(Hough, 1984; Warner, 1987). In many cases it is here, in the empty trash-strewn lots of

12

degraded inner-city neighborhoods, that the current community gardening movement first
took root (Hynes, 1996).

Since the 19703, community gardens and other forms of urban agriculture have
continued to grow in number and become a larger part of life in many US cities.
Government and public authorities have, however, generally denied gardens as a
legitimate permanent use for land in the modern era (Hough, 1984; Moore, 2006), and
many local governments have shown general disinterest in urban agriculture as an
element of community or economic development (Kaufman & Bailkey, 2000). Yet the
conception of a city without gardens, which opponents invoke to devalue their presence
in urban areas, is ultimately an historical aberration from the long-standing inclusion of
cultivated land that has characterized cities across time and cultures (Jacobs, 1969;
Warner, 1987).

Up until the late 18th century in the Western world, town dwellers had always
been gardeners (Warner, 1987) and the incorporation of garden plots within the cityscape
is still the norm in many cities of the developing world (Mougeot, 2005). In the US,
however, most community gardeners have had access to land for cultivation only at the
whim of public institutions and the philanthropic community (Warner, 1987) and
unstable land tenure continues to hinder the growing urban agriculture movement
(Kaufman & Bailkey, 2000). In Detroit, where the population continues to decline and
the list of vacant lots continues to grow, but yet where urban gardeners continue to
expand their networks, there is a unique opportunity to challenge and explore the
perception of what constitutes appropriate land use in a city and at what scale urban food

production might be possible.

13

Urban Agriculture for Food Provision
While many dimensions of urban agriculture have been explored in the literature,

relatively few studies have looked at the potential for urban agriculture as a food
provisioning resource at the macro level. Research has shown that urban gardeners often
donate to friends and family or those in need in their community, which enhances local
food security (Bellows, Brown, & Smit, n.d.); but, research on the cumulative capacity of
urban agriculture to meet food needs seems to be lacking. Nonetheless, there are a
handful of studies documenting yields from urban agriculture, which provide a starting
point to this inquiry. Due to intensive cultivation methods, yields from urban agriculture
can be as much as 15 times higher than in rural agriculture (Petts, 2005).

An analysis of urban agriculture in Cuba noted that the potential yield, based on
maximum productivity through their year-long growing season, was nearly 20 kg/m2 and
that 3m2 per capita of land could supply 60kg, or half the UN recommended quantity, of
vegetables for an individual (Altieri et al., 1999). Another study claims that in a
temperate climate 3 10x10m plot can produce most of a household’s vegetable needs over
a 130-day growing season (Sommers & Smit, 1994). At the national level, US Victory
gardens produced 40% of the fresh vegetables consumed in 1944 (Hanna & Oh, 2000).
Worldwide, the UNDP estimated that in the early 1990s one third of urban families were
supplying approximately one third of all food consumed in cities (Mougeot, 2005). With
many of these estimates, however, it is unclear how much of the food production is
actually occurring within the core urban boundary.

The ability of urban agriculture to meet local consumption needs will depend in
part on the nature of local consumption patterns. A study in New York compared the land

base needed to support food intake in diets with varying meat and fat consumption levels,

14

demonstrating that diet composition can significantly impact the potential for local food
provision (Peters, Wilkins, & Ficka, 2007). Because fruit and vegetable crops provide the
highest yields and value per area cultivated (V iljoen, Bohn, & Howe, 2005), it is
presumably most feasible for a city to meet its demand in this food category, which
seems to be reflected in estimates of UA’s contribution to food needs cited in the
literature.

Yet again, however, the scope of the urban — suburban — rural landscape included
in such estimates varies considerably or is simply unclear. Reportedly, Shanghai and
Beijing are fully self—sufficient in vegetables (Howe, Bohn, & Viljoen, 2005) and several
urban centers in Afiica, including Brazzaville (Congo), Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania) and
Accra (Ghana), produce 80% or more of their leafy vegetable needs (Mougeot, 2005).
Estimates also suggest that some large Latin American cities are able to meet one third of
vegetable demand through urban production (Mougeot, 1993). Urban food production
also appears to supply significant quantities of animal products in some cities. Dar Es
Salaam produces 60% of its milk, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) nearly 80% of its milk, and
Hanoi (Vietnam) 50% of its meat (Mougeot, 2005). In Short, these estimates show that
urban agriculture can potentially contribute to a city’s food needs significantly. Yet the
dearth of empirical studies and the generous boundary definitions leave unanswered the
degree to which a city can self-provision its food resources.

There seem to be even fewer studies documenting the land base needed for food
self-sufficiency in a given region. One study out of Kingston, Ontario found that urban
agriculture could utilize 5,600 hectares in the inner-city to meet the fresh fruit and

vegetable needs of 76% of city residents (Lam, 2007). Another study from Newark, NJ

15

looked at the cumulative potential of urban gardens in terms of the economic value of
food produced and found that 1,900 gardens on 30 acres generated food crops worth over
$915,000 (Patel, 1996). In other research, Peters et a1. (2002) demonstrate that state level
vegetable production can be compared with per capita consumption estimates on a crop
by crop basis. While the intent of this study was not to measure the capacity for self-
sufficiency, their approach would make these calculations possible.

The historically unique Situation of Cuba presents an opportunity to understand
the capacity of urban agriculture for food self-sufficiency at not just the community level
but also the national level. In one case study from Havana, gardeners acquired 60% of the
household’s (nearly six people on average) produce needs fi'om their garden (Moskow,
1999). While analysts predicted that with the casing of the food crisis the urban gardens
would begin to disappear, they have instead remained an important part of the urban
landscape and have even been expanding (Altieri et al., 1999). In the US, increasing
scarcity and political instability of oil reserves and predicted vulnerabilities of agriculture
in light of global warming, both of which affect the price of food in the industrial supply
chain, point to the possibility of a scenario in which this country could be forced to be
more reliant on local and decentralized food production, just as Cuba was during their
“Special Period.” In this sense, then, not only is it relevant to explore the potential of
Detroit to feed itself through local sources given the city’s own social-economic context,
it is a question that also could warrant national attention in a not so distant future.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research was informed by consideration of the underlying bi g-picture

questions: How does UA fit into the urban ecosystem? Can it (or should it) become a

16

part of the daily rhythms of urban life? Can urban food cultivation become an essential
part of urban culture? What would UA look like at the city scale? What is possible?
Subsequent to developing an understanding of the literature and a concept of city—scale
UA, two parallel research projects were designed that asked the following:
I What is the community perception of and vision for city-scale UA?
o How does the socio-cultural and food system context hinder or
encourage moving towards city-scale UA?
o How does participation in UA affect or reshape the socio-cultural and
food system context?
0 How do stakeholders perceive city-scale UA?
o What infrastructure is in place and what needs to be in place to
support city-scale UA?
O How do obstacles to UA inform the infrastructure needed?
- What level of urban food cultivation is possible?
0 What is the quantity and distribution of vacant, publicly-owned land
in Detroit?
0 What amount of land is needed to meet current and recommended

levels of fruit and vegetable consumption to the greatest extent
possible given seasonal limitations?

RESEARCH METHODS

The specific methodologies employed in this research will be described in more
detail in chapter two (qualitative results) and chapter three (quantitative results). This
section provides a general overview. In answering the above-stated research questions,
four principal research methods were used. In regards to the first research question (What
is the community perception of and vision for city-scale UA?), a combination of topical
interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 2005), with stakeholders professionally engaged in or
connected to urban agriculture, and exploratory focus groups (Krueger, 1994), with
Detroit residents participating in urban agriculture to varying degrees, were used. Both of
these qualitative research techniques were semi-structured in nature and consisted of

open-ended questions designed to solicit depth. The interviews and focus groups were

17

conducted in partnership with a fellow graduate student who took the lead in arranging
the majority of the interviews and focus groups as part of a conceptually related but
distinct research project. The research questions for the present study were incorporated
into the research protocol of this project. The author attended the majority of the
interviews and focus groups, but only conducted two of the interviews, and served as an
assistant with the facilitation of four of the five focus groups.

In answering the second research question (What level of urban food cultivation is
possible?), both secondary data analysis and GIS mapping were used. Based on a GIS
database of all parcels within the city of Detroit obtained from the City of Detroit GIS
Sales and Service Center (City of Detroit, 2008), the number of vacant, publicly-owned
parcels within city limits was determined. The total acreage of these vacant parcels, both
by zip code and for the city as a whole, was then calculated. This allowed comparison of
the land available with the land base necessary to achieve the maximum amount of fruit
and vegetable consumption possible within seasonal limitations. An array of secondary
data sources that provided current fruit and vegetable consumption by Detroiters (U .8.
Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2006; US. Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service, 2008; US. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service,
2008), recommended fruit and vegetable consumption by age and sex (US. Census
Bureau American Fact Finder, 2006; US. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion, 2005), food chain losses (Kantor, 1998; Peters et al., 2002),
seasonal availability under varying levels of post and extended season crop management

(Conner, Knudson, Hamm, & Peterson, 2008; Michigan State University Extension,

18

2004)1 and yield figures for both commercial (National Agricultural Statistics Service
Michigan Field Office, 2006; Peters et al., 2002; Peters, Bills, Wilkins, & Smith, 2003;
US. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2003; Zandstra & Price,
1988) and biointensive (Jeavons, 1995) production were used in order to determine a
range of requisite land areas under various production scenarios. The inclusion of only
publicly-owned, vacant land excludes backyard gardens from the assessment as well as
any type of UA that would fall under Balmer et al.’s (2005) category four of impervious
surfaces. This research assumes that the expansion of UA would involve a blend Of
Balmer et al.’s (2005) categories one through three: community gardens, small-scale and

large-scale growing operations.

RESEARCH SITE
Detroit, because of several historical and present-day circumstances, represents a

comparatively unique opportunity to consider the potential for urban agriculture. The city
has historically been a leader in urban agriculture and had the nation’s first officially
recognized community gardens initiative, begun during the economic depression of the
late nineteenth century (Gopakumar & Hess, 2005). Today Detroit is once again leading
the nation with its growing urban agriculture movement. Currently there are over 150
community gardens in Detroit’s Garden Resource Program network.2 Urban Farming also
manages gardens in over 50 locations within Detroit.3 In spite of this growing movement,
the city of Detroit does not have any policies that acknowledge urban agriculture as a

legal land use (Lachance, 2004). A better incorporation of urban agriculture into the

 

l Seasonal availability estimations also relied heavily on unpublished harvest and distribution data from the
Michigan State Student Organic Farm 2004-2008 growing seasons.

2 Retrieved 5/4/09 from www.detr0itagriculture.org
3 Retrieved 5/4/09 from www.urbanfarmingorg

l9

vision of city development is therefore crucial for the long-term stability of this
movement, not only to legitimate existing gardens, but also to anticipate conflict over
garden spaces in the face of future market pressures for development.

In addition to the groundwork laid by urban agriculture proponents, some of
Detroit’s more unfortunate circumstances position the city to benefit from the advantages
found in urban agriculture. Through fifty years of population out-migration to the
surrounding suburbs, the city has struggled to maintain the health of its culture, economy
and urban infrastructure. Detroit has a high incidence of what have been called food
deserts (areas with a dearth of full service food retailers), and less than 1/5 of food stores
in three low-income zip codes in Detroit carry the food items necessary for the USDA’S
“healthy food basket”(Pothukuchi, 2003). Over half of Detroiters must travel twice as far
to reach a firll-service food retailer than to reach a convenience store (M. Gallagher,
2007). Detroit neighborhoods with high percentages of Afiican-Americans typically
experience even greater distances from supermarkets than their Caucasian counterparts
(Zenk et al., 2005).

Additional research in Detroit has shown that shopping at supermarkets is
correlated with increased fruit and vegetable consumption, indicating that the greater
distance to supermarkets may negatively impact health outcomes (Zenk et al., 2006).
Furthermore, unemployment rates in the city are far above national averages (Altman,
2009), increasing challenges to household food security. Examining the prevalence of
health disparities in Detroit, Schulz et al. (2002) posit the physical environment,

community infrastructure and social environment as intermediate causes Of health

20

outcomes. This suggests that changes in the landscape, such as gardens and increased
access to flesh food, could help mitigate racial disparities in health.

Unlike many cities with an interest in urban agriculture, Detroit has an abundance
of vacant land. The abandoned property in Detroit has been estimated to make up
approximately 1/3 of the total 139 square miles within the city boundaries, or 40,000 lots
(Gopakumar & Hess, 2005). This is roughly equivalent to the size of San Francisco.
Another 2001 estimation puts the number even higher, citing the city-owned property
alone at 46,000 vacant parcels and 24,000 empty buildings (Kaufman & Bailkey, 2001).
Potential policies that would enable and promote urban agriculture on this vacant
property have been proposed in the city of Detroit (Lachance, 2004) but thus far have not
been adopted. Demonstrating the potential impact of urban agriculture on these vacant
lots could help build the case for supportive policy measures. In summary, Detroit’s
historical and present-day leadership in urban agriculture, its need for increased access to
healthy food as part of a strategy to mitigate health disparities and its copious quantities
of vacant land all confirm that Detroit is an appropriate setting in which to consider
heightened integration of urban agriculture into the cityscape and an ideal place to ask the
proposed research questions.

CONCLUSION

This chapter sets the stage by exploring the dimensions and characteristics of
urban agriculture, by reviewing the academic literature on urban agriculture and by
introducing the research questions, methods and study site. The following two chapters
present, first, the qualitative and, secondly, the quantitative research results. Each of these

chapters is written with the expectation of submission and publication as a stand-alone

21

journal article and thus can be read as such, as well as within the larger context of the
research goals outlined here. The fourth and final chapter summarizes the results
presented in chapters two and three, suggests implications of these results and outlines
crucial directions for firture research.

While chapters two and three present research that asks very different questions,
that utilizes very different methods and that draws on very different frameworks, they
have in common a goal of shedding light on the concept of urban agriculture occurring
across a city. Chapter two paints a picture of the interest in UA among Detroiters and,
along the way, illuminates many of the intricacies involved with expanding urban
production as experienced by individuals and communities. Chapter three then shows
what level of production is physically achievable. Together these chapters give form to
the concept of city-scale UA introduced in this chapter and open the door to further

research on the full potential of urban food cultivation in Detroit and beyond.

22

CHAPTER 2:
PERSPECTIVES ON
CITY-SCALE URBAN AGRICULTURE

“We don ’t have a structure for this to fit in or a vision that it’s
becoming a part of What we need is a plan for how to implement
urban agriculture in the city of Detroit, fi'om the backyard garden to
the urban farm and everything in between. ” — Detroit interviewee

ABSTRACT
In recent years urban agriculture has received increasing support as a strategy for

food security and urban sustainability at expanded scales. Scholars have explored the
impacts of individual community gardens but there is little understanding regarding the
perception of city-wide farms and gardens amongst urban residents. This chapter explores
the possibilities for and the perceived dimensions of city-scale urban agriculture in
Detroit through semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Ten interviews provide an
organizational and professional perspective on the potential of scaling up urban
agriculture, and five focus groups give insight on the desirability, the presumed
dimensions and the context of city-scale urban agriculture from a city resident
perspective. Results reveal a belief in the strength of Detroit urban agriculture
organizations and a widespread belief in the capacity to expand urban agriculture that
simultaneously recognizes the many complexities involved.
INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades urban agriculture (UA) activities have continued to
grow in scope and extent across the globe. Since the 19608, when the most recent wave of
US community gardening emerged out of the civil rights and environmental justice
movements (Hynes, 1996), urban farms and gardens have continued to gain traction in

many cities and now find support from a broadening circle of stakeholders including

23

planners (Balmer et al., 2005; Kaethler, 2006; Mendes et al., 2008), architects (Park &
International Center for Urban Ecology, 2005; Viljoen, 2005) and public health
professionals (Armstrong, 2000; Brown & Jameton, 2000; Twiss et al., 2003). In recent
years urban agriculture has even gained acceptance as a strategy for food security and
urban sustainability within municipalities (Mendes et al., 2008).

Much recent writing from UA activists and practitioners either argues or implies
that cities should significantly expand urban agriculture for the ancillary benefits and for
the presumed contribution to the sustainability of the urban environment. Yet there is
little critical understanding of just what urban agriculture expanded towards a city scale
might look like or what urban residents themselves might envision. Scholars have
explored the impacts of individual community gardens and how these sites are viewed by
gardeners, but there is little awareness of how urban residents, both gardeners and non-
gardeners, might perceive city-wide farms and gardens. In order to understand the
desirability or the possibilities for urban agriculture on a scale many practitioners
advocate, scholarly efforts in this vein are crucial.

This research offers an exploration of perspectives from residents of Detroit, MI
that provide a foundation for considering if or how urban agriculture might move from an
activity affecting the lives of individual garden participants to an enterprise that plays a
major role in the urban food system, in creating a sustainable urban environment and in
shaping the identity of a city and its residents. There are of course many dimensions to
such a consideration. As an entry point to research on scaling up urban agriculture,
however, this chapter seeks to understand the perspectives of those participating in,

connected with or exposed to urban agriculture in Detroit.

24

Definitions of urban agriculture vary, and while the F AC has defined it simply as
food production that occurs within city limits (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 1996), others have recognized uniquely distinguishing characteristics of
urban agriculture:

UA is an industry located within (intraurban) or on the fiinge

(periurban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows or

raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-

food products, (re-)using largely human and material

resources, products and services found in and around that

urban area, and in turn supplying human and material

resources products and services largely to that urban area

(Mougeot, 2000, p. 10).
Here we see that what characterizes urban agriculture is not only its location but the
manner in which it is embedded in an urban economic and ecological system (Mougeot,
2000). Furthermore, this definition encompasses the activities which integrate production
into a local urban agrifood system in addition to the production dimension itself.

As UA moves away from playing a niche role (de Zeeuw et al., 2000) and
expands across a city, the ways in which farms and gardens interact with the community,
economic, health, agrifood system, educational and environmental dimensions of the city
take on greater importance. Operating through only a niche role versus integrating into all
realms of the city can be thought of as two ends of a continuum of UA practices. To
differentiate UA at this latter end of the continuum we introduce the concept of city-scale
urban agriculture, as:

a network of cultivation spaces and production activities in which
food is produced by and for the local community and around which
city government and administrative departments, the private sector,

non-profit coalitions and neighborhood groups are involved in order
to expand, support and integrate these activities into the life of the

Clty.

25

In many ways Detroit presents an ideal research site for this work. Not only does
the city have a long history of municipal support for urban agriculture, beginning with
Mayor Pingree during the economic depression of the late nineteenth century
(Gopakumar & Hess, 2005), but it currently has one of the country’s leading urban
agriculture movements, 3 network of organizations promoting and creating UA
opportunities and a newly created mayoral Office with the goal of making land available
for gardening (Gorchow & Patton, 2008). A Detroit community of artists and architects
has even extended what some see as a local "urban agrarian revolution" beyond in-ground
cultivation to projects which advocate re-envisioning the "destroyed house icon into a
new-use icon" through, for example, worm farms or mushroom growing (Park &
International Center for Urban Ecology, 2005, p. 172). Thus, particularly because there is
already a network of non-profit organizations and community groups operating at a city-
scale, Detroit offers an opportunity to explore the other components of city-scale UA.

Detroit has also experienced greater population loss, has faced a greater quantity
of vacant land and abandoned properties and has confionted a greater percentage of its
citizens living below the poverty line than the majority of other US. cities. Furthermore
the retail sector of the dominant agrifood system in Detroit has been shown to woefully
underserve its population in terms of providing healthy food access (M. Gallagher, 2007;
Zenk et al., 2005). In short, Detroit has many components of a UA movement in place,
has the physical territory in which to expand UA and comprises a postindustrial urban
ecosystem with a turbulent past and an uncertain trajectory. Where better than here, then,
to seek perspectives on what UA could mean at the city scale? This article begins with a

review of the relevant urban agriculture literature, outlines the theoretical framework and

26

methods by which research was conducted, and then presents the results organized
according to the sociocultural context and the influence of UA participation, the vision
for and expected nature of city—scale UA and the structural context and barriers to scaling

up UA.

SCALE AND CONTEXT OF URBAN AGRICULTURE PRACTICES
Gardening in the city is for many people simply a matter of personal interest.

Garden spaces can be important sites of personal expression harboring multiple meanings
for the gardener (Francis, 1990), and the motivations underlying home gardening often
combine social and nature-based desires (Clayton, 2007). For immigrant gardeners, urban
food cultivation can be a way to maintain cultural identity and homeland traditions
(Graham & Connell, 2006). Research on community gardens has further expanded our
understanding of how engagement in UA activities confers multiple benefits to gardeners
(Blair et al., 1991; Hanna & Oh, 2000; Patel, 1994, 1996; Pothukuchi, 2004;
Schmelzkopf, 1995; Wakefield et al., 2007). Scholars have demonstrated the ability of
gardens to positively affect fruit and vegetable consumption (Alaimo et al., 2008),
enjoyment of nature (Kaplan, 1973), and self-esteem (Waliczek et al., 1996).

