journal of planning education and research
TRANSCRIPT
http://jpe.sagepub.com
Journal of Planning Education and Research
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X04264908 2004; 23; 356 Journal of Planning Education and Research
Kameshwari Pothukuchi Community Food Assessment: A First Step in Planning for Community Food Security
http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/4/356 The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
can be found at:Journal of Planning Education and Research Additional services and information for
http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jpe.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/4/356 Citations
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10.1177/0739456X04264908 ARTICLEPothukuchiCommunity Food Assessment
Community Food AssessmentA First Step in Planning for Community Food Security
Kameshwari Pothukuchi
Community assessments are activities to systematically collect and disseminateinformation on selected community characteristics so that community leaders
and agencies may devise appropriate strategies to improve their localities. Assessmentshave informed traditional activities in comprehensive, land-use, and sectoral planning,as well as more recent efforts to promote sustainable and healthy communities in theform of indicators projects (Ammons 1996; Hatry et al. 1992; Sawicki and Flynn 1996).This article discusses community food assessments as a novel manifestation of a tradi-tional planning activity, one that has the potential to both inform traditional planningpractice and improve community food planning. Through a study of nine cases of com-munity food assessment (CFA) in communities nationwide (see appendix), this articlediscusses CFAs as planning tools, the strengths of a planning approach to assessments,and lessons for planners and others in conducting CFAs. This article builds on previouswork that urges greater planning attention to food issues in communities (Pothukuchiand Kaufman 2000, 1999; Gottlieb and Fisher 1996).
The article is organized in four main sections. The first discusses major streamsthrough which food flows to and within communities: the dominant, market-orientedfood system; the charitable food assistance system; the federal food safety net; and com-munity food systems. Underlying the nascent community food security movement isthe belief that community food systems strengthen localities and regions in diverseways and provide viable alternatives to the other streams. This section introduces CFAsas a tool for enhancing community food security. Nine CFAs are analyzed in a secondsection by comparing those conducted by urban planners and those without educa-tional or professional backgrounds in planning. A third section discusses how a plan-ning approach may strengthen CFAs, while the fourth identifies lessons from CFAs forimproving community food security planning. A concluding section discusses theimplications of this article for planning, education, and practice.
� Community Food Security
In recent decades, the U.S. food system has made available on supermarket shelvesan abundant supply of cheap and diverse food products. Between 1980 and 2000, U.S.
356
Journal of Planning Education and Research 23:356-377DOI: 10.1177/0739456X04264908© 2004 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
Abstract
Community food assessments (CFAs) con-stitute a first step in planning for commu-nity food security. Community foodsecurity is a situation in which all commu-nity residents obtain a safe, culturally ac-ceptable, nutritionally adequate dietthrough a sustainable food system thatalso maximizes community self-relianceand social justice. Through a study of nineCFAs, this article discusses their commonthreads to planning, how a planning ap-proach might strengthen CFAs, and whatplanners might learn from them. FourCFAs led by professionals with planningbackgrounds employed spatial mappingtechniques to analyze a variety of issues,explored more and diverse community-food linkages, used multiple sources andmethods, envisioned a key role for com-munity planning agencies, distributedtheir findings widely to a local and na-tional audience of professional planners,and helped place planners in leadershippositions of the national community foodsecurity movement. Implications of thisstudy for planning education, research,and practice are discussed.
Keywords: food security; community food sys-tems; community food assessment
Kameshwari Pothukuchi is an assistant pro-fessor of urban planning at Wayne StateUniversity. Her research interests includecommunity food security, citizen partici-pation and collaborative processes, andgender and community development.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
per capita food consumption grew from about 1,800 pounds to2,000 pounds per year (Jerardo 2002). Nutritional deficienciesseen in the early 1900s, in children and adults, have all but dis-appeared. In pockets where hunger and lack of access prevail,government-based and charitable food assistance programshelp overcome shortages and malnutrition. This is a story ofthe great success of American enterprise, technology, and tosome extent, social policy.
Four major streams of food flow into communities today.Three of these are tied to the dominant, now global, system offood production and distribution and differ mainly in thechannels that make products available to community residentsand the rationales and conditions of their operation:
• the mainstream, market-oriented food system currentlydominated by large corporations;
• the charitable food assistance network made up of foodbanks, food pantries, and soup kitchens; and
• the federal nutrition safety net with programs targeted atpoor children and adults, pregnant women and nursingmothers, and seniors.
