History of Philadelphia Community Gardening

Although Philadelphia has participated in had roots in urban gardening and

farming since the l890s, it is only recently that these projects have started to be viewed as

long-term, sustainable urban practices. Beginning with the Vacant Lot Cultivation

Association (VLCA) in 1897, Philadelphia residents began urban farming as a way to

gain access to locally grown food. The primary focus of the VLCA was for local

residents to have access to cheap foods during the depression era of the 1890s (Goldstein,

1997; Lawson, 2004; Vitello, 2009). The VLCA provided access to land on empty lots in

promotion of for-profit food gardens that also provided education on gardening to

children (Goldstein, 1997; Vitello, 2009). These lots, approximately 27 acres, produced

$61 of food per lot and every dollar put into the lots yielded a $3 return (Spears, Lindsay,

& Kirkbride, 1898, pg. ). The depression period began to subside and the gardens

became a hobbyist activity (Lawson, 2009). While VLCAs were instituted in other

places such as New York and Detroit, the Philadelphia VLCA was unique because it

lasted well into the 1920s (Lawson, 2004).

The US involvement in World War I also played a pivotal role in the development

of urban farms. Vitello (2009) argues that because food (as well as other products) was

scarce, people depended upon localized urban gardens. Relatedly, Lawson (2004) argues

that the government promoted community gardens to allow for the exportation of food

into the war effort in Europe. The community gardens also helped support local

neighborhoods through the Great Depression, but lacked overall support until the

“Victory Gardens” during WWII. As in the earlier conflict, this was in an effort to

decrease national demand for food in order to support the war abroad (Lawson, 2004).

For example, posters by the USDA depicted families working in gardens with slogans

like “Uncle Sam says: ‘Garden to cut food costs’” (United States Department of

Agriculture, 1917) and “Plant a victory garden: our food is fighting: a garden will make

your rations go further” ("United States, Office of War Information, 1943). These

Victory Gardens supplied a large percentage of food for households and one of these

gardens still exist in Philadelphia today (Vitello, 2009).

During the 1950s and 60s support started to wane for urban farms, but then began

to refocus, specifically in Philadelphia, during the 1970s. Philadelphia’s economy was

dependent upon industry and during the 1970s, 100,0000 manufacturing jobs were lost

and Philadelphia’s population decreased, leading to vacant properties and derelict land

(Vitello, 2009). In 1974, the Philadelphia Horticultural Society’s (PHS) “Philadelphia

Green Program” was a grassroots campaign initiated to claim these lots in an effort to

beautify neighborhoods by growing vegetables (Philadelphia Horticultural Society,

2011). While the PHS provided access to land, compost, and fencing, the Penn State

Urban Gardening Program (a 6-city USDA program in 1977) provided technical training

and seeds to potential urban farmers (Vitello, 2009).

These two programs along with a handful of others led to over 500 lots in

Philadelphia that were actively growing food. Vitello’s (2009) research study shows that

during this time, almost $2 million of vegetable crops were being produced per year.

Even with the modest success of the PHS and Penn State, in 1996, the USDA cut funding

for urban programs while PHS simultaneously shifted funds away gardening initiatives

(Vitello, 2009). Due to the lack of funding, coupled with Philadelphia’s high demand for

real estate, almost half of the community gardens had ceased to exist by 2000 (Vitello,

2009). While the City of Philadelphia acquired some of this land through its

Neighborhood Transformation Initiative (NTI) for redevelopment, private development

increased as neighborhoods changed (including Powelton Village, Northern Liberties,

and Queen’s Village) and became more affluent. In other circumstances, many of these

gardens were simply abandoned due as the older generation passed away, people

relocated out of the city, or as their life situations changed (Vitiello, 2009).

