1

Creating a local food map for KU and Lawrence Community

Feng Zhang, Ruth Story, Courtney Bell, Emily Wilcox, Gina Beebe, James Potter, Amy Thompson, Rachel Richmond, and Yanjun Chen

2

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 4

What does “local food” really mean? ................................................................................................ 4

Local Food Market Typology .............................................................................................................. 6

Benefits of Local Food Markets .......................................................................................................... 6

Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Map................................................................................................................................................... 13

Website & Brochure ......................................................................................................................... 14

Results .................................................................................................................................................. 19

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Spatial Analysis of the Map Created through ArcGIS ....................................................................... 22

The Google Map as an Informational Hub ....................................................................................... 23

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 24

Contributions ........................................................................................................................................ 25

References ............................................................................................................................................ 27

3

Abstract

The goal of this project is to inform the University of Kansas community, as well as the

greater Lawrence community, about the local food system and increase awareness and

accessibility of local foods. This is accomplished by the creation of a map of local food

opportunities available online and in print. This map includes farmers markets, community

gardens, local farms, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) drop off sites, grocery stores that

carry local foods, and restaurants that source local foods. The map is shared through an

informative brochure to be given out during orientation and educational events, and an

interactive website. These outlets provide people information about the numerous benefits of

buying local food. These objectives are meant to encourage a future CSA drop off on campus.

Introduction

In many ways this project is a part of a bigger initiative by the KU Student Farm and

other food-related groups at the University of Kansas and in the Lawrence community; an

initiative geared toward expanding, strengthening and sustaining the local food system. The

Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project (“Growing”) has developed four key pillars to

successfully build and boost local food economies. The first of the four pillars is “Generate

Awareness and Demand”, and that is what we hope to do with this project (“Growing”). The

creation of a local food map is directly generating awareness and has the potential to indirectly

generate demand. By making the information about Lawrence’s local food opportunities more

available and easily accessible through an interactive online map, there is potential for a greater

demand for these opportunities.

Lawrence, KS is full of opportunities to engage in the local food system. This is a special

area in Kansas and it deserves recognition for its limitless opportunities. Lawrence is home to

Kansas’ first and currently only Food Policy Council. The Douglas County Food Policy council

is concerned with the local food system of Lawrence, Douglas County and the surrounding areas.

The council serves as a forum for important discussion and coordination for community-wide

4

efforts to improve the community’s access to local food (“2013 Annual”) Lawrence is also home

to a cooperative grocer that sources almost entirely local food, more than 20 community gardens

and four farmer’s markets, even one that is year-round. If that isn’t enough, a Lawrencian can

find urban gardens and farms scattered throughout the city and along the edges with U-Pick and

volunteer opportunities. It only made sense to bring all of these outlets and opportunities together

to be easily accessed in a comprehensive map.

Background

What does “local food” really mean?

Unlike organic food, there is no consensus on a definition of “local food” or “local food

system”. A United States Department of Agriculture publication explains local food as related to

the geographical distance between food producers and consumers. However, some other

characteristics may be used by consumers to define “local food” and “local food system”

(Giovannucci). In this section, we first provide the key definition of local foods in terms of

geographic view. Then, we examine other characteristics that have been used by consumers to

define “local” foods. Finally, we briefly discuss two types of local food market. Together, this

whole section will provide a comprehensive understanding about local foods, and this system.

The New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD) defines a “locavore” as a local resident

who tries to eat only food grown or produced within a 100-mile radius. However, this 100-mile

radius is not a universal standard. In Durham’s book, he argues that many consumers actually

disagree with the 100-mile limitation for local food (59).

Ideas about defining a unified distance for local food are quite varied in regions due to

differences in population density and the ability to access food sources (Ilbery). When compared

with people who live in heavily populated regions, those in sparsely populated areas may have

5

less accessibility to food sources. A survey found that 66 percent of farmers in King County,

WA, a heavily populated county, viewed their surrounding counties as a local market (Selfa). In

contrast, only 20 percent of farmers considered surrounding counties as local market in Grant

County, a sparsely populated and agriculturally based county.