All three streams have contributed to communities innumerous and significant ways (Schlebecker 1975; FoodResearch and Action Center 1991; Gilbert 1982; Poppendieck1998). All have also posed numerous problems for them. Afourth stream consists of community food systems character-ized by closer regional connections between producers, pro-cessors, and consumers. Table 1 provides a comparative over-view of each stream from the perspective of communityeconomy, health, environment, and local communities’ abilityto influence each stream. Proponents of the nascent commu-nity food security movement (discussed below) believe thatcommunity food systems, developed systematically with theguiding framework of community food security, canstrengthen localities and regions in multiple ways, alleviate theproblems posed by the three dominant streams, and enhancepossibilities for community planning—including communityfood planning.
Community food security provides both a critique of and analternative approach to food systems compared with the threestreams described above. Three principal features character-ize this framework: one, it seeks goals associated with progres-sive planning—equity, health, and sustainability; two, it is com-prehensive in its view of food systems and their connections topeople, natural resources, and place; and three, it holds com-munity as an indispensable unit of solution to food problems.While consensus has yet to be developed on a definition acrossits many adherents, here is one that is widely used:
Community food security (CFS) is defined as a situation inwhich all community residents obtain a safe, culturally
acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustain-able food system that maximizes community self-relianceand social justice. (Hamm and Bellows 2003, 37)
Table 1 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of themainstream food system and its three channels of food distri-bution to communities. In brief, the critiques of the threestreams of food by the community food security movementinclude the following:
• Food sources and related processes are becoming more dis-tant so that consumers have scant knowledge of where theirfood comes from, how it is produced, and under what con-ditions, resulting in a lack of interest in the consequencesfor communities of their consumption choices and an in-abil i ty of communit ies to plan (Kloppenburg,Hendrickson, and Stevenson 1995).
• Concerns are mounting about related social and environ-mental impacts of energy intensive nature of food produc-tion, processing, and distribution; the degradation ofnatural resources; increased production of greenhousegases; habitat loss; the global exploitation of food workers;and so on. All of society bears the costs of such externalitiesproduced by the current food system.
• Yet another externality relates to the health costs arisingfrom poor dietary choices consumers make in the currentcontext in which the vast majority (94 percent in 1997) offood-advertising dollars are spent on processed and conve-nience foods, in contrast to fresh fruit, vegetables, or otherhealthful choices (Nestle 2002; Gallo 1999). An estimated300,000 deaths per year may be attributable to obesity(Allison et al. 1999); one-third of all cancer deaths arelinked to diet (Doll and Peto 1981); and just seven diet-re-lated health conditions cost $80 billion annually in medicalcosts and productivity losses (USDA Economic ResearchService, n.d., 1).
• The trend toward greater concentration and vertical inte-gration in the global food system places enormous powerand resources in the hands of few large, multinational cor-porations that control activities from farm to fork. Today,the top five grocery firms, for example, account for 42 per-cent of national retail sales, up from 24 percent in 1997(Hendrickson et al. 2001). Four companies control 84 per-cent of the U.S. cereal market (Krebs 1994). The reductionof competition is a prime illustration of the movement to-ward market failure of the food economy.
• Despite the productivity of the U.S. food system, incidenceof hunger and food insecurity1 is increasing. The USDA re-ports that in 1999, 10 percent of all U.S. households, repre-senting 19 million adults and 12 million children, were“food insecure.” Of these, 5 million adults and 2.7 millionchildren suffered from food insecurity that was so severethat they were classified as “hungry” (Food Research andAction Center 2000). In 2002, the U.S. Conference of May-ors reported that over half of the twenty-five cities surveyedwere unable to provide adequate quantities of food to thosein need and that nearly two-thirds had to decrease theamount of food provided and/or the number of times peo-ple could come in for assistance (U.S. Conference of May-
Community Food Assessment � 357
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le 1
.A
com
para
tive
ove
rvie
w o
f fo
ur s
trea
ms
linki
ng f
ood
and
com
mun
itie
s.