In 2003, the city’s NTI program, the main program responsible for revitalizing

neighborhoods in Philadelphia, adopted the Green City Strategy – “reclaiming vacant

land, community greening, and long-term landscape management” (PHS, 2011) - and

granted a $4 million contract to PHS to begin its implementation (Pennsylvania

Horticultural Society Launching the Green City Strategy). In 2010, the City of

Philadelphia released the Vacant Land Management Report that consists of over 40,000

properties (Econsult Corporation and Penn Institute for Urban Research, 2010) while the

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS) continues its “The Green City Strategy,” which

“promotes the enhancement of community gardens… to teach gardening skills to city

residents and funds from NTI will support the creation of 20 new community gardens”

(PHS, 2011) to revitalize the city - both socially and economically. The cooperation

between PHS and the city reflects the growing importance of “green,” sustainable

initiatives within the city.

Outlined in Section 3 of the Greenworks Philadelphia, Target 10 is to Bring Local

Food within 10 Minutes of 75% of Local Residents. Due to strong interest in local food

initiatives, in 2008, Mayor Michael Nutter created the Philadelphia Food Charter. The

goal of this charter is to

facilitate the development of a sustainable city food and urban agriculture system—one that contributes to community, economic, health and environmental goals; encourages local production, protecting our natural and human resources; recognizes access to safe, sufficient, culturally appropriate and nutritious food as a basic right for all Philadelphians; fosters community gardens and farming; creates economic opportunities for neighborhood residents; encourages collaboration and builds upon the efforts of existing stakeholders throughout the city and region; and celebrates Philadelphia’s multicultural food traditions.” (p. 51)

The Mayor has also established a Food Policy Council that will create a

Sustainable Food Policy Plan in which the City will work with partners to achieve many

local food initiatives together. The initiatives under Greenworks Philadelphia Target 10

are as follows:

• Increase Access to Fresh Food: expand the number of neighborhood farmers markets, publicize local food source efforts, provide technical assistance, leverage vacant land, foster school-based efforts,• The City call for the creation of an additional 59 food producing gardens, 12 farms and 15 farmers’ markets (a map on page 53 of the Greenworks document shows neighborhoods that lack access to fresh food)• Create Demand for Locally Grown Foods: foster commercial farming, encourage distribution of healthy food in neighborhood stores, support food cooperative expansion• Entrepreneurship and Workforce Development Opportunity and Needs: support green kitchen development• Combating Hunger and More Immediate Needs: create and urban agriculture workforce strategy to grow green jobs, integrate anti-hunger efforts into food and urban agriculture goals.

Philadelphia today has close to 240 urban gardens that produce food and fourteen

large-scale urban farms (Hunold & Traveline, 2010). In fact, many people within the city

now see community gardens as a way to manage vacant land and develop a “greener,”

more environmentally-friendly city.

Authors such as Michael Pollan have brought national attention to the food

industry. Pollan argues in “The Omnivores Dilemma” and “Food Rules: An Eater's

Manual" that the modern industrial food system disconnects the consumer from the food

they consume and that policies need to shift toward a locally produced agricultural model

(Pollan, 2007, 2009). Along with Philadelphia, other urban areas are increasing the

number of farms that are located on vacant lots. Scholars Colassanti, Litjens, and Hamm

(2010) of Michigan State University surveyed Detroit, Michigan in 2009, using a GIS

system and aerial imagery, and found over 31,000 vacant lots totaling more then 3,500

acres. These scholars argue that farming fruits and vegetables on 1,660 acres could

produce up to 76 percent of vegetables and 45 percent of fruit for Detroit’s citizens

(Colassanti, Litjens, and Hamm, 2010).

The increase in urban farming in Detroit led to the creation of the Detroit

Agriculture Network (2011), a collaborative effort by The Greening of Detroit, Detroit

Agriculture Network, EarthWorks Urban Farm/Capuchin Soup Kitchen, and Michigan

State University that connects over 185 business and hundreds of individuals. This

network offers a broad range of information including how to start a garden, current

funding options, upcoming events, education and job opportunities, and a guide that

displays the area restaurants that buy local produce (Detroit Agriculture Network –

date? ). This grassroots movement has begun to affect Detroit’s food policies. On March

18, 2010, the City Planning Commission released its draft proposal that outlines a

twenty-point plan to foster sustainable food practices using the triple-bottom-line

approach (economic, environmental, and social and health)(Detroit City Planning

Commission, 2010).

