Down to the Roots: How Cities Are Building Local & Sustainable Food Systems
Last month, this post looked into urban food systems through the lens of urban food deserts. Food deserts point to a bigger systemic problem of the sustainability of our food systems in the face of a globalized, polarized, and increasingly resource-scarce economy and world. Our cities are increasingly reliant on food sources that are more distant and more homogenous – and thus fragile – than it seems our current economic model can maintain. What can be done to take a counter approach to a model for food systems that puts our societies, cultures, and population at risk of food shortages, malnutrition, and hunger? This is an attempt to answer that question with a set of solutions for moving towards sustainable food systems in the areas that can have the most impact – our cities.
There is a global conversation taking place around food systems planning. Nationally, we are increasingly curious and aware of our food’s origin and impact on the environment, including energy and water demands, pollution, deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions associated with industrial food production. Concerns about rising obesity rates, declining health indicators and the environmental and financial costs of producing and transporting food have led city officials to consider local policies that support affordable, accessible and healthy food options. Consequently, the demand for fresh, local produce and other foods is rising, and city officials can play a significant role in supporting this trend. Municipal governments can implement policies and programs that allow residents to grow, sell, buy, and eat more sustainably produced and locally grown foods, while strengthening the community and region. Eliminating food deserts is a growing priority in some cities. Comprehensive sustainability plans for food systems can jointly benefit public health, the local economy and the environment. Through a combination of community gardens, urban agriculture, farmers’ markets and affordable, accessible grocery stores, cities and towns are finding innovative solutions.
Seattle, Washington has long been known for its push by urban planners to create a more engaging environment around food and farming in the city. Seattle has a fruitful history of policies and programs that have emerged ahead of the national conversation, such as the first urban edible food forest, recyclability mandates on food packaging, and the idea that food should be easily grown and accessed locally.
Oakland, California is another city that is leading the national conversation around food sustainability and justice. They’re setting up ten policy initiatives to fight hunger, increase public health and awareness of the food system and its impacts, and to promote the idea of a closed-loop food system that is economically beneficial to its community. This is a big undertaking in a city that rivals Manhattan in its income inequality, and now shares a food system with the rest of the Bay Area where top dollar restaurants line city streets occupied by some who are homeless and hungry. To create a systematic approach to influencing its food system, Oakland has divided the food system into five sectors:
- Consumption & Retail
- Waste Management & Resource Recovery
Oakland is working with implementing the following set of policies as a starting point on the road to a sustainable food system:
- Protect and Expand Urban Agriculture
- Encourage accessible and affordable farmers’ markets
- Promote use of food assistance programs at farmers’ markets
- Develop ‘Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Protocols’
- Expand composting and the food scrap recycling and reuse economy
- Develop a ‘Fresh Food Financing Initiative’
- Encourage healthy mobile vending
- Create synthetic Pesticide and GMO-Production-Free Zones
- Scale up local purchasing
- Strengthen community-government links: build key relationships between residents, community leaders, and government that can create solutions.
Oakland’s policy initiatives represent a prioritized set of goals that allow the city to address the shortcomings in the current food system and move from a realistic starting point. You can find Oakland’s complete plan of action here.
Building a sustainable food system is an issue that truly comes down to the municipal and local level in the search for solutions. Each city faces different challenges in providing access to fresh and healthy food options for all residents. As we gain more understanding of the fragility of our current food system, we’re likely to see more cities following in the food-steps of Oakland and Seattle by putting in place the building blocks for the thriving local food culture that can contribute to more healthy and sustainable cities and city residents.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
The best nature-based solutions on urban industrial lands are those that are part of a corporate citizenship or conservation strategy like DTE’s or Phillips66. By integrating efforts such as tree plantings, restorations, or pollinator gardens into a larger strategy, companies begin to mainstream biodiversity into their operations. When they crosswalk the effort to other CSR goals like employee engagement, community relations, and/or workforce development, like the CommuniTree initiative, the projects become more resilient.
Air quality in urban residential communities near industrial facilities will not be improved by nature alone. But nature can contribute to the solution, and while doing so, bring benefits including recreation, education, and an increased sense of community pride. As one tool to combat disparate societal outcomes, nature is accessible, affordable and has few, if any, downsides.
I spoke last week to Adrian Benepe, former commissioner for the NYC Parks Department and currently the Senior Vice President and Director of National Programs at The Trust for Public Land.
We discussed a lot of things – the increased use of parks in the era of COVID-19, the role parks have historically played – and currently play – in citizens’ first amendment right to free speech and protests, access & equity for underserved communities, the coming budget shortfalls and how they might play out in park systems.
I wanted to pull out the discussion we had about funding for parks and share Adrian’s thoughts with all of you, as I think it will be most timely and valuable as we move forward with new budgets and new realities.
There is a risk of further widening the gap between so-called ‘knowledge workers’ able to do their jobs remotely and afford to move, and those with place-based employment who cannot. Beyond that, retreating residents might take the very identity and uniqueness of the places they abandon with them.
Nurturing the community-resident bond could be an antidote to these dismaying departures, and new research sheds light on how. A recent report by the Urban Institute and commissioned by the Knight Foundation surveyed 11,000 residents of 26 U.S. metro areas to uncover what amenities created a “sense of attachment and connection to their city or community.” Three key recommendations emerged in Smart Cities Dive’s synopsis of the results.