Com
mun
ity F
ood
Syst
ems
(inf
orm
ed b
yIs
sue
Con
vent
iona
l Mar
ket S
ecto
rC
hari
tabl
e/Vo
lunt
ary
Sect
orG
over
nmen
t Sec
tor
in N
utri
tion
com
mun
ity fo
od s
ecur
ity fr
amew
ork)
Prim
ary
rati
onal
esfo
r ac
tivi
ties
inco
mm
unit
ies
(a)
Max
imiz
ing
sale
s/pr
ofit
s(b
) In
crea
sin
g ef
fici
ency
, red
ucin
gco
sts
(a)
Hel
pin
g in
divi
dual
s an
d fa
mili
es(b
) C
ontr
ibut
ing
to/s
ervi
ng
loca
lco
mm
unit
y (f
or v
olun
teer
s,em
ploy
ees)
(a)
Prop
pin
g co
mm
odit
y pr
ices
(b)
Prev
enti
ng
hun
ger,
mal
nut
riti
onam
ong
thos
e w
ith
out a
cces
s, a
bilit
yto
pay
(a)
Prom
otin
g lo
cal p
lan
nin
g fo
r fo
odsy
stem
s(b
) Pr
omot
ing
links
bet
wee
n fo
od a
nd
com
mun
ity
obje
ctiv
es(c
) C
reat
ing
mor
e lo
caliz
ed fo
od s
ys-
tem
s as
alt
ern
ativ
e to
glo
bal s
yste
ms
Un
its
of d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
rela
tive
to c
onsu
mpt
ion
(a)
Indi
vidu
al/f
amily
/hou
seh
old
(b)
Firm
s, in
clud
ing
mul
tin
atio
nal
corp
orat
ion
s
(a)
Indi
vidu
al/f
amily
/hou
seh
old
(b)
Non
prof
it o
rgan
izat
ion
s, c
har
itie
s(a
) In
divi
dual
/fam
ily(b
) Fe
dera
l age
nci
es(a
) In
divi
dual
/fam
ily/h
ouse
hol
d(b
) C
omm
unit
ies
of p
lace
an
d/or
peo
-pl
e (i
ncl
udin
g lo
cal g
over
nm
ent a
nd
non
prof
its)
(c)
Loc
al fi
rms
Det
erm
inan
ts o
fin
divi
dual
s’el
igib
ility
or
capa
city
topa
rtic
ipat
e in
stre
am
(a)
Abi
lity
to p
ay(b
) Sp
atia
l/cu
ltur
al a
cces
s(a
) M
ean
s te
stin
g (i
nfo
rmal
)(b
) R
efer
ral b
y ce
ntr
al c
omm
unit
yag
ency
(c)
Spat
ial/
cult
ural
acc
ess
(a)
Mea
ns
test
ing
(b)
Vul
ner
abili
ty s
tatu
s (c
hild
ren
,se
nio
rs, d
isab
led,
etc
.)(c
) Sp
atia
l/cu
ltur
al a
cces
s
(a)
Sam
e as
mar
ket,
gove
rnm
ent,
char
ity
(b)
Mem
bers
hip
in s
pati
al/c
ultu
ral
com
mun
ity
(c)
Com
mun
ity
deci
sion
-mak
ing
auth
orit
y or
lead
ersh
ipB
enef
its
orad
van
tage
s to
indi
vidu
als
and
hou
seh
olds
(a)
Con
ven
tion
al li
nk
to fo
odec
onom
y(b
) Fr
eedo
m fr
om s
tigm
a(c
) Pr
ices
, pro
duct
s ar
e co
mpe
titi
ve(d
) C
onve
nie
nce
(e)
Jobs
, bus
ines
s op
port
unit
ies
(a)
Con
ven
ien
t, ex
pedi
ent s
ourc
e of
food
for
reci
pien
ts, p
ossi
bly
inad
diti
on to
gov
ern
men
t sou
rces
(b)
Avo
idan
ce o
f gov
ern
men
tbu
reau
crac
y, a
ssoc
iate
d h
assl
es fo
rre
cipi
ents
(c)
Abi
lity
to d
iver
t cas
h to
oth
ern
eces
siti
es s
uch
as
ren
t, ut
iliti
es, e
tc.,
by r
ecip
ien
ts(d
) Fo
ster
ing
of s
piri
t of c
omm
unit
yse
rvic
e fo
r vo
lun
teer
s, e
mpl
oyee
s
(a)
Food
saf
ety
net
in c
risi
s or
chro
nic
pov
erty
sit
uati
ons
(b)
Food
s se
lect
ed fo
r n
utri
tion
valu
e(c
) W
ides
prea
d (n
atio
nal
)av
aila
bilit
y
(a)
Gre
ater
kn
owle
dge
of, c
onn
ecti
onto
loca
l foo
d so
urce
s an
d sy
stem
par
ts(b
) G
reat
er s
ay in
loca
l foo
d sy
stem
s,pl
ann
ing
(c)
Mor
e op
port
unit
ies
for
jobs
, par
tici
-pa
tion
in fo
od s
yste
m a
nd
com
mu-
nit
y-fo
od li
nks
(d)
Gre
ater
pos
sibi
litie
s fo
r so
cial
acco
unta
bilit
y, s
tew
ards
hip
of l
ocal
sour
ces,
sin
ks
Ben
efit
s to
com
mun
itie
s,so
ciet
y
(a)
Stre
am c
ontr
ibut
es to
loca
lec
onom
ies—
taxe
s, jo
bs, s
ales
,va
lue-
adde
d, m
ulti
plie
r ef
fect
s(b
) G
roce
ry s
tore
s, m
arke
tsco
ntr
ibut
e to
nei
ghbo
rhoo
dqu
alit
y of
life
(c)
Can
sup
port
loca
l foo
d sy
stem
sde
pen
din
g on
type
an
d sc
ale
ofac
tivi
ties
(a)
Prev
ents
cri
ses
pose
d by
hun
ger
and
food
inse
curi
ty(b
) Fo
od th
at m
igh
t hav
e go
ne
tow
aste
is g
lean
ed(c
) C
reat
es o
ppor
tun
itie
s fo
r in
stit
u-ti
ons
(e.g
., ch
urch
es)
to c
ontr
ibut
e,se
rve
com
mun
itie
s(d
) R
aise
s co
mm
unit
y aw
aren
ess
ofh
unge
r, fo
od in
secu
rity
(e)
Bui
lds
loca
l cap
acit
y fo
r ad
dres
sin
glo
cal p
robl
ems
(f)
Lin
ks to
oth
er s
ocia
l ser
vice
s
(a)
Stre
am s
uppo
rts
not
ion
of f
ood
as a
n e
nti
tlem
enta
(b)
Con
trib
utes
to lo
cal e
con
omy
injo
bs, f
ood
sale
s, e
tc.
(c)
Supp
orts
farm
ers,
farm
com
mun
itie
s by
ch
ann
elin
gsu
rplu
s to
nee
dy, p
oor
popu
lati
ons,
wh
ile s
uppo
rtin
g co
mm
odit
y pr
ices
(a)
Allo
ws
grea
ter
com
mun
ity
part
icip
a-ti
on in
an
d po
ssib
iliti
es fo
r lo
cal f
ood
plan
nin
g(b
) Fo
ster
s gr
eate
r co
nn
ecti
on b
etw
een
food
an
d co
mm
unit
y go
als
(c)
Del
iver
s po
siti
ve o
utco
mes
, red
uced
cost
s to
som
e se
gmen
ts o
f soc
iety
as
are
sult
of l
ocal
izat
ion
; ben
efit
s to
soc
i-et
y as
a w
hol
e du
e to
gre
ater
sust
ain
abili
ty o
f act
ivit
ies
358
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Food
pro
blem
scr
eate
d,un
solv
ed fo
rin
divi
dual
s an
dh
ouse
hol
ds
(a)
Man
y ca
nn
ot a
ffor
d to
pay
(b)
Man
y do
not
hav
e sp
atia
l or
cult
ural
acc
ess
(c)
Man
y ex
peri
ence
con
fusi
on a
bout
nut
riti
on a
dvic
e (a
nd
resu
ltin
g ill
hea
lth
) as
a r
esul
t of i
ndu
stry
infl
u-en
ce o
n n
utri
tion
res
earc
h, a
dvic
e,an
d re
gula
tion
; los
e kn
owle
dge
and
skill
s du
e to
dep
ende
nce
on
pro
-ce
ssed
an
d co
nve
nie
nce
food
s(d
) Sm
all f
arm
ers,
pro
cess
ors
suff
erdu
e to
red
uced
loca
l sou
rcin
g as
are
sult
of g
loba
l con
cen
trat
ion
an
dve
rtic
al in
tegr
atio
n
(a)
Cre
ates
“us
-them
” m
enta
lity
amon
gco
mm
unit
y re
side
nts
(b)
Inef
fici
ent,
inad
equa
te fo
rre
cipi
ents
(c)
Tim
e, fo
od q
uan
tity
lim
its
impo
sed
on r
ecip
ien
ts(d
) C
lien
ts m
ay n
ot b
e ab
le to
mai
nta
inn
utri
tiou
s or
cul
tura
lly s
peci
fic
diet
sbe
caus
e of
a r
elia
nce
on
don
atio
ns
(e)
Clie
nts
may
not
obt
ain
fres
h fr
uit,
vege
tabl
es, d
airy
, an
d m
eat,
beca
use
thei
r pe
rish
able
nat
ure
pose
s st
orag
ean
d di
stri
buti
on p
robl
ems
for
food
pan
trie
s(f
) In
trac
tabi
lity
of p
robl
em le
ads
tobu
rnou
t, “b
lam
e-th
e-vi
ctim
” dy
nam
-ic
s am
ong
volu
nte
ers,
sta
ff
(a)
Man
y el
igib
le fa
mili
es a
re n
oten
rolle
d(b
) M
any
nee
dy a
re n
ot e
ligib
le d
ue to
rece
nt r
estr
icti
ons
(c)
Red
uced
ben
efit
s du
e to
cut
back
son
dur
atio
n o
r am
oun
t of b
enef
its
(d)
Rig
id b
urea
ucra
tic
rule
s m
ayen
cour
age
chea
tin
g w
hen
fam
ilies
may
be
tem
pora
rily
bet
ter
off
(e)
Rec
ipie
nts
may
exp
erie
nce
insu
lts
from
wel
fare
sta
ff, s
tore
cle
rks;
indi
g-n
ity
from
wel
fare
dep
ende
nce
(f)
Rec
ipie
nts
spe
nd
muc
h ti
me,
effo
rt to
gai
n b
enef
its,
res
ulti
ng
inin
effi
cien
cies
(a)
Com
mun
ity-
base
d so
luti
ons
are
nec
-es
sari
ly li
mit
ed in
sol
vin
g pr
oble
ms
root
ed in
the
larg
er s
ocie
ty (
sim
ilar
to h
omel
essn
ess
or u
nem
ploy
men
t)(b
) C
omm
unit
ies
are
segr
egat
ed b
yin
com
e, r
ace,
cla
ss, e
tc.,
thes
e pr
ob-
lem
s w
ill li
mit
abi
lity
of r
esid
ents
topa
rtic
ipat
e in
pla
nn
ing,
impl
emen
t-in
g ch
ange
(c)
Som
e re
gion
s n
ot c
limat
ical
ly o
rre
sour
ce e
ndo
wed
to b
ecom
e ev
enm
inim
ally
sel
f-rel
ian
t in
food
(d)
Com
mun
ity
food
sys
tem
s w
ork
best
in c
onju
nct
ion
wit
h h
igh
er le
vels
of
inte
rven
tion
in fo
od a
nd
oth
er s
ocia
lpo
licy
issu
es to
ben
efit
indi
vidu
als,
hou
seh
olds
(w
ages
, hea
lth
care
, etc
.)(e
) B
uild
ing
com
mun
ity
syst
ems
take
sti
me,
res
ourc
es, l
eade
rsh
ipFo
od p
robl
ems
crea
ted
byst
ream
or
unre
solv
ed fo
rco
mm
unit
ies
desp
ite
stre
am
(a)
Mar
keti
ng
impe
rati
ves
trum
pco
mm
unit
y in
tere
sts
in n
utri
tion
,eq
uity
, or
sust
ain
abili
ty(b
) C
urre
nt f
ood
reta
il pr
oces
ses
may
crea
te fo
od d
eser
ts in
som
e re
gion
s(c
) R
egio
ns
as a
wh
ole
may
lose
out
inco
mpe
titi
on a
mon
g co
mm
unit
ies
for
stor
es, f
ood
indu
stri
es(d
) C
once
ntr
atio
n p
oses
ris
k of
mar
ket
failu
re d
ue to
loss
of c
ompe
titi
on(e
) N
egat
ive
equi
ty, s
usta
inab
ility
,h
ealt
h o
utco
mes
due
to c
urre
nt
prac
tice
s(f
) So
me
spat
ial a
nd/
or e
thn
icco
mm
unit
ies
wor
se o
ff th
an o
ther
s
(a)
Ch
arit
y m
ay d
istr
act d
onor
s an
dre
cipi
ents
from
adv
ocac
y fo
r be
tter
soci
al p
olic
ies
(b)
It m
ay th
reat
en e
nti
tlem
ent b
ene-
fits
(w
hen
pol
icy
mak
ers
offe
rch
arit
y as
a p
refe
rred
res
pon
se to
soci
al p
robl
ems)
(c)
Has
not
mad
e an
impa
ct o
n th
ero
ots
of th
e pr
oble
m: p
over
ty,
excl
usio
n(d
) Fo
od s
ourc
es c
onti
nue
to b
e di
s-ta
nt,
envi
ron
men
tally
un
sust
ain
able
(a)
Dep
ende
nce
on
dis
tan
tbu
reau
crac
ies
allo
ws
scan
t loc
alad
apta
bilit
y or
pla
nn
ing
base
d on
loca
l ass
ets
and
nee
ds(b
) Fo
od s
ourc
es c
onti
nue
to b
e di
s-ta
nt,
con
cen
trat
ed, u
nsu
stai
nab
le(c
) H
as n
ot c
han
ged
root
cau
ses
ofth
e pr
oble
m o
f hun
ger
and
food
inse
curi
ty: l
ow w
ages
, un
empl
oy-
men
t, di
scri
min
atio
n, l
ack
of h
ealt
hca
re, c
hild
car
e, e
tc.
(a)
Wor
st-c
ase
scen
ario
: loc
alit
ies
will
be r
espo
nsi
ble
for
solv
ing
prob
lem
scr
eate
d by
oth
er s
trea
ms
(b)
Add
ed lo
cal g
over
nm
ent r
espo
nsi
-bi
litie
s, b
urea
ucra
cy, i
ncr
ease
d pu
blic
budg
ets
(c)
Wh
ere
regi
onal
coo
pera
tion
isab
sen
t, in
effe
ctiv
enes
s or
intr
acta
bil-
ity
can
res
ult
(d)
Com
mun
ity
proc
esse
s ca
n b
eex
clus
ion
ary,
dis
empo
wer
ing
(e)
May
not
be
a vi
able
alt
ern
ativ
e if
muc
h o
f foo
d sy
stem
con
tin
ues
togl
obal
ize
and
con
cen
trat
e in
own
ersh
ipIn
volv
emen
tof
loca
lgo
vern
men
t,in
stit
utio
ns
in p
roce
sses
(a)
Loc
atio
n d
ecis
ion
s (l
and
use,
zon
-in
g, ta
x in
cen
tive
s, e
tc.)
(b)
Eff
orts
to a
ttra
ct fo
od s
tore
s,in
dust
ry(c
) O
ccas
ion
ally
, com
mun
ity
inst
itu-
tion
s m
ay in
terv
ene
to p
reve
nt c
lo-
sure
; res
olve
con
flic
ts(d
) D
onat
ion
s of
food
an
d m
oney
from
pri
vate
firm
s ch
ann
eled
toco
mm
unit
y ac
tivi
ties
(a)
Loc
atio
n d
ecis
ion
s(b
) Fi
nan
cial
sup
port
for
soci
alse
rvic
es(c
) C
omm
unit
y da
ta fr
om p
ublic
agen
cies
for
orga
niz
atio
nal
,pr
ogra
m p
lan
nin
g(d
) R
esid
ent/
chur
ch p
arti
cipa
tion
infu
nd
rais
ing,
pro
gram
pla
nn
ing,
man
agem
ent,
etc.
(e)
Stre
am c
an s
uppo
rt a
dvoc
acy
for
bett
er p
olic
ies,
en
titl
emen
t pro
-gr
ams,
incr
ease
d se
rvic
es
(a)
Loc
atio
n d
ecis
ion
s(b
) C
omm
unit
y da
ta fr
om p
ublic
age
n-
cies
to in
form
pro
gram
pla
nn
ing,
food
dis
trib
utio
n(c
) In
crea
sin
g in
form
atio
n o
f, en
roll-
men
t in
fede
ral a
nd
stat
e fo
odpr
ogra
ms
(a)
Com
mun
ity
role
is c
entr
al in
fost
er-
ing
loca
l lin
ks a
mon
g fo
od s
yste
mac
tivi
ties
an
d be
twee
n fo
od a
nd
com
-m
unit
y ac
tivi
ties
an
d go
als
(b)
Publ
ic, p
riva
te, a
nd
non
prof
itin
volv
emen
t in
abo
ve li
nks
(c)
Ch
ange
act
ion
s ca
n in
volv
e m
any
acto
rs a
nd
take
man
y fo
rms
a.A
nen
titl
emen
tisn
otth
esa
me
asa
righ
t.In
tern
atio
nal
ly,t
he
Un
ited
Stat
esh
olds
the
posi
tion
that
food
isa
mat
tero
fpro
duct
ion
and
econ
omic
deve
lopm
enta
nd
not
am
atte
rofh
uman
righ
ts o
r fu
nda
men
tal f
reed
oms.
In
sev
eral
inte
rnat
ion
al h
uman
rig
hts
con
ven
tion
s, th
e U
nit
ed S
tate
s h
as c
onsi
sten
tly
refu
sed
to r
ecog
niz
e a
hum
an r
igh
t to
food
.
359
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ors 2002). An average of 16 percent of the demand for foodassistance is estimated to have gone unmet.
• Resolving problems of hunger and food insecurity requiresmore complex solutions than simply providing food to theneedy. Community food security advocates complain thatnotwithstanding the sincerity and goodwill of volunteers,charity diverts legitimate attention from broad policy re-form to obtain living wages, better jobs, education, andhealth and child care and supports political ideologies up-holding volunteerism as the preferred model for solvingproblems faced by poor communities. Poppendieck (1998)argues that charity satisfies the needs of the donors of foodand labor more than those sought to be helped.
Specific actions to enhance community food security cantake many forms, emanate from different starting points, andcan address different constituencies or audiences. They arenecessarily multidisciplinary because of a focus on the linkagesamong food system activities (production, processing, and dis-tribution) and between food and community goals (such ashealth, economic vitality, neighborhood improvement, etc.).For example, in communities across the United States, grass-roots organizations are teaching low-income households vege-table gardening to improve diets, creating community-basedfood businesses, developing community gardens in inner-cityneighborhoods, linking consumers with local farmers throughfarmers markets and other direct marketing models, and orga-nizing food policy councils, along with many other initiatives.These efforts represent local solutions to local manifestationsof larger problems.
It must be noted that community food security cannot beexpected to solve all the ills emerging from the current globalfood system. For better or worse, the corporate-dominatedmarket food system is here to stay for the foreseeable future.Moreover, community food security is scarcely intended as areplacement for federal entitlement programs aimed at poorand vulnerable residents. Rather, it is an approach that seeks toincrease community influence on these systems, to offer anintegrated view of the links within the food system and betweenfood and communities, and to provide more sustainable alter-natives to current streams. Community food security advocatesare finding that building partnerships with relevant publicagencies and community-based organizations and coordinat-ing efforts is essential to developing effective and lasting solu-tions. They also find that gathering information about condi-tions in their community’s food system and publicizing thatinformation is valuable, both to help inform their own work tocreate positive change and to build broader awareness of andsupport for their efforts. For these and other reasons, CFAshave garnered great interest among community food securityproponents.
CFA: A Tool for Integrating Food into Planning
There are good reasons for planners to be interested inCFAs as well. Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) suggest reasonswhy planners might want to pay more systematic attention tofood. First, food is a basic human need; planning has a deepinterest in making places better serve the needs of people. Sec-ond, food systems are interconnected with communities’ econ-omies, vitality, health, and natural environments; attention tointerconnections among communities’ social, economic,physical, and environmental dimensions is yet another essen-tial theme in planning’s professional identity.
Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) explore institutionalarrangements that could play the following important roles2
vis-à-vis community-food linkages:
• a central intelligence function, to facilitate local operations ofdifferent food system functions through regular issuance ofappropriate local analyses;
• a pulse-taking function, to alert the community through peri-odic reports to danger signs in the local community thatmay impact food access, hunger and nutrition, diet-relateddisease, population, and food-business movements;
• a policy clarification function, to help frame and regularly re-vise food system functions of local government;
• a community food security strategic plan function, to phase spe-cific private and public programs toward enhancing com-munity food security for a period of ten to twenty years; and
• a feedback review function, to analyze through careful re-search the consequences of program and project activitiesas a guide to future action.
The arrangements performing these functions conceivablycould be a combination of public-, private-, and community-sector organizations and actors, although ideally with an insti-tutional connection to public decision making. The functionsdescribed above will need to be supported by systematic andperiodic data collection in relevant categories. Communityfood security planning, regardless of its source or impetus, willhave strategic information needs that CFAs can provide. Fig-ure 1 maps the flow of activities connecting CFAs and strategiesfor promoting community food security.
At least seven rationales suggest why planners’ involvementin CFAs can help strengthen planning for community foodsecurity:
1. Urban planners are trained about communities; theirsocial, political, economic, and environmental functions;and their processes and policies. They understand commu-nities—distinct from individuals, families, and house-holds—as units of analysis and their implications foractions and policies. Increasingly, food professionals (suchas nutritionists), who traditionally have served individuals
360 Pothukuchi
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and families, are targeting the com-munity as a unit of planning in theiradvocacy efforts, infrastructuredevelopment, and delivery of ser-vices. Planners can contribute muchto these efforts.
2. Planners are able to analyze the spa-tial dimensions of communityneeds, concerns, resources, andgoals and translate these into spatialand land-use policies. Issues such aslack of access to supermarkets, theloss of farmland, location of foodprocessing, and wholesale activitiesall have important spatial compo-nents that planners can decipherand to which they can offer exper-tise for improved outcomes.
3. Planners are trained to conceptual-ize, collect, organize, and dissemi-nate information about communi-ties and related indicators to bothinform policies and evaluate theiroutcomes (e.g., Ammons 1996;Crane and Daniere 1996; Hatry et al.1992; Quercia 1999). They areexpected to understand the role ofrhetoric in communicating evi-dence and proofs and to decode andmoderate the politics of informa-tion (Throgmorton 1996; Forester1988). Much like other communitysystems, the food system has multi-ple, competing interests, values, andplayers who have differential accessto power and resources. Gatheringinformation about and engaging incommunicat ion among andbetween these is inherently political.
4. Planners are linked to decision mak-ers and decision arenas in public,private, and nonprofit sectors. Theyare in positions to mediate processesby which lists of potential issues,preferences, conflicts, and decisionsthat could be addressed by decisionmakers are transformed into thosethat are (Bryson and Crosby 1996),and are able to recommend policiesand plans based on the strategicinformation they gather. Commu-nity food activities (such as commu-nity gardens) are routinely influ-enced by zoning, land use, and neighborhood policies;planners can recommend to decision makers appropriatepolicies and plans that deliver preferred outcomes.
5. Planners are trained to lead, facilitate, and manage com-munity-based group processes involving stakeholders,organizational partners, and community residents (Innes1996; Forester 1999). Planners learn about and routinelyuse methods in consensus development, negotiation, and
conflict resolution that are useful for such processes. CFAsbenefit from such facilitation, given the diversity of stake-holders and interests that need to be involved to obtaineffective assessments that contribute to plans andprograms that have broad support.
6. Planners bring interdisciplinary perspectives and have thecapacity to identify and analyze new community concernsat the intersection of multiple disciplines and to incorpo-
Community Food Assessment � 361
Food system activities
•• Production
• Processing
• Distribution
• Consumption
• Recycling of food system wastes
Community Development Objectives
• Preventing hunger • Enhancing community health • Strengthening local economy • Revitalizing neighborhoods • Conserving natural resources,
protecting the environment • Developing just, equitable
social processes and outcomes • Preserving cultural heritage • Etc.
Strategies for community change
• Mobilizing the community (organizing, coalition-building, collaboration)
• Community education • Public policy advocacy • Physical improvement, program
development • Social services development
Community & Food System Change Agents • Individuals • Nonprofits & community-based
organizations & coalitions • Public agencies • Private firms
Community Food Assessment
Neighborhood, city, or regional context
Figure 1. The role of community food assessments in the design of strategies for change.Note: Community food security calls for greater local integration of food system links andenvisions food as a tool for achieving community objectives in health, economic develop-ment, equity, and sustainability. Individual members of a community, community-basedorganizations, public agencies, and the private sector all have roles to play in enhancing acommunity’s food security.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
rate them into planning. The history of community plan-ning is replete with such examples: community policing(e.g., Rohe, Adams, and Arcury 2000) and AIDS-relatedplanning (Takahashi and Smutny 1998; Wallace, Wallace,and Andrews 1997) are but two examples of such emergingconcerns that planners have addressed.
7. Planners are concerned with such overarching and norma-tive goals as healthy communities, sustainable communi-ties, or community quality of life (Berke 2002; Jepson 2001;Lucy 1994). Much planning literature has been devoted tounderstanding their predictors and correlates and to thedesign of appropriate strategies to obtain these goals (seeSawicki and Flynn 1996, