dygert_mps_analysis_11-13
TRANSCRIPT
Dygert 1
Spatial Evaluation for Urban Agriculture Site Selection in Syracuse, NY
Bianca Nichole Dygert
In partial fulfillment of
Master of Professional StudiesEnvironmental and Community Land PlanningGraduate Program in Environmental Science
State University of New YorkCollege of Environmental Science and Forestry
December, 2013
Dygert 3
Abstract
Spatial analysis tools can provide communities with the necessary foundation for
preliminary site selection. The City of Syracuse draft Sustainability Plan states that one goal is
to create an inventory of city land for urban agriculture. This analysis includes suitability and
availability. Suitability consists of variables that determine whether the land can be used for
food production. Availability can depend on public ownership of property. By creating an
inventory of potential sites for food production, communities will have a preselected list from
which to choose in planning urban food production projects. This project is focused on the
planning process for site selection and analysis of urban food production in Syracuse, New
York. I used ArcGIS to evaluate suitability and availability of potential urban food production
sites. Sites were evaluated based on slope and their availability as public property. While few
sites were deemed appropriate, I was able to identify sites and create an inventory for further
investigation and field reconnaissance. This inventory will be a useful set of data that will be
available to community planners and leaders in local community agriculture projects.
Keywords: community garden, urban agriculture, planning, site analysis, landscape design,
food production, spatial analysis, GIS, Syracuse
Introduction
Community Gardening Benefits
Dygert 4
Community gardening provides a multitude of positive effects for a community. It
positively impacts diet, physical activity and psychosocial fulfillment. Health research has
focused primarily on exercise and food choice associated with gardening, and benefits to
individual gardeners (Blair et al., 1991; Armstrong, 2000). Other research shows psychological
and social benefits (Saldivar-Tanaka, 2004).
At the city and neighborhood level, community gardens, in addition to providing an
important alternative to corporate agriculture, have been showcased in the literature as a way
of promoting local pride and citizen participation, especially in poorer communities that may
be lacking in other public amenities (Baker, 2005; Lawson, 2005).
Laura Saldivar-Tanaka (2004) studied gardens as key components to social activity in
minority neighborhoods. In addition to supplying fresh produce, the gardens host numerous
social, educational, and cultural events, such as neighborhood gatherings, holiday parties,
children’s activities, school tours, concerts, health fairs, and voter registration drives suggests
the benefits of community gardens include increased vegetable consumption with decreased
sweets consumption (Blair 1991). Blair concludes that community gardens are empowering
nutrition strategies that allow gardeners to have better control over the quality, variety and
quantity of fresh produce they consume. “Gardeners were more active than non-gardeners in
community projects, and shared their vegetable wealth with family, friends, passers-by, and
church food pantries, thereby becoming nutrition change agents in their own right” (Blair,
1991).
Fusco (2001) found that community gardening was a means for improving safety in
Dygert 5
higher crime areas. In her action-based research with community-level programs, she reveals
community gardens as solutions for criminal activity in teens in inner-city schools. Her analysis
shows an increased awareness of self and community along with decreased involvement in
gang activities and crime in general.
A major issue that impedes on local food production is time investment. Non-processed
food, though healthier, takes more time to prepare than the preprocessed variety. Macias
states that if you consider a single parent household with two children and a mother working
two jobs that it becomes clear how unpaid labor involved in preparing unprocessed food is
itself a major impediment to the equitable distribution of healthy food, with low-income
mothers in particular paying a high price with regard to diet and obesity.
Community Gardens and Planning Process
John Ikerd argues that land must be used in a way that is sustainable for present and
future use (Ikerd, 2011). He also states that land should be treated as a commons rather than
private property, so that all people may benefit equally. In agricultural food production, Ikerd's
claims are a means for improving the health of communities that have limited access to
healthy food choices.
Donna Armstrong (2000) studied a majority of programs in upstate New York through
contact with the Cornell Cooperative Extension and communication with city and town
leaders. She conducted an analysis of the benefits to gardening regarding health and
community development. Armstrong states that coordinators seem to play a key role in the
Dygert 6
progress and success of a community garden. Their responsibilities include enrolling and
informing participants about rules and organization. They can also organize and attend
cooperative activities along with the responsibility of acquiring resources, such as soil
amendments. Coordinators also work with the neighborhoods intimately, allowing them to get
to know the people who live and interact in these communities.
Out of 20 community garden programs in upstate New York that Armstrong surveyed,
46% of the total 63 gardens were located in low-income urban areas. Approximately 30% had a
majority of minority gardeners. 87% of the gardens had cooperation among gardeners.
Coordinators report reasons for participation include access to better tasting food, especially
for low-income households, to enjoy nature and open spaces and health benefits. This shows
that community participants are aware and proactively helping to better their lives. Many
types of reasoning are behind the creation and ongoing maintenance of these gardens as
reliable food sources, sites for social interaction and organized activity, and a place for overall
improvement of self and community, both mentally and physically.
Thomas Macias (2008) talks about different modes of local agricultural production that
have distinctive effects on the local population with regard to equitable access to healthy food,
social inclusion, and experiential knowledge of the natural world. Some conclusions he made
include that given class-based disparities in local agricultural participation, local food projects
should consider promoting programs designed for broader social inclusion. Industrial food
production risks have also encouraged participation and support of local community-based
agriculture.
Dygert 7
Despite overwhelming support among researchers that community garden programs
lead to a variety of quality of life improvements, standard site selection methodology for com-
munity gardens has been only incorporated in a limited manner. Community gardens can be a
social tool to help reduce inequality in low-income neighborhoods in Syracuse. To do this it is
first necessary to create an urban planning site selection data set from which to work in order
to save resources.
One key component to successful site selection that will be addressed here is urban
planning through spatial analysis.
This project will provide a guide for appropriate planning in community garden site
selection. I will outline the process of a suitability analysis using ArcGIS 10. This project will
help in the development a public land bank of vacant space in Syracuse, NY. This proposed land
bank will allow projects for urban food production to emerge and become successful in
Syracuse.
Methodology
This project was built upon the goals identified in the City of Syracuse draft
Sustainability Plan (Syracuse, 2012). The methodology has closely followed that found in
Nathan McClintock's “Cultivating the Commons.” I provided a city land inventory, which will
serve as a public entity for the city of Syracuse. I used McClintock's study of Oakland as my
guide and developed a GIS suitability guide and inventory list as outlined in his methods. Chen
(2010) used ArcGIS as a land suitability analysis for a similar study, utilizing multi-criteria
weighting for site selection. I have adapted these methods from McEntee & Agyeman (2010)
Dygert 8
and Chen (2010) as well. I have used a simplified multi-criteria overlay mapping analysis
method to perform a site selection and suitability analysis for urban food production.
Other general goals came from a local urban agriculture organization called Syracuse
Grows. “The organization is a grassroots coalition of individuals, gardens, and community
collaborators working to cultivate a just foodscape in the city of Syracuse”
(SyracuseGrows.org). This project aligns with the Syracuse Grows’ mission and helps to obtain
the goal stated in the City of Syracuse Sustainability Plan.
The methodology is based on two identified goals in chapter three of the Syracuse Draft
Sustainability Plan, Food Systems and McCintock's methods in his Oakland study. Goal 3.2.2.2
considers identifying an area to develop a food center where food-related businesses can
cluster. In order to meet goal 3.3.4.1, to create an inventory of city land for urban agriculture
(availability and suitability), I have conducted a suitability and availability analysis of potential
sites in Syracuse using ArcGIS 10 software. Suitability consists of layers for slope and land
cover. Availability is open space and vacant lots that are publicly owned by a government
organization, tax delinquent, and/or seizable by the city. For a base map, I collected shapefile
data for boundaries and infrastructure (streets) as well as zoning and physical geography. The
extent for this map is the city of Syracuse boundary line. Analysis was conducted using ArcGIS
10.1 and 10.2.
This project specifically asked how sites are determined to be suitable for urban
agriculture and then determined the level of suitability. They were later determined as
“suitable” or “not suitable.” Sites that met the criteria outlined above were declared as
Dygert 9
“suitable. Sites that were available and did not meet the criteria above were declared “not
suitable.”
An inventory of seizable land in Syracuse, NY was conducted using parcel data from
2013. With this data, I identified which parcels were seizable by the city government and
declared tax delinquent. This data was provided by Jonnell Allen Robinson of Syracuse
University. I separated seizable parcels as an individual layer. I added layers for land cover,
digital elevation, existing community gardens, roads and boundaries for the city. This data was
Dygert 10
obtained through the NYS GIS clearinghouse, CUGIR, and USGS.gov. I separated each of the
land cover types excluding water. My main factor was vegetation. Bare earth and grass/shrub
are best suited for a potential community garden. These land covers were first separated into
layers, but later combined for evaluation purposes.
Selecting features that meet both criteria for land cover and seizable vacant land was
the next step. The “intersect” tool was used to create a new layer of this data. This resulted in
seizable vacant land that was either grass/shrub or bare earth. This layer included information
in the attribute table from both layers. Using the “identify” button to select features, one can
view all information from that selected piece of land, including area.
The next step was to add digital elevation data for the area. This data included East and
West Syracuse and South Onondaga Digital Elevation Models, or DEM, quads in order to show
all data for the city. The existing three quads of raster data were merged to create one raster.
The “Slope” tool from the toolbox was then used to derive the slope from the DEM. The slope
was automatically calculated with defined classification ranges. For this study, a slope of
greater than 30% was not suitable for agriculture, following the methodology from
McClintock’s study. Slope was classified with two ranges: 0-30% and 30% or greater. This made
the difference in slope highly visible and easy to overlay with the vacant land data.
The extent of the map was defined by the Syracuse city boundary. The data frame
extent was clipped to this boundary as a temporary visual representation, instead of a
permanent change using the clip tool, in order to maintain data integrity for future use should
the need arise for area outside Syracuse.
Dygert 11
Results
The preliminary results showed the availability of several seizable vacant land areas in
Syracuse that fit all or most of the requirements.
Land use classification data was used to determine which areas could be used for
community gardens. This data divided the land into seven different classes: bare earth,
grass/shrub, tree canopy, water, streets, buildings, and other paved surfaces. For this project,
bare earth and grass/shrub were selected as most suitable. This is because these land types
are most usable as is or easily adapted to become a community garden.
A few of the sites had a slope likely too steep to be suitable community gardens, but
could still be considered. Slope is the incline of elevation. It is calculated by the change in
elevation over distance. In this study, slope is expressed as a percentage: the higher the
number, the steeper the slope. For example, a high ridge could have an elevation change from
500 feet to 1500 feet within a distance of 30 feet. This elevation change over a small distance
will create a steep slope. If there was an elevation change of 500 feet to 550 feet over a
distance of 30 feet, then the slope would not be steep at all.
A majority of the land in Syracuse does not meet the requirements for this project and
was given the label “not suitable.” These areas were excluded from the map but could be
shown in ArcGIS if desired.
Fig. 2 (Below) shows the stage in analysis that eliminates all areas except bare earth and
Dygert 12
grass/shrub. This was done with an original layer of land use classification data that was
separated into seven categories. The two usable land use areas were extracted and combined
to form a new layer in the map that could be selected separately. The purpose of this step was
to eliminate all areas that were “not suitable” by choosing to only show the data for “suitable”
areas.
Dygert 13
Fig 3. (Below) shows the slope before and after classification adjustment. Before (on the left)
shows the slope calculated as a percentage using the “Slope” tool in ArcGIS. This automatically
calculates the slope based on existing elevation and area data. The image on the left classifies
slope in a graduated color scheme, green being the lowest and red the highest. Areas such as
the southwestern border of the city, where the small area quickly changes from green to red,
show ridges, hills, mountains, etc. These areas are not very suitable for community gardens
because it would be difficult to plant and maintain. The image on the right shows the same
area with only two classifications: 30% or lower, and greater than 30%. Based on McClintock's
study, a slope of greater than 30% makes the land less suitable for community gardens.
Dygert 14
Fig. 4 (Below) shows the final map with suitable areas highlighted in blue laid over a slope
map. The image itself shows minor detail. It displays the areas of land that are seizable,
according to the tax parcel data of the city of Syracuse. These lots are tax-delinquent and/or
could be obtained for city use. These suitable areas also match the criteria for land cover as
bare earth or grass/shrub.
Dygert 15
Discussion
Utilizing remote-sensing tools such as ArcGIS can provide urban planners and
community gardeners with an opportunity to conduct necessary preliminary research in a
fairly inexpensive and timely manner. A large amount of GIS data is easily obtainable for free.
The study was conducted with little cost. Free trials of software and student-edition one-year
memberships allowed me to use the software for free for an extended period of time. The
data analysis itself took relatively little time to complete. This was due to efficient use of the
software and a large amount of research that allowed me to determine variables and potential
results even before data analysis was started.
The proposed methods were followed with the exception of light availability. Although
this can be measured and analyzed using the Solar Radiation tool with DEM data in ArcGIS, the
tool would not process the data properly and showed an error. This can be measured in
different ways and added to the working map in the future.
Since slope can be altered with a change in the elevation for each area of land, the
areas with a slope of greater than 30% were not completely disregarded. Instead, areas most
suitable with a significant portion of slope less than 30% were selected. In this sense, the term
“significant” means a majority of land with a slope of less than 30%.
Considering this is still a working map, there are many areas for improvement. My goal
Dygert 16
was to create a base map that showed available vacant and seizable land that matched the
requirements for use as community gardens. The study was conducted remotely to show the
usefulness of remote-access GIS processing for preliminary research. I have succeeded in
completing the project as originally intended apart from time delays due to outside factors.
Given the preliminary nature of this project, there is much room for additional analysis.
Suggestions for future studies related to this project include site visits that would include soil
sampling, surveying of community members to find out if the garden would be accepted
and/or embraced by residents, measuring of sunlight, calculation of water availability, analysis
of healthy food options, and access to public transportation. Another option for additional
adjustments made to the map could include tree canopy as part of the land classification that
is suitable for use as community gardens. Since we can alter areas for this purpose, future
work can take that into consideration.
My future plans include utilizing the ArcGIS software for the remainder of my free trial
for personal and professional use with the intent of eventually purchasing the software.
Fig. 5 below shows suitable land versus existing community gardens to show where
there are gaps that could be filled with these vacant areas.
Dygert 17
Dygert 18
Conclusion
The proposed project was changed slightly in order to make my conclusions more
cohesive. My original rankings for suitability were on a letter grade scale with “A”, “B”, “C”, or
“F” in order to show a scale of suitability. Once I began working with the map I realized that a
ranking of “suitable” or “not suitable” was more applicable.
The project schedule was also adjusted to overcome some setbacks in the project
analysis. Lack of access to personal Internet and limited interaction with the SUNY-ESF campus
made it difficult to progress as planned. Although this setback delayed the process, the results
were as expected. There were sites that were completely unavailable due to private
ownership. Given the urban area, suitability with land cover was a big factor. A majority of the
city is paved or occupied by buildings, and therefore off limits for use as community gardens.
There is a large portion of canopy cover in the city. In the right circumstances, these areas may
be useful. However, the access to sunlight would play a large factor in urban agriculture and
therefore has eliminated canopy cover from the “suitable” category.
Bibliography
Allen Robinson, J. 2013. Syracuse University.
Armstrong, D., 2000. A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: implications for health promotion and community development. Health & Place 6, 319–327.
Baker, Lauren. E. 2004. Tending Cultural Landscapes and Food Citizenship in Toronto's Community Gardens. American Geographical Society, 94(3): p 305-325.
Dygert 19
Blair, D., Giesecke, C., Sherman, S., 1991. A dietary, social and economic evaluation of the Philadelphia urban gardening project. The Journal of Nutrition Education 23, 161–167.
Bolund, Per; and Hunhammar, Sven. 1999. Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas. Ecological Economics 29(2): p 293-301.
Chen, Y.; Yu, J. and Khan, S. 2010. Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(12) p 1582-1591.
Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository (2013). CUGIR. Retrieved Feb 20 2013 from http://www.cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu
Fusco, D. 2001. Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (8) pp. 860–877.
New York State GIS Clearinghouse (2013) Retrieved Feb 20 2013 from http://www.gis.ny.gov.
Grove, J. Morgan; Cadenasso, Mary L; Burch, William R.; Pickett, Steward T. A.; Schwarz, Kirsten; O'Neil-Dunne, Jarlath; Wilson, Matthew; Troy, Austin; Boone, Christopher. 2006. Data and Methods Comparing Social Structure and Vegetation Structure in Urban Neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. Society & Natural Resources 19(2): p 117-136.
Ikerd, John. 2011. Land Use Planning for Sustainable Food Systems. Journal of Agricultural, Food Systems, and Community Development. 2(1): p 3-6.
Macias, Thomas. 2008. Working Toward a Just, Equitable, and Local Food System: The Social Impact of Community-Based Agriculture. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), pp. 1086-1101.
McClintock, Nathan and Cooper, Jenny. 2010 “Cultivating the Commons: An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland's Public Land.” University of California, Berkeley.
McEntee, Jesse; Agyeman, Julian. 2010. Towards the development of a GIS method for identifying rural food deserts: Geographic access in Vermont. Applied Geography, 30(1) p 165-176.
Pudup M.B. 2008. It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects Geoforum, 39 (3) : p. 1228-1240.
Saldivar-Tanaka, Laura and. Krasny, Marianne E. 2004. Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4): p 399-412.
Dygert 20
United States Geological Survey (2013). USGS Maps, Imagery, and Publications. Retrieved Feb 20 2013 from http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod
Walton, Bryan, and Bailey, Conner. 2005. Framing Wilderness: Populism and Cultural Heritage as Organizing Principles. Society & Natural Resources 18(2): p 119-134.
Weissman, E. 2012. Syracuse University.
Westphal, Lynne M. 2003. Urban Greening And Social Benefits: A Study Of Empowerment Outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3): p 137-147.
Williams, Katie and Dair, Carol. 2006. A Framework of Sustainable Behaviours That Can Be Enabled Through The Design Of Neighbourhood-Scale Developments. Sustainable Development. 15(3): p 160-173.
GIS Data Sources: Jonnell Allen Robinson (Syracuse Univeristy), NYS GIS Clearinghouse (gis.ny.gov), CUGIR (cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu), US Geographical Survey (USGS.gov)
I would like to thank Dr. Stewart Diemont, Dr. Evan Wiessman, Dr. Margaret Bryant, and Dr. Jonnell Allen Robinson for all their help in this project.