DOCSLIB.ORG

Sustainable Urban Agriculture: Confirming Viable Scenarios for Production

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sustainable Urban Agriculture: Confirming Viable Scenarios for Production New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Sustainable Urban Agriculture: Confirming Viable Scenarios for Production Final Report March 2013 No. 13-07 NYSERDA’s Promise to New Yorkers: NYSERDA provides resources, expertise and objective information so New Yorkers can make confident, informed energy decisions. Our Mission: Advance innovative energy solutions in ways that improve New York’s economy and environment. Our Vision: Serve as a catalyst—advancing energy innovation and technology, transforming New York’s economy, empowering people to choose clean and efficient energy as part of their everyday lives. Our Core Values: Objectivity, integrity, public service, partnership and innovation. Our Portfolios NYSERDA programs are organized into five portfolios, each representing a complementary group of offerings with common areas of energy-related focus and objectives. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Programs Energy and the Environment Helping New York to achieve its aggressive clean energy goals – Helping to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of including programs for consumers (commercial, municipal, institutional, energy production and use – including environmental research and industrial, residential, and transportation), renewable power suppliers, development, regional initiatives to improve environmental sustainability, and programs designed to support market transformation. and West Valley Site Management. Energy Technology Innovation and Business Development Energy Data, Planning and Policy Helping to stimulate a vibrant innovation ecosystem and a clean Helping to ensure that policy-makers and consumers have objective energy economy in New York – including programs to support product and reliable information to make informed energy decisions – including research, development, and demonstrations, clean-energy business State Energy Planning, policy analysis to support the Regional development, and the knowledge-based community at the Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and other energy initiatives; and a range of Technology + Energy Park®. energy data reporting including Patterns and Trends. Energy Education and Workforce Development Helping to build a generation of New Yorkers ready to lead and work in a clean energy economy – including consumer behavior, youth education, and workforce development and training programs for existing and emerging technologies. SuStainable urban agriculture: confirming Viable ScenarioS for Production Final Report Prepared for the new York State energY reSearch and deVeloPment authoritY Albany, NY nyserda.ny.gov Sandra Meier, Ph.D. Senior Project Manager Prepared by: columbia uniVerSitY Kubi Ackerman urban deSign lab at the earth inStitute Columbia University Eric Dahlgren lenfeSt center for SuStainable energY at the earth inStitute columbia uniVerSitY Xiaoqi Xu School of engineering and aPPlied Science, columbia uniVerSitY NYSERDA NYSERDA Contract 15592 March 2013 Report 13-07 NOTICE This report was prepared by the Urban Design Lab at the Earth Institute, Columbia University in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter NYSERDA). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. i ABSTRACT This feasibility study broadly evaluates the viability of urban and peri-urban food production techniques compared with rural food production. Specific case study scenarios are presented to examine whether urban food production can be practiced in an economical and resource efficient manner. The study focuses specifically on New York City to determine potential production sites and establish which methods of alternative agriculture production would be most appropriate. Further research is suggested to establish costs and benefits from the perspective of energy use, other environmental and health metrics, and economics. KEY WORDS Urban agriculture Horticulture Controlled environment agriculture ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Urban Design Lab staff, including Director Richard Plunz, Michael Conard, Maria-Paola Sutto, Richard Gonzalez, and Scott Andrews, and the assistance of Ruth Katz and Jill Isenbarger at the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture. We especially appreciate the input and expertise of Dr. Louis Albright, Director of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Program at Cornell University. Viraj Puri, co-founder and CEO of Gotham Greens, and Jack Algiere, Vegetable Farm Manager at the Stone Barns Center provided other very useful information on greenhouse operations and farm management. Funding was provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). iii TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE .....................................................................................................................................................................i ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................ ii KEY WORDS .......................................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. vii SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................................S-1 Chapter One. Agricultural Techniques and Approaches with the Greatest Potential for New York City .......... 1-1 1.1. Viable production approaches .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. ArcGIS and other data collection ............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3. Types and distribution of sites in NYC that could have potential for production ...................................... 1-3 1.3.1 Vacant Land ......................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.2 Open Space .......................................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.3.4 New York City Housing Authority property .......................................................................................1-10 1.3.5 Surface parking .................................................................................................................................. 1-10 1.3.6 Greenstreets ....................................................................................................................................... 1-10 1.3.7 Yard Space ......................................................................................................................................... 1-11 1.3.8 Rooftops ............................................................................................................................................. 1-12 1.3.9 Site Distribution ................................................................................................................................. 1-15 1.3.10 Peri-urban agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 1-15 1.4. Alternative Agricultural Practices ............................................................................................................ 1-16 1.4.1 Soil-based Agriculture ....................................................................................................................... 1-16 1.4.2 Rooftop Agriculture ........................................................................................................................... 1-21 1.4.3 Controlled Environment Agriculture ................................................................................................. 1-23 1.4.4 Economic Considerations .................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture by Intercropping
    Science of the Total Environment 615 (2018) 767–772 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv The new Green Revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping Marc-Olivier Martin-Guay a, Alain Paquette b,JérômeDuprasa, David Rivest a,⁎ a Département des sciences naturelles and Institut des sciences de la forêt tempérée (ISFORT), Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO), 58 rue Principale, Ripon, QC J0V 1V0, Canada b Département des sciences biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, CP 8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal QcH3C 3P8, Canada HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT • Global productivity potential of intercropping was determined using a meta-analysis. • Global land equivalent ratio of intercropping was 1.30. • Land equivalent ratio of intercropping did not vary through a water stress gra- dient. • Intercropping increases gross energy production by 38%. • Intercropping increases gross incomes by 33%. article info abstract Article history: Satisfying the nutritional needs of a growing population whilst limiting environmental repercussions will require Received 14 July 2017 sustainable intensification of agriculture. We argue that intercropping, which is the simultaneous production of Received in revised form 3 October 2017 multiple crops on the same area of land, could play an essential role in this intensification. We carried out the first Accepted 4 October 2017 global meta-analysis on the multifaceted benefits of intercropping. The objective of this study was to determine Available online xxxx the benefits of intercropping in terms of energetic, economic and land-sparing potential through the framework fi Editor: Jay Gan of the stress-gradient hypothesis. We expected more intercropping bene ts under stressful abiotic conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Farming, Smallholders and Commercialization of Agriculture in Uganda: the Case of Sorghum, Sunflower, and Rice Contract Farming Schemes
    Center of Evaluation for Global Action Working Paper Series Agriculture for Development Paper No. AfD-0907 Issued in July 2009 Contract Farming, Smallholders and Commercialization of Agriculture in Uganda: The Case of Sorghum, Sunflower, and Rice Contract Farming Schemes. Gabriel Elepu Imelda Nalukenge Makerere University This paper is posted at the eScholarship Repository, University of California. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cega/afd Copyright © 2009 by the author(s). Series Description: The CEGA AfD Working Paper series contains papers presented at the May 2009 Conference on “Agriculture for Development in Sub-Saharan Africa,” sponsored jointly by the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) and CEGA. Recommended Citation: Elepu, Gabriel and Nalukenge, Imelda. (2009) Contract Farming, Smallholders and Commercialization of Agriculture in Uganda: The Case of Sorghum, Sunflower, and Rice Contract Farming Schemes. CEGA Working Paper Series No. AfD-0907. Center of Evaluation for Global Action. University of California, Berkeley. Contract Farming, Smallholders and Commercialization of Agriculture in Uganda: The Case of Sorghum, Sunflower, and Rice Contract Farming Schemes. Gabriel Elepu1∗ and Imelda Nalukenge2 1Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Makerere University, Kampala. 2Lecturer (Deceased) in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Makerere University, Kampala. ABSTRACT: Contract farming has expanded in Uganda due to the promotional efforts of various actors: private, public, and/or international aid agencies. While motives for promoting contract farming may vary by actor, it is argued in this study that contract farming is crucial in the commercialization of smallholder agriculture and hence, poverty reduction in Uganda. However, smallholder farmers in Uganda have reportedly experienced some contractual problems when dealing with large agribusiness firms, resulting in them giving up contract farming.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Brief No
    RESEARCH BRIEF NO. 28 RESEARCH BRIEF – DECEMBER 2014 FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA SERIES: OUTGROWER SYSTEMS FOR INCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL GROWTH EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Combating food insecurity is one of the biggest challenges facing development in Sub-Saharan Africa, where approximately 30 percent of The CCAPS Food Security in Africa Series is the population is undernourished.1 The effect of uncertainty in seasonal composed of four briefs that focus on combating temperatures and rainfall patterns on agricultural production, combined food security vulnerability in Sub-Saharan with growing urban populations, makes the task of achieving food security Africa. This fourth brief in the series details the increasingly daunting. One of the largest barriers to food security is lack history and controversy surrounding contract of access to food, which the Food and Agriculture Organization defines as farming—also known as outgrower systems— individuals having “adequate resources for acquiring appropriate foods for and their potential role as a vehicle for inclusive a nutritious diet.”2 Resources refer largely to economic resources, especially agricultural growth. The purpose of this brief is income. Raising incomes is thus an essential step towards achieving food to pinpoint practices that increase the bargaining security for people who cannot afford food with adequate calories or food power of farmers and the likelihood of positive containing sufficient nutritional value. outcomes for both firms and smallholders. The agricultural sector, which employs 70 percent of the population in Sub- It outlines the benefits and risks of contract 3 farming, and lists best practices for firms, Saharan Africa, has huge potential for growth. If done inclusively—where smallholders, and government to ensure optimal smallholder farmers as well as large agricultural firms reap the economic outcomes for all participants.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.BIOMASS, YIELD and LAND EQUIVALENT RATIO OF
    Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems E-ISSN: 1870-0462 [email protected] Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán México Morales-Rosales, Edgar Jesús; Franco-Mora, Omar BIOMASS, YIELD AND LAND EQUIVALENT RATIO OF Helianthus annus L. IN SOLE CROP AND INTERCROPPED WITH Phaseolus vulgaris L. IN HIGH VALLEYS OF MEXICO Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, vol. 10, núm. 3, septiembre-diciembre, 2009, pp. 431-439 Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán Mérida, Yucatán, México Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=93912996011 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 10 (2009): 431 - 439 BIOMASS, YIELD AND LAND EQUIVALENT RATIO OF Helianthus annus L. IN SOLE CROP AND INTERCROPPED WITH Phaseolus vulgaris L. IN HIGH VALLEYS OF MEXICO Tropical and [BIOMASA, RENDIMIENTO Y USO EQUIVALENTE DE LA TIERRA DE Helianthus annus L. EN UNICULTIVO Y ASOCIADO CON Phaseolus vulgaris Subtropical L. EN VALLES ALTOS DE MÉXICO] Agroecosystems Edgar Jesús Morales-Rosales* and Omar Franco-Mora Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados en Fitomejoramiento, Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. Carretera Toluca- Ixtlahuaca Km. 15 C. P. 50200. Toluca, Estado de México. E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author SUMARY RESUMEN The aim of the
    [Show full text]
  • Competitive Behaviour of Groundnut in Sesame/Groundnut Intercropping System Under Varying Poultry Manure Rates and Planting Arrangement
    Sustainable Agriculture Research; Vol. 2, No. 3; 2013 ISSN 1927-050X E-ISSN 1927-0518 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Competitive Behaviour of Groundnut in Sesame/Groundnut Intercropping System Under Varying Poultry Manure Rates and Planting Arrangement Haruna I. M.1, Aliyu L.2 & Maunde S. M.3 1 Department of Agronomy, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria 2 Department of Agronomy, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria 3 Adamawa State College of Agriculture, Ganye, Nigeria Correspondence: Haruna I. M., Department of Agronomy, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria. Tel: 234-803-968-3552. E-mail: [email protected] Received: February 14, 2013. Accepted: March 20, 2013 Online Published: March 22, 2013 doi:10.5539/sar.v2n3p22 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/sar.v2n3p22 Abstract Field experiment was conducted during the rainy seasons of 2011 and 2012 at the Teaching and Research Farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, Nasarawa State University, Keffi-Lafia Campus to study the competitive behaviour of groundnut in Sesame-groundnut intercropping system. The experiment consisted of four rates of poultry manure (0, 3.0, 6.0 and 9.0 t ha-1) and two planting arrangement (single alternate row and double alternate row planting arrangement). The eight treatment combinations were laid out in a randomized complete block design with four replications. The results obtained in both the years showed that sesame when grown with groundnut under different rates of poultry manure and planting arrangement appeared to be a dominant crop as indicated by its higher values of Land equivalent ratio, competitive ratio, higher and positive values for aggressivity and area time equivalent ratio.