Health

In the U.S., access to adequate nutrition is not distributed equitably among all

people. As the result of an uneven degree of access to adequate nutrition, negative health

outcomes and diet related disease are becoming increasingly prevalent. Access is an

important component to study because there is both a literal lack of access to necessary

nutrition, as well as a lack of access due to the perception of inadequacy, which can also

be paired with a limited knowledge of nutrition. Limited nutritional access is a growing

health issue that has developed into a national public health problem.

In the public health field, a paradigm shift has occurred over time which has

required a move from focusing primarily on infectious diseases to learning how to

address more chronic health problems. Chronic health problems are often a relation to

diet and nutrition (Mead, 2008). Cases of Type 2 diabetes are on an unprecedented rise

among various age groups, cardiovascular disease is a major threat, and other issues

associated with diet related health outcomes are becoming increasingly prevalent

(Beaulac, Kristjansson, & Cummins, 2009). Many of these chronic diseases are a

consequence of diets limited in fruit, vegetable, and fiber consumption, and high in fats,

sugars, and processed starches (Mead, 2008). Chronic diseases are very expensive to

treat (on an individual as well as a national basis), and once developed they may continue

to become more severe throughout the patient’s life. They are the leading causes of death

and disability in the U.S. (CDC, 2010). However, chronic diseases are for the most part

preventable through healthy lifestyles (Costello, Healey, & McGowan, 2007).

As an example of a diet-related chronic disease, type 2 diabetes and its complicating

factors are a growing health problem and thus it is “imperative that greater understanding

of the prevention and treatment strategies for this pandemic be developed” (Unger &

Moriarty, 2008, p. 646). Unger and Moriarty (2008) proceed to further explain why two

unprecedented historical changes in developed society have converged to create an

environment perfect for the rise of type 2 diabetes. The first factor is that, in the last half

century, eating and food preparation have transitioned from taking place primarily in the

home to outside the home; thus many people now eat out more than they prepare food for

themselves (2008). The second factor is that at the same time, with the shift from a

production/manufacturing based economy to a more technologically based one; lifestyles

have become much more sedentary (2008).

Carnethon (2008) supports this assessment, describing how the health behaviors

of becoming sedentary and eating excessively high calorie foods has contributed to

“energy imbalance and weight gain” (p. 942). These two occurrences have set the stage

for an environment that lends itself quite well to an increase in a disease such as type 2

diabetes. For many people the elevated risk of type 2 diabetes is the result of inadequate

nutrition. This is not necessarily inadequate nutrition in the sense of not having food, but

rather in terms of not having the ‘right’ foods, or the understanding of what to do with the

‘right’ foods.

As the result of limited access to foods that promote a healthier diet, people

suffering from chronic disease do not always have the ability to adhere to their

recommended diets and may get trapped in a cycle of unhealthy eating contributing to

their disease outcome (Smith & Morton, 2009). Access to nutritious foods is an

important factor in helping to stave off health problems such as these, but physical access

must also be paired with knowledge. Unless the understanding among people of how to

prepare healthy foods is correspondingly increased along with improved physical access,

then consumption of healthier foods will not necessarily occur. Therefore, knowledge

could be argued to be a branch under an overall definition of access. If people do not

have access to appropriate nutrition whether because of real and/or perceived barriers,

then the rates of aforementioned diet-related health problems are likely to continue

increasing.

In 2001, the US Department of Human Services argued that within the US,

healthy foods were not accessible and the public relied on a variety of snack foods,

sugary beverages, fast-foods, and other types of food that were high in sugar, fat, and

calories (USDHHS, 2001; Cohen & Farley, 2008). Scholars argue that increasing healthy

foods would decrease the risk for chronic diseases, high-blood pressure, some cancers,

obesity, and other health isuues, especially in low-income communities (Pi-Sunyer, 2002;

Moreland, 2006; Blanck et al., 2007). The consumption of healthy foods, such as fruits

and vegetables, within low-income minority communities is disproportionally lower than

in middle-class Caucasian communities (Blanck et al., 2007).

Fruit and vegetable consumption data indicate people with low-income levels or

people in racial and ethnic minority communities eat fewer fruits and vegetables than the

general population (Blanck et al., 2007). These communities lack grocery stores and

other alternatives for fresh and healthy foods while relying on corner stores that sell

convenient or tertiary processed foods that are shelf stable for long periods of time

(Mikkelson et al., 2007). Recent study results showed that in neighborhoods with lower

incomes the distance to the nearest chain supermarket increased with a higher proportion

of African Americans, but remained similar across race in the affluent neighborhoods

(Zenk et al., 2005b). These neighborhood residents also may lack transportation to and

from the healthy food locations, especially carrying multiple bags of groceries. (Clifton,

2004)

Community gardens are effective ways to provide access and increase fruit and

vegetable consumption within local neighborhoods. While providing access to healthy

foods, gardens also provide additional benefits such as connecting families and

neighbors, beautifying neighborhoods, and promoting health (Althaus Ottman, 2010).

Other scholars show how gardens reduce crime (Armstrong, 2000), promote

neighborhood participation (Teig, 2009), improve mental health, nutrition, physical

activity, and increase social capital (Wakefield, 2007).

Land Rights and Social Capital

One of the most significant challenges facing the expansion of community

gardens is access to land, particularly because many organizations have little to no

resources to obtain land by legal means. As mentioned above, Philadelphia currently has

several thousand vacant lots; in the 19104 zipcode, there are almost 800 vacant lots

totaling two square miles of land with no building structures (Data from Vacant Land

Report). In these lots, gardens are beginning to become popular. Often times,

neighborhood gardens are started on empty, vacant lots where either the city or an

absentee owner owns the lot, making the sustainability of the garden uncertain. Since

gardeners plan their crops often months ahead of time, communities may be hesitant to

begin gardens or lack security in regards to these crops, especially in areas that are

transitioning or gentrifying (Holland, 2004). While city officials may have supported

(directly or indirectly) gardens in the past, city officials often support development over

community gardens (Schmelzkopf, 1995). The most successful, long-term gardens are

due to cooperation between the neighborhood, city officials, local churches, schools, and

non-profit organizations that secure land rights for the gardens while developing other

programs such as after-school programs, food banks, and other activities in coordination

with the gardens (Schmelzkopf, 1995).

Land rights are critical to the long-term success of community gardens, but other

resources such as community connections and neighborhood skills and knowledge are

also instrumental in the success of community gardens (Glover, 2005). Glover (2005)

argues that the more connected the neighborhood garden is to the community it serves,

the more likely potential participants are willing to engage in providing support – both

financial and in regards to day-to-day operations – for the garden.

These resources are valuable to community gardens not only for the amount of

fruits and vegetable produced, but in marketing, fundraising, and hosting of events that

connect the garden to the community. The garden becomes more than a garden, but a

space for community to gather, meet, make friends, and develop the neighborhood

(Glover, 2005). In neighborhoods that are diverse in population, gardens also have the

potential to serve as a bridge for bringing together people; however, some studies have

shown that participation may be reduced in cases where the racial makeup of those seen

to be running the garden differs from that of neighborhood residents (Glover, 2004).

The literature suggests that community gardens increase the social aspects of a

community and the more social the garden, the more people are likely to get and remain

involved (Glover et al., 2005; Kingsley & Townsend, 2006). Kingsley and Townsend

(2006) show the daily and weekly relationships lead people to developing stronger ties to

the neighborhood. Community gardens are also shown to decrease crime and revitalize

neighborhoods and many neighborhoods start gardens to assist with these two areas

(Glover, 2005). Community gardens, therefore, can act as a source of local control over

existing institutions such as police and the cooperation between neighborhood members,

non-profits, and institutions both enabling and stemming from the garden also gives the

neighborhood legitimacy (Glover, 2004).

GIS and FOOD DESERTS

The literature regarding food accessibility frequently discusses the negative

impacts of ‘food deserts’. A food desert is a description used to indicate an area that has

limited access to healthier, more affordable foods (Larsen K. G., 2008). The impact of

food deserts helps to demonstrate the role that the built environment (the features of a

person’s habitat that are created by people and are not naturally occurring) plays in how

people obtain food (Papas, Alberg, Ewing, Helzlsouer, Gary, & Klassen, 2007). Whether

certain foods are available or not is a feature of the built environment and has a

considerable contribution towards the development of eating habits, termed the “social

patterning of food availability” (Papas, Alberg, Ewing, Helzlsouer, Gary, & Klassen,

2007, p. 141).

This “social patterning of food availability” is evidence of the structural inequities

that are found in the distribution and type of food stores that are available among

different neighborhoods (Papas, et al., 2007, p. 141; Beaulac, Kristjansson, & Cummins,

2009). In an astute observation of how the environment can have an effect on nutrition,

Webber, Sobal, and Dollahite write about some of their study participants as “living in an

environment where pizzas but not groceries can be home delivered” (2010, p. 301).

Access to proper nutrition has previously been examined in terms of the ability of

residents to easily get to various types of food stores, ranging from healthier

supermarkets and health food stores to fast food restaurants.

In their study of the ability of New York City residents to walk to food

establishments, Rundle et al. found that the ratio of health food establishments to

unhealthy ones was 4:31 per square kilometer (2009). Similarly, an observational study

performed in Texas evaluated the types of healthy food establishments that were

available in two rural communities, which agreed that a greater number of food stores

they found had more unhealthy than healthy options (Bustillos, Sharkey, Anding, &

McIntosh, 2009). Thus far, there have been attempts to deal with the effects of poor diets

through programs aimed at individual participants learning about nutrition, and then

making the appropriate changes in their lives. However, unless an analysis of their food

environment is also taken into account, they will be limited in how much of a change

they can actually make (Sallis & Glanz, 2009).

The development of food deserts has occurred alongside the movements of

populations from living in cities to living in the suburbs. As people with enough means

were able to buy cars, they also started to move away from the cities and grocery stores

moved with them to continue serving their needs. As these stores moved to less

populated areas, they were able to buy larger tracts of land at lower prices, therefore they

could expand their stores (Larsen & Gilliland, 2008). As these stores became capable of

carrying almost everything that was needed, smaller stores were put out of business as

they were not able to compete. As a result, “spatial inequalities in access to supermarkets

ha[s] increased over time” (Mead, 2008, p. A335). There are now areas found in cities

that do not have grocery stores but instead have to rely on convenience stores (small

markets with a limited number of products) which tend to sell higher energy/calorie foods

and less quality produce (Rundle A. , et al., 2009). Cities have not been affected

throughout though, as more affluent areas within cities continue to have good value

grocery stores (2009). The grocery stores followed their customers with the largest

financial base as this allowed them to increase profits (Larsen & Gilliland, 2008).

Though the term food desert can be argued with because areas within cities are not

completely lacking of places to buy food, it is more indicative of the fact that there is

limited ability to buy foods that help to promote a healthy diet and lifestyle.

With the release of the Vacant Land Management Report, Philadelphia has an

opportunity to promote more localized food production while increasing social capital

and growth within economically disadvantaged urban neighborhoods. Many of these

properties are currently being sold for less than $10 (Econsult Corporation and Penn

Institute for Urban Research, 2010). A GIS system, such as ArcGIS, coupled with

mobile mapper devices that can ascertain pictures and geocode the information, can show

what neighborhoods these lots are in, show the quality of the lots (soil, pavement, trash,

etc), and also quantify the potential for new urban gardens and the amount of crops they

can produce.