Due to different situations, there was no universal rule on the distance that separates local

food from industrialized food production before 2008. In 2008, Congress passed the

"Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act" (H.R. 2419); the act establishing 400 miles as

the maximum distance a product can be transported and still labeled as “local food”. In other words,

local food represents a mainstream food system where food produced within 400 miles from its

point of consumption (Peters).

Geographically based conception is only one definition of local foods (Thompson).

Besides this, there are several other common characteristics that may be used by consumers to

identify local foods. For instance, production methods may be associated as a part of what

defines local food (Thompson). Some consumers view local food more likely to be produced in a

sustainable manner. Less use of synthetic chemicals, pesticides and energy-based fertilizers

allow local food systems to support a more sustainable local ecology than “conventionally” or

“industrial” grown food systems (Martinez).

Finally, the ways food is processed and retailed are also considered by some consumers

to be part of what distinguish local foods from industrialized food (Martinez). According to

Martinez et al., a short food supply chain (SFSC) is a necessary part of this system. A SFSC

connects consumer and producer and allows food to reach consumers with clear information

about the origin of the product. For instance this information may include producers’ contact

6

information, and people and methods that are involved in producing this product. This

knowledge empowers the consumer (Martinez).

Local Food Market Typology

In general, local food markets are classified into two basic categories: direct marketing

(direct-to-consumer) and intermediate marketing (direct-to-retail/foodservice) (Jewett et al.).

Direct marketing means food transactions are conducted directly between consumers and

farmers. Venues for this type of marketing typically include farmers’ markets, community

supported agriculture (CSAs), “pick your own”, roadside stands, and on-farm stores. In contrast,

intermediate marketing means that food is sold by farmers to restaurants, grocery stores,

institutions and brokers/distributors. These retailers act as a middle man by selling these food products

to consumers. Intermediate marketing is a good fit for large farms because it is more difficult to sell

through direct marketing (Martinez).

Benefits of Local Food Markets

In recent years, the Federal, State, and local programs have increasingly provided

significant resources to expand and support local food systems. This might suggest that growing

local foods is expected to generate certain public benefits better than industrialized food systems

do. However, since only a relatively small portion of food is produced and consumed in local

food markets, it is difficult to recognize all the benefits it brings. There are four main positive

impacts of eating and buying locally: increasing food security, reducing energy use and

greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the community economy, and personal health benefits.

Food security

Local foods have commonly been related with efforts focused on improving overall food

security, especially at the community level. The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food

7

security as, “all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a

healthy and active life” (“Food Security”). People who are food insecure generally have limited

accessibility or uncertainty in acquiring healthy and safe food. In 2012, 49.0 million Americans

were food insecure (Coleman).

When expanding local food systems, healthy food becomes more available in the form of

fresh produce (Morland). This local food generally requires lower energy input which can lower

the price of local food. Therefore, it could help low-income households by improving their

ability to consume fresh food.

Food Miles, Energy Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Since industrialized food systems increasingly relies on long-distance transport and

global food trading networks, the average food product travels further from producers to

consumers (Pirog et al.). It is estimated that the average American meal travels about 1,500 miles

from farms to plates (“How Far”). The Leopold Center found that 4 of the 7 selected food items

(showed in Table 1) traveled over 1,500 miles to reach the Chicago Market, and the average

travel distance is 1,477 miles (Pirog et al.).

Table 1: Average Distances by Trucks From Farm to Chicago Terminal Market*

Food

items

Average Distance by truck to Terminal

Markets

Grapes 2,143 miles

Lettuce 2,055 miles

Peaches 1,674 miles

Apples 1,555 miles

Tomato

es 1,369 miles

Squash 781 miles

8

Beans 766 miles

Table1 displays the distance food products traveled to Chicago market. Source: Leopold Center for Sustainable

Agriculture. * Chicago International Produce Market, a terminal market for wholesale produce.

This long-distance, large-scale transportation of food requires vast quantities of energy

inputs mainly from fossil fuels, which emits carbon dioxide. CO2 is one of the main gases that

contribute to greenhouse effect and air pollution (“Global Cllimate”) One argument illustrates

that reducing transportation distance for food products can reduce usage of fossil fuel, pollution,

and greenhouse gas emissions (Thompson et al.). Table 2 illustrates the average distance for

same food products traveled from local farms to local farmers’ market (“How Far”).

Table 2: Average Distances by Trucks From Farms to Farmers Market

Food items Average Distance by truck to Ferry

Plaza Farmers Market (L.A.)

Grapes 151 miles

Lettuce 102 miles

Peaches 184 miles

Apples 105 miles

Tomatoes 117 miles

Squash 98 miles

Beans 101 miles

Table 2 displays the distance food products traveled to local market. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

The average distance for locally produced food products shipping to local market only

123 miles, compared to 1,477 miles in Table 1. In other words, distance from farm to Chicago

terminal market is up to 12 times longer than to farmers market. Therefore, local food systems

will have a less detrimental effect on climate change than modernized food systems.

Economic Benefits

9

Caution should be used when developing arguments as to why and how local food

production is better for local economies. Attempting to legitimize local food production within

the conceptual model of a capitalist market is somewhat self-defeating because it constrains the

definition of success in economic terms. Narrowly focusing on dollar amounts may result in

overlooking many of the other positive benefits of local food such as social capital gain. Needs

cite

Proposing that local food will result in local economic growth or increased food

production in comparison to conventional agribusiness reinforces the myths that hyper-

productivity and over-consumption results in the needs of societies needs being met. Indeed, the

current system produces enough food to feed 12 billion people, nearly twice the global

population, yet hundreds of millions of people still suffer from hunger and malnutrition. The

current system of food production is designed to maximize profit, not meeting the needs of its

people. The uneven distribution and waste of food is required in this system in order to

legitimize the abstract market value on food rather than its intrinsic values. (Shiva)

In researching the cost comparison between local and non-local food it becomes apparent

that prices vary depending on locality, geography and the form of market being considered (such

as farmers’ markets versus school gardens or intermediate outlet versus CSAs.) However in

general, produce in direct marketing such as farmers markets do tend to cost more on average

(Martinez et al.). While this may superficially appear to be a negative aspect, one must consider

the social value of paying farmers fairly as well as why conventionally produced food is cheaper.

Conventional food is cheaper because it is heavily subsidized and it externalizes many of its

negative social and environmental impacts (Shiva). While the cost percentage for direct market

10

products might be slightly higher, the costs involved in other forms of local food such as school

and community gardens are often lower (Shiva).

Despite the near-sightedness of arguing for local food within a market context, it is

readily apparent that local food has the potential for market value. An example of this can be

seen in the data from Table 3. This illustrates the significant market value of produce from

Lawrence Kansas community gardens.

Table 3 (Lawrence, Kansas Common Ground Program Accomplishment):

Common Ground Program Accomplishment 2012 2013

Number of gardens/farms 4 9

Acres in food production 5.6

Number of gardeners/farmers 41 120

Number of classes/community work days 59 54

Number of volunteers/community participants 640 463

Pounds of produce grown (estimate) 5,800 40,000

Market value of produce (estimate) $11,700 $80,000

Pounds of donated produce (reported) 550 2,000

Table 3 displays the Lawrence “Common Ground” program accomplishments. 2012-2013 Annual Report: Food Policy Council; the Douglas County Food Policy Council

The market value of this produce reflects not only the potential monetary gains through

produce sales but also the potential money saved by low income garden members that may not

otherwise be able to afford fresh produce. Additionally, we see that other low income community

members benefited from the gardens through the significant donations made to the Lawrence

Interfaith Nutritional Kitchen.

Other ways in which local food may improve local economies include processing in the

area and the cyclical nature of investing in area farmers. A shift in food processing activities

11

such as meat processing or food preparation, to a more local area may result in a higher

percentage of the food dollar remaining in the local area (Swenson). Though the cost of

purchasing from farmers in direct market venues may be slightly higher, the benefits are returned

to the community as local farmers tend to reinvest their incomes back into the community

(Swenson). In this way communities become the true stakeholders in the resilience of their local

economies.

Health and Nutrition

While some aspects of food production such as economic or environmental benefits can

be somewhat abstract on an individual level, the experience of food consumption and personal

health are more relevant on a deep, personal level. Local produce at farmers’ markets and from

community gardens tend to offer a wider range of produce. This variety may prove to provide

more vitamins and minerals than conventional produce that are chosen for their ease of transport.

(Frith).

Local food is typically fresher and requires fewer preservatives or additives. (Gorlick et

al). Additionally, fresher produce retains more of its nutrients (Lea). A 1993 study in the Journal

of Applied Nutrition showed that conventional foods had significantly less vitamins and minerals

compared to organic foods. Organic fruits and vegetables generally rated 63% higher in calcium

and 73% higher in iron than conventionally grown (Ikerd). Healthier dietary choices are another

consequence associated with increased availability to local food that is less processed (Morland

et al.).

12

Goals

The main goal this project aims to accomplish is to increase awareness and accessibility

of local food opportunities within the University and Lawrence community. These opportunities

include CSA drop offs, volunteer opportunities, farms, markets, locally sourcing grocery stores

and restaurants, community gardens, and similar outlets. The second goal is to educate the

general student body on the benefits of eating locally. These goals are relevant because they will

expand the interest of local foods within Lawrence as well as the local market and shift the

community away from less sustainable practices.

Objectives

This project has four major objectives. First, creating an accessible map via Google Maps

and ArcGIS of locations in Lawrence where one can purchase local foods. This map will include

the local opportunities as described in the goals. The online version is in Google Maps because it

is easily embedded onto any website. The ArcGIS map will be included in the informational

brochure due to its aesthetic qualities. Providing this map to the Lawrence community will

bridge the gap of knowledge between residents and explain how to get involved with the local

food system.

The second objective is to provide the University community with credible information in

a brochure on why eating locally is beneficial. This brochure also includes opportunities for

students to get involved in food justice endeavors on campus and in the community. This

brochure can be distributed to students at events such as Hawk Week, Earth Day parade, Kaw

Valley Seed Fair, and the Lawrence Farmers Market. It can also be used as tabling materials for

food justice student groups.

13

The third objective is to create an interactive website that displays our local food

map, the information from the brochure, and updated information on community events. The

map allows community members to edit, add or delete points on the map by submitting a request

for edit which is reviewed by the KU Student Farm. A link to this website is available through

the KU Student Farm, the Center for Sustainability, and the Environmental Studies department

websites.

The final objective is to gauge student interest in local food in order to identify the need

or desire for a CSA drop-off on campus. This is accomplished through an online survey

distributed to a variety of students via campus departments.

Methods

Map

The map creation process consisted of compiling, verifying, and categorizing

locations where local foods can be obtained or are sourced from and mapping this information

through Google Maps and ArcGIS. Information about sites that source or grow food was largely

compiled by online resource directories like the K-State Research and Extension Douglas County

Community Gardening Guide (www.douglascountycommunitygardening.com) and Local

Harvest (www.localharvest.org). Other methods of gathering information about these sites

included word of mouth and discussion among community members involved with or interested

in local food.

Information about each location was assembled into a preliminary directory on an

online spreadsheet. This information included the name of the location, the address, contact

information, and any additional information that is helpful in connecting the community with the

local food system. For example, communal gardening versus individual plots at community

14

gardens, whether farms offer “pick your own” or sell their produce at their farm, and volunteer

opportunities.

Next, the information gathered about each site needed to be verified and

permission obtained. This verification process consisted of contacting including 31 community

gardens, 10 CSA drop-off locations, 22 retailers, and over 100 farms. Sites were either confirmed

and added to our final directory or removed.

Once a site was placed in the final directory, coordinates for each point were

obtained using Google Earth. Each location was then characterized into one of five categories.