    [Show full text]
  • Malawi Contract Farming Strategy
    Government of Malawi CONTRACT FARMING STRATEGY August, 2016 Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development P.O. Box 30134 Capital City Lilongwe 3 Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................ iii Foreword ............................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... v Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................... vi Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Technical Aspects of Contract Farming ....................................................................... 5 1.2 Evolution of Contract Farming in Malawi ................................................................... 6 1.3 Agriculture Policy Framework ..................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) .............. 8 1.3.2 Southern African Development Community Agriculture Policy ............................ 8 1.3.3 Malawi Growth and Development Strategy II .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Farming in Potato Production: an Alternative for Managing Risk and Uncertainty
    Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 18 (Conference No.) 2005 pp 47-60 Contract Farming in Potato Production: An Alternative for Managing Risk and Uncertainty R.S. Tripathi, Ram Singh and Sube Singh1 Abstract The cost of potato cultivation has been found 17 to 24 per cent higher under contract farming over various costs than under non-contract system, mainly due to high investments on seeds, fertilizers and machine power. Yield has been found 255.78 quintals per ha in the contract farms, which is 8.84 per cent higher over the potato yield obtained from the non-contract farms. Gross income has been Rs 99753 per ha in the contract farms as against Rs 41572 per ha in non-contract system. The sale price of potato has been found much higher (Rs 390/q) for contract than non-contract farms (Rs 177 /q). The net return over operational cost (cost ‘A1’) has been found as Rs 11882 per ha in non-contract farms, which increased more than five-times under contract farming system, it being Rs 62982 per ha. Similarly, the net return has been found five-and-a-half times more in contract than non-contract system over cost C1 (without rental value of the land). The net return over cost C2 has been observed as Rs 51866 per ha for contract farms and only Rs 800 per ha under non-contract system. Benefit-cost ratio on various costs has been found to vary from 1.40 to 1.02 for without contract and from 2.71 and 2.08 for contract farming.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Farmer Participation in Contract Farming
    Warning and Soo Hoo Page 1 Very Drafty: Comments Welcome Small Farmer Participation in Contract Farming Matthew Warning University of Puget Sound Nigel Key Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture Wendy Soo Hoo University of Washington 1. Introduction Neoliberal reforms have brought state disengagement in rural areas of developing countries. Contract farming has been proposed as one avenue for private firms to take over the roles previously served by the state in the provision of information, inputs and credit (World Bank, 2001, p. 32). While a vigorous debate has ensued over whether contract farming will benefit farmers or lead to their exploitation by trans-national corporations (e.g., Dirven, 1996, Glover, 1989, Glover and Kusterer, 1990; Grosh, 1994, Little and Watts, 1994; Porter and Phillips-Howard, 1997; Schetjman, 1996; Warning and Key, 2002), less attention has been given to whether contract farming will even reach the small farmers who are the targets of poverty reduction programs. The evidence thus far suggests the vast majority of contract farming schemes exclude small farmers (Singh, 2000). Warning and Soo Hoo Page 2 In this paper, we explore the reasons behind the general exclusion of small farmers from contract farming and examine several cases in which firms small farmers have participated – successfully or unsuccessfully - in contract farming schemes. We try to identify the features of the successful schemes that led to positive “social performance” with an eye towards informing policy development. 2. The Causes of Exclusion Contract farming is the vertical coordination between growers of an agricultural product and buyers or processors of that product.
    [Show full text]
  • Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond
    sustainability Review Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond Maya Sollen-Norrlin 1, Bhim Bahadur Ghaley 2 and Naomi Laura Jane Rintoul 1,* 1 School of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury CT1 1TE, UK; [email protected] 2 Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 3 July 2020; Accepted: 18 August 2020; Published: 27 August 2020 Abstract: Soil degradation is a global concern, decreasing the soil’s ability to perform a multitude of functions. In Europe, one of the leading causes of soil degradation is unsustainable agricultural practices. Hence, there is a need to explore alternative production systems for enhanced agronomic productivity and environmental performance, such as agroforestry systems (AFS). Given this, the objective of the study is to enumerate the major benefits and challenges in the adoption of AFS. AFS can improve agronomic productivity, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, soil biodiversity, water retention, and pollination. Furthermore, they can reduce soil erosion and incidence of fire and provide recreational and cultural benefits. There are several challenges to the adoption and uptake of AFS in Europe, including high costs for implementation, lack of financial incentives, limited AFS product marketing, lack of education, awareness, and field demonstrations. Policies for financial incentives such as subsidies and payments for ecosystem services provided by AFS must be introduced or amended. Awareness of AFS products must be increased for consumers through appropriate marketing strategies, and landowners need more opportunities for education on how to successfully manage diverse, economically viable AFS.
    [Show full text]
  • TURNING FOOD DESERTS INTO OASES Why New York’S Public Housing Should Encourage Commercial Development Howard Husock Senior Fellow
    REPORT | October 2016 TURNING FOOD DESERTS INTO OASES Why New York’s Public Housing Should Encourage Commercial Development Howard Husock Senior Fellow 1 Turning Food Deserts into Oases | Why New York’s Public Housing Should Encourage Commercial Development About the Author Howard Husock is vice president for research and publications at the Manhattan Institute, where he is also director of the Institute’s social entrepreneurship initiative. A City Journal contributing editor, he is the author of Philanthropy Under Fire (2013) and a contributor to Forbes.com. From 1987 through 2006, Husock was director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, where he was also a fellow at the Hauser Center on Nonprofit Organizations. His publications on the nonprofit sector have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Affairs, New York Times, New York Times Magazine, Society, Chronicle of Philanthropy, and Public Interest. Husock has written widely on U.S. housing and urban policy, including in his book The Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy (2003) and his monograph Repairing the Ladder: Toward a New Housing Policy Paradigm (1996). His work has appeared in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Philanthropy, and The Wilson Quarterly. A former broadcast journalist and documentary filmmaker whose work won three Emmy Awards, Husock serves on the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He holds a B.A. from Boston University’s School of Public Communication and was a 1981–82 mid-career fellow at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Farming Offers Fresh Hope for Africa's
    Contract farming offers fresh hope for Africa’s declining agriculture Agriculture contributes signifi cantly to Africa’s Contract farming arrangements can also fi ll economy. However, despite its immense potential in the void left by governments in the wake of to boost economic growth and cut poverty, liberalisation by providing access to inputs, agriculture has continued to perform dismally. technologies, credit and other services. Since the late 1980s, the continent has been Due to its immense potential, contract losing out on the international markets. To date farming has been given a central role in the its share of world agricultural trade has declined latest strategy by the Partnership for Africa’s for nine out of ten major exports, partly due Development (NEPAD) to revive the continent’s to unfavourable trade rules that limit farmers’ agriculture. access to markets. This policy brief presents an overview of contract farming in Africa, highlighting the key issues and Contract farming has the potential to link farmers challenges. to markets and stimulate agricultural production in the face of globalisation. 04 East Africa Policy Brief. No 2 2 strategy NEW STRATEGY TO REVAMP AGRICULTURE African leaders recognise that agriculture is crucial to the continent’s economy and overall development. To revitalise this key sector, the continent’s leaders came up with the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), a new framework to reduce food insecurity and poverty on the continent. Initiated under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), CAADP seeks to achieve its objectives through four pillars: sustainable land and water management, improvement of rural infrastructure and enhanced market access, increasing food availability and nutrition, and improving agricultural research and technology dissemination and adoption.
    [Show full text]
  • Food for Every Child Supermkt Newyork F:Supermkt Broch Revised 4/18/08 2:44 PM Page 2
    SuperMkt_NewYork_F:Supermkt broch revised 4/18/08 2:44 PM Page 1 S PECIAL R EPORT The Need for More Supermarkets in New York food for every child SuperMkt_NewYork_F:Supermkt broch revised 4/18/08 2:44 PM Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by Duane Perry, James Piett and Brian Lang of The Food Trust and Marnie Purciel, GIS Analyst with the Institute for Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University. We would like to thank New York City's Food Policy Coordinator Benjamin Thomases, New York City Council, the Food Bank for New York City, and the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman Foundation for their support. SuperMkt_NewYork_F:Supermkt broch revised 4/18/08 2:44 PM Page 3 FOOD FOR EVERY CHILD The Need for More Supermarkets in New York EXECUTIVE SUMMARY New York City must address the significant and growing need for supermarkets and food resources in its neighborhoods. Food retailers and public sector development agencies have, in essence, redlined lower-income communities, failing to aggressively combat the factors that have led supermarkets to disinvest from these neighborhoods. The Food Trust researched and wrote “Food for Every Child” to ensure that all children live in communities that have access to safe, healthy and affordable food. A key goal of this initiative is to stimulate the development of supermarkets in lower-income neighborhoods. New York City is not exceptional in terms of the characteristics or poverty status of its residents when compared to other large urban areas, yet despite a growing population, there are one-third fewer supermarkets in New York's five boroughs today than there were six years ago.1 There is a pressing need for more affordable, nutritious food in many neighborhoods.
    [Show full text]