Scholars such as Dmochowski and Cooper from the University of Pennsylvania

recently began a research study in December of 2010 titled “Using Multispectral Analysis

in GIS to Model the Potential for Urban Agriculture in Philadelphia” that will locate,

code, and assist “city planners, entrepreneurs, community leaders, and citizens [to]

understand how urban agriculture can contribute to creating a sustainable food system in

a major North American city” (Dmochowski & Cooper, 2010). While Dmochowski and

Cooper are seeking to find how geotagging vacant lots can improve the Philadelphia

urban agriculture systems, other areas such as Hanoi, Vietnam have already completed

this process. In a study by authors Thapa and Murayama (2007) they showed how GIS

can evaluate soil, land use patterns, road accessibility, water availability, and market

accessibility to demonstrate what areas are feasible for urban agriculture and provide a

framework for government officials to dedicate certain areas to agriculture, while

utilizing other spaces for alternative ideas.

A centralized GIS also allows for is the ability to compare the saturation of

healthy and unhealthy food options within a specified proximity of an area and determine

which areas are in need of access to healthy foods. A study by Larsen and Gilliland

(2008) calculated the impact urban gardens and farms have on local residents. The study

showed that residents of degenerative inner-city neighborhoods have the poorest access

to supermarkets. As well as mapping access to foods, a GIS system can help lower costs

associated with transportation and other energy efforts. The average supermarket

produce traveled, on average, 150 miles before reaching the refrigerator and then another

five before landing in a household (Future of Food, 2004). A localized GIS system that

links supermarkets, farmers market, CSAs, gardens, and farms can lower this number to

less than 25 miles (Future of Food, 2004)

Knowledge of Nutrition

Another component of the problem of nutritional access is that there is a gap

between what is actually recommended in dietary guidelines, and the perception of what

those guidelines mean. In an examination of mothers’ interpretations of healthy eating

recommendations, one participant stated “saturates, polyunsaturates. What’s that? It’s

just a word unless you know what they actually mean” (Wood, Robling, Prout,

Kinnersley, Houston, & Butler, 2010, p. 54). It was discovered that if the participants of

this study perceived their diets to be in accordance with recommendations, then they

would not be likely to make changes, whether they were accurate or not. The researchers

determined that “knowledge of nutrition was superficial, however, and the discussion

rarely went beyond an acknowledgment that fruit and vegetables were healthy food”

(2010, p. 53). There still was a lack of understanding as to why these foods were

healthier options, or what specific health benefits they offered. This example supports

the necessity of a multifaceted approach in making dietary change. Creating an

appropriate food environment, where healthy foods are available is only part of the goal;

knowledge needs to be addressed as well.

In a paper titled “Interviews with Low-Income Pennsylvanians Verify a Need to

Enhance Eating Competence” by Jodi Stotts Krall, PhD and Barbara Lohse, PhD, they

reported that “convenience, mood, family, and availability of food at home, but not

nutrition were salient factors guiding meal and snack planning” for the participants they

worked with (2009, p. 468). This indicates that methods for spreading the importance of

eating healthy and the importance of good nutrition are lacking as the message is not

being received or comprehended by all.

In a systematic review of the effectiveness of community efforts to increase the

consumption of produce, researchers discovered that the best interventions for this

purpose were those that were multi-pronged and delivered very coherent messages about

the importance of fruit and vegetable consumption (Ciliska, et al., 2000). In using a

multi-pronged approach, interventions were found to be more effective when there was a

greater focus on behavior change rather than just increasing knowledge (2000).

However, even with a multi-pronged approach, if participants do not have access to the

appropriate foods, or an awareness of how to find and prepare foods, interventions will be

hindered in their success.