In contrast to these individually experienced benefits of urban gardens, other
literature discusses urban agriculture in relation to collective efforts within particular
societal contexts. Historical accounts of community gardens tend to emphasize the role
they play in improving household food security during periods of crisis. The emergence
of community gardens in the US has been linked to the economic downturn in the late
18008 (Hanna & Oh, 2000). In the twentieth century, urban agriculture flourished in the

form of victory gardens during WWI and WWII (Patel, 1996; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny,

27

2004). During WWII, the US was able to produce 40% of its fruit and vegetable needs
through these gardens (Hanna & Oh, 2000), although the US economy was at this point
considerably more rural. Nonetheless, these periods, while episodic, demonstrate the
capacity and potential scale of UA when the national government provides full material
and discursive support and citizens have a worthy motivation.

In the 19608 -19708, community gardens took on a more overtly political role as a
response to urban conditions. The contemporary community garden movement has its
roots in the civil rights and environmental movements of this time period, which together
promoted UA as a means of combating urban blight and empowering marginalized
communities (Hynes, 1996). Scholars influenced by these efforts have looked at urban
gardens in relation to community development. Glover (2004) documents the resource
networks in community gardens, showing that while garden operations can strengthen
neighborhood relationships, not everyone has equal access to the social capital created.
Using community-based research, Wakefield et al. (2007) Show that community gardens
are a venue for facilitating community engagement and sharing across cultures. Involving
youth in UA practices can not only facilitate positive individual development, but also
enable youth to experience their capacity to contribute to the neighborhood and improve
community relations with youth (Allen et al., 2008; Hung, 2004). Community gardens
have also been shown to symbolize collective achievement, in so far as they enable
people to work towards a common goal (Glover, 2003), and can catalyze firrther efforts to
create positive neighborhood change (Armstrong, 2000).

A small body of literature begins to shed greater light on the role of UA by

looking holistically at its impacts on the day-to-day lived experience of residents and

28

neighborhoods. Alaimo and Hassler’s (2003) From Seeds to Stories, the Community
Gardening Storytelling Project of F lint allows gardeners’ stories to speak for themselves
in a way that showcases the personal and neighborhood pride community gardens can
instill on both individual and collective levels. Hynes (1996) and Warner (1987) also
place the role of UA in a larger neighborhood context. Their chronicles weave gardeners’
stories into community narratives that highlight how people have used neighborhood
gardens to reclaim their rights to green, productive space and their capacity to affect
change in communities largely ignored by the market and abandoned by the state.

Slowly, more research is emerging that looks beyond individual gardeners or
gardens and explores more broadly the underlying discourse and construction of meaning
behind UA practices and how such practices integrate or conflict with other values.
Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny (2004) relate how Latino community gardeners view the
role of their gardens in relation to the civic agriculture, community development and
open space movements. In New York City, Schmelzkopf (2002) demonstrates how the
rhetoric of garden activists in the face of proposed development of garden sites conflicted
with market economy discourse, and thus challenged the underlying framework behind
the right to open space (see also Schmelzkopf, 1995). Similarly, in her case study of
Columbus, OH, Moore (2006) shows that the UA discourse of the urban elite can frame
these practices in a way that obscures their continuity and neutralizes the potential threat
to the capitalist urbanization process that they represent.

Often coming from a more explicitly advocacy-oriented framework, a handful of
other scholars have begun to explore how UA can garner increased municipal support for

expanding urban farm and garden activities. Drawing on surveys and interviews with

29

community gardeners, Holland (2004) argues that community gardens present an
opportunity to pursue local sustainability in concert with Local Agenda 21. In one of very
few studies to look at perspectives on expanding UA across US cities, Kaufman and
Bailkey (2000) paired case studies of entrepreneurial UA projects with interviews of
community development practitioners in order to assess the feasibility and interest in
utilizing urban vacant land for food cultivation on a broad scale. They found that while
many people are skeptical about city farming for a host of reasons, there are nonetheless a
diverse and growing number of for-market UA initiatives which have demonstrated the
possibility of attracting start-up funding and becoming profitable.

Taken as a whole, research on urban agriculture seems to have progressed from a
focus on engagement in UA as a leisure form, punctuated by episodes of stronger
government promotion and greater community participation in response to particular
crises, towards a focus on the multiple social and ecological benefits by which UA
furthers neighborhood revitalization and sustainable urbanization. An increasing body of
activist-practitioner literature (Brown & Carter, 2003; Gamett, 1996, 1999; Rees, 1997;
Sommers & Smit, 1994), a small number of municipal initiatives (Capital Growth, 2008;
City of Vancouver, 2006; President of the Philippines Executive Order No. 776, 2009)
and the work of a handful of scholars (Howe & Wheeler, 1999; Mullinix et al., 2008;
Smit & Nasr, 1992; Viljoen, 2005) reveal the assumption that individual and
neighborhood level benefits of UA will replicate themselves at a larger scale as UA is
expanded across a city. Yet the very small body of research contributing to our
understanding of how gardens and farms integrate with and affect urban communities has

left us ill-equipped to understand the dynamics and the consequences of moving towards

30

city-scale UA, particularly from the standpoint of community residents. Very little
research has asked urban gardeners to expand beyond their personal experiences and
consider what urban agriculture means for their neighborhood or for their city, and even
less research has sought to explore the perception of UA from non-gardeners. With the
goal of addressing this gap, we turn now to the theoretical framework and the methods
employed in this research.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Recognizing that urban agriculture is embedded in and interacts with an urban
ecosystem, a political ecology perspective helps us see that urban landscapes are
produced through the influence of political and economic processes that, rather than
being either socially or ecologically neutral, result in unequal distribution of costs and
benefits among actors (Robbins, 2004). Research in this vein has Shown that the
resources and material conditions of urban environments can be controlled in a way that
benefits the elite to the exclusion of marginalized populations (Swyngedouw & Heynen,
2003). Heynen et al. (2006), for example, Show how urban green space in Milwaukee is
unevenly distributed in relation to race and ethnicity. Different power structures formed
around income and class lines have also been shown to influence what forms of UA
become institutionally accepted and what forms do not (Domene & Sauri, 2007). Simply
put, political ecology in the urban context highlights how “the regulation of our
relationships with nature in cities... is ultimately a question of democracy, governance,
and politics of everyday life in cities” (Keil, 2003, p. 729).

The admission that urban ecologies are socially produced through contested

processes prepares us to more effectively explore the question of how Detroiters

31

understand the possibility of expanded UA. In short, the political ecology approach
makes clear the need to understand how UA is viewed by different actors and in what
context — that is, in relation to what other dimensions of individual, communal and city
life — it is seen. Furthermore, if the production of socio-environments is contested and
dynamic, the role of urban agriculture spaces and practices within these processes also
surfaces as an appropriate focus of analysis. How might city-scale UA intersect with and
influence the political-economic processes underlying urban landscapes? This approach
both complements and clarifies the concept of urban agriculture as complex set of spaces
and activities that interfaces with the urban ecosystem in multiple ways, resulting in a

guiding conceptual framework for our research.

‘_ - .. . Redefines? - - - .,

I I I ~ ‘ \ \
’ \
’ \
I \
I \
I \
’ \
’ \
' r
, v
' S ' ltural
New Political Socrocu 1 &’
& Economic F23? 21;:th
Opportunities Influences Context
Develops Shapes
Urban Farm & Garden

Socio-Environments

Figure 2-1: A Political Ecology Framework of City-Scale Urban Agriculture

32

One realm of political-economic interests relevant to UA is the dominant food
system, which plays a key shaping role with regards to the impetus for, the conformation
of and the benefits found in urban agriculture. To understand the potential for moving
towards a city-wide urban agriculture, it is necessary to understand the behavior, beliefs
and perspectives with respect to the broader agrifood system context and how these
factors hinder or encourage UA (see Figure 2-1). Specifically, because UA, by virtue of
both its nature and its locale, has a greater degree of interrelatedness with marketing and
processing than does rural agriculture (Mougeot, 2000), thinking about scaling up urban
production requires consideration of how cultivation might relate to these other agrifood
system processes.

Urban agriculture activities, in turn, create new political and economic
opportunities which may then affect the context in which they operate. The question then
becomes, does a redefining of the context occur? These political and economic
opportunities will also tend to influence the nature of urban farm and garden socio-
environments themselves. Lastly, looking at the structural context, and the way in which
obstacles to UA dictate the requisite supporting infrastructure, can further elucidate the
dynamics and actors within city-scale UA as well as the potential to move towards the
city-scale end of the UA continuum. Bearing in mind these relationships, our research
questions are as follows:

I How does the socio-cultural and food system context hinder or encourage
moving towards city-scale UA?

I How does participation in UA affect or reshape the socio-cultural and food
system context?

I How do stakeholders perceive city-scale UA?

I What infrastructure is in place and what needs to be in place to support city-

scale UA?
I How do obstacles to UA inform the infrastructure needed?

33

Since we were interested in the opportunities for UA on public land, considering
the actors with a role in the use of vacant property helped us identify appropriate research
participants. The main actors in the discussion of property reuse in Detroit are the City,
the County and the State, along with the land banks at each of these governmental levels;
the Planning and Development Department; community development corporations;
economic development agencies; developers; UA practitioners; and, finally, city
residents. At the time of this writing the City of Detroit had approved the creation of a
land bank but this city-level land bank had not yet begun operations. The acquisition and
disposition of tax-reverted property in Detroit has been plagued by property database
inaccuracies, an opaque and inconsistent process, a lack of cooperation between
government levels and a failure to make connections with an overall plan for the city or
for particular neighborhoods (Dewar, 2006). Furthermore, City policies do not in any
way legitimize UA as a legal activity in the city (Lachance, 2004). It would therefore
appear that the bureaucratic and legislative environments are generally unsupportive in
regards to the use of public land for UA. The large presence of urban farms and gardens
in the city, however, speak to the fact that citizen-groups and non-profits have been
effectively able to access land in numerous instances.

METHODS

This research consisted of a series of open-ended interviews and focus groups
with questions on urban agriculture practices, perceptions regarding scaling up urban
agriculture and the potential for utilizing vacant land. All data collections occurred in
Detroit between June and December 2008 in accordance with the guidelines for research

on human subjects established by the Michigan State University Institutional Review

34

Board (Approved 6/4/2008 no. X08-484). While a systematic approach to the different
interests in relation to public land and its availability for UA would be consistent with a
political ecology framework, in this exploratory project, we sought out those aligned with
or exposed to the UA activities in Detroit, which included representatives of many of the
aforementioned actor groups, as a starting point.

A purposive sampling strategy, in which information-rich cases are strategically
sought out based on their ability to provide in-depth understanding (Patton, 2002), was
used to identify a total often interviewees, who were either part of urban agriculture
organizations or who were affiliated with urban agriculture in their professional work.
This allowed us to gain insight both from those seeking to advance the movement in
Detroit and those who are slightly removed but still generally familiar with these efforts.
Five interviewees were leaders of organizations engaged in urban agriculture. These UA
practitioners represented organizations that collectively support over a thousand school,
community and family gardens, a farm that provides produce to a soup kitchen and two
farms, one of which includes animals, that sell produce on site and at a Detroit farmers
market. An additional five interviewees represented economic development (two
interviewees), university extension, farmers markets and planning. Developers and city
administrators are conspicuously unrepresented in this sample, which, given the
significant influence of these groups over the access to public land for UA, should be
bome in mind through the presentation of our results.

A purposive sampling strategy was also used to identify participants for five focus
groups with a total of 72 people. Here, however, the approach was closer to maximum

variation sampling than the intensity sampling approach taken with interviews (Patton,

35

2002). Organizations through which focus group participants could be recruited were
sought out on the basis of the ability to include both those active in urban farm and
garden activities and those not actively gardening as well as the greatest extent of
demographic diversity feasible. These organizations consisted of two urban agriculture
groups, one senior services group, one high school for girls who are pregnant or have
young children that incorporates urban agriculture programming and one neighborhood
organization of first and second generation Hmong immigrants. Two focus groups were
entirely African-American, one was entirely Hmong and two were majority African-
American and minority Caucasian.

The ten topical interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 2005) consisted of semi-structured
questions and averaged approximately an hour each (see Appendix A for the interview
protocol). The five focus groups (Krueger, 1994) were also semi-structured in nature and
averaged between one and a half and two hours in length (see Appendix B for the focus
group protocol). The interviews, with individuals who see the UA activities in Detroit
from a range of organizational and professional angles, and the focus groups,
representing communities with a range of participation levels in UA, together allowed us
to approach the firll-spectrum of possible relationships to the Detroit farms and gardens in
our sample.

All data collections were audio-recorded and transcribed for later analysis. Initial
transcripts were inductively coded for dominant themes relevant to the research questions
using ATLAS.ti 6.0. The coding scheme was successively adjusted with subsequent
transcripts as necessary to reflect new themes (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). The coding

scheme was applied to two of the transcripts by a graduate student external to the project

36

who provided critiques on the clarity and reliability of the coding scheme as well as its
appropriateness for the data, which were used to make further adjustments. In the next
step of the analysis, each data collection was analyzed, first by code and then by research
question, as a way to build summary statements that accounted for dominant themes, that
answered the research questions and that maintained the context of the Specific interview
or focus group. The resulting summary statements were then compared across data
collections for each research question, which provided the basis for the final analysis
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this way the analysis was successively constructed and the
data collections progressively abstracted, but grounding in the verbatim transcripts was
guarded throughout.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Neither the interviewees nor the focus group participants are representative of the
full demographic diversity of Detroit. The Latino and Arab populations are noticeably
unrepresented amongst the focus groups participants despite best efforts to include
particularly the former group. Furthermore, because of the nature of the sampling strategy
and the over-representation of individuals and groups engaged in urban farm and garden
activities, the results likely reflect a greater awareness, appreciation and belief in the
potential of urban agriculture than would a random sample of the general population.
This however was an intentional strategy to over-sample those with the greatest
experience of urban agriculture in Detroit and those who, if urban agriculture does scale
up, will be at the heart of the effort. The inclusion of two groups either not affiliated with
an urban agriculture organization or not actively engaged in gardening and a third group

of high-schoolers who were gardening but not by choice expands the breadth of

37

perspectives in this study, lends credence to the interest in urban agriculture revealed and
uncovers themes for further research on general population perspectives on urban
agriculture in Detroit. We turn now to the results, organized according to three main
themes: the agrifood system context and the influence of UA participation; the vision for
and the perceived nature of city-scale UA; and the structural context, including obstacles

and supporting infrastructure.

Agrifood System Context and the Influence of Urban Agriculture Participation
Our first two research questions are addressed by looking at, first, how research

participants relate the food retail environment and the urban setting to the potential for

engaging in UA and, secondly, how they relate UA participation to these influences.

The Influence of the Urban Agrifood System on UA
All focus group participants were generally dissatisfied with the food available in

the retail venues near them and most were resoundingly so. The exception was found in
the group held with youth. While many of the youth participants acknowledged that
Detroit neighborhood stores had a number of shortcomings and admitted to doing most of
their shopping farther from the city, at the same time they felt that most Detroit residents
were content with the food retail options. The four other groups revealed a widespread
desire for greater access to natural foods and a pervasive distrust of food from industrial
modes of production. Many individuals found gardening to be a way to bridge the access
gap for trusted food.

The reasons for criticizing production methods of the dominant food system
ranged from political, to personal health, to the desire for transparent access to
information about the foods they purchase. The latter was particularly true among the

Hmong, for whom the language barrier and cultural differences hinder obtaining product

38

information, and among the seniors, several of whom felt that food manufacturers,
marketers and grocers take advantage of high-poverty, urban, African-American groups.
Interviewees also generally agreed that the lack of access to healthy food in Detroit was
among the most pressing issues in the food system, and several of the UA. practitioners
spoke of how this was part of their motivation to extend opportunities for UA. Taken as a
whole, the focus groups and interviews reveal that in many ways dissatisfaction with the
food retail landscape may lend itself to a greater openness to alternative means of food
sourcing such as urban agriculture.

Even if the retail environment has limitations, however, several groups showed
that the context of an urban environment can dissuade people from engaging in UA
because it does not seem like a necessary activity in a commercially developed area. The
participants in the youth focus group suggested that many people take food for granted
and do not consider growing food in the city because it is not necessary for survival. In
answering the question why more people do not garden, several responded saying:

“I don’t know. Maybe it’s because they always have had other
opportunities- like as far as going to the store and everything. But if

all those things wasn’t there, what would they do- they never think
like that.”

“I think they don’t do it, ‘cause they don’t know about it.”

“I think people, like, they come to the city so they can be more- I
don’t know- like country people feel like they gotta do more stuff
because they in the country, city people want people to, like, do stuff
for them, they wanna be like taken care of. So basically you don’t
have to grow nothing, because the city has everything.”

Likewise, the younger generation in the Hmong community is much less inclined to grow
their own food than the first generation immigrants because they see it as less necessary
either economically or politically. Similarly, two of the interviewees felt that many

people will only be pushed to grow their own food if economic conditions continue to

39

worsen. Other interviewees also noted the dependence on corporations for food access,
the prevalence of a “fast food culture” and the dominance of TV and media, which
together build patterns of processed food consumption, create expectations of instant
gratification and discourage residents from realizing their own agency in accessing food
through cultivation.

The groups connected to UA organizations discussed the disconnect from one’s
source of food from a different angle. One group spoke of how being in a city, and
particularly one underserved by the grocery sector, obscures the possibility of eating
fresh, garden produce: “You can’t get no produce. And the children, it’s just, they don’t
even know what produce is. I was picking a pea pod this morning and none of the
children knew what a pea pod was. Never heard of it.” The conversation in the second
UA-affiliated group also focused on the ways in which limited food retail options
encourage eating patterns that include limited amounts of fresh produce:

Well people aren’t going to go fiom junk food to organic overnight,

so it’ll have to be... if we could just get fresh produce — accessibility

to flesh produce — to the residents of the city of Detroit, and then we

can take it up a notch to organic, but they gotta get used to fresh,

because it’s like canned everything, and it’s like fast food haven

here in Detroit. So, we get them back in the kitchen, that’s right

there, making the first step.
In short what we see from these focus groups is that the food retail landscape in Detroit
can be both a motivation for, in so far as its limitations encourage many people to look to
food sources outside of the conventional food system, and a barrier to, in so far as it

would necessitate major shifts in diet and food system practices for many people,

expanding towards city-scale UA.

40

Influence of UA on Agrifood System Behgviors
A8 focus group participants revealed the benefits they experience through the

activity of gardening or farming, we can begin to look at how participation in UA affects
the sociocultural context in which it operates. The focus group participants active in UA
organizations saw involving people in UA as a way to introduce new foods and new ways
of eating that could shape the relationship to food and expressed a strong belief that youth
gardening programs are among the more effective ways to influence food culture and
eating patterns. One comment made during the youth focus group exemplified a general
theme consistent with this idea:

My granddaddy, he bought it [farm produce] all the time, but I

wasn’t as interested. Just like the regular tomatoes and stuff like

that, I’d eat that, but he used to be there with like the curly kale, or

all the, you know, and he’d be like, this is good for you, and I be

like, no, I ain’t tryin’ it. But then I got here, and I was like, okay, I ’11

have some of that. .. really, bring me some.
Many of the interviewees also noted that participation in UA can encourage consumption
of unfamiliar fruits and vegetables and start to foster “a different connection to food.” But
participants also broadly recognized that a food system based on UA would have to
develop slowly and take into account current consumption patterns in order to have
widespread participation, rather than try to force rapid dietary changes. In essence, while
the agrifood system context may dissuade UA engagement, such engagement may begin
to reshape this context in a way that increases openness to UA as a food source.

The focus groups and interviews also revealed that UA participation can impact

agrifood system behaviors in ways beyond the influence on consumption and, in turn, the

nature of UA in the city. AS several UA-affiliated focus group participants emphasized,

gardens can be a venue for instilling leadership capacity and food system ownership:

41

It’s not just about food. It makes a difference as to how you educate

those who are coming on, as to whether they want to learn, and once

you open that up to those that are in the leadership, then those of us

that are seniors can then pass that on to them. So that they can be

prideful. I don’t want to overemphasize the pride thing, but it’s that

kind of thing that makes a difference, and, then establishing the

foods they eat, and how it affects their lives, and for them to become

a better person. With a voice.
Several interviewees similarly saw the workforce development capacity of UA as one of
its primary benefits, particularly because of its accessibility to marginalized groups. As
one of the professionally affiliated interview participants put it:

It [food] provides 80 many simple starting points that it - if people in

leadership positions are really serious about creating Opportunity for

everybody, agriculture is one of the few sectors in society that really

can be grabbed onto by anybody. Another, another sector that would

be comparable would be music and the arts, okay. But, but food is

really that type of very big canvas to paint on and there are lots and

lots of opportunities.
One of the UA practitioners engaged with youth also spoke Of how UA can provide
opportunities to not only instill a work ethic and a sense of responsibility, but to also
teach life lessons such as recovering from mistakes. Furthermore, UA can be a way for
people, in the midst of a consumer culture, to understand that they have the power to
produce something of value.

What we see here, then, is that broader engagement with UA at the city scale may
reshape the relationship with food and create a foundation for instilling greater agency in
shaping the agrifood system among citizens. This is consistent with the community
garden literature that emphasizes the role of UA in initiating community organizing for

social change (Armstrong, 2000). One focus group participant in a UA-affiliated group

articulated precisely this capacity:

42

I think also that for residents currently living in the city, to
participate in gardens with their neighborhoods is also, I think it
improves the quality of life for those citizens already living in the
city ‘cause there’s a platform for their community involvement and
in terms of if other issues come around that come out of knowing
your neighbor and the safety in your neighborhood, and there’s these
social networks that are especially important I think in
neighborhoods like ours in Detroit, I think that in terms of people
already living here it has that kind of, more resounding qualities,
are a lot of what’s important.

One of the UA practitioner interviewees also commented on the community interaction
within gardens, an observation similar to that made by several other interviewees:
And it [the garden] also breaks down barriers. I mean we’ve had
Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Black, White, old, young - all kinds of
people working together where normally if they had passed each
other on the street they probably wouldn’t have talked to each other.
But you know, they’ll be like kickin’ it on the garden and I know,
I’ve talked to other gardening organizations and they have the same
experiences so there’s something about the garden, it’s like people
just come together...

Thus there are numerous sociocultural influences, including the anomaly of self-
provision in an urban setting and the limited exposure to and consumption of fresh
produce, that run counter to the consumption and cultivation of local foods. From this
research it seems that UA participation interacts with many of these influences.
Furthermore, it seems that the ancillary benefits of UA, such as building leadership and

personal capacity and fostering cross-cultural social networks, have the potential to lay

the groundwork for affecting the sociopolitical context in which UA in Detroit exists.

Vision: The Nature of C ity—Scale Urban Agriculture
The question of how stakeholders, both residents and those professionally

involved with UA, perceive city-scale urban agriculture gets to the heart of this research.

Fundamentally, do Detroiters see UA harmoniously integrating with their urban

43

environment on a large scale? And what would this look like? The interviews and focus
groups conducted provide insight regarding the overarching vision for the future of UA in
Detroit, the perceived value of UA at a city scale, the desired level of permanency or
temporality of UA, the expected level of interest in ‘UA participation and the degree to
which an “urban” feel should be preserved.

Participants in all focus groups and interviews favored utilizing Detroit’s vacant
land for food cultivation, though with varying degrees of intensity. Several individuals

spoke of the vacant land as an asset and offered their vision for an agriculturally-based
city:

I’ve had this vision for 20 years — of turning Detroit into an
agricultural powerhouse. Because, again, all these lots that... it’s
like, if we use them for something, you could provide employment,
you can take black folks back into the days when we were an
agricultural people. Land is capital! And that land could be used to -
I mean, Detroit could be known worldwide for being an inner-city

that grows food in the community then — boom! Big Time. —
participant in a UA-affiliated focus group

I mean, I think Detroit is a unique situation, as far as urban cities, in
that our curses have been a blessing almost. Detroit had Opportunity
open to people at one time, you know, houses and businesses, and
things of that sort, but out of the course of — due to white flight and
people moving out in general, so you have a dearth — many, many
acres of land available. That you don’t have in most cities... We
need to see how much we could actually produce in the city of
Detroit feasibly — on a produce level as well as on a possible
aquaculture level. And once that survey’s done, it has to be taken
advantage of and... It’s gonna take money. That’s the reality of it.
It’s gonna take several million dollars probably to do. A lot of
manpower, and a lot of time. But once it’s set in place, you gonna
have a model that’s gonna provide food, as well as ways for people
to provide for their families as well. You know, the economy’s real
bad, so why not create your own economy. So that’s what I see as
the solution. — participant in a UA-affiliated focus group

I would love to see the city designate some areas in the city, rezone
them as like semi-agricultural zones where people can have maybe
some chickens and some big gardens, commercial gardens where

44

they could sell out of. now this time in history where we have all
these empty lots, this would be a perfect time to raise these issues
with the city council and try to get some zones at least rezoned so
that these people who choose to live in an agricultural, they don’t all
have to do that, the whole city doesn’t have to have chickens but,
you know, it’s - those people who like that would like - at least
would have chickens. -— participant in a UA-affiliated focus group
Detroit could feed itself, Detroit could actually distinguish itself
from any other metropolitan area in North America; it’s one of the
truly unique things about Detroit, and I tell you they could do it in a
way that would actually encourage development that might actually,
at one point, come to reduce the amount of land that’s available for
urban agriculture, but that’s about the only way we’d get to that
point as far as I can tell. — professionally affiliated interviewee

These are far reaching visions that recognize Detroit’s unique situation opens the door to

opportunities for UA.

Several participants also looked at the prevalence of vacant land as a unique
opportunity for Detroit to move towards urban sustainability. Believing that food prices
will continue to go up and gardening will become increasingly necessary for household
livelihoods, one person in a UA-affiliated focus group commented “. . .they look at us as
oddballs now, but twenty years from now we’re going to be the ones that teach others to
survive.” Other people, however, simply saw UA as a good way to make use of otherwise
idle and unmaintained spaces, which some felt project a negative image Of the
community.

Interviews revealed a Similar divergence. Among the UA practitioners, several
had visions of revamping food production in a way that tilts much more heavily towards
the urban setting or goals of transitioning unutilized spaces, whether vacant parcels or

rooftops, into productive areas. But several of the professionally affiliated interviewees

felt that UA was just the best way to productively use vacant land in what they saw as an

45

interim period in the city’s growth, especially because it can be undertaken with minimal
resources and because it does not limit future development. This idea of UA as a
transitional activity was exemplified by one person who said “[urban agriculture] puts
land and people into productive use, perhaps not as intensely as we would like from the
city-building standpoint, but far more intensely than the market might otherwise be for a
while.” Or as another professionally affiliated interviewee put it,

If you think about having to use land differently in Detroit as an

interim, as we try to readjust land usage, [urban agriculture] might

be a good way to use land because of all these ancillary benefits like

the learning opportunity, the entrepreneurial opportunity, the health

opportunity.
In short, all research participants were supportive of using vacant land for UA but for
some it was with the goal of creating a different future for Detroit and reconceptualizing
the agrifood system while for others UA represented a way to realize the many ancillary

benefits that are associated with urban food production until there is a stronger market for

development.

The Role of UA
Focus group participants differed significantly in both interest levels in UA

participation and expectations of how UA would contribute (or is contributing) to their
lives or their community. Within the Hmong community, group members desired to
cultivate large blocks of land as a way to provide for themselves, to reclaim their agrarian
heritage and to regain access to culturally appropriate foods in an affordable manner fiom
a source they trust. Their goal is to have enough land for each family to both provide for
themselves and sell extra produce. This would also enable them to firlfill their desire for
increased control over the source of their food, as indicated by this summary fi'om the

group translator: “And they, they don’t trust the food that they buy from the stores; that’s

46

why they make [their own] here... ‘cause that’s what they expect - what they eat,
nothing wrong.”

The group of seniors seemed to indicate that more UA opportunities would be a
good way to obtain food outside of the distrusted conventional market channels and also
expressed a desire for healthier food access within walking distance. At the same time,
many in this group expressed a strong desire for mainstream, full service grocers in
Detroit, indicating that either efforts to improve the structure of the conventional food
system should occur simultaneously with UA expansion or distribution points for UA
would need to have an equivalent level of functionality. On the other hand, many in this
group could recall the time period of Victory Gardens when relative self-sufficiency was
much more common. And at least a couple individuals pondered whether gardening
might run counter to corporate interests in the food system:

“Well, do you think that that could be fitting into somebody’s

conspiracy theory? They make you have to walk in that store and
spend their money?”

“Yeah, ‘cause you know back when my mother and them had a
garden, greens, tomatoes, peppers, onions, strawberries and
blackberries - you didn’t buy those things.”

The youth represented an interesting perspective among the focus group
participants because they were gardening not by choice but because it was a required part
of their high—school curriculum. As such, the interest level in engaging in UA beyond
their current setting varied, and some had no interest in further farm or garden
involvement. Among the youth who were interested in possibly using vacant land to

garden, there was a recognition that growing one’s own food made sense in terms of the

higher quality of produce, the economic savings and the freedom from reliance on stores.

47

In response to one person who expressed doubt regarding growing food in cities, another
said:

“Um, I don’t agree with what you said. Because if there was no
stores, how would ya’ll be eatin’?”

“We do have stores.”

“I’m sayin’, if we had no stores, we’d have to grow food. We’d have
to eat from the garden.”

“Yeah, that’s true.”
“Alright, so I figure it would be best if we just grow...”
“And I feel the food is more natural than the ones in the grocery

store, with all pesticides and whatever all stuff in there. So it’s better
to grow It.”

The vision for the role of UA was, not surprisingly, much stronger and much
more overtly political within the groups affiliated with UA organizations. One group
articulated a vision of being able to reconnect with food sources through gardening, of
fostering diversity by tapping into the agrarian roots of different ethnicities, of moving
towards increasingly sustainable food systems and of decentralizing food retail towards
neighborhood produce markets in ways that support the choice of those interested in
growing or purchasing local food. The other group envisioned using the cultivatable
spaces as an opportunity for the community to address its own problems and create its
own solutions in the food system: “We can help solve this problem because we have
access to grow... I don’t think it has to be a Whole Foods, you know, a commercial line
store as a solution.” This group emphasized the need to create a fundamentally different
food system model that would be community-based, vertically integrated and, most

importantly, owned by and created by the Afiican-American community, and they saw

UA as the entry point into this vision.

48

Collectively, interview respondents envisioned city-scale UA as a means of
developing a local agrifood system that is more responsive to community needs, of
reducing food insecurity, of achieving greater urban sustainability, of gaining citizen
ownership in the agrifood system, of reducing vulnerability to crises and of
reinvigorating education through outdoor classrooms that enable students to experience
the joy of discovery. One UA practitioner noted that efforts to grow the UA movement in
Detroit should parallel efforts to address pressing social issues such as joblessness,
poverty and the lack of educational opportunities. Another professionally affiliated
interviewee, however, felt it was precisely those issues that justify expanding UA in the
city; as an enterprise that demands comparatively few resources and prior skill sets, it can
effectively engage marginalized populations. Several professionally affiliated
interviewees also emphasized that as UA expands it should integrate with, rather than
hinder or supplant, more traditional urban development as well as be explicitly linked to
economic development through connections with food processing, food retailing,
workforce development and on-farm employment opportunities. But, as the economic
development interviewees in particular recognized, such links necessitate determining
appropriate distribution mechanisms and market outlets for UA, beyond simply

addressing the cultivation component.

Relation_shin to the Urban Landscap_e
Even among the research participants who articulated the most far-reaching vision

for city-scale UA, there was still recognition that a city is fundamentally an urban
environment, which means agriculture in this setting will play a different role than in a
rural setting. Numerous participants were reluctant to embrace a predominantly agrarian

landscape:

49

“Well, you know what, I’m not against [UA organization], I’m just
against the way they do it. They put down wildflowers as they call
them, I call them weeds, everywhere, they want to put that
everywhere, they want to just grow trees and I’m not against [UA
organization], but this is an urban area city. I do not want to walk
past a field of wildflowers. Because that’s just, you know...”

“I thought they was pretty though. On Eight Mile, going down

Eight Mile, somebody’s putting those pretty little wildflowers out

there and it’s beautifill.” - conversation in seniors focus group

I just think it’s better to go in the country, because you have more

room. It just seems like the city is so high-polluted and, I just feel

like it’s not a good place to grow food. — participant in youth focus group

I think you need to give the people a choice, to expect that the whole

city becomes an agricultural area is asking too much, but I think set

apart some areas, for those people who want to do that would be

wonderful. — participant in UA-affiliated focus group
In these quotations we can see both a desire to live in what would traditionally be
considered an urban environment and the realization that not everyone will want to
engage in UA activities. One of the professionally affiliated interviewees likewise felt
that as UA expands it will be important to minimize undue impact on neighborhood
character and to also honor the desire of residents who want to live in an urban area:

A lot of times what happens, the people that support urban

agriculture or are into it look at the people that don’t as “they just

don’t get it.” We have to not have that attitude. We have to figure

out a way to embrace those folks and help them to be comfortable

with it, but also respect that there are people who just want the urban

feel in an urban area.
Other interview participants recognized the potential conflict between UA and the urban
imaginary but advocated a shift in consciousness. One UA practitioner felt that a
paradigm shift in terms of how we conceive the city is necessary in order for more people

to be open to the possibilities of UA. Another UA-affrliate thought that the image of UA,

which for some “is a Sign that the city of Detroit has died and it’s going back to its native

50

landscape,” would impede the expansion of farms and gardens. In short, for many
research participants, regardless of how much they support UA, there is a fundamental
desire to preserve a level of distinction between urban and rural settings within any

efforts to scale up urban production.

The Participants in City-Scale UA
When conceiving of scaling up urban food production in a city like Detroit, one of

the fundamental considerations is who will be involved in urban farm and garden sites.
The data collections offer some preliminary insights into what level of interest in UA
research participants see in their communities. While some participants felt that the
younger generation is the furthest removed fi'om food cultivation, others shared their
experiences with members of the older generation who have no desire to return to the
hard agricultural work of their earlier years: “I was trying to get my mother to help me in
the garden, she’s like, ‘been there, done that, I’m not doing it anymore. The food market
is right down the street.”’ On the other hand, one of the UA practitioners spoke of the
agrarian heritage of Detroiters as an asset for the city’s UA movement: “We have a
culture, a farming culture in the city, much of the population that remained are from
down south and the seniors in the city who are aging, but they’re here and they’re staying
here, have a lot of history and skills in terms of food production.”

In spite of disagreement over generational interest in UA, most participants across
the focus groups agreed that the young people are the easiest to reach through gardening
because they tend to be most open to new experiences. The focus group with the Hmong
community was the exception to this; gardening was a common activity among the older
individuals but many of the young people were becoming increasingly acculturated to

Western society and urban life and abandoning their agrarian heritage. The youth focus

51

group participants also felt that the school gardening model they are exposed to would
not necessarily work at other high schools because typical high school students have not
taken on the same responsibility level that they have through pregnancy and motherhood.
One individual’s comment in a UA-affiliated focus group conveyed the belief that the
interest in UA is not sufficient to reshape the food system landscape: “1 think it’ll help
but it’s not going to really change the people’s accessibility, you know, I think some
people will, and the majority won’t grow their own food.” As a whole, then, the research
indicates that potential differences in inclination towards UA activities are more nuanced
than a clear generational Split one way or the other but that clearly not all Detroit
residents have an interest in self-provision of food.

Several interviewees also made clear that neither the capacity nor the desire to
participate in food cultivation are absolute amongst Detroit residents. One of the UA
practitioners spoke of 3 broad categories of people: those who value buying local food
and growing their own, those who prefer the convenience of mainstream retailers, and
those who are just trying to get by. She argued that as UA becomes a larger part of the
Detroit agrifood system, it will also be necessary to ensure there are systems in place to
support people in all of these situations. Similarly a professionally affiliated interviewee
recognized that interest in high quality food does not always translate into interest in
produce from urban farms and gardens: .

Then on the other end, a person like me, I understand to buy from
the local Detroit Eastern Market, you know the urban ag. people
there. But a lot of people like me are at Plum Market or Salvagio’s
or whatever on the 'burbs and getting what they think is the higher
end better quality product. I think for the customer base the concept

of quality is going to be important. Locally grown tomatoes do not
look like hot house tomatoes. And it freaks people out sometimes to

52

know what that is, they're like "what is that?" What does that matter,
it’s tasty!

In other words, both participation in UA and the purchasing of UA produce represent
potentially unfamiliar behaviors in which not everyone will be able to or desire to
engage.

In summary, a wide spectrum of perspectives on UA emerged in this research.
While some people envision an agrarian city, others want to safeguard an urban look and
feel. And while some see UA as a strategy for new levels of urban sustainability, food
security and agrifood system ownership, others see a pragmatic opportunity in the face of
a poor economy. Participants disagreed on generational interest levels in UA but agreed
that not everyone would want to cultivate their own food. Among those currently
participating or desiring to participate in UA, some desired self-sufficiency while others
were, on balance, more comfortable with mainstream retailers. What was consistent
across the data collections was, first, the openness to expanding UA in Detroit in some
way and, second, the recognition that UA at the city scale needs to integrate not only with
other food system sectors but the socio-economic dimensions of the city. But the question
of how to make this happen is one that will have to be slowly and deliberately negotiated
as the UA movement grows. With precisely these questions of how might the stakeholder
vision, in its range of permutations, be implemented, we turn now to the structural

context.

Structural Context: Obstacles and Supporting Infrastructure
The final two research questions, regarding what infrastructure is in place, what

needs to be added or amended and how do experienced obstacles to UA inform this, are

addressed through three inter-related themes. First, focus group participants articulate the

53

challenges they experience. Secondly, interviewees discuss their current and predicted
organizational roles in the expansion of UA. Finally, all research participants contribute

to an understanding of government involvement and the prospects for UA.

Communig-Level Obstacles

Participants in the two focus groups not connected to organized UA activities
expressed a desire for organizational support for securing land and for specific tasks such
as plowing. The predominant sentiment in both groups, however, was cynicism regarding
the interest or capacity of the city government to assist the development of UA. As one
person said, “But you know the other thing about it is, the city has gotten to the point now
that they don’t actually encourage gardening... the city has gotten to the point of not
caring.” Participants in these two groups were also generally unaware of the programs
and activities of the UA organizations operating in Detroit.

Individuals in these unaffiliated groups were also pessimistic regarding the
availability of the vacant lots, believing that ownership is difficult to determine, that they
are owned privately and therefore not available for UA, or that the tenure is so insecure
that motivation to engage in UA is undermined:

Yeah, but the only thing I’m saying to you is just like in our

neighborhood, yes, we could just use the land, but the minute they

decide to come and take the land, they can do that at any point...

I’m just saying if they decide to come in the middle of your growing

season and take your land, they just take your land. So that’s

another reason why it slow people down from all that...
Among the professionally affiliated interview participants, one person was concerned that
because the vacant parcels are scattered across the city and because few lots are

contiguous, even though the total quantity of vacant land is large, it is not conducive to

efficient food cultivation. She further felt that because established models of urban farms

54

linking productivity levels to land area and contiguousness are lacking, it is difficult for
the city to develop a policy framework to guide the use of vacant land for UA.

Many in the unaffiliated groups also expressed concerns regarding soil
contamination, the vulnerability of gardens to theft and the safety of gardeners in
unfenced gardens. A few individuals in the youth focus group had similar concerns, and
several people from these three groups shared stories of garden theft they had
experienced or had heard about from others. The focus group with the Hmong
community in particular revealed a general sentiment that the inner city of Detroit is
resource-poor, polluted and characterized by poor community relations as compared with
the suburbs. The following comment from one of the participants in this group reveals
how the underlying political-economic dynamic of an economically depressed city
bordering comparatively wealthy suburbs affects how optimistic people are in regards to
UA:

In the suburbs people will leave each other alone. Just like if you
grow your own garden, your neighbor doesn’t bother you, the
neighbor’s friendly, you know, and your vegetables are safe, you
know. But in the black community people will climb your fence,
they will come into your garden and maybe sometimes steal your
food or, you know. Because, everybody’s having a hard time in this
community, it’s not just us. The black community’s having a hard
time working and a hard time - everybody’s trying to find food and
everybody’s trying to survive, you know? And you know, it’s hard
to survive, living in the ghetto here. So basically, you know, we’re

trying - everybody’s trying to move up and over to the next level to
the suburbs.

And as eager as many members in this group were to extend their access to cultivatable
areas, they wanted these issues addressed explicitly. Interestingly, none of the
participants from the two groups engaged in formal UA activities brought up any

concerns related to soil contamination or to theft, which could indicate the perception of

55

these obstacles may be greater than the reality, that these organizations are effective in
addressing these issues, or perhaps that the UA community is overly optimistic in the
face of these challenges.

Another potential challenge to city-scale UA that emerged during the focus group
conversations is the prevalence of racial and ethnic tensions in Detroit. Some members of
the Hmong community felt that because the African-American community does not have
the same cultural ties to gardening, they do not always understand or respect the
gardening practices of the Hmong. Two groups were also concerned that African-
Americans were not adequately reflected in the leadership of the UA organizations and
movement in Detroit. Similarly, one of the UA practitioners felt that it was almost
impossible to formally engage in UA activities in Detroit without going through
Caucasian-dominated organizations. While only three of the five groups acknowledged
the presence of racial tensions, the issue is an important one to keep track of as Detroit’s
UA movement grows. AS one participant acknowledged, race is an inherent dimension Of
UA in the US, particularly in Detroit:

Detroit, again, is 90% people of African ancestry. This country was
built by Afiican people. We did the majority of the agriculture for
this whole country to get this country to where it is today. Your
urban areas are densely populated by people of color. Mostly black
people in all the urban areas. So when you’re talking about
agriculture and you’re talking about urban, and you’re talking about
urban agriculture, you’re talking about black folk.
A handful of studies have shown that community gardens have the potential to foster

cross-cultural understanding (Shinew et al., 2004; Wakefield et al., 2007) but this will not

be achieved without deliberate action.

56

Non-Profit Infrastructure
The organizations represented by the interview participants currently provide the

following supporting roles to the UA movement in Detroit: provision of resources,
technical assistance and educational opportunities; creation of school and community
gardens; connection of groups interested in UA participation to available resources and
support networks; operation of a model urban farm system; development of a model for
incorporating a farm into a high school curriculum; support for food and agriculture
entrepreneurship; management of a major market retail venue for urban producers;
development of additional market outlets and facilitation of connections between funders
and community groups engaged in UA.

The educational opportunities offered by these groups include skill development
in areas such as nutrition, cooking, canning, organic growing methods, beekeeping,
passive-solar greenhouse installation and use, as well as sharing the importance of food
security issues. The interviewees also shared a number of supporting roles they envision
themselves taking on as the UA movement expands, including linking UA to food
processing and marketing opportunities; connecting food producers to institutional
markets; coordinating the different UA entities to develop a vision and structure to guide
the growth of UA; and determining the requisite policy and zoning code changes as well
as the pace at which to proceed with their implementation.

Several interviewees discussed pieces of the non-profit support for UA that they
would like to see strengthened, such as non-profit capacity to support workforce
development through UA, increased collaboration around UA between economic
development and public health sectors, and integration of UA into projects undertaken by

developers and government housing agencies. A8 a whole however, there was an

57

overwhelming belief in the strength and the capacity of the UA non-profit infrastructure
among the interviewees and a general belief that the groups are collaborating well and the
pieces are in place to take UA to the next level. What is needed is to expand the capacity
of the existing groups and work towards a collective vision. As one professionally
affiliated respondent put it,

I think it’s a great story to tell, I think there’s just something that

could happen here that quite frankly, can’t happen in most other

American cities anytime soon. The pieces are kind of here, we just

gotta do a better job of leveraging back and forth... Like at Eastern

Market, you got the technology at Michigan State, you got the

people who can train at the not-for-profits, you got the land, and we

got the people that are underutilized, people in terms of work force,

80. We’ve got five pieces that seem to be to kind of come into

alignment around this idea of urban agriculture.

We see, then, that while the interviewees have great faith in the non-profit
infrastructure behind the UA movement, several focus group respondents were either
unaware of their existence, unsure what they offered or concerned that their community
was not reflected in these organizations. This indicates that for the aforementioned
resources provided by the various non-profit entities to be accessible to communities

throughout the city, not only will capacity have to be increased, but greater involvement

of the community in the delivery of these resources may also be important.

Policy and Government Syport
Several of the interviewees expressed the need for policy changes that would

provide a sound legal footing for UA (many Detroit farm and garden activities are
technically illegal but enforcement is rare) and facilitate the process of land use by UA
groups, many of whom currently face insecure land tenure and must navigate through
cumbersome and lengthy bureaucratic processes in order to lease land from the city. As

with focus group participants, interviewees recognized the challenge of soil

58

contamination. However, many had encountered this issue in the creation of farms and
gardens and had been able to effectively deal with it by undertaking extensive soil tests,
by bringing in clean top soil, by planting above ground, and by building up clean soil via
a technique called the lasagna method or utilizing remediation techniques. The major
barrier with respect to soil contamination, according to one UA practitioner, is the fact
that from an institutional standpoint there is virtually no precedent for food cultivation on
remediated parcels and therefore there is no established process for government approval.
In short, it seems that the issue of soil contamination is surmountable but it does
necessitate additional financial resources and expertise as well as a process through
which food cultivation on remediated soil can be approved as a legal activity.

The majority of interviewees agreed that political acceptance of UA. presents a
greater challenge than the technical aspects. As one professionally affiliated individual
put it,

I think there’s a lot of inertia that, you know, as we talk about land

use planning and zoning and urban agriculture there’s still a hell of a

lot of inertia to overcome from people who think that that’s sort of

somehow beneath the city to be considering those kinds of things...

There’s a higher, better use than growing chickens and sheep.
Another UA practitioner recognized that because most politicians “view development
through the prism of how much money can be brought into the city” UA practitioners
will have to speak to them in that language but will also have to help them shift their
thinking to consider the social benefits of UA “so that they don’t perceive development in
terms of concrete and bricks, but they see development in terms of people, and quality of

life.” One of the professionally affiliated interviewees thought that actual exposure to the

gardens could help change the mindset of city planners:

59

A lot of the folks that have to work with zoning and codes that have
not seen the gardens in Detroit or been exposed to it, have it in their
mind we are going down a slippery slope, that we are going to have
farm animals, there’s compost, the compost smells, it brings in rats.
There is all this negative stuff in their head and it’s only because '
they haven’t been exposed to them. If we could get them out to see
the gardens in Detroit that are working I think that they may change
their minds. But it’s a slow and deliberative process to get some of
the folks on board.

Both of these viewpoints reveal, however, that full political support for UA is neither

entirely present nor likely to emerge quickly.

While all interview participants felt city government can and should do more to
support UA, they had different experiences with how supportive they presently are. There
was general agreement, however, that an increased awareness of agrifood system issues
and a move towards considering issues more holistically were leading to greater openness
to UA activities among city officials in the last few years. One professional affiliate felt
that the community success in advancing UA has paved the way for taking it to the next
level:

I think there has been some success in that the city is talking about it
in a serious way but we need to bring action to the talk. I think we
are right on the verge of that. I think we will go from seeing
community success to the government getting on board and see
institutional success, I think we are right on the verge of that.
Several people also mentioned that the philanthropic community is taking a greater
interest in UA in Detroit. And even as much as interviewees viewed the reluctance of city
officials to embrace UA as a challenge to the movement, nearly all of them felt that the

grassroots community groups should be taking the lead and that city government should

primarily play an enabling role.

60

CONCLUSION
The visions for city-scale urban agriculture held by Detroit residents are far from

homogenous. Rather, there is a wide range of perspectives on everything from personal
interest in garden and farm activities, to how permanent cultivation sites should be, to the
degree to which urban agriculture Should affect the perceived essence of the urban
environment. Even so, Detroiters expressed strong interest in expanding urban agriculture
in their city. Still, the focus groups and interviews together revealed a number of ways in
which divergent visions and expectations for UA and uneven experiences with the
resources available to support UA signal tensions around the reasons for and the value of
moving towards city-scale UA.

In regards to the agrifood system context, this research shows three influences
relevant to UA: the unsatisfactory retail landscape may prompt garden creation as an
alternative means of access, the consumerist ethic of the urban setting may suppress food
cultivation considerations, and the dearth of retail produce options may push eating
patterns away from those which would include garden foods. Because the retail landscape
is related to the broader political economy of the city, this demonstrates concrete ways in
which political and economic forces can both spur and discourage the creation of garden
spaces.

At the same time, at least some research participants felt that gardening
engagement may contribute to a foundation for confionting such forces, both because it
can influence consumption patterns and reshape an individual’s relationship to food and
because community gardens can be a precursor for broader community organizing. Other
research participants, however, were more interested in improving the retail landscape

than pursuing alternative access points. Furthermore, as many focus group participants

61

noted, expanding urban production to a level in which it contributed significantly to the
city’s food supply would necessitate diet changes, food preparation changes and
confronting the social acceptability and the unfamiliarity of manual labor involved with
agriculture. To the extent, then, that expanding UA prompts significant changes in the
urban food system, tension may erupt as some groups advocate and others resist such
changes.

In relation to the vision for UA, this research reveals widespread interest in UA
across the focus groups but very different understandings of the role that UA would play.
The Hmong group desires land for subsistence and market farming as a way to maintain
their agricultural traditions. One of the UA-affiliated groups, which formed in response to
the distribution of power and resources in the food system, desires to use UA to provide a
foundation for a community-owned food system. The UA-affiliated group organized
around community gardens wants to see the ancillary benefits of gardens more fully
realized and to expand gardens into other parts of the city in order to provide
opportunities for greater participation. The last two groups, the seniors and the youth,
support UA opportunities but are not necessarily interested in gardening themselves.
These divergences reveal that, while there is great support across groups for ensuring that
those interested in UA have access to opportunities, both the local discourse on UA and
UA spaces themselves may be contested terrain relative to the movement’s agenda.

Finally, the discussion of the structural context for UA demonstrates uneven
access to land and other resources within a general context of inadequate municipal
support. The focus groups show that the non-profit resources supporting UA and the

nascent attitude of support from the local government and the philanthropic community

62

discussed in the interviews are not consistently apparent at the community level. It seems
that the individuals not connected to a UA-affiliated organization are more apprehensive
about soil contamination, theft, the possibility of utilizing vacant parcels and the capacity
of the City to provide assistance. The fact that these concerns were minimal among those
affiliated with a UA organization may speak to the ability of such groups to overcome
these challenges but also demonstrates that some communities are unaware of the
resources they provide. Furthermore, both the interviews and focus groups show that the
cumbersome process for accessing land imposed by the City hinders not only the
expansion of UA and citizen motivation for UA participation, but community-driven
processes for the creation of green space.

In regards to the potential for city—scale UA as revealed by this research, many of
the challenges seem to be intangible rather than technical. In fact, apart from concerns of
pollution and soil contamination, there was no opposition to continuing to strengthen the
food cultivation activities currently taking place. And because the participants in the UA-
affiliated focus groups expressed no concerns regarding soil contamination and because
UA practitioner interviewees had encountered and overcome instances of soil
contamination, it seems that this issue, while it does demand the availability of resources
to carry out the requisite testing and remediation, is not seen as a major impediment to
UA moving forward. On the other hand, it could be that the existing gardens are located
in areas with uncontaminated soil and that expanding Urban food production would
magnify this issue considerably.

The support of the City, however, is not yet sufficient to allow community groups

to realize their goals with respect to UA. Furthermore, the need to create appropriate

63

policy in regards to such new and unfamiliar practices presents a major challenge. Much
remains unknown regarding how incorporating UA at the municipal level best functions
and regarding how to develop permissive policy that simultaneously respects the interests
and concerns of those who have not embraced UA. And while, by most accounts, the
non-profit community fueling the Detroit UA movement is remarkably strong and well-
networked, because not all communities are effectively included, their capacity will need
to be strengthened in order to serve the city as a whole.

This research has attempted to enter the unexplored arena of citizen perspectives
on urban agriculture at a municipal level by utilizing a framework that highlights the
multiple ways in which UA is integrated into its setting. Though our findings are situated
in a particular place and context, they reveal important themes to consider. As the
activist-practitioner literature continues to advocate expansion of UA practices, as the
scholarly literature continues to explore the dimensions of UA as a mass movement, and
as municipalities continue to endorse city-wide farms and gardens, awareness of the ways
in which UA affects the everyday lives of urban dwellers, such as those revealed here,
will be increasingly crucial. Clearly, the potential impacts of UA are not insignificant in
the minds of residents, and clearly the possibility of major changes to the urban landscape
or the urban agrifood system will not be wholeheartedly welcomed by all communities. It
will be important, therefore, to fruther understand the nuances of these perceptions and to
work to include diverse perspectives in locales where efforts to expand UA are occurring.

Drawing on the insights from political ecology can help bring to the fore the ways
in which ecological changes in the urban landscape are not socially neutral. For example,

this research reveals how the racial tensions in Detroit and the economic imbalances

64

between Detroit and its suburbs affect how citizens see the potential for UA and the way
in which UA expansion should unfold. The interviews and focus groups further show that
different perspectives on the role of UA lead to divergences in the types of political-
economic opportunities desired from urban farms and gardens. Research designed more
explicitly through the lens of political ecology, however, could further elucidate the
important role of political-economic structures relative to Opportunities for and
consequences of urban agriculture.

We have argued that the concept of city-scale urban agriculture can contribute to
the quest for a better understanding of expanded farms and gardens by highlighting the
shift in the relevant questions that emerge with greater numbers of actors involved to
greater degrees. By presenting the many nuances of citizen visions for urban agriculture
that emerged in the research, we hope to contribute to the literature considering the role
of UA as a social movement by laying the groundwork for firrther research on the
possibilities for and perspectives on city-scale urban agriculture as a strategy for food
security and urban sustainability. Furthermore, we hope to inspire citizen inclusion in

Shaping the dimensions of urban agriculture as it unfolds in new ways in US cities.

65

CHAPTER 3:
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND
EXPANSION POTENTIAL

“We need to see how much we could actually produce in the city of
Detroit feasibly — on a produce level as well as on a possible
aquaculture level. And once that survey ’s done, it has to be taken

advantage of... It’s gonna take money. That 's the reality of it. ”
- Detroit Focus Group Participant

ABSTRACT
As interest in urban agriculture has grown, municipal level support for expanding

urban food production as a means towards sustainable urbanization and food security has
emerged in a handful of cities. With Detroit, MI as a research site, a city that exemplifies
the need to rethink land use and urban form in the context of deindustrialization, this
study aims to explore what scale of food cultivation would be possible and how
production at this scale would compare to resident dietary consumption. Starting with
present and recommended consumption levels of fluits and vegetables and accounting for
seasonal limitations within a range of post and extended season production scenarios, we
calculate the amount of land needed to supply this produce quantity. We then use GIS
mapping to quantify publicly-owned vacant property in Detroit. Our results show that if
biointensive cultivation methods are assumed, putting the available vacant land into
production of fruits and vegetables could supply a substantial portion of the yearly supply
of flesh produce for city residents. This data indicates that the promotion of urban
agriculture as a potential basis for augmenting the sustainability of the city by

relocalizing components of food production merits attention.

INTRODUCTION
The deindustrialized cities of the US, many with large amounts of vacant land and

a transitioning economic foundation, force us to reconsider how we think of urban land

66

use. In some instances the traditional urban infrastructure patterns may no longer be
supportable under the low density of the remaining population resulting flom urban out-
migration. Furthermore, the size, shape and location of vacant urban parcels are often
seen by city officials as inconducive to redevelopment (Bowman & Pagano, 2000). In
this context, some scholars have proposed developing green infrastructure, including
urban agriculture, as a way to “revitalize urban environments, empower community
residents, and stabilize dysfunctional markets” within shrinking cities (Schilling &
Logan, 2008, p. 451). Likewise, research out of Germany points to community gardens as
a good use of land in deindustrialized areas, not only because of the social and ecological
benefits, but also because these uses tend to require minimal up-flont investment and do
not impede later edificial development (Rosol, 2005). And indeed, in many of the US
cities that have faced severe declines in leading manufacturing industries, such as
Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee, urban agriculture movements have been able to
utilize vacated spaces to cultivate food and reinvest in neighborhoods (Gray, 2007; Hair,
2008; McGuire, 2007; McMillan, 2008; Wells, 2008).

At the same time, as scholars have begun to understand the array of social and
environmental benefits associated with urban agriculture and as the concerns with human
impact on the natural world have increased, the possibility of urban agriculture on a
larger scale has gained attention as a potential strategy for moving towards sustainable
urbanization. Yet as activists and practitioners look beyond individual- and
neighborhood-level benefits of community gardens to consider the potential impacts of
urban production across a city, there is very little understanding regarding what shape this

would take or what impacts this would have. Though from the time of the earliest cities

67

food cultivation has been spatially and economically integrated into urban life (Jacobs,
1969), and urban areas of many developing countries continue to include formal and
informal agricultural practices, subsequent to the Industrial Revolution food production
Spaces largely have been excluded from urban areas of the US (Hynes & Howe, 2004;
Warner, 1987). The resulting dichotomy between urban and agricultural spaces has
shaped the ideal of urban space in ways that have excluded food production flom
consideration within urban policies (Moore, 2006; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000). A
clearer idea of what is feasible and achievable within city-scale food production is needed
as a way to challenge this mental and physical marginalization of agriculture in modern
cities, to inform the development of facilitative policy and to substantiate links claimed to
sustainable urbanization by urban agriculture advocates and practitioners.

While there are many dimensions to sustainable urbanization, an increase in local
food production as a way to diminish a city’s reliance on heavily resource-consumptive
imported foods is one dimension often posited by advocates of urban agriculture (see for
example Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Gamett, 1999; Rees, 1997). This chapter applies this
concept to research conducted in Detroit, MI. As a starting point for considering the
potential scale at which urban agriculture could occur in Detroit and a8 a way to further
the dialogue on the desired role and possible contributions of urban agriculture, we asked
two questions. First, what percentage of current and recommended Detroit resident
dietary intake could be met through urban food production? Secondly, how much land
would be necessary to achieve this level of production and is the utilization of this
quantity Of land feasible given the quantity and distribution of vacant, publicly-owned

land in Detroit?

68

In many ways, Detroit offers an ideal place to conduct research to explore the
opportunities for scaling up urban agriculture. The city arguably epitomizes America’s
deindustrialized landscapes. As a Detroit-based landscape architect put it: “Detroit has
been taken over by the ecology of globalization in its first act of massive deurbanization”
and it is now the largest shrinking city since ancient Rome (Park & International Center
for Urban Ecology, 2005, p. 176). In addition to the city’s large quantity of vacant land,
there is a strong urban agriculture movement, and residents have shown a high degree of
support for expanding urban farms and gardens (see Chapter 2). What’s more, Detroit
historically had very fertile soil for orchards and vegetable crops and was once home to
many productive farms along the river (Farmer, 1890). In short, Detroit offers an
opportunity to consider how urban agriculture might contribute to a level of sustainable
urbanization not possible in many other places.

This chapter begins by summarizing the links between urban agriculture and
sustainable urbanization argued in the literature. We then present our research methods
alongside a discussion of our results. We conclude by placing our research in the context
of the prospects for large-scale urban agriculture in Detroit and beyond, paying particular
attention to the ways in which our results are relevant for planners.

URBAN AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABLE URBANIZATION

Research has begun to link urban agriculture (U A) to ecological dimensions of
sustainability in a handful of empirical studies. Cited environmental benefits have
included improved air quality, preservation of cultivatable land, cooler buildings,
improved urban biodiversity, waste and nutrient recycling, and stormwater management

(Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Mendes et al., 2008). Even simply greening roofs can

69

significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Brown & Carter, 2003). On a more
abstract level, Toronto researchers demonstrate through a case study approach how
community participation in the creation of a garden can model both ways to meet the
needs of diverse urban residents, e. g. through food production, and ways to restore
connections between the urban and natural environments (Irvine et al., 1999). These
authors see in the subject garden of their research a contribution to sustainability at the
neighborhood scale and a model for defining the dimensions of urban sustainability.

Other scholars have also offered their vision for pursuing sustainable urbanization
through UA. Smit and Nasr (1992) conceive of UA integrating into the urban
environment and improving sustainability through its ability to recycle urban wastes,
utilize idle land and water bodies and conserve energy or other resources by substituting
for less sustainable practices associated with food importation. Landscape architect
André Viljoen (2005) and his contributing authors advocate urban landscapes that are
socially, economically and environmentally productive and envision UA playing a key
role in achieving urban sustainability as sites for recreation, for ecological services and as
the foundation for food system relocalization. Yet, absent empirical research in the
developed world on the impacts of UA on the city as a whole, much in these visions
remains speculative.

A small body of work also looks at how UA can contribute to the social
dimension of sustainability. Ferris et al. (2001) Show that community gardens can play a
role in restoring environmental justice to ecologically degraded and marginalized
communities. Even more than that, garden sites can be a model of dynamic and

participatory "sustainability in action" through social inclusion, environmental protection

70

and organic food production (Holland, 2004, p. 304). Furthermore, Howe and Wheeler
(1999) argue that UA can support local economies by providing vocational training, by
producing goods and services and by bridging market gaps in the mainstream food
system. Both the social and ecological impacts of gardens can be particularly pronounced
when blighted vacant lots necessitating continual city maintenance expenditures are
transformed into places of beauty that foster safe play for children and neighbor
interaction (Pottharst, 1995).

In regards to the contribution of UA to the food supply, estimates have been given
but in many cases the details behind these figures, including the boundaries used to
designate urban production, are unclear. We do know that fruit and vegetable crops
provide the highest yields and value per area cultivated (Viljoen et al., 2005). It is
therefore presumably most feasible for a city to satisfy food requirements in this
category. This seems to be reflected in the available estimates. For example, Shanghai
and Beijing are apparently fully self-sufficient in vegetables (Howe et al., 2005). Several
urban centers in Africa, including Brazzaville (Congo), Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania) and
Accra (Ghana), also produce more than 80% of their leafy vegetable needs (Mougeot,
2005). Estimates suggest, as well, that some large Latin American cities are able to meet
one third of vegetable demand through urban production (Mougeot, 1993). These figures
fail to offer any insight into the land base needed for food self-sufficiency in a given
region however. A master’s thesis flom Kingston, Ontario did find that urban agriculture
could utilize 5,600 hectares in the inner-city to meet the flesh fruit and vegetable needs of
76% of city residents (Lam, 2007). Yet this analysis relied heavily on the use of

basements, rooftops and vertical walls, spaces that are not often cultivated at any

71

significant scale in practice. In short, there is a dearth of empirical research, particularly
in the US, relating an urban land base to food consumption by urban residents.

Nonetheless, a small but growing number of US municipalities have begun to
recognize the multiple links to sustainability and have embraced UA as a means of
sustainable urbanization (Mendes et al., 2008). City government support has often come
flom the desire to increase green space and capitalize on public concern with
environmental issues (Connelly & Ross, 2007). Both Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC
have undertaken land inventories to identify as many potential sites for UA as possible
(Balmer et al., 2005; Kaethler, 2006).

In 2006 the City of Vancouver announced an initiative to create 2,010 new
gardens as a legacy for the 2010 Olympics and as a way of “enhancing food security and
reducing the City’s ecological footprint by reducing ‘distance to fork,’” of “encouraging
increased social interaction” and of “supporting and encouraging an environmentally and
socially sustainable activity” (City of Vancouver, 2006; Morris & Tapp, 2008, p. 3).
Similarly, in 2008 the mayor of London and her appointed Chair of London Food
announced a program to support the identification of land and provision of resources for
the creation of 2,012 garden sites by the 2012 Olympics (Capital Growth, 2008). At the
national level, an executive order flom the Philippines mandates funding for “the setting
up of urban vegetable gardens and backyard fisheries” as protection against the global
financial crisis (President of the Philippines Executive Order NO. 776, 2009). All of these
initiatives cite environmental benefits and increased food security flom UA as motivating

forces.

72

Yet the question remains, what portion of the food supply could really be
achieved through urban cultivation in the US? Despite the interest in UA, there remains a
fundamental need to understand what level of urban production is feasible and what level
is desirable across a city. At the neighborhood scale, the connections between UA and
sustainability have been demonstrated; but, while numerous advocates and scholars have
speculated about UA’S ability to diminish the unsustainability of a city’s complete
reliance on imported food, little research has explored what level of urban production
would achieve this type of impact on the urban agrifood system. The starting point for
this research, then, is the goal of understanding how much of local fruit and vegetable

consumption could be supplied through city production of food in Detroit.

METHODS AND RESULTS
In order to estimate how far cultivation on the vacant land in Detroit could go

toward meeting present and recommended residents’ consumption levels, we drew
together data flom a number of sources that would allow us to estimate fluit and
vegetable consumption, the seasonal availability of each crop, fruit and vegetable yields
for small-scale cultivation and the quantity and acreage of Detroit’s publicly-owned
vacant parcels. Figure 3-1 depicts an overview of our research process, where X, Y, and
Z represent the greatest percentage of real and hypothetical consumption levels
technically possible based on the seasonal limitations within the given production
scenario. These steps, and the results we obtained in each of these steps, will now be
discussed in greater detail. In presenting our methods in relative depth and their
limitations transparently, we aim to stimulate further scholarly conversation on the best

ways to estimate a possible scale of urban production.

73

Current and Recommended Consumption
Figures for current consumption were calculated using a ten year average (1996-

2006) of the US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (ERS) average
daily per capita servings for flesh fluits and vegetables. We used the ERS Loss-Adjusted
Food Availability database, which starts with aggregate food availability data and, first,
adjusts for spoilage and other waste, and then calculates national average daily per capita
servings (US. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2008). These per
capita servings were multiplied by the resident population of Detroit according to the
2006 US Census Bureau.4 The number of fluit and vegetable servings that should be
eaten according to the USDA Nutrition Guidelines was calculated based on the My
Pyramid recommendations for daily consumption of fluits and vegetables according to
sex, age range and either a sedentary or active lifestyle (US. Department of Agriculture
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 2005). An active lifestyle is defined as one
that, in addition to the activity of daily life, involves “physical activity equivalent to
walking more than 3 miles per day at 3 to 4 miles per hour” (US. Department of

Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 2005).

 

4 It should be noted that the Detroit population differs flom the US population as a whole in some
significant ways — most notably the city is 83.2% African-American and 32.5% of individuals are below
the poverty line, according to the 2006 US Census, compared to the national average of 12.2% African-
American and 13.3% of individuals below the poverty line — which will certainly impact consumption
patterns. For example, the national average per capita consumption of collard greens is very low but this
crop tends to be more popular in Aflican-American communities. Furthermore many Detroiters suspect that
the US Census significantly undercounts the city’s population, particularly in the poorest communities.
Despite these limitations of the national data, we believe that the data nonetheless provide the appropriate
order of magnitude for fluit and vegetable consumption.

74

US Census Bureau

Data ’\

% year available
field flesh, storage
81 season

extension by \

crop

Farm al.):ble ’\

Commercial
yields ’\

 

How many f&v
servings are eaten
and should be
eaten?

I

How much of what
is and should be
eaten can be grown
given the seasonal
constraints?

1

How many lbs
would need to be
grown?

I

How much land is
needed for each
crop?

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/‘

ERS Consurrption

/‘ Data

\ USDA Nutrition

Guidelines

\_£onversion to lbs.

Biointensive
yields

 

Total acres needed to
meet X% of current
consumption using

field fresh
production only

 

 

 

 

Total acres needed to
meet Y% of current
consumption using

field fresh
production 8: storage

 

 

Total acres needed to
meet 2% of current
consumption using field
fresh production,
storage 8:
season extension

fr

 

 

I

 

 

 

Total acres needed to
meet X% of
recommended
consumption using
field fresh
production only

 

 

 

Total acres needed to
meet Y°/o of
recommended
consumption using field
fresh production
& storage

 

 

Total acres needed to
meet 2% of
recommended
consumption using field
fresh production, stor-
age & season extension

 

Figure 3-1: Summary of Local Production Potential Analysis Step8

75

 

 

Following the assumption made by Conner et al. (2008) that two-thirds of the
population is sedentary and one-third of the population is active, we used the 2006 US
Census Bureau data to determine the resident population by sex and age range (U .8.
Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2006) which then allowed us to calculate the
yearly number of fruit and vegetable servings that should be eaten by Detroit residents.
Since it was beyond the scope of this study to explore the potential for the processing of
locally grown fruits or vegetables, only the consumption of fresh, unprocessed fi'uits and
vegetables was considered.5 Consumption levels of dried, canned, frozen or otherwise
processed fi'uits and vegetables, which together comprise approximately 45% of total
fruit and vegetable consumption in the average US diet, were excluded. (For the relative
proportions of fresh fruit and vegetable types consumed, see Table 3-3, which is
discussed in a later section.)

Of the fruits and vegetables tracked by ERS, only one vegetable, artichokes,
cannot be grown in the Detroit region. However, twelve of the twenty-three fruits cannot
be cultivated in this area, namely oranges, tangerines, grapefruit, lemons, limes,
avocados, bananas, kiwifruit, mangoes, pineapple, papayas and cranberries. Cranberries
are the sole non-tropical fruit in this list and while, on the basis of seasonal temperature
fluctuations they could be grown in Detroit, their cultivation necessitates distinct
production techniques that involve flooding the crop at various stages, the possibility of
which was not considered in this analysis. In this analysis we included artichokes and
cranberries in the total number of current and recommended servings but excluded the

aforementioned eleven tropical fruits, which we presume would continue to be imported

 

5 Based on the ERS Loss-Adjusted Food Availability database, “fresh” means fi'uits and vegetables are
purchased in their fresh, unprocessed state but does not necessarily mean they are not cooked before being
eaten.

76

and consumed in the same relative proportions. In other words, the total number both of
presently consumed and of recommended vegetable servings include all vegetables for
which data was available; but, the total number of fruit servings include only the non-
tropical fruits.6

Again following Conner et al. (2008), we assumed that if Detroiters increased
their daily servings of fruits and vegetables, they would still maintain both the relative
proportions of different fi'uit and vegetable types and the relative proportions of fresh and
processed produce in their diets. We therefore multiplied the total number of
recommended fruit and vegetable servings by the proportion each fruit or vegetable in its
fresh form represents within current fruit and vegetable consumption. This allowed us to
compare quantities of current fresh fruit and vegetable consumption with hypothetical
quantities of fresh fruit and vegetable consumption that would accord with dietary
guidelines even though there is no recommendation for levels of fresh produce
consumption.

In this analysis both current and recommended consumption figures assume that
individuals consume equal portions of all fruit and vegetable crops throughout the year.
While this is likely generally true for many crops, some crops, such as strawberries or
pumpkins, are likely eaten in greater quantities during the harvest months. To the extent
that this is the case, the proportion of current consumption that could be met through
local production will be underestimated in our analysis, as will the amount of land

necessary to supply current consumption levels.

 

6 Of all the fruit and vegetable crops included in this analysis, all but six of the vegetables (asparagus,
eggplant, escarole/endive, garlic, kale, and lima beans) and all but three of the fruits (cherries, grapes, and
plums) were grown in Detroit gardens in the 2005-2006 growing seasons (Alaimo & Miles, 2007).

77

According to our calculations, Detroiters eat an annual total of 285,036,649 fresh
vegetable servings and 98,232,531 fresh, non-tropical fruit servings. If dietary patterns
were to follow USDA recommendations, they would eat 854,131,315 fresh vegetable
servings and 410,572,711 fresh, non-tropical fiuit servings. This means that
recommended consumption levels are more than four (4.2) times higher for huh and

three (3.0) times higher for vegetables than current consumption.7

Seasonal A vailability
In order to compare consumption data with what could be grown in Detroit, it was

necessary to factor in the months of the year during which different fruits and vegetables
are available. In addition to considering the season in which each crop is available fresh
from the field, we also looked at whether and during what time period any of these crops
could be available through the use of storage or season extension technology such as
hoop houses. Based on harvest and distribution data from the Michigan State University
Student Organic Farms, on a previously published Michigan Availability Guide
(Michigan State University Extension, 2004) and on feedback from two staff members of
Michigan Food and Farming Systems, we determined the months each crop is available

fresh from the field, through crop storage and through season extension (see Table 3-1).

 

7 In a related statistic that confirms this consumption pattern, the 2005 - 2007 Michigan Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System Regional & Local Health Department survey found that 77.2% of Detroit
residents consume less than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day (F ussman, 2008).

8 Unpublished data from the Michigan State University Student Organic Farm 2004-2008 growing seasons.
See http://www.msuorganicfann.com/

78

 

 

mace . a
00:30..— Use:

 

 

_ £qu
o>.€:m<o_€eowm

 

 

see—wam

 

 

£38330

 

 

 

 

 

 

800 8on

 

£5on eon—EU
F830
$33530
8830

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omwaneo

 

 

 

 

 

3:0ch Emem

 

 

 

=08on

 

 

 

Eamon =om

 

 

among/x

 

3x23:

 

“0390mm;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

emmcouw D cow—wow touceuxw smog". v.2...

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

flow m=< 22. 25.. >22 =E< =22: some

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3qu 9330”?» can E...”— ue Engage. Eeemwom "Tm 2:3.

79

 

 

 

 

 

£520 3E3.

 

moose—bout

 

 

mgugom “003m

 

 

 

 

 

SHE? duescm

 

$883 dwescm ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

memom anew
Sasha
$563“

 

 

 

 

EQESA

 

 

moouflom

 

 

meow—HO

 

 

 

 

«£0
$5er 3832

850.532

 

 

on 9.05

D .838 cavemen. it”. .22".

£80m «ES

03M

 

 

 

 

00D

 

 

«00

 

snow

 

m:<

 

23.

 

2.2. 522

=a< _ sees.— no".

 

 

 

:2.

Boscacoo homo

 

 

 

Page 3. asap

80

 

 

 

 

 

so. on: 285

 

 

no. 22 32:38:

 

 

095.850

 

moEoanbw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moEoneeo

 

was;

 

 

 

women

 

 

monoeom

 

 

 

 

 

momma

 

moEoAU HooBm

 

 

 

 

 

 

so as?

 

 

839$

 

_ _

 

em «.55

D cannon uneconom—

 

 

 

>02

 

woo

 

How

 

m3<

2....

 

 

>2... ...a.<

0:31

 

 

:9. as.

no...

:2.

r smog". 20.". I

"3.:qu

 

32.28 nomo

 

 

 

3:8. E as;

81

Based on this table, we calculated the percentage of the year, according to half month
increments, that each crop would be available in each of these production scenarios.9"0’ll
We assumed the use of the lowest technology system available; that is, if a crop
could be grown with and without season extension technology in the same time period,
we only considered the availability fresh from the field in the percentage calculation. We
also only included the crops for which there is a viable early or late season retail market
in Michigan, as opposed to what would be possible to cultivate, in the season extension
availability estimates. Furthermore, we assumed that a given land area would only hold a
single crop through the entire length of the growing season rather than a rotation of two
or more crops. This assumption likely has the effect of significantly overestimating the
acreage necessary to meet a given percentage of consumption. The resulting data shows
three scenarios — field fresh only; field flesh and storage; field fresh, storage and
extended season — that meet a progressively larger portion of local consumption but also

necessitate a progressively more substantial financial investment and technical
infrastructure for postharvest management and extended season production.
GIS Vacant Land Identification and Mapping

Vacant parcels were identified using the November 2008 dataset from the City of
Detroit Information Technology Services Department Geographic Information Systems
Sales & Service Center (City of Detroit, 2008). Though this dataset originates with the

City of Detroit Assessment Division and the accuracy of the city’s property database has

 

9 Due to minimal available harvest data for lima beans, the seasonal availability of snap beans was used as
a best estimate. The seasonal availability of okra was based on Conner et al. (2008).

0 Because the goal was to compare these numbers with consumption data and it was unclear in the ERS
data whether “squash” referred to summer or winter squash, the seasonal figures reflect the availability of
at least one of these varieties. Accordingly the squash yield figures (discussed later) are an average of
winter squash and zucchini given in J eavons (1995).

ll . .
The seasonality data for season extensron assumes unheated hoop houses.

82

been questioned (Dewar, 2006), we believe that this was the best available
comprehensive dataset that would allow us to map and calculate the acreage of publicly-
held vacant parcels to provide an understanding of the distribution and magnitude of
vacancy across the city in keeping with our purpose. The limitations of our data in
regards to the vacancy status of individual parcels are even more pronounced considering
that changes are continually occurring through purchases of property from the city,
acquisitions of foreclosed properties by the city and demolitions of abandoned structures.
Nonetheless, after cross-referencing our catalog of vacant parcels against 2005 aerial
imagery (Michigan Geographic Data Library, n.d.) we found only 45 of 1,323 parcels
(3.4% error rate) that appeared to have a home or other structure present.

Only fully vacant parcels located within city limits and owned by the city, the
county, the state, the county land bank or the state land bank were considered in our tally
of vacant property. All parcels owned by the City of Detroit Recreation Department were
excluded. The selected parcels were mapped and their area calculated using ESRI
ArcInfo® 9.3. The number and area of vacant parcels was totaled by zip code after
missing or erroneous zip code data were corrected for over 500 parcels. Road data and
city boundary data were obtained from the Michigan Geographic Data Library (n.d.).

From the final GIS analysis we tallied a total of 44,085 vacant parcels comprising
4,848 acres, or 7.6 square miles. Based on this figure, 11% of the 386,584 total parcels
present in the city are publicly-owned, non-park, vacant land. Approximately 70%
percent of these parcels are owned by the city, approximately 27% are roughly split
between Wayne County and the state land bank and the remaining 2% are split between

the state and the county land bank (see Table 3-2). At the time of this writing the City of

83

Detroit had approved the creation of a land bank but this land bank had not yet acquired

title to any parcels.

Table 3-2: Number and Acreage of Vacant Parcels by Ownership Catgory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ownership N o. of Vacant Parcels Acres

City of Detroit 31,123 3,589
Wayne County 6,135 563
State of Michigan 401 104
Wayne County Land Bank 551 55
State Land Bank 5,875 537

TOTAL 44,085 4,848

 

As expected, the quantity of publicly-owned vacant lots in Detroit seems to be far
higher than many other US cities. Bowman and Pagano (2000) found that the average
number of vacant lots owned by 58 reporting cities was 1,069 with a median of merely 50
lots. The number of vacant lots we calculated is on the low end of other Detroit estimates
found outside the peer-reviewed literature, however. These estimates range from 40,000
(Gopakumar & Hess, 2005; Stohr, 2003), to 65,000 (Lachance, 2004), to 103,000
(Roberts, 2008) parcels. The corresponding acreage also seems to be far lower than other
rough estimates, which range from 17,000 acres (Gray, 2007), to 25,600 acres (J.
Gallagher, 2008), to nearly 30,000 acres (Altman, 2009; McKee & Ortolani, 2008).
Furthermore, our tally of vacant parcels does not include parcels with abandoned
buildings, which have been estimated to number more than 80,000 (Riley, 2008). None of

these popular press estimates discuss how their figures were obtained however.‘2

 

12 It is likely that the discrepancy between our tally of vacant parcels and the estimates in the popular press
is largely due to the private ownership of vacant parcels and the typical waiting period before a foreclosed
property returns to the city or other government entity.

84

We can also compare our numbers to research within specific neighborhoods. In a
report on the Brightmoor neighborhood of Detroit, researchers estimated there were
2,000 vacant lots owned by the city, state or county and an additional 700 properties,
some of which housed abandoned buildings, owned by the Northwest Detroit
Neighborhood Community Development Corporation (Doherty et al., 2008). This
neighborhood roughly corresponds to zip code 48223, for which we estimated a total of
1,756 vacant parcels. In sum, we believe that the figure of 4,848 vacant acres is a
conservative estimate of unutilized land in Detroit and thus production potential will be
underestimated.

Calculating the total number and acreage of vacant parcels by zip code (see
Figure 3-2) reveals areas of the city with high and low vacancy. The borders of the city,
as well as the central downtown area (zip code 48226 is the central business district), tend
to have fewer vacant parcels, though in some cases this is obscured by zip codes that
overlap political jurisdictions such as 48239 and 48236. The vacant parcels in the five zip
codes on Detroit’s Eastside — 48211, 48207, 48213, 48214, 48215 — total 1,678 acres, or
35% of the total vacant acreage in the city. Several of the areas of high vacancy
correspond to neighborhoods targeted for Detroit’s Neighborhood Stabilization Plan,
namely Brightmoor, Southwest, Northend and Kettering, which will prioritize the
demolition of vacant structures (City of Detroit Flaming and Development Department,
2008) and, absent a reversal in market conditions, presumably further increase the

number of empty lots.

85

 

reel.£50m.NlemE\Bo.clw.w\.memE\m.<80thEton}....Efioboe..o.§3\\.et: an mezzo 3388 3am 33. an:

350 EN ~3on 83m m5 “Beam me 3.0 Sea 3:58 33 8.82309 oboe 9N mo 92: 2:. .9527. m_ .89 owmoeom wfieeoamoboo
05 can $083 «one? wo§o$_o=n=m me .8983: .88 05 «too EN some com £0.59 E 3303.58 Rocco &N am 2: 250% Roma mEH
6.0.50 3N tetan— E £33m 2:85» we .83. cascade was 33:57. film 0.59m

86

.830 3N :95: .3 209:5 «:35» he .33. unsung, can BEE—z film 953.9

                 
      

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

    

 

   

 

     
 

     

    
 

 

 
   

 

mobs chm
. meow 0.8 . o5
moon 5 on: 5% . tune
8m «2.3
3N3 a
ween Em?
. mom?
mobs
m 2. 8.4.8
B meow v.9
CNN”? m _.
ween Evan meow méow an“:
mmov oFmN
2qu Bus.
. 8.8 no?
meow mdow Sn
2% ”mama emu:
.3.va mmmN mnnw
:«8 «83
. moon 5. FE. meow v. EN
. meow
aemmmma. 3mm: 8: on:
meow Nd? Mvafi ”mug NNNS GNNQV
mmv moeom Wm: l{\|l|ll.(t(
ENS. ... 82
«fine mobm m. E meow . meow .
meow Qmmv . meow mm: in onwm mm cameo:
mecca N mm: mm _.N
webs md mm: . page mama. 2.ch
3%.. we: 8%..
m can:

 

 

 

 

 

onus

87

 

:5:

éea. am as an “0%.... a. Bass? 2. N as . museum
$9599 332“ .3535» he 55:9!“me "Wm ag.—www.—

a
. .e a'
.,~‘

m.
a...

    

metmucsom 3.0 D
285.". Emom> B

 

88

Looking closely at Figure 3-2 also reveals some discrepancies in the average
acreage per parcel. The vast majority of the twenty-nine zip codes represented in Detroit
have an average acreage per vacant parcel ranging from 0.1-0.2 acres, which reflects a
typical residential parcel. The few zip codes — 48219, 48239, 48201, and 48226 — in
which the average acreage per vacant parcel is higher account for the fact that some zip
codes have a relatively high total of vacant acreage despite a comparatively low number
of vacant parcels.

Mapping the vacant parcels across the city provides another way to look at the
range in vacancy levels (see Figure 3-3). Here we see that the belt across the center of the
city, and the eastside neighborhoods in particular, have the greatest concentration of
vacant property. Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show snapshots of two areas with relatively low
(Figure 3-4) and relatively high (Figure 3-5) vacancy at a scale in which the individual
parcels are distinguishable. Figure 3-5 is representative of the areas of the city in which
vacancy is extremely high and many of the vacant parcels are contiguous. In contrast,
Figure 3-4 demonstrates that very few vacant parcels are contiguous in the areas of the
city in which vacancy is relatively low. These areas are characterized by small,

interspersed lots, the majority of which are roughly one-tenth of an acre.

89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend

- Vacant Parcels

I 5 Detroit Parcels

‘ Roads

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-4: Example of Vacancy Distribution in Low-
Vacancy Neighborhood.

ese neighborhood blocks, which are located within zip
code 48228, correspond to Square 1 in Figure 3-3 above.

90

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend Figure 3-5: Example of Vacancy Distribution in High-
Vacancy Neighborhood.

- Vacant Parcels These neighborhood blocks, which are located within zip

' code 48215, correspond to Square 2 in Figure 3-3 above.

Most of the larger shaded areas are comprised of multiple

Roads parcels.

’7 N 1 Detroit Parcels

 

91

Table 3-3: Acreage Required by Crop
This table reflects the acreage required to supply current consumption based on field
harvest only (without storage or season extension).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loss-
Vegetable Adjusted High- Acres Low- Acres Comm. Acres
Crop Seasonally Prod. Req. Prod. Req. Yields Req.
Avail. Lbs. Yields Yields (lbs/acre)
Consumed (lbs/acre) (lbs/acre)
Artichokes 0 0 0 0
Asparagus 79,453 16,553 4.8 4,138 19.2 1,930 41.2
Bell Peppers 578,461 85,813 6.7 15,682 36.9 28,000 20.7
Broccoli 884,142 23,087 38.3 1 1,326 78.1 3,000 294.7
Brussel
Sprouts 27,611 61,855 0.5 30,928 0.9 10,000 2.8
Cabbage 701,432 166,835 4.2 41,818 16.8 36,000 19.5
Carrots 1,604,569 470,448 3.4 43,560 36.8 36,000 44.6
Cauliflower 99,039 126,760 0.8 19,166 5.2 14,000 7.1
Celery 1,515,866 417,740 3.6 104,544 14.5 49,400 30.7
Collard
Greens 234 166,835 0.001 41,818 0.01 9,000 0.03
Sweet Corn 96,666 29,621 3.3 7,405 13.1 10,000 9.7
Cucumbers 365,438 253,084 1.4 68,825 5.3 18,000 20.3
Eggplant 153,939 71,003 2.2 23,522 6.5 22,000 7.0
Escarole/
Endive 48,644 130,680 0.4 32,670 1.5 30,000 1.6
Garlic“ 0 104,544 0 26,136 0 16,333 0
Head
Lettuce 2,693,255 130,680 20.6 32,670 82.4 20,000 134.7
Kale 33,487 66,647 0.5 33,106 1.0 9,000 3.7
Romaine/
Leaf Lettuce 1,135,023 235,224 4.8 58,806 19.3 20,000 56.8
Lima Beans 773 10,019 0.1 5,009 0.2 2,937 0.3
Mushrooms+ 975,349 71,874 13.6 71,874 13.6 71,874 13.6
Mustard
Greens 87,138 117,612 0.7 78,408 1.1 9,000 9.7
Okra 29,018 52,272 0.6 13,068 2.2 8,000 3.6
Onions 985,095 235,224 4.2 43,560 22.6 26,000 37.9
Potatoes 6,515,348 339,768 19.2 43,560 149.6 32,500 200.5
Pumpkins 459,758 83,200 5.5 20,909 22.0 14,500 31.7
Radishes 80,144 235,224 0.3 43,560 1.8 5,100 15.7
Snap Beans 92,575 47,045 2.0 13,068 7.1 5,500 16.8
Spinach 158,139 98,010 1.6 21,780 7.3 12,000 13.2
Squash 465,988 180,338 2.6 45,738 10.2 13,000 35.9
Sweet
Potatoes 604,874 214,315 2.8 35,719 16.9 14,000 43.2
Tomatoes 1,262,972 182,081 6.9 43,560 29 22,000 57.4
Turnip
Greens 241,336 156,816 1.5 43,560 5.5 9,000 26.8

 

"‘ We assumed garlic would be available 100% of the year through storage but not available field fresh.
+ The commercial yield was used for mushrooms in all three production scenarios.

92

 

Table 3-3 Cont’d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loss-
Fruit Adjusted High- Acres Low- Acres Comm. Acres
Crop Seasonally Prod. Req. Prod. Req. Yields Req.
Avail. Lbs. Yields Yields (lbs/acre)
Consumed (lbs/acre) (lbs/acre)
Apples 2,443,043 43,560 56.1 21,780 1 12.2 18,180 134.4
Apricots 4,055 43,560 0.1 10,890 0.4 2,971 1.4
Sweet
Cherries 64,040 22,216 2.9 7,405 8.7 4,444 14.4
Grapes 326,852 39,204 8.3 19,602 0 9,884 33.1
Peaches 374,364 52,272 7.2 26,136 14.3 6,714 55.8
Pears 186,969 47,045 4.0 15,682 1 1.9 7,956 23.5
Plums 33,297 24,829 1.3 8,276 4.0 6,124 5.4
Cranberries 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
Strawberries 212,300 139,392 1.5 17,424 12.2 5,160 41.1
Cantaloupes 282,227 63,162 4.5 21,780 13.0 8,000 35.3
Honeydew
Melon 995,314 63,162 15.8 21,780 45.7 12,000 82.9
Watermelon 628,220 139,392 4.5 21,780 28.8 20,000 31.4
Fruit &
Vegetable 22,526,451 263 894 1,660
TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acreage Needed to Meet Consumption Levels

In order to determine the amount of land necessary to support as much of the

fresh fruit and vegetable consumption as possible through Detroit-based production given

seasonal limitations, we first converted the serving totals of each crop, at both current and

recommended consumption levels, to pounds, based on published servings per pound

figures adapted for adult populations (US. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition

Service, 2008).13 Next we multiplied this number by the percentage of the year available

for each of the three seasonal production scenarios. We then factored in losses in the

transmission of the produce from the farmgate, the loss due to any inedible share, the loss

at the retailing stage and the loss in cooking (Kantor, 1998; Peters et al., 2002). This

 

‘3 Servings per pound were based on a ‘A cup serving in the USDA report created for child nutrition
programs but were adapted to the basis of '/2 cup servings for the purposes of this research. Servings per
pound figures for all fruits and vegetables discussed in this research were derived from this report except
for garlic, for which the estimation of 5.5 servings per pound was estimated.

93

 

enabled us to determine a total weight in pounds for each of the fresh fruits and
vegetables commonly consumed by Detroit residents. Table 3-3 shows the loss-adjusted
figures for current consumption based on the percent of the year each crop is available
fresh fi'om the field. In other words, column two in Table 3-3 does not show the total
amount of fruit or vegetable type consumed, but rather only shows the portion that could
be supplied during the growing season.

We were then able to use these figures in conjunction with published high and
low productivity biointensive yields that reflect small-scale cultivation (Jeavons, 1995)'4
to determine a range of acreage needed for each crop.15 For the sake of comparison, we
also calculated requisite acreage according to Michigan commercial crop yield figures
compiled from several sources (National Agricultural Statistics Service Michigan Field
Office, 2006; Peters et al., 2002, 2003; US. Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service, 2003; Zandstra & Price, 1988). While the monocropping agricultural
production system these numbers reflect is unlikely to be appropriate in the urban Detroit
setting, these more modest yields can nonetheless provide a cautious upper limit to the
quantity of land necessary. Table 3-3 shows how these yields determine the acreage
needed for each crop as applied to current consumption levels and assuming field harvest
only. Similar calculations were made for the other two production scenarios at current
consumption and for the three production scenarios at recommended consumption levels.

Finally we took the sum of these fruit and vegetable acreages to show approximately how

 

l4 Jeavons discusses low productivity figures as reasonable for beginning farmers and gardeners and high
productivity figures as achievable for experienced farmers and gardeners.
5 The two exceptions were escarole/endive, for which the yield data for head lettuce was used as a best

estimate, and mushrooms, for which the commercial production NASS figure of 71,874 lbs/acre was used
for both low and high productivity from http://www.nass.usda.g0v

94

much land would need to be put into production in order to meet a given percentage of

local consumption with various scenarios of seasonality.

Table 3-4: Acreage Needed to Supply Current and Recommended Consumption

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acreage Needed
Production Acreage Needed to Meet % Annual
Scenario to Meet Current Recommended Consumption
Consumption Consumption Supplied
133:: High Biomtenswe 263 916
Low Biointensive 31 % Veg
894 3,001 170/ F 't
' ' l'UI
Commercral Yields 1 ’ 660 5,549 o
331:9; High Biomtenswe 51 1 1,831
Low Biointensive 65% Veg
1,839 6,174 390/ F .
CommerCIal Yields 3,063 10,210 0 TUIt
ngalgg+ High Biointensive 568 2,014 76? V
Extension Low Biomtenswe 2,086 6,976 420 o F eg
Commercral Yields 3,602 12,067 /0 rUIt

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3-4 shows the range of acreages needed. The first two rows in each

production scenario reflect high and low productivity under biointensive cultivation while

the third row reflects commercial agriculture yields. If a high level of biointensive

agricultural productivity is assumed, putting only 263 acres into production could meet

31% of current fresh vegetable consumption and 17% of current non-tropical fruit

consumption without any postharvest management or season extension techniques. That

is, of the total quantity of fresh vegetables and fresh non-tropical fruits consumed

annually, only 31% of the vegetables and 17% of the fruits could be produced without the

use of storage or season extension. If low productivity is assumed, the acreage needed to

meet the same level of consumption increases significantly to nearly 900 acres, which is

95

 

similar to acreage requirements for the recommended consumption levels of both fruits
and vegetables at high productivity.

If both postharvest management and season extension techniques such as
unheated hoop houses are used, the percentage of consumption that could technically be
achieved escalates to three-quarters of vegetable and nearly half of fruit consumption.
The acreage requirements, however, are roughly double those of the requirements under
field harvest at each of the three yield levels. Still, in regards to present consumption,
these percentages could be achieved with 568 acres and high productivity biointensive
yield levels according to this analysis. Utilizing less than half of the catalogued publicly-
owned vacant acreage could achieve these percentages for present consumption levels at
low productivity biointensive yields or for recommended consumption levels at high
productivity biointensive yields. The inclusion of the acreage requirements based on
commercial yields is intended for comparison and as a more conservative estimate since
this production scenario would be unlikely and largely inappropriate within the urban

boundary of Detroit.

DISCUSSION

Reflections on Research Results
This study sought to understand the scale of food production possible within the

city limits of Detroit. Our estimate of roughly 4,800 vacant, publicly-owned acres in
Detroit does not include land in and around parks, golf courses, cemeteries, schools,
churches, hospitals, jails, utilities or right-of-way areas. This analysis furthermore
excludes the possibility of food cultivation in residential yards. These land constraints

ensure that our assessment of the amount of land potentially available for UA is

96

conservative. Though we do not assert that all vacant land should be converted into farms
and gardens, transitioning a portion of the available land into productive spaces appears
very appropriate and could generate Significant impact. Based on our analysis of
consumption, seasonal availability and yield potential, an investment in infrastructure for
postharvest management paired with less than half of the available land (roughly 1,800
acres) could provide two-thirds of fresh vegetables consumed and 40% of fresh non-
tropical fruit consumed at low-productivity levels or the same percentages of
recommended consumption levels at high-productivity levels. Significant investments in
the construction of hoop houses and larger quantities of land could supply even greater
proportions of the fresh fruits and vegetables consumed.

In addition to only cataloging the publicly-owned land, this analysis includes a
number of (previously stated) assumptions that overestimate the amount of land required
to produce a given amount of food: namely that only one crop would be grown on a
given square foot through the length of the growing season, that hoop houses would only
be used for crops for which there is a reliable early or late season retail market, and that
hoop houses require additional acreage rather than increasing the productivity of existing
acreage. On the other hand, assuming that all fruit and vegetable crops are consumed at
the same level throughout the year underestimates the amount of land necessary to supply
current consumption. Furthermore, because we only considered fresh fruit and vegetable
consumption, if all fruit and vegetable consumption were included, the land base required
would approximately double. Finally, the Significant increase in land necessary under

commercial yields indicates that the biointensive yields may be overly optimistic.

97

In the end, meeting a substantial portion of current local fruit and vegetable
consumption seems feasible given the amount of vacant land we have catalogued and the
assumptions we have made, even if yields on par with the commercial level of
productivity are assumed. Supplying the recommended levels of fruits and vegetables
may not be feasible unless yield levels akin to high—productivity biointensive production
are achieved. However, because the pace of the demolition of abandoned buildings in
Detroit is scheduled to increase in the 2008-2009 fiscal year (Riley, 2008), the quantity of
vacant land will presumably continue to grow. A city report from December 2008
predicts that due to the housing foreclosure crisis, which has hit Detroit particularly hard,
a quarter of the city’s housing stock will be vacant properties by 2011 (Diggs & Winters,
2008)

If the City takes seriously the possibility of scaling up urban food production,
more accurate mapping of the vacant parcels will be needed. Inventories of these parcels
that assess the soil quality and other physical conditions of the property, considerations
that were beyond the scope of this research, will also be crucial. The recently established
Detroit Vacant Property Campaign, whose goal is to support communities in their efforts
to turn vacant property into assets, may be the best entity to continue efforts to accurately
map and quantify Detroit’s vacant land and, in so doing, work with residents to identify
the best uses in different parts of the city (Detroit Vacant Property Campaign, n.d.).

Through the course of this research we also sought to work towards developing a
method that would generate reasonable estimates of the scale of production possible in
other urban areas. The most significant limitation of this analysis is the fact that our

catalog of vacant properties hinges on the accuracy and continual maintenance of an

98

enormous database of city parcels that is constantly in flux. AS discussed, we can only
hope that this research presents a reasonable picture of the scale and distribution of
vacant properties and our cross-reference with aerial imagery affirms this. The second
major limitation is that the yield data we have relied upon, first of all, are not specific to
the Detroit area and, secondly, assume either biointensive growing methods, which are
not or would not necessarily be used by current and future urban gardeners and farmers,
or commercial growing methods, which are generally not applicable to food cultivation
on small patches of land in urban areas. Nonetheless, in presenting a range of production
levels we hope to illuminate the relationship between land area devoted to urban

production and food supply.

Reflections on Urban Agriculture at the City Scale
Even if we believe that a Significant level of food production is possible in Detroit

and other urban areas, many logistic considerations linger. Furthermore, on a conceptual
level there remains a need to consider critically how scaling up UA could integrate into
the urban landscape. Expanding urban production will transform the design of everything
from buildings to neighborhoods to cities themselves. On the leading edge of this new
research frontier, Mullinix et al. (2008, p. 4) coin the term “agricultural urbanism” to
describe “a comprehensive social, environmental and economic integration of an agri-
food system, in all of its dimensions and manifestations, within the planning, governance
and function of the city” and a small handfirl of scholars have begun to explore the shape
of such integration (see for example Barr et al., 2008; Gorgolewski, Komisar, & Nasr,

2009; Viljoen, 2005).

99

Comparing Detroit to Three Other Major Cities

I 4

 

 

is.
‘ ”‘4

.\ 1,,

- San Francisco

Population: 751,682
3 Square-mile area:

 
 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
       
  
 
    
 
  

Population: 581,616
Square-mile area: 48.43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Population: 1,537,195

 

Boston, Square-mile area: 22.96
Manhattan, &
San Francisco Detroit
Totals Population: 933,043
Population: 2,870,493 Square-mile area: 138.77
Square-mile
area: 118.08

Source: University of Detroit Mercy Detroit Free Press

Figure 3-6: An Illustration of Detroit’s Low Population Density
Adapted from (J. Gallagher, 2008)

These same questions apply to Detroit. A map created by University of Detroit

Mercy School of Architecture professor Dan Pitera illustrates how low the population

density of Detroit is in comparison with other major US cities (see Figure 3-6) (J.

Gallagher, 2008). Though we do not intend to argue that Detroit should become as dense

as Manhattan, given that the population densities of Manhattan (66,951 persons/miz), San

Francisco (16,099 persons/miz) and Boston (12,009 persons/miz) are significantly higher

than that of Detroit (6,724 persons/mi2)m, we do contend that there is a sufficient land

base to move towards new urban geographical configurations that include space for food

 

“5 All population densities based on the “Comparing Detroit to Three Other Major Cities” map (J.

Gallagher, 2008).

100

cultivation on a broader scale. Comparatively low population densities indicate that there
is a greater potential for UA as a true food source in Detroit than in some other large
cities. Interviews and focus groups with Detroit residents suggest that many people are
supportive of expanding food production in the city but also that not everyone is
comfortable abandoning the traditional cityscape (see Chapter 2). Taking this into
consideration, along with the low overall population density and the high concentration
of land vacancy in particular areas Of the city, supports moving towards developing
distinct agrifood districts within Detroit as the most feasible path towards a city-scale
urban agriculture.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this research indicates that urban farms and gardens can contribute
significantly to the supply of fresh fruits and vegetables at a city scale in cites like Detroit
with large amounts of vacant land. If residential yards and Spaces around other buildings
were considered, this level Of production may well be achievable in other urban areas as
well. Achieving these levels would no doubt have a major impact on the degree to which
a city relies on food imports. If the city’s waste products could also be utilized as inputs
to this urban production, major strides in sustainable urbanization could be made.

The research presented here suggests many possible avenues for future inquiry in
relation to moving towards a municipal commitment to supporting urban food
production. How will farm and garden spaces integrate into the cityscape? How can
planners support UA and also maintain distinctly urban settings? What tools are available
for the remediation of soils contaminated to varying degrees? If urban production is

increased, how will the food be marketed and distributed? As researchers continue to

101

investigate the social and ecological services of urban agriculture and as metropolises are
increasingly faced with concerns of sustainability and food security, we predict that in
many urban centers these questions will rise to the fore. For planners in particular, this
research helps guide considerations of expanding urban agriculture as a means of urban
food provisioning by clarifying the relationship between land base and hit and vegetable
supply related to average consumption. Furthermore, this chapter has shown that in the

context of deindustrialized cities, urban agriculture can play an especially significant role.

102

CHAPTER 4:
CONCLUSION

DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH RESULTS
The aim of this thesis has been to introduce the concept of city-scale urban

agriculture as a way to describe the expanded levels of urban food production
necessitating greater levels of infrastructure that UA practitioners are increasingly
advocating and that a handfirl Of municipalities are beginning to endorse. This is defined
as:

a network of cultivation spaces and production activities in which

food is produced by and for the local community and around which

city government and administrative departments, the private sector,

non-profit coalitions and neighborhood groups are involved in order
to expand, support and integrate these activities into the life of the

crty.
Differentiating city-scale UA calls into question the implicit assumption that the social
and ecological benefits researchers have attributed to gardens at the individual and
neighborhood scale will simply be replicated at a larger scale. Furthermore, articulating
the possibility of city-wide UA that more intensively involves greater numbers of actors
brings into focus a new set Of questions regarding the role and the impact of urban farm
and garden spaces.

Building on the work of UA scholars who have argued that UA is uniquely
integrated into the urban ecosystem (Mougeot, 2000), this concept assumes that
expanding urban farms and gardens across a city would impact numerous dimensions of
urban living — for example the community, economy, environment, health, agrifood
system and education dimensions. The utility of this concept is in its ability to highlight
these multiple interactions, which are not yet understood, and, in so doing, to point
towards new avenues for UA research.

103

The two components of the research presented here begin to give form to the
concept Of city-scale UA. The qualitative component of this research uncovers the
context in which UA is considered by urban residents (see chapter two). The quantitative
component demonstrates how to quantify possible production levels and their
contribution to the urban food supply (see chapter three). Together these chapters start to
challenge the conceptual boundaries between urban and rural and to demonstrate that the
urban locale as a throughput Of food is not the only possibility for cities.

Chapter two draws on data from ten interviews and five focus groups. The
interviews reflect the perspectives of five UA practitioners and five professionals in fields
related to UA, including planning, economic development, the management of farmers
markets and cooperative extension. The focus groups involved participants with a range
of engagement levels with UA. Two groups were comprised of individuals connected to
one of two different UA-affiliated organizations; one group was comprised of members
of a community organization, many of whom were gardeners but were not affiliated with
a formal organization; one group was comprised Of high school students who had
experience with gardening through their high-school curriculum; and the final group was
comprised of members of a senior organization, the majority Of whom were not
gardeners. The transcripts resulting from the audio recording of these fifteen data
collections were analyzed for themes relevant to the concept of city-scale UA.

Together, this body Of qualitative data speaks tO the vision for the role of urban
agriculture in the city, its relationship with the urban agrifood system and the structural
constraints and opportunities for expansion. The strongest support for city-scale UA was

found among the focus group participants affiliated with UA organizations and several of

104

these individuals articulated their vision for an agriculturally-based city. Others, however,
were far more modest in their support for UA; they desired opportunities for UA to be
accessible for those interested but were reluctant to embrace major aesthetic changes to
the landscape of their city. Research participants frequently acknowledged that if urban
agriculture came to serve a greater role in the urban food supply, it would likely compel
changes in the food consumption and acquisition patterns of many Detroit residents.
Some saw this as an obstacle to the support for UA but others saw urban farms and
gardens as an opportunity to re-shape not only individual relationships to food but the
nature of the urban food system itself. Finally, the interviews and focus groups revealed
that administrative and policy support from city government is not currently adequate to
sustain city-scale UA, and, while the non-profit infrastructure behind UA is generally
strong, the supportive resources they provide are not currently accessible to all Detroit
communities.

These wide-ranging perspectives demonstrate that there are a number of ways in
which the nature and the scale Of UA practices in Detroit may be contested as the local
UA movement continues to grow. Still, this research demonstrates that the broad support
for expanding current farm and garden activities, even if to varying degrees, Offers an
Opportunity to include greater numbers of participants in UA practices and in the local
dialogue on the role of these practices in Detroit. Lastly, this research seems to indicate
that the greatest challenges to scaling-up UA are intangible rather than the commonly
feared obstacles of soil contamination or garden theft. This again points towards
continued deliberation among groups and individuals, including the city itself, on the

future of UA in Detroit. In regards to soil contamination, however, it is unclear to what

105

extent the fact that few UA practitioners have encountered substantial Obstacles of this
type actually underestimates the problems of soil contamination or buried foundations
that might arise if food cultivation were expanded significantly.

Chapter three estimates the potential contribution to the urban food supply Of
cultivation on the publicly-owned vacant parcels within Detroit city limits. This entailed
1) estimating consumption levels of fresh fruits and vegetables, which was calculated
both according to current consumption levels and hypothetical consumption levels that
would accord with dietary recommendations; 2) estimating the seasonal availability of
fruit and vegetable crops based on three distinct production scenarios: field fiesh harvest
only, field fiesh harvest and post-harvest management through crop storage, and field
fresh harvest, post-harvest management and season extension technology, such as hoop
houses; and 3) cataloging the number, acreage and distribution Of publicly-owned, non-
park parcels through GIS mapping. These processes enabled the determination of the
percent Of current and recommended fi'uit and vegetable consumption that could be
supplied through each of the aforementioned production scenarios and the quantity of
land that would be necessary to achieve this level of production. For the sake of
comparison, the requisite acreage was calculated according to both low and high
productivity biointensive yields and commercial yields, all of which were crop-specific.

According to the consumption data and the seasonal availability data used, it
would be technically possible for Detroit gardens and farms to supply between 31%
(using only field fresh harvest) and 76% (using field harvest, storage and season
extension) of the fresh vegetables consumed and, based on the same parameters, to

supply between 17% and 42% of the fresh non-tropical fruits consumed. Based on the

106

database Of Detroit parcels used and the process for identifying available vacant parcels
employed, it was determined that Detroit has 4,848 acres Of vacant, non-park land under
public ownership. Even assuming the maximum seasonal availability (use Of both storage
and season extension in addition to field cultivation) and minimal yields (commercial
equivalents), putting roughly 75% of this available land (3,600 acres) into production
would enable Detroit to supply the largest portion of current consumption technically
possible.

Given that in a number of ways these research methods overestimate the amount
of land necessary to supply a given quantity of food and that the catalog of vacant land
underestimates the amount of unutilized land in the city, this indicates that there are
strong grounds for arguing that urban food cultivation could contribute significantly to
the quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables that Detroiters eat. When speaking Of
recommended consumption levels, however, which are more than four times present
consumption for fruit and three times present consumption for vegetables, the amount of
land required to supply the same percentages is more than three times greater. Still,
reaching the highest percentages technically possible is within the range Of feasibility if
high productivity biointensive yields are assumed, which would require less than half of
the acreage cataloged assuming the use of field harvest, storage and season extension
techniques. In short, then, even if Detroiters significantly increased the quantities Of fresh
fruits and vegetables they eat, urban agriculture could still potentially play a considerable

role in the required production.

107

Implications
Bringing the two research components together, it is apparent that Detroit has the

physical Space to expand the number of farms and gardens significantly and that there is
strong support for transforming the city through UA among some and modest support for
enabling those interested in gardening to do so among others. With this in mind, it would
seem that the UA movement in Detroit should first work to make sure supportive
resources for UA are accessible to all communities and then aim to include diverse voices
in shaping the future of UA in the city.

Both components of this research were highly specific to the Detroit context and
therefore cannot immediately be applied in other contexts. Still, there are a number Of
ways in which these results can speak to UA in other urban areas. While the qualitative
results do not reflect all possible perspectives of the Detroit population, let alone beyond,
these findings nonetheless reveal a number of important considerations relevant to
scaling up UA from the perspective of community residents, UA practitioners and UA-
affiliated professionals. Most importantly, communities have different expectations for
the future Of UA and its role within the city. Furthermore, the prospects for and interest in
city-scale UA seem to be shaped by the broader urban context.

Much Of the quantitative approach would be applicable in other settings. The
variables most dependent on the locale are the seasonal availability of the different fruit
and vegetable crops and the population size, which determines the current and
recommended fi'uit and vegetable consumption levels. Assuming there was a local data
source for post- and extended—season availability, these variables could be adjusted

without tremendous difficulty and the basic analysis would stand. Quantifying the

108

available acreage for food production would also depend on the availability of a local

data source of the city’s parcels and their attributes.

Future Research
This exploratory research on stakeholder perspectives of city-scale UA has

uncovered a number Of important themes but further research could extend these findings
significantly by exploring this topic with a larger population and greater demographic
representation and by delving into these themes, and the socio-cultural — political-
economic context in which they appear, more systematically. In regards tO the question Of
how urban agriculture can contribute to the food needs of residents, knowing how much
of the requisite fruit and vegetable supply can be produced given seasonal constraints and
how much land this would require opens the door to a host of other questions around not
just how feasible this really is, but what the impacts would be if it were achieved. In
terms of feasibility, there are serious considerations around soil contamination,
implementation funding, particularly for hoop houses if extended season production was
employed, recruiting and training large numbers of producers and honoring the needs and
desires of residents living near vacant lots. Expanding food production towards the levels
discussed could also have significant impacts on public health, food security and local
economic development. All of these arenas point towards avenues for future research.
SUMMARY

In summary, this research helps to shed light on many of the dimensions Of city-
scale urban agriculture. The qualitative results begin to show the different ways in which
scaling up urban food production will impact the lives of residents and the character of

the city. The focus groups and interviews also reveal many of the considerations that

109

advocates of UA in Detroit Should bear in mind, including limitations in the degree to
which residents want to cede the urban character Of their community and limitations
residents perceive in the level Of interest in participating in UA. The quantitative results
Show that meeting a significant portion of fresh fi'uit and vegetable consumption is
possible on the publicly-owned vacant land base in Detroit. Together these two research
projects Show that moving towards city-scale urban agriculture in Detroit is both possible
and immensely complicated, involving a diverse array of actors and myriad dimensions.
Yet the support for a greener Detroit, the strong non-profit infrastructure sustaining UA,
and the emergence of increased governmental interest in UA just may lay the path for

what some have called the transition from “Motown” to “Grow-town.”

110

APPENDICES

lll

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE

Note: The questions relevant to this research are in bold. The questions in regular
typeface were written for the Fair Food Foundation research, which served to provide a
context of food system issues within Detroit.

Their Work

1. What is the primary goal of your organization with ~respect to the food system?

2. What are your Specific approaches and activities?

3. What have been your major accomplishments? How do you measure success/ gauge

progress?

Their Network and Lessogs Learned

What are other key organizations that you work with in Oakland/Detroit on food

system issues? Are there other organizations of whom you are aware that you don’t
interact with very much?

 

4. Do you feel that organizations working on food issues in Oakland/Detroit are well
enough linked to one another?
a. Why or why not?
b. Can you provide an example of how it worked well and where there are
gaps?
c. Do you want to work with any of the other organizations, agencies, or
people that you are not yet working with?
d. What would be needed to improve these linkages?

5. How do food issues intersect with other issues (e. g. economic development, housing,
health care, education, etc.) in Oakland? Are there key groups working in these areas
of whom you are aware that don’t have any focus on food?

a. How have groups fi'om these areas collaborated with one another?
b. Do you think there should be more collaboration?
0. What would be needed to foster this kind of collaboration?

6. What lessons can be learned from efforts—your own or otherS’—that have
succeeded?

7. What lessons can be learned from efforts—your own or others’—that have not
succeeded?

The Food System

8. What do you think are the most pressing problems in the current food system in

Oakland/Detroit? What is working well?

112

9. What do you think are the best strategies for addressing these problems? Are there
strategies you or others have employed that you think didn’t or won’t work?

10. Do you see a difference between ideal and realistic solutions?

11. If you could construct a food system for the region that would be fair and sustainable,
what would that look like?

12. What would be needed to ensure that: farm workers are paid a living wage and work
in a health-promoting environment; farmers are being paid fairly for their costs Of
production and livelihood; distributors and retailers have enough profit to pay
employees and invest in the maintenance of their operation; and the cost Of the food is
low enough that consumers will purchase it?

13. Taking into account the large amounts of vacant land in Detroit, what would
lead you to say urban agriculture is or is not a viable strategy within the effort to
develop a just and sustainable food system?

a. What would be the implications of urban agriculture as a city-wide
strategy?

14. What are the biggest challenges or barriers to making these changes? What are
the assets?
a. (Follow-up in regards to urban ag. where appropriate)

15. What types of organizations, activities/strategies, and organizational and/or public
policies would be needed to make these changes happen locally?
a. Which are present in your region, and which are not present but needed?
b. (Follow-up in regards to urban ag. where appropriate)

16. Do terms such as ‘food desert’, ‘food security’, ‘food system’, ‘food justice’ resonate
with your work and how you describe your work to others? Are there better terms to
describe the work?

17. Does your organization work to increase demand for healthy food, such as through
nutrition education, cooking classes, or other efforts?
a. Are other organizations working on these issues?
b. Do you collaborate with them?
c. What do you think makes groups more or less successful at increasing
demand?

Sustainability
18. What are the biggest challenges to sustaining your activities? What type Of support

could move you towards sustainability?

19. What kind Of ‘start-up’ support is most critical for local food system efforts?

113

APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE

Note: The questions relevant to this research are in bold. The questions in regular
typeface were written for the Fair Food Foundation research, which served to provide a
context of food system issues within Detroit.

1. Please think about how you decide where you decide to do your grocery
shopping. Going around the table one at a time, what are the 2-3 major places that
you get most of your food from?

a. Probes: DO you make other, smaller trips?
b. How often and how far do you go?
c. What determines this?

2. Are you satisfied with this?
a. How easy is it to get the food you need?
b. What are some of the important things that determine how you Obtain your
food?
i. IS transportation or distance from your home a factor? How far is
reasonable walking distance?
ii. How about Price?
iii. Condition of the store/market?
iv. What kind of food variety and selection is important to you?
v. How about quality?

3. What are things about the food that make up quality?
a. Probe: how do you define freshness?

4. Does anyone have anywhere else that they get their foods, like from a
backyard garden, community garden, or outdoor market?

5. Are you satisfied with this? What encourages or discourages you from
growing your own food?
a. Is transportation or distance from your home a factor?
b. How about affordability?
c. How about quality or types of food available?
d. Other factors?

6. How often do you cook your own meals? Go out and get prepared food?
a. Are you satisfied with this?
b. Are you interested in preparing/cooking food but face obstacles in doing
so?

7. If so, is it a factor Of
a. time
b. access to cooking facilities
c. cooking skills

114

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

(1. other factors?

Would anyone like to list their favorite recipe that is easy and affordable to
prepare?

Do you have any food habits that have been passed down through family or
friends?

What about cultural foods- is it easy for you to obtain culturally appropriate foods
where you live?

What do you think of as a “healthy” food?

Do you think that you and your household currently eat a healthy diet? Why or
why not?
a. Probe: where do you get your health information?

Let’s go around the table and list one thing that would make it easier to get the
food you need.

DO you think that all neighborhoods in Detroit face the same challenges that you
do here in your neighborhood? Are there imbalances within the city?

Have you ever thought about the way you get your food in terms of fairness or
equity?
a. Definition: Some say that access to healthy, flesh and sustainably-grown
food is a fundamental right that everyone should have.
b. What do you think of this? What does this mean to you?

Is how your food is grown or raised important to you? Are pesticides or growth
hormones a factor in how you make your purchases?

Have you heard the term sustainably grown food? What does this mean to you?
a. Definition: We can think about sustainability in terms of the way we get
our food by asking, how long can we continue getting our food this way?
For example, how long can California continue producing fi'uits and
vegetables for the rest of the US, in the face of a water shortage?
b. What do you think of this? What does this mean to you?

Have you heard Of any efforts going on in your community around healthy, fresh,
sustainably grown food?
a. Probe: (Fill in here with Specific efforts in community and/or these general
examplesz)
i. Garden resource programs
ii. Community co-ops
iii. Healthy food in corner stores

115

iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.

Community garden- here and elsewhere

WIC/Proj ect Fresh/fd stamps at farmer’s market

nutrition education (extension)

Grocery buses

Community Kitchens

Food enterprise mentoring

What do you think of these efforts? What do they mean to you?

19. If there is vacant land in your neighborhood, do you think using this land for
farms and gardens would be desirable for yourself and other residents? How
so? How possible do you think growing food on vacant land in the city would

be?

a. Would doing this improve access to healthy, fresh food?

b. How else would having more urban farms and gardens impact your
neighborhood? (i.e. what other good or bad things would there be
about the presence of urban gardens throughout the city?)

20. If there was better access to healthy, fresh, sustainably-grown food in your
community, do you think community residents would purchase and eat the food?

a. from neighborhood grocery stores

i.

from neighborhood farmers/ gardeners

Moderator: Gives a short oral summary statement Of what was covered in the session,
listing the key questions and big ideas that emerged.

Is this an accurate summary? IS there anything important I forgot to include?

Let’s go around the room one more time and each list the most important thing that was
said about changing to the opportunities your community has to get good food. What
needs to change to make it easier for you, or more fair?

Moderator: Restates the purpose of the study, leaving 5—10 minutes prior to adjournment

time for final discussion.
The reason for this study is to discover what is most important for you as
residents of Detroit/Oakland for obtaining a healthy, satisfying diet from
appropriate sources. The second part of the study will review work underway in
the community to improve the food system and food access. Our primary goal
was to capture what the most important changes in Detroit’s/Oakland’s food
system are for you as residents. Have we missed anything in covering these areas?

116

REFERENCES

117

REFERENCES

Abbott, J. (2009, February 17). Author Proposes Urban Farms to Break Multi—national
Food Poduction Sranglehold Horticulture Week Daily. Retrieved March 3, 2009,
from
http://wwwhortweek.com/news/bullctin/dailybulletin/article/88 l 597/?DCMP=E
MC-HorticulmreWeekDaiLy

 

Alaimo, K, & Hassler, D. (Eds). (2003). From Seeds to Stories, the Community Garden
Storytelling Project of F lint Flint, MI: Prevention Research Center of Michigan,
University Of Michigan School of Public Health.

Alaimo, K., & Miles, R. (2007). The Detroit Garden Resource Program Collaborative
Research Study Report: Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition
Michigan State University.

Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R. A., & Kruger, D. J. (2008). Fruit and Vegetable
Intake among Urban Community Gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 40(2), 94- 1 01 .

Allen, J. O., Alaimo, K., Elam, D., & Perry, E. (2008). Growing Vegetables and Values:
Benefits of Neighborhood-Based Community Gardens for Youth Development
and Nutrition. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 3(4), 418-439.

Altieri, M. A., Companioni, N., Cafiizares, K., Murphy, C., Rosset, P., Bourque, M., et al.
(1999). The Greening Of the “Barrios”: Urban Agriculture for Food Security in
Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values, I 6(2), 131-140.

Altman, A. (2009, April 6). Road to Renewal. Time Magazine, pp.40-45.

Armstrong, D. (2000). A Survey Of Community Gardens in Upstate New York:
Implications for Health Promotion and Community Development. Health and
Place, 6(4), 319-327.

Balmer, K., Gill, J ., Kaplinger, H., Miller, J ., Peterson, M., Rhoads, A., et al. (2005). The
Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority. Retrieved
1 1/14/2007. from
http://www.portlandonline.com/Shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=122587.

Barr, J., Bolen, D., Boyd, K., Conroy, P., Dodwell, V., Dupuis, F ., et al. (2008).
Southlands: A Vision for Agricultural Urbanism [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
4/28/08, from
mpzflwwwsouthlandsintranSition.ca/siteS/southlandsintransition.ca/files/Southlan
dsDesignBrieLOpdf

 

 

118

Bellows, A. C., Brown, K., & Smit, J. (n.d.). Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture: North
American Initiative on Urban Agriculture, Community Food Security Coalition.
Retrieved 11/9/07 from http://www.fOOdsecurig.0rg/UAHealthArticle.pdf

Blair, D., Giesecke, C. C., & Sherman, S. (1991). A Dietary, Social and Economic
Evaluation of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 23(4), 161-167.

Bowman, A. O. M., & Pagano, M. A. (2000). Transforming America's Cities: Policies
and Conditions of Vacant Land. Urban Aflairs Review, 35(4), 559-581.

Brown, K. H., & Carter, A. (2003). Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in
the United States: Farming fi'om the City Center to the Urban Fringe: North
American Urban Agriculture Committee, Community Food Security Coalition.
Retrieved 11/13/07 from http://www.foodsecurity.org/pubs.html#urban_ag

Brown, K. H., & Jameton, A. L. (2000). Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture.
Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(1), 20-39.

Capital Growth. (2008). Mayor Launches Capital Growth to Boost Locally Grown Food
in London. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from
http://wwwcapitalgrowth.org/press/press_releases

City of Detroit. (2008). GIS Maps Homepage. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from
http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/DepartmentS/lnformationTechnOlogvServiceS/GlSMa
ps/tabid/660/Defaultaspx

City of Detroit Planning and Development Department. (2008). City of Detroit
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Plan. Retrieved February 17, 2009. from
http://www.detroitmi.gOV/POrtalS/O/dOCS/planning/pdf/NSP/NSP%ZOSubstantial%
20Amendment%20Submission.pdf

City of Vancouver. (2006). 2, 010 Garden Plots by 2010. Retrieved February 18, 2009.
from http://vancouver.ca/ctvclerk/cclerk/20060530/d0cumentS/m0ti0nb2.pdf

Clayton, S. (2007). Domesticated Nature: Motivations for Gardening and Perceptions of
Environmental Impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 215-224.

Connelly, P., & Ross, C. (2007). Farming the Concrete Jungle. In These Times, 31(9), 20-
24.

Conner, D. S., Knudson, W. A., Hamm, M. W., & Peterson, H. C. (2008). The Food

System as an Economic Driver: Strategies and Applications for Michigan.
Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 3(4), 37 1 -3 83.

119

de Zeeuw, H., Guendel, S., & Waibel, H. (2000). The Integration of Agriculture in Urban
Policies. In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel-Koschella & H. de
Zeeuw (Eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy
Agenda (pp. 161-180). Feldafing, Germany: German Foundation for International
Development.

Deelstra, T., & Girardet, H. (2000). Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Cities. In N. D.
Baker, M.; Guendel, S.; Sabel-Koschella, U.; Zeeuw, H. de (Ed), Growing
Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda (pp. 43-65).
F eldafing, Germany: German Foundation for International Development.

Detroit Vacant Property Campaign. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2009, from
www.detroitvacantproperty.org

Dewar, M. (2006). Selling Tax-Reverted Land. American Planning Association. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 72(2), 167.

Diggs, D. J ., & Winters, M. M. (2008). City of Detroit Neighborhood Stabilization
Program Plan. Retrieved February 17, 2009. from
http://wwwdetroitmi.gov/Portals/O/docs/planning/gdf/NSP/NSP%20Substantial%
20Amendment%20Submission.pdf

Doherty, K., Morris, L., Parham, T., Powers, 8., Schumacher, E., & Wessler, B. (2008).
A Land Use Plan For Brightmoor [Electronic Version]. Retrieved January 20,
2009, from
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/urpoutreachreports/housing community_developme
nt h &mode=single&recordlD=2408151&nextMode=list

Domene, E., & Sauri, D. (2007). Urbanization and Class-produced Natures: Vegetable
Gardens in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region. Geoforum, 38(2), 287-298.

Ellis, F., & Sumberg, J. (1998). Food Production, Urban Areas and Policy Responses.
World Development, 26(2), 213-225.

Farmer, S. (1890). History of Detroit and Wayne County and Early Michigan: A
Chronological Cyclopedia of the Past and Present (3rd ed.). Detroit, MI: Silas
Farmer & Company.

F eenstra, G., McGrew, S., & Campbell, D. (1999). Entrepreneurial Community Gardens:
Growing Food, Skills and Communities (Vol. Publication No. 21587). Oakland,
CA: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Ferris, J ., Norman, C., & Sempik, J. (2001). People, Land and Sustainability: Community

Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development. Social Policy &
Administration, 35(5), 559-568.

120

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996). The State of Food and
Agriculture. Rome: F A0 of the United Nations, Agricultural and Development
Economics Division.

Francis, M. (1990). The Everyday and the Personal: Six Garden Stories. In M. Francis &
J. Randolph T. Hester (Eds.), The Meaning of Gardens: Idea, Place and Action
(pp. 206-215). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Fussman, C. (2008). Health Indicators and Risk Estimates by Community Health
Assessment Regions & Local Health Departments; Michigan Behavioral Risk
Factor Survey 2005-2007 Combined. Retrieved June 17, 2008. from
http://wwwmichigan.gov/documents/mdch/ZOOS-
2007_MiBRFS_RegLHD_Tables_9_17_08_2499l517.0%

Gallagher, J. (2008, December 15). Acres of Barren Blocks Offer Chance to Reinvent
Detroit Detroit Free Press. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from
http://wwwcityfarmer.info/acres-of-barren-blocks—offer-chance-to-reinvent-
detroit/#more-936

Gallagher, M. (2007). Examining the Impact of Food Deserts on Public Health in
Detroit. Chicago, IL: Mari Gallagher Research & Consulting Group.o. Document
Number)

Gamett, T. (1996). Farming the City: The Potential of Urban Agriculture. The Ecologist,
26(6), 299-307.

Gamett, T. (1999). City Harvest: The Feasibility of Growing More Food in London.
London: Sustain.

Glover, T. D. (2003). The Story of the Queen Anne Memorial Garden: Resisting a
Dominant Cultural Narrative. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(2), 190-212.

Glover, T. D. (2004). Social Capital in the Lived Experiences of Community Gardeners.
Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 143-162.

Gopakumar, G., & Hess, D. (2005). Case Study of Community Gardens Detroit, MI.
Retrieved 11/13/2007 from http://www.davidjhess.org/DetroitCG.pdf

Gorchow, Z., & Patton, N. R. (2008, December 18). Detroit News Briefs: Cockrel
Creates Energy Office. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from
http://wwwfreepcom

Gorgolewski, M., Komisar, J ., & Nasr, J. (2009). Carrot City: Designing for Urban

Agriculture. Retrieved January 12, 2009. from
http://www.cityfarmerorg/CarrotCitypdf

121

Graham, 8., & Connell, J. (2006). Nurturing Relationships: The Gardens of Greek and
Vietnamese Migrants in Marrickville, Sydney. Australian Geographer, 37(3),
375.

Gray, K. (2007, December 24). Urban Farmers Take Root: Foreclosed Lots are Being
Turned into Vegetable Plots. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved February 16, 2009,
from http://wwwfreepcom

Hair, M. (2008, August 1). Cash for Carrots: Detroit Youngsters are Earning Money and
Learning to Grow Fruits and Vegetables at the City's Community Gardens.
Detroit Free Press. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.freep.com

 

Hanna, A. K., & Oh, P. (2000). Rethinking Urban Poverty: A Look at Community
Gardens. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20(3), 207-216.

Heynen, N., Perkins, H. A., & Roy, P. (2006). The Political Ecology of Uneven Urban
Green Space: The Impact of Political Economy on Race and Ethnicity in
Producing Environmental Inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aflairs Review, 42(1),
3-25.

Holland, L. (2004). Diversity and Connections in Community Gardens: A Contribution
to Local Sustainability. Local Environment, 9(3), 285 - 305.

Hough, M. (1984). City F arm and Natural Process. London: Routledge.

Howe, J ., Bohn, K., & Viljoen, A. (2005). Food in Time: The History of English Open
Urban Space as a European Example. In A. Viljoen (Ed.), Continuous Productive

Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities (pp. 95-
107). Amsterdam: Architectural Press.

Howe, J ., & Wheeler, P. (1999). Urban Food Growing: The Experience of Two UK
Cities. Sustainable Development, 7(1), 13-24.

Hung, Y. (2004). East New York Farms: Youth Participation in Community

Development and Urban Agriculture. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1),
20-31.

Hynes, H. P. (1996). A Patch of Eden: America's Inner-City Gardeners. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

Hynes, H. P., & Howe, G. (2004). Urban Horticulture in the Contemporary United States:
Personal and Community Benefits. Acta Horticulturae, 643, 171-181.

Irvine, S., Johnson, L., & Peters, K. (1999). Community Gardens and Sustainable Land

Use Planning: A Case-study of the Alex Wilson Community Garden. Local
Environment, 4(1), 33-46.

122

Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities. New York: Random House.

Jeavons, J. (1995). How to Grow More Vegetables: Fruits, Nuts, Berries, Grains and
Other Crops (5th ed.). Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Kaethler, T. M. (2006). Growing Space: The Potential for Urban Agriculture in the City
of Vancouver. Retrieved 11/12/2007. from
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/COMMSVCS/SOCIALPLANNING/initiatives/f
oodpolicy/tools/pdf/Growing_Space_Rpt.pdf.

Kantor, L. S. (1998). A Dietary Assessment of the US. Food Supply: Comparing Per
Capita Food Consumption with Food Guide Pyramid Serving Recommendations
(N o. 772 Agricultural Economic Report). Washington, DC: Food and Rural
Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA.

Kaplan, R. (1973). Some Psychological Benefits of Gardening. Environment and
Behavior, 5(2), 145.

Kaufman, J ., & Bailkey, M. (2000). Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban
Agriculture in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.o. Document Number)

Kaufman, J ., & Bailkey, M. (2001). Farming Inside Cities [Electronic Version]. Land
Lines, 13. Retrieved 10/15/2007, fiom
http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/PubDetail.aspx?pubid=26l

Keil, R. (2003). Urban Political Ecology. Urban Geography, 24(8), 723-738.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (2nd ed.).
London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Lachance, J. D. (2004). Supporting Urban Agriculture: A Proposed Supplement to the
City of Detroit Master Plan of Policies. Unpublished Master of Urban Planning
Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Lam, S. O. (2007). Urban Agriculture in Kingston: Present and Future Potential for Re-
localization and Sustainability. Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.

Maxwell, D., Levin, C., & Csete, J. (1998). Does Urban Agriculture Help Prevent
Malnutrition? Evidence from Kampala. Food Policy, 23(5), 411-424.

McGuire, V. C. (2007, September 2). Replacing Neglect With Peach Trees. The New
York Times. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from ’
http://wwwnytimes.com/2007/09/02/realestate/02nati.html?scp=3&sq=philadclph
ia%20urban%20garden&st=cse

123

McKee, M., & Ortolani, A. (2008, December 8). GM's Bust Turns Detroit Into Urban
Prairie of Vacant-Lot Farms Bloomberg News. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from
http://wwwbloombergcom/ apps/news?pid=20601 lO9&sid=aMV8_J49diKs&ref
er=home

McMillan, T. (2008, May 7). Urban Farmers' Crops Go From Vacant Lot to Market The
New York Times. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/dining/07urban.html?_r=1&scpfi=2&sq=urba
n%20fanners&st=cse

Mendes, W., Balmer, K., Kaethler, T. M., & Rhoads, A. (2008). Using Land Inventories
to Plan for Urban Agriculture Experiences From Portland and Vancouver. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 435-449.

Michigan Geographic Data Library. (n.d.). Center for Geographic Information, Michigan
Department of Information Technology. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from
mj/wwwmichigangov/cgi

 

Michigan State University Extension. (2004). Michigan Availability Guide. Retrieved
July 10, 2008. from
http://www;;rojectfresh.msu.edu/PortalyProLectfreslv’MLAvailability_Guide.pdf

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Moore, S. (2006). Forgotten Roots of the Green City: Subsistence Gardening in
Columbus, Ohio, 1900-1940. Urban Geography, 27(2), 174-192.

Morris, V., & Tapp, C. (2008). Urban Agriculture Design Guidelines for the Private
Realm. Retrieved February 18, 2009. fi'om
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090 l 20/documents/rx243df

Moskow, A. (1999). The Contribution of Urban Agriculture to Gardeners, Their
Households, and Surrounding Communities: The Case of Havana Cuba. In M.
Koc, R. MacRae, L. J. A. Mougeot & J. Welsh (Eds.), For Hunger-Proof Cities
Sustainable Urban Food Systems (pp. 77-83). Ottawa, ON: International
Development Research Centre.

Mougeot, L. J. A. (1993). Overview - Urban Food Self-Reliance: Significance and
Prospects. International Development Research Centre Reports, 21(3).

Mougeot, L. J. A. (2000). Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks.
In N. D. Bakker, Marielle; Guendel, Sabine; Sabel-Koschella, Ulrich; de Zeeuw,
Henk (Ed.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy
Agenda @p. 1-42). Feldafing, Germany: German Foundation for International
Development.

124

Mougeot, L. J. A. (Ed.). (2005). Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental
Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. Ottawa, ON: International Development
Research Centre.

Moustier, P., & Danso, G. (2006). Local Economic Development and Marketing of
Urban Produced Food. In R. van Veenhuizen (Ed.), Cities F arming for the
Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities (pp. 460): RUAF
Foundation, IDRC, IIRR.

Mullinix, K., Henderson, D., Holland, M., Salle, J. (1. 1., Porter, E., & Fleming, P. (2008).
Agricultural Urbanism and Municipal Supported Agriculture: A New Food
System Path for Sustainable Cities. Paper presented at the Surrey Regional
Economic Summit. Retrieved January 25, 2009, fi'om
http://www.cityfarmer.org/agricultural_urbanism.pdf

 

National Agricultural Statistics Service Michigan Field Office. (2006). Michigan
Agricultural Statistics 2005-2006. Retrieved March 4, 2008. from
http://www.nass.usda.gov/StatisticLbytState/Michigan/Publications/Annual_Stat
istical_Bulletin/statsO6/agstat06all.pdf

 

Nugent, R. A. (2000). The Impact of Urban Agriculture on the Household and Local
Economies. In N. D. Bakker, M.; Guendel, S.; Sabel-Koschella, U.; Zeeuw, H. de
(Ed.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda
(pp. 67-97). F eldafing, Germany: German Foundation for International
Development. '

Park, K., & International Center for Urban Ecology (Eds). (2005). Urban Ecology:
Detroit and Beyond. Sheung Wan, Hong Kong: Map Book Publishers.

Patel, 1. C. (1994). Rutgers Urban Gardening: A Study in Cultural Diversity and
Gardening. Horticultural Technology, 4(4), 402-403.

Patel, 1. C. (1996). Rutgers Urban Gardening: A Case Study in Urban Agriculture.
Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 3(3), 35—46.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Peters, C. J ., Bills, N., Wilkins, J ., & Smith, R. D. (2002). Vegetable Consumption,
Dietary Guidelines and Agricultural Production in New York State - Implications
for Local Food Economies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Peters, C. J ., Bills, N., Wilkins, J ., & Smith, R. D. (2003). Fruit Consumption, Dietary

Guidelines, and Agricultural Production in New York State - Implications for
Local Food Economies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

125

Peters, C. J ., Wilkins, J. L., & Ficka, G. W. (2007). Testing a Complete-diet Model for
Estimating the Land Resource Requirements of Food Consumption and
Agricultural Carrying Capacity: The New York State Example. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2), 145-153

Petts, J. (2005). The Economics of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture. In A. Viljoen (Ed.),
Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban Agriculture for
Sustainable Cities (pp. 65-77). Amsterdam: Architectural Press.

Pothukuchi, K. (2003). The Detroit Food System: A Handbook for Community Planners.
Detroit: Wayne State University.

Pothukuchi, K. (2004). Hortaliza: A Youth “Nutrition Garden” in Southwest Detroit.
Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 124-155.

Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (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.

Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (2000). The Food System - A Stranger to the Planning
Field. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 113-124.

Pottharst, K. (1995). Urban Dwellers and Vacant Lots: Partners in Pride. Parks &
Recreation, 30(9), 94.

President of the Philippines Executive Order No. 776. (2009). Rolling Out the Backyard
Food Production Programs in the Urban Areas. Retrieved February 2, 2009. from
http://www.ops.gov.ph/records/issuances-eo/EO776.pdf

Quon, S. (1999). Flaming for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and Strategies for
Urban Planners [Electronic Version]. Cities Feeding People Series Report 28.
Retrieved February 2, 2009, from www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-

S/1073943655 l Report28completeddoc

Rees, W. E. (1997). Why Urban Agriculture? Notes for the IDRC Development Forum
on Cities Feeding People: A Growth Industry [Electronic Version], fi'om
http://www.cityfarmerorg/rees.html#rees

Reynolds, K. (2008, October). North American Urban Ag Alliance Debuts at Conference
on Community Food Security Urban Grown: The Newsletter of the Kansas City
Center for Urban Agriculture. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from
http://www.kccua.org/ug-10-08.htm

Riley, R. (2008, December 25). Detroit Free Press Rochelle Riley column: Detroit Must
Tear Down to Build Up. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from
http://www.freep.com

 

126

Robbins, P. (2004). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.

Roberts, W. (2008, November 26). Looking Beyond the Auto. NOW Toronto. Retrieved
November 26, 2008, from

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=l6619 l

Rosol, M. (2005). Community Gardens - A Potential for Stagnating and Shrinking Cities?
Examples from Berlin. Die Erde, 136(2), 165-178.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.
London: Sage Publications.

Saldivar-Tanaka, L., & Krasny, M. E. (2004). Culturing community development,
neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community
gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 399-412.

Schilling, J ., & Logan, J. (2008). Greening the Rust Belt: A Green Infrastructure Model
for Right Sizing America's Shrinking Cities. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 74(4), 451-466.

Schmelzkopf, K. (1995). Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space. Geographical
Review, 85(3), 364.

Schmelzkopf, K. (2002). Incommensurability, Land Use, and the Right to Space:
Community Gardens in New York City. Urban Geography, 23(4), 323-343.

Schulz, A. J ., Williams, D. R., Israel, B. A., & Lempert, L. B. (2002). Racial and Spatial
Relations as Fundamental Determinants of Health in Detroit. Milbank Quarterly,

80(4).

Shinew, K. J ., Glover, T. D., & Parry, D. C. (2004). Leisure Spaces as Potential Sites for
Interracial Interaction: Community Gardens in Urban Areas. Journal of Leisure
Research, 36(3), 336-355.

Smit, J ., & Nasr, J. (1992). Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities: Using Wastes and

Idle Land and Water Bodies as Resources. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2),
141-152.

Smit, J ., Ratta, A., & Nasr, J. (1996). Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable
Cities. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

Sommers, P., & Smit, J. (1994). Promoting Urban Agriculture: A Strategy Framework
for Planners in North America, Europe and Asia [Electronic Version]. Cities
Feeding People Report Series 9. Retrieved 11/12/2007, from www.idrc.ca/cfp

 

127

Stohr, K. (2003). In the Capital of the Car, Nature Stakes a Claim The New York Times.
Retrieved February 17, 2009, from
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E6DAl63DF937A35751C1
A9659C 8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=l

Swyngedouw, E., & Heynen, N. C. (2003). Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the
Politics of Scale. Antipode, 35(5), 898-918.

Twiss, J ., Dickinson, J ., Duma, S., Kleinman, T., Paulsen, H., & Rilveria, L. (2003).
Community Gardens: Lessons Learned fi'om California Healthy Cities and
Communities. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1435-1438.

US. Census Bureau American Fact Finder. (2006). 2006 American Community Survey;
Detroit city, Michigan; Age and Sex. Retrieved June 26, 2008. from
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=v&-context=st&-
C1r_name=AC S_2006_EST_G00_SO l 0 l &-ds_name=AC S_2006_EST_G00_&-
tree_id=306&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=16000U82622000&-
fomrat=&-_lang=en.

US. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. (2005). My
Pyramid Food Intake Patterns Retrieved January 5, 2009. fi'om
http://www.mypyramidgov/downloads/MyPyramid_Food_1ntake_Pattems.pdf.

US. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2003). Fruit and Tree Nut
Yearbook Data Archive. Retrieved March 4, 2008. from
http://usdamannlib.comell.edu/MannUsda/viewStaticPage.do?ur1=http://usda.ma
nnlib.comell.edu/usda/ers/./89022/2004/index.html.

US. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2008). Loss Adjusted Food
Availability. Retrieved June 26, 2008. from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/ToodGuideIndex.htm.

US. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2008). Food Buying Guide
for Child Nutrition Programs. Retrieved January 6, 2009. from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/TN/Resources/foodbuyingguide.html.

United Nations. (2004). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision. New York:
Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division.

Viljoen, A. (Ed.). (2005). Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban
Agriculture for Sustainable Cities Amsterdam: Architectural Press

Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., & Howe, J. (2005). More Food With Less Space: Why Bother? In

A. Viljoen (Ed.), Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban
Agriculture for Sustainable Cities (pp. 19-31). Amsterdam: Architectural Press.

128

Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J ., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing Urban
Health: Community Gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion
International 22(2), 92-101

Waliczek, T. M., Mattson, R. H., & Zajicek, J. M. (1996). Benefits of Community
Gardening on Quality—of-Life Issues. Journal of Environmental Horticulture,
14(4), 204-209.

Warner, S. B. (1987). T o Dwell is to Garden, A History of Boston 's Community Gardens.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Wells, M. (2008, July 10). Urban Farming Takes Root in Detroit BBC News. Retrieved
July 17, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-
/l/hi/world/americas/7495717.stm

Zandstra, B., & Price, H. (1988). Yields of Michigan Vegetable Crops. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.

Zenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., James, S. A., Bao, S. M., & Wilson, M. L.
(2005). Neighborhood Racial Composition, Neighborhood Poverty, and the

Spatial Accessibility of Supermarkets in Metropolitan Detroit. American Journal
of Public Health, 95(4), 660-667.

Zenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., James, S. A., Bao, S. M., & Wilson, M. L.
(2006). Fruit and Vegetable Access Differs by Community Racial Composition

and Socioeconomic Position in Detroit, Michigan. Ethnicity & Disease, 16(1),
275-280.

129

1111111111

'3

.1111

 

111]];