What variables contribute to changing animals and urban agriculture legislation in the US?

Molly Franson

LA 221

As the urban agriculture movement grows throughout the U.S. there is an increasingly broad interest in animal

keeping and therefore, the potential for animal cruelty. In light of this problem, an index has been craft ed

characterizing a city’s relationship to animals related to this movement measuring zoning codes, Food Policy

Councils, animal keeping education organizations, and food justice organizations.

Foundational research in this area is limited. However, one of the most recent urban agriculture reports, Urban

Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places published by the American Planning Association (2011)1

analyzes policies, zoning codes, municipal plans and interviews from key informants, this report responds to the

urban agriculture movement through an in-depth analysis of 11 cities and signifi cantly informed preliminary

research for this study.

Some hindrances in this study include the rapidly changing nature of this movement: currently, some cities

are amending zoning codes and animal control ordinances and zoning codes to accommodate the increased

presence of animals within a city. Publicly available municipal code sources are not up to date; therefore, this

study heavily relies on decentralized web based information sources such as newspaper articles, municipal

sources and reporting from food justice organizations.

Th is methodology is based on the recent ten-year collection of the 2010 national census data. Th is data set

has been selected by sorting from decline to growth by the percent change of their population for the top 52

cities. Data collection instruments include web-based searches involving MuniCode, an online Municipal Code

1 Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places. Hodgson, Kimberly, Bailkey, Martin and Marcia Canton Campbell. (American Planning Association: 2011).

library, as well as food justice organization websites, and newspaper articles.2 Th ese sources were compiled

and synthesized in this index in order to objectively measure the relationship between the urban agriculture

movement and animals within the movement.

Th e aim of this index is to create a topological structure that analyzes formal and informal policy and education

oriented practices related to animals within the movement. In order to achieve this, the index is comprised

of the following objective measures: Food Policy Councils, urban agriculture zoning codes, animal keeping

education organizations and food justice organizations. Each measurement is weighted by city depending on the

weight of the index’s components. Th e following discussion details and defi nes the boundaries ascribed to each

component of the index.

Food Policy Councils: A city-based Food Policy Council is composed

of stakeholders who have an interest in improving their food system, and is a part of the North American

Food Policy Council coalition. Th is coalition is part of the Community Food Security Coalition, a non-profi t

advocating for food policy change.3 Constructing a measure for Food Policy Councils is based on the the

city’s Food Policy Council’s bylaws and statement of purpose, values were given to each council based on their

evidence of and interest in promoting sustainable agricultural practices.

Food Policy Council: 0 does not exist, 1 exists

Food Policy Council that promote sustainable agriculture: 1 mentions sustainable agriculture in their bylaws.

Zoning code: Th e zoning code index was craft ed by using the Municode online library,

municipal code ordinances were reviewed and a value was ascribed to each city for categories sorted by groups

of animals. Due to the rapid amendments to zoning codes related to urban agriculture and animals within cities,

an additional search was conducted, an urban agriculture zoning code word search that focused on recent food

justice reporting’s and aft er careful review of recent zoning amendments provided information to base a value on

for the following groups of animals that contributed to the index.

2 Municipal Code Library. http://library.municode.com3 Community Food Security Coalition. www.foodsecurity.org

A value was ascribed to each city for the following category:

Bees: -1 not allowed, 0 not mentioned, 1 allowed

Fowl: -1 not allowed, 0 not mentioned, 1 allowed

Small animals (rabbit and goat): -1 not allowed, 0 not mentioned, 1 allowed

Farm animals (horse, cow, sheep): -1 not allowed, 0 not mentioned, 1 allowed

Profi table produce (municipal, residential): -1 not allowed, 0 not mentioned, 1 allowed and 2 both allowed.

Animal Keeping Education Organization: Animal keeping organizations include businesses, non-profi ts and

coalitions providing animal keeping education services. In order to identify these organizations, I completed

a word search including the following terms for the set of 52 cities: sustainable agriculture, food justice, urban

agriculture, animals, livestock, chicken, fowl, and bees. Organizations were selected to be included in the index

if they off ered classes related to fowl or livestock. Meet-up groups were omitted from the research, however,

some blogs were included because they represent small-scale farming operations that contribute to animal

keeping educational services. Th e following values were ascribed for this category:

Organization exists: 1

Food Justice Organization: Food justice organizations

are defi ned by having a food justice advocacy orientation and promote sustainable agriculture practices. Th e

organizations were identifi ed by a web based word search for each the top 52 cities along with the following

terms: sustainable agriculture, food justice, urban agriculture, animals, livestock and chicken. In this search,

meet-up groups were omitted, however, some blogs were included because they may represent a small

movement in cities where urban agriculture is unpopular. Form this search, I discovered that some coalitions

within cities were developing aiming at bolstering the local urban agriculture community. Th e following values

were ascribed for this category:

Organization exists: 1

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4.7 18Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 16.3 18New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 4.1 17Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 12.0 16Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH -2.6 15Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 3.9 13Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 4.1 12Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 10.1 12Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 14.2 12Austin-Round Rock, TX 36.4 12Kansas City, MO-KS 12.6 11Pittsburgh, PA -3.1 10Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 18.4 10Salt Lake City, UT 16.7 9Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 28.9 9Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 10.8 8Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO /1 17.1 8Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN 20.6 8Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1.1 7Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 4.1 7Oklahoma City, OK 12.0 7Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY -4.0 6Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI -1.1 6Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 5.3 6Birmingham-Hoover, AL 7.6 6Memphis, TN-MS-AR 8.3 6Tucson, AZ 20.9 6Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 31.2 6Baltimore-Towson, MD 5.4 5San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 6.0 5Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 8.1 5Columbus, OH 11.7 5Jacksonville, FL 18.3 5New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA -9.6 4Richmond, VA 12.9 4Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 14.7 4San Antonio, TX 21.1 4St. Louis, MO-IL 4.8 3San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 8.5 3Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 38.3 3Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 8.3 2Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 14.3 2Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 24.4 2Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 24.9 2Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 26.6 2Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 27.3 1Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 34.2 1Raleigh-Cary, NC 41.2 1Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 6.2 0Rochester, NY -0.2 -1Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4.5 -1Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 4.9 -1

INDEX

2010 POPULATION GROWTH/DECLINE

Aft er the data was compiled, an a score was given to each city that ranking from -1 to 18. Th e following cities

ranked the highest in the Urban Agriculture & Animal Index:

Urban Ag. & Animal Index:

1. San Francisco-CA 182. Portland-OR 183. New York-NY 174. Seattle-WA 165. Cleveland-OH 156. Milwaukee-WI 137. Los Angeles-CA 128. Minneapolis-MN 129. Washington DC 1210. Austin-TX 12

Aft er analyzing the data compiled in the index, I chose to look at the top three cities with the highest index score

: San Francisco, Portland and New York. I am interested in combining the research developed within the index

and combining it with GIS data to see if there is a correlation between income, education and the existence of

impervious surfaces within the three cities that may help explain burgeoning presence of animals from the urban

agricultural movement. By isolating GIS data layers such as income, education, and impervious surfaces, my

aim is to elucidate which city is at greatest risk for animal cruelty and what are some possible solutions for the

treatment of these animals.

History/Literature Review:Recently, some experts from the American Planning Association (APA) have become interested in the urban

agricultural movement and have been closely watching zoning policies across the US change in order to promote

the urban agriculture movement. According to the APA, zoning is not the only way to promote sustainable

agriculture in the city, but also helps provide oversight and management of animals, “Other cities have recently

loosened restrictions on keeping livestock in limited numbers or in residences where it would not be a nuisance.

For example, Portland, Oregon, citizens can apply for a permit for livestock facility with consent of property

owners within 150 feet of the site. Residents may keep up to three chickens, ducks, doves, pigeons, pygmy goats,

or rabbits without a permit.”1 APA’s support for and interest in promoting urban agriculture helps bolster and

advance the movement, while raising critical questions concerning the health of the animals with urban limits.

1American Planning Association. Zoning Practice. 2010. pg. 7

URBAN AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL INDEX MATRIX

Cities: Growth/Decline Percent Change from 2000food policy councils

food policy councils that list livestock or sustainable agriculture in their bylaws or bees chickens goats, rabbits farm animal

profit: residential, municipal animal keeping education

food justice organizations that deal with livestock TOTAL

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA -9.6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY -4.0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 6

Pittsburgh, PA -3.1 1 0 1 1 0 -1 1 3 4 10

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH -2.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 15

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI -1.1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 1 4 2 6

Rochester, NY -0.2 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 1 -1

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1.1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 7

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 3.9 1 1 1 1 0 -1 1 5 4 13

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-N 4.1 1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 8 7 17

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 4.1 1 0 -1 1 1 1 0 5 4 12

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 4.1 1 1 0 -1 0 0 0 5 1 7

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4.5 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 0 1 -1

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4.7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 5 18

St. Louis, MO-IL 4.8 1 1 1 -1 0 1 0 0 0 3

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 4.9 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 1 -1

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 5.3 1 1 0 1 -1 -1 0 3 2 6

Baltimore-Towson, MD 5.4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 5

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 6.0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Birmingham-Hoover, AL 7.6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 8.1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 5

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 8.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

Memphis, TN-MS-AR 8.3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 6

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 8.5 0 0 1 1 1 -1 0 0 1 3

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 10.1 0 0 1 1 1 -1 1 5 4 12

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 10.8 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 8

Columbus, OH 11.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 12.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 16

Oklahoma City, OK 12.0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 7

Kansas City, MO-KS 12.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 11

Cities: Growth/Decline Percent Change from 2000food policy councils

food policlist livestosustainabin their by

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA -9.6 1

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY -4.0 1

Pittsburgh, PA -3.1 1

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH -2.6 1

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI -1.1 1

Rochester, NY -0.2 0

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1.1 0

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 3.9 1

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-N 4.1 1

San Francisco: Impervious Surfaces, Education and Income In light of the results from the index, it is most interesting to think about why cities like San Francisco received

the highest score, 18. Th ere are several contributing factors to this including recent legislation passed by Gavin

Newsom and Mayor Ed Lee that aim to promote health within the city by focusing on locally sourced food and

the expansion of urban agriculture within the urban limit.

However, upon closer analysis of factors such impervious surfaces, income and education in Geographic

Information System, I have discovered that relatively low amount of impervious surfaces contribute to a high

municipal open space acreage, leaving residents with a strong appreciation and awareness of open space and

therefore, one could conclude that residents are more apt to champion urban agriculture endeavors because of

this awareness.

Futher, the well educated community is aware of the benefi ts and importance of the urban agriculture

movement. While education level and health are inextricably linked, it is important to realize that cities such as

San Francisco will rank high in the Index due to educational attainment that has been reported in the American

Community Survey for the 2010 Census.

Additionally, a high income, as reported in the 2010 census, plays a signifi cant role in San Francisco’s score

as people have resources to invest in their health by eating locally sourced food. Further, the city’s income

contributes to the integration of animals within this movement because of the progressive nature and wealth of

the city has allowed the population to champion health-based intiatives throughout this decade and their interest

in advancing the long-standing movement, now, includes animals in this discussion.

SF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES

LegendpavementArea .

16,000 0 16,000 teeF000,8

SF EDUCATION2010 CENSUS- AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

Unfortunately, I couldn’t generate this map because the

join would not work due to the excel spreadsheet. I

tried to organize the table and change the coding, but

GIS would not recognize it. I want you to know that

I spent many hours trying to fi gure this out and con-

sulted three GSIs (Scott, Warner and Kelly) and no one

could fi gure it out. I will work on this map during the

break and send you an updated version of this paper

soon.

SF ANNUAL MEDIAN INCOME2010 CENSUS- AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

LegendSF_INCOMEMED_INCOME

0

1 - 31327

31328 - 44174

44175 - 53971

53972 - 60896

60897 - 68201

68202 - 72357

72358 - 75737

75738 - 79745

79746 - 82402

82403 - 85346

85347 - 89674

89675 - 93444

93445 - 95992

95993 - 98856

98857 - 100875

100876 - 105133

105134 - 107494

107495 - 114440

114441 - 119621

119622 - 124245

124246 - 127763

127764 - 134709

134710 - 144107

144108 - 156870

156871 - 174876

174877 - 206116

206117 - 261650

1 inch = 1.91 miles¯

FUTURE RESEARCH:Unfortunately, I was unable to complete the mapping that I wanted to do for this class. In the future, I would

like to map the top ten cities from the index and then analyze the results. By analyzing education, income

and impervious surfaces in these ten cities, I will be able to tell which city is most at risk for animal abuse and

develop strategies for disposing of and caring for animals in the urban agriculture movement. For example,

a coalition of animal shelters surrounding these cities could be organized to promote awareness about animal

keeping and treatment.

As the urban agriculture grows and becomes more progressive by integrating animal keeping, animals will be at

risk for abuse. By mapping which cities are most active in the movement and analyzing cutting edge census data,

a comprehensive context emerges and gives policy makers, activisits, publich health specialists and planners a

better view of the risks involved in integrating animals within the urban limit as well as develop strategies to

address the issue that are unique to each city.

BIBLIOGRAHPHYAmerican Planning Association. Zoning Practice. 2010.

Community Food Security Coalition. www.foodsecurity.org

Municipal Code Library. http://library.municode.com

Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places. Hodgson, Kimberly, Bailkey, Martin and Marcia Canton Campbell. (American Planning Association: 2011).