The map was then created via ArcGIS and Google Map. The finished ArcMap was put onto the

informational brochure, focused on the area around the KU Campus. The Google Map, modeled

off of Esri’s, Cultivate KC, and the USDA’s co-project, the Know Your Farmer, Know Your

Food Compass Map. The map is user friendly and can be updated regularly by community

members and the KU Student Farm without needing ArcGIS software. The Google Map was

uploaded onto the project website (http://locallawrencefoodguide.weebly.com/) and the KU

Student Farm webpage.

Website & Brochure

The process of distributing and displaying information plays an important role in the success

of the following key areas: providing an accessible map, sharing credible information with the

Lawrence community, generating interest in a campus CSA drop-off, and maintaining relevant

and updated sources of information. We have developed two methods of communication that are

designed to encourage participation by spreading awareness of the options, benefits, and

outcomes of our cause. More specifically, we expect a properly developed website to be a highly

useful tool given the proliferation of social media and internet usage in general. Additionally, a

15

“hard-copy” brochure with timely and pin-pointed distribution—i.e. at KU new student

orientation, farmers markets, and other food/sustainable initiative events— will provide students

and locals with the information directly, rather than requiring a visit to an online source. These

two options for communicating information should function to “spark” and then maintain

awareness and participation in the local Lawrence food system.

Several basic principles of effective design apply to both the brochure and the website. As

discussed above, one goal is to achieve a credible source of information. With regard to the two

distribution methods, this also includes the element of appearing credible. That is, since the

internet is over-saturated with misinformation, scams, and advertisements, it is important to

design a product that quickly conveys a meaningful and trustworthy message.

A study conducted by Stanford University found that participants provided higher credibility

ratings for sites that “convey a real-world presence, (are) easy to use, and (are) updated often”

(Fogg et al). By incorporating content such as physical location and contact information of local

food sources, as well as images of community/university participation, the website should

convey a high degree of personal presence which in turn leads to perceptions of higher

credibility. This is related to a technique known as social proof, in which donation-based

websites intentionally incorporate data such as “funds raised” and “number of donors,” and

images of participation in events like a marathon (Barry). Our website was designed to employ

these tactics by displaying photographs of community members taking part in different local

food opportunities. One photograph included on the webpage depicts a sharply dressed woman

browsing a selection of germinating plants alongside a male student in a t-shirt and jeans. It was

important to show different demographics taking part in these activities for the purpose of

demonstrating evidence that this is not relegated to a certain lifestyle or age. By including the

16

map on the front page of the website, we were able to impart confidence that there are pre-

existing opportunities. Likewise, inserting a Forum and a request page for on-going contributions

to the map provided vehicles for public announcements and/or conversation. With regard to

social proof these two items were included to illustrate on-going involvement and interest by

individuals other than those who actually designed this project. Indeed, content within the

website was worded to make it very clear that this project is community-supported: “We are a

diverse group of KU students with a common goal of growing a resilient local food system…but

we need your help!” and “We would love your input! That’s what this map is about!” Moreover,

clearly articulated options for participation have been shown to increase the rate of meaningful

involvement, and the website has addressed this by including specific opportunities to become

involved (using our “Getting Involved” tab”), rather than a broad recommendation to do so

(Barry). Further methods for demonstrating credibly included linking this website to university

sources, such as the KU Student Farm website (kufarming.wordpress.com) and potentially the

Environmental Studies department at KU and the Center for Sustainability at KU (esp.ku.edu

and sustain.ku.edu, respectively).

Creating a website that is easy to use involved limiting the number of links and

pages. Those that were included were clearly labeled. For example, the form which allows the

individual to add any relevant location to the map is found under a tab labeled “Add to The

Map.” It was also important to make sure the map was not only available, but user-friendly. To

account for this, the map (located on the home page) was positioned directly under brief

instructions for how to interact with it. In large bold letters, these instructions read: “To find out

more about a location, hover over any symbol until a white circle appears, then click! For a

larger view, click on the “full screen” icon in the right hand corner to open a new window.” The

17

information available by clicking these icons include a phone number, website, email, street

address, and a brief description of the services provided by a given location (the amount of

information varies from location to location depending on the response provided by the source,

but all include an address and some form of contact information). Other site instructions were

included in convenient and strategic locations, such as the words “Have something to add? Let us

know by filling out a form in the ‘Add to the Map’ section or by emailing us at

kufarming@gmail.com” which were included directly beneath the map. Finally, the website was

built using “Weebly,” a free web-hosting service, particularly for the “Mobile view” feature.

This feature automatically altered the content into a design that is easy to read and navigate on

cell phones. This was important to our project due to the proliferation of browsing the internet

with devices other than traditional computers with large screens.

The study by Fogg et al. states the third component of a credible website is the

degree to which it is updated. Many of the methods discussed above are geared toward

accomplishing a website that is updated regularly. Indeed, the success of the map and the website

rely on accurate information in a community that is presumably adding, losing, or relocating

local food opportunities. As such, the webpage was designed to optimize adaptability without

losing credibility. That is, rather than allowing individuals direct access to map alterations, which

may result in the misuse of the map (such as “joke material” or unrelated locations), individuals

must first submit a form for verification by a/multiple moderator(s).

A related but slightly more complex design tool includes tying a request to an

outcome (Barry). In our case, participating in the local food system is the request while the

beneficial outcomes of sustainable food traditions (social/environmental/economic, discussed

above) is the outcome. This technique is often used by non-profit donation sites to maximize the

18

potential for active participation or donation once the viewer has already reached the homepage

(Barry 2013). Also included on the website is a page which provides links to recipes that are

geared toward highlighting local and seasonal foods, such as

www.cultivatekc.org/food/recipes.html. This addressed the potential problem of making a

request (buy local food) but failing to provide a source of information regarding how to prepare

it (outcome).

These methods took into account the strengths and weaknesses of both

distribution processes (website and brochure). Most of the design elements described above

were utilized in designing an engaging, informative, and memorable brochure, but were

particularly important for the website due to the “browsability” and adaptability of the internet.

One advantage of the brochure distribution process is the ability to reach out to the audience in a

direct way. In addition to passively displaying the brochures at various locations (such as local

coffee shops and Watkins Memorial Health Center on KU campus) regular hand-outs will

provide the opportunity to engage in face-to-face discussions and get instantaneous feedback.

The degree of public participation is certainly related to the methods for reaching communities,

and while the website was indeed linked to Lawrence, brochures displayed/handed out at local

sites may impart a stronger sense of place due to the fact that the individual is engaging in public

spaces at the time. In other words, the brochure represents a voice in the community and not

merely of the community, as is the case with the website. It was also important to tie the

brochure and the website together by including the website domain name on the brochure and

embedding a pdf of the brochure to a page on the website.

19

Results

A total of 45 locations were mapped onto the online version, however more will be added as

permission is acquired. Each location contains information about each point including the name,

address, contact information, and relevant additional information. Although farms made up the

highest portion of the locations, community gardens were the highest for in town locations [See

Figure 1]. This reveals a commitment to local food participation amongst people in Lawrence. It

is important to note that some points serve as two categories, such as a retailer that also is a CSA

drop-off, and were counted as two separate points in the data calculation.

Figure 1: Graph displaying percent of total local food location maps of each category. This

is data is taken from the online version of the map.

Seventeen points were mapped on the ArcGIS which was focused around the University

of Kansas campus [see Figure 2] and is on the brochure. The brochure contains information

described in the Methods [See Figure 3]

20

Figure 2 displays the print version of the map on the back of the informational brochure.

21

Figure 3 displays the front of our informational brochure to be distributed to University of

Kansas students in future semesters by the KU Student farm.

The website was created on Weebly, a free user-friendly source. The URL to our

page is http://locallawrencefoodguide.weebly.com/. The Google Map is on the front page of this

website [see Figure 4]. The “Add to the Map” tab allows community members to edit locations.

22

Figure 4 displays the home page of the Weebly website which is home to our interactive map.

Discussion

Spatial Analysis of the Map Created through ArcGIS

The ArcMap compiled through this project’s efforts [See Figure 3] spatially

illustrates that there is a high density of local food activity, particularly toward the North and

East of the University of Kansas Campus, an area very accessible to the student population. The

daily buses that run from the KU Campus to this area of high local food activity enable students

to participate. The furthest point is 2.25 miles from the Daisy Hill Residents halls but with the

help of the city of Lawrence of KU transportation systems this distance can be traveled in a short

amount of time. The close spatial proximity between the University of Kansas and an area with a

23

high density of local food activity proves that there is a large reservoir of opportunities for the

community to purchase, consume, and get involved with the local food system.

The Ecumenical Campus Ministries (ECM) is one location on campus that

includes many opportunities for involvement in local foods. It is also a future CSA drop-off

location. This drop-off location is being facilitated by KU alumni and should be up and running

sometime during the summer of 2014. The location of the ECM relative to the KU campus

makes it an ideal vantage point for students, faculty, and staff to pick up locally grown produce.

Not only that, but this location will not be affected by University politics. The ECM’s position

next to the Scholarship Halls could provide an excellent opportunity for the student residents to

connect with local growers, benefitting their own health and the health of their community.

The Google Map as an Informational Hub

The online version of the map functions as an information hub because this

system connects the consumer to the producer as well as the producer with consumer market.

Farmers and community members involved with the local foods system can use the map as a tool

to see locations in Lawrence where local food activity is low and potentially use that information

as a marketing strategy to open a new CSA drop-off location or farmers market.

The flexibility of the map is a key component to the sustainability of this project.

Officers of the KU Student Farm are now responsible for the maintenance of the map. The

flexibility also allows for an additional sense of connection within the community because of its

interactive nature.

24

Conclusions

Our main goal was to increase accessibility and awareness of local foods within

the Lawrence community. We aimed to improve accessibility to local food by visually

representing the venues where community members can access local foods. We accomplished

this through one of our main objectives which was to create a map that KU Students and

members of the Lawrence community can easily use to find local food outlets and opportunities

for involvement. The map can be accessed through Google maps and has been placed as a link

on the KU Student Farm website. Additionally, this project intended to educate the community

about the benefits of local food by producing and distributing a brochure. This brochure will be

in a tri-fold format and have the GIS version of the map on the one side and educational

information on the other side. The distribution of this brochure will be carried out by the KU

Student Farm in the upcoming summer and fall semester.

Our research into the Lawrence area’s local food opportunities has crystallized the

fact that this area does indeed have many opportunities for access and involvement with local

food. Through farmers’ markets, intermediate outlets such as grocery stores and restaurants,

community and school gardens and CSAs, the Lawrence area has a lot of momentum in the

realm of local foods. Despite this, there is a lack of awareness of these many opportunities

waiting for exposure. It is our group’s hope that our work in creating the map and brochure will

help bring awareness and accessibility to these many local food opportunities.

The work we have done in this project is just the beginning and will require

further involvement from several sources to stay active and fulfill its purpose. Aside from the

torch being passed to the KU Student Farm in maintaining and updating the map, community

members will have access to updating information by contacting the student farm and alerting

25

them to necessary changes. We also hope that a link to the map will be added to the KU

Environmental Studies web page as well as the brochure being distributed in new student

packets.

We encountered several limitations in our project, namely time limitations and a

lack of prior skills. As full-time students, some with jobs and some with children, it proved

difficult for us to fulfill all of our goals in this project. Additionally, this was the first time for

many of us in doing research that required contacting members of the community and navigating

that side of research. None of us had ever created a map before and we had underestimated the

difficulty this task entailed. Our skill set aside, one of the main limitations we encountered was

the lack of response from the hundreds of contacts we made. We hope this limitation, in fully

realizing the potential of the map, will work itself out over time as the map becomes updated in

the future.

Contributions

We would like to thank all those who contributed to this project. This effort would not

have been possible without the aid of many in the Lawrence community. Community members

Trina McClure and Steve Moring imparted their knowledge of Lawrence’s local food

opportunities to our group. University of Kansas faculty provided us with the tools we needed to

complete this project. The mapping itself would not have been possible without the cooperation

of the people within the many local food processors, producers, markets, and other opportunities.

This effort has revealed the strong sense of community and connectedness among people in

Lawrence.

26

With the continued contributions from Lawrence community members, in particular

the KU student farm, this project can continue to grow and evolve with time.

27

References

"2013 Annual Report: Food Policy Council." Douglas County Kansas Online. Douglas County

Food Policy Council, n.d. Web. April 2014.

Barry, Frank. "15 Techniques Used by Top Nonprofits to Boost Donor Acquisition and Online

Fundraising Results." NpENGAGE. n.p. 24 June 2013. Web. Apr. 2014.

Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, and Anita Singh. "USDA ERS - Household Food Security

in the United States in 2012." Household Food Security in the United States in 2012.

USDA, Sept. 2013. Web. April 2014.

Durham, Catherine A., Robert P. King, and Cathy A. Roheim. "Consumer Definitions of

‘Locally Grown for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables." Journal of Food Distribution Research

40.1 (2009): 56-62. Web. May 2014.

Emma. "Food, Health, the Environment and Consumers' Dietary Choices." Nutrition & Dietetics

62.1 (2005): 21-25. Web. April 2014.

Firth, Kathleen. "Is Local More Nutritious?" The Center for Health and the Global Environment.

Harvard School of Public Health, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. April 2014.

“Food Security.” World Health Organization, n.d. Web. April 2014.

http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/.

Fogg et al. "The Web Credibility Project: Guidelines - Stanford University." The Web Credibility

Project: Guidelines - Stanford University. Stanford University, June 2002. Web. Apr.

2014.

Giovannucci, D., E. Barham, and R. Pirog. “Defining and Marketing ‘Local’ Foods:

Geographical Indications for U.S. Products,” Journal of World Intellectual Property,

28

Special Issue: The Law and Economics of Geographical Indications 13.2 (2010) : 92-

120. Web. April 2014.

"Global Climate Change: Causes." National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d. Web.

May 2014. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes.

Groelick, Steven. and Helena Norberg-Hodge. “Think Global—Eat Local! Delicious ways to

Counter Globalization,” The Ecologist 28.4 : 208-213. Web. April 2014.

“Growing a Local Food Economy A Guide to Getting Started.” ASAP Connections. Appalachian

Sustainable Agriculture Project, n.d. Web. Apr. 2014.

"How Far Does Your Food Travel to Get to Your Plate? | CUESA." CUESA. N.p., n.d. Web.

Apr. 2014.

Ilbery, B. and D. Maye. 2006. “Retailing Local Food in the Scottish-English Borders: A Supply

Chain Perspective.” Geoforum, 37.3 (2006) : 352-367. Web.April 2014

Jewett, Jane G., Beth Nelson, and Derrick Braate. "Marketing Local Food." Minnesota Institute

for Sustainable Agriculture (2007): 7-1. Web. April 2014.

Martinez, S. et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues. Economic Research

Report #97. United States Department of Agriculture, May 2010. Web. Apr 2014.

Morland, K., S. Wing, and A.D. Roux. “The Contextual Effect of the Local Food Environment

on Residents’ Diets: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.” American Journal

of Public Health 92.11 (2002): 1761-1767. Web.

Peters, Christian J., Nelson L. Bills, Jennifer L. Wilkins, and Gary W. Fick. "Foodshed Analysis

and Its Relevance to Sustainability." Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24.1

(2009): 1-7. Print.

29

Selfa, T., J. Qazi. “Place, Taste, or Face-to-Face? Understanding Producer-Consumer Networks

in ‘Local’ Food Systems in Washington State.” Agriculture and Human Values 22.1

(2005): 451-464. Web. April 2014.

Shiva, Vandana. Manifestos on the Future of Food & Seed. Cambridge, MA: South End, 2007.

Print.

Swenson, Dave. "Investigating the Potential Economic Impacts of Local Foods for Southeast

Iowa." Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. Department of Economics, Iowa

State University, Sept. 2009. Web. Apr. 2014.

Thompson, Edward, Alethea M. Harper, Sibella Kraus. “Think Globally- Eat Locally: San

Francisco Foodshed Assessment.” American Farmland Trust 1.1 (2008) : 1-40. Web.

April 2014.