If individuals are limited in their knowledge of nutrition, it has been found that

even with informational labeling on food products, healthier options will not always be

selected. For instance: the more familiar someone is with a nutrient (like vitamin C), the

more likely they will be to identify an associated health benefit from that nutrient and the

food that claims to contain it (Lin, 2008). This person may be more likely to buy orange

juice (especially bearing a label that boasts of its vitamin C content) when they are sick

because of the fairly ubiquitous information about how vitamin C helps to fend off colds.

Conversely, the same person may not purchase a lesser known food item that contains a

nutrient that is more unfamiliar to them even if the nutrient is explained on the food label.

The sometimes confusing world of diet and health related messages may be a

contributing factor to this occurrence.

Even among those exposed to health messages, there can be limitations to full

comprehension by their viewers. In a population of mostly middle-aged, married,

immigrant black men there was consensus that eating produce could lead to health

benefits. However, no participants were able to describe a specific health benefit gained

from consuming produce, and therefore perhaps did not see the benefits as sufficiently

outweighing the perceived barriers like cost, restricted availability, and the potential need

for preparation (Wolf, et al., 2008). Information containing the actual benefits of

including fruits and vegetables in a daily diet had not adequately been absorbed or

understood by the participant population. This theme was present throughout the

literature, and it indicates that most people have some sense of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ and

‘healthy’ versus ‘unhealthy,’ though it can often be a vague understanding. Without

sufficient nutrition education people cannot know what steps to take to make the best

behavioral changes (Unger & Moriarty, 2008).

Confusing and Contradictory Messages

Due to the ever-present nature of advertising and health messages these days,

people are growing skeptical of what information they can actually trust. Trends in

recommended health behaviors change frequently enough to warrant uncertainty; are

people supposed to eat bread or not? What about margarine? As the researchers O’Key

and Hugh-Jones explain, “making good dietary choices for one’s family, at least in ways

that are consonant with advice and information, [is] construed as a minefield for mothers,

and as a futile, if not risky, endeavour” (2010, p. 527). When seemingly mixed messages

are presented to the public concerning what is and is not appropriately nutritious, and is

paired with a potentially limited knowledge it can lead to what Wood and colleagues

present as a reason for non-adherence to dietary advice (2010). The authors state that

individuals may not perceive their diets to be unhealthy because of the potential

misinterpretation of dietary information (Wood, et al., 2010). One of the findings from

the 5 A Day for Better Health campaign was that for programs to be effective, their

health promotion messages needed to be specific with a limited capacity for

misinterpretation (Havas, et al., 1998).

Knowledge about food is often learned through advertisements and marketing.

Food products are marketed to consumers in many different ways and can be highly

influential. When people are inundated with advertisements for certain foods, then those

foods may be what they begin to eat. Research has found that the excess consumption of

high calorie foodstuffs can be influenced by advertisements that contribute to an

obesigenic, or obesity prevalent, environment; through heavy marketing, eating certain

ways or certain foods can become normative (Grier & Kumanyika, 2008; Yancey, et al.,

2009). Thus, if the only foods that are marketed to people are unhealthy ones, then the

diets of those people are likely to be unhealthier. This saturation of neighborhoods with

unhealthy food messages and marketing may be viewed as barrier to the development of

healthier eating practices (Grier & Kumanyika, 2008).

Reference:

Appeaning Addo K. (2010). Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Developing Countries Studied using Remote Sensing and In SituMethods. Remote Sensing. 2(2): 497-513.

Beaulac, J., Kristjansson, E., Cummins, S., Epub June 15 2009. A systematic review of food deserts, 1966–2007. Preventing Chronic Disease.

Cannuscio, C., Weiss, E.E., Asch, D.A., 2010. The contribution of urban foodways to health disparities. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 87 (3), 381–390.

Cyzman, D., Wierenga, J., & Sielawa, J. (2009). Pioneering healthier communities, West Michigan: A community response to the food environment. Health Promotion Practice, 10, 146S-155S.

Detroit City Planning Commission. (2010). Urban Agriculture Policy for Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved from: www.detroitagriculture.org/GRP_Website/Home_files/uaw_official_UrbanAgPolicyDraft1-1.pdf

Dmochowski, J. E.; Cooper, W. (2010). Using Multispectral Analysis in GIS to Model the Potential for Urban Agriculture in Philadelphia. Retrieved from: http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2010AGUFM.B33C0421D

Econsult Corporation and Penn Institute for Urban Research. (2010). “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia—The Costs of the Current System and the Benefits of Reform.” Urban Agriculture and Land Use Policy.

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, 143-162.

Glover, T. D., Parry, D. C., & Shinew, K. J. (2005). Building relationships, accessing resources: Mobilizing social capital in community garden contexts. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 450-474.

Goldstein, Libby J. (2007). “Philadelphia’s Community Garden History.” Retrieved from: http://www.cityfarmer.org/Phillyhistory10.html. City Farmer, Canada’s Office of Urban Agriculture.

Holland, L. (2004). Diversity and connections in community gardens: A contribution to local sustainability. Local Environment, 9(3), 285-305.

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.

Just, D., & Zilberman, D. (September/October 2002). “Information Systems in Agriculture”, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, ARE Update. 6(1).

(www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/outreach/update_articles/v6n1_2.pdf)

Kingsley, J. Y., & Townsend, M. (2006). “Dig in” to social capital: Community gardens as mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), 525-537.

Larsen, K, Gilliland, J. (2008). "Mapping the evolution of 'food deserts' in a Canadian city." International Journal of Health Geographics 7(16).

Lawson, Laura. (2004). The Planner in the Garden: A Historical View into the Relationship between Planning and Community Gardens. Journal of Planning History, 3(2): 151-176.

Onwueme I., Borsari B., & Filho W. L. (2008): An analysis of some paradoxes in alternative agriculture and a vision of sustainability for future food systems. Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology. 7(3): 199-210.

Philadelphia Horticultural Society. (2011). City Harvest. Retrieved from: http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/city-harvest.html

Philadelphia Horticultural Society. (2011). Philadelphia Green. Retrieved from: http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/index.html

Pickett, S., Cadenasso M., Grove, J., Nilon, C., Pouyat, R. (2001). Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socio-economic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecology Systems, 32:127–57

Singh, M., Singh, P., & Singh, S. (2008). Decision support system for farm management, Proc World Acad Sci Eng Technol, 29:346–349.

Speirs, F., Lindsay, S., & and Kirkbride, F. (1898). "Vacant- Lot Cultivation," Charities Review, 8:74-107. Retrieved from: http://www.archive.org/stream/vacantlotcultiva00speiuoft/vacantlotcultiva00speiuoft_djvu.txt

Stevenson, G.W., et al., (2007). Warrior, builder, and weaver work: strategies for changing the food system. In: C.C. Hinrichs and T.A. Lyson, eds. Remaking the North American food system: strategies for sustainability. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 33–62.

Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J. A., & Litt, J. S. (2009). Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health and Place, 15, 1115-1122.

Urban Partners. (2007). Farming in Philadelphia: feasibility analysis and next steps; executive summary [online]. Institute for Innovations in Local Farming. Retrieved from:

http://www.spinfarming.com/common/pdfs/STF_inst_for_innovations_exec_summary_dec07.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (1917). Uncle Sam Poster. Retrieved from: http://www.cityfarmer.org/

United States Office of War Information. (1943). Plant a Victory Garden. Retrieved from: http://www.cityfarmer.org/

Vitiello, D. and Nairn, M., (2009). Community gardening in Philadelphia: 2008 harvest Report. Retrieved on January 25, 2012 from: http://sites.google.com/site/harvestreportsite/philadelphia-report

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.

Zenk, S.N., Schulz, A.J., Israel, B.A., James, S.A., Bao, S., Wilson, M.L., 2005. Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. American Journal of Public Health 95, 660–667.

Zenk, S.N., Powell, L.M., 2008. US secondary schools and food outlets. Health & Place 14, 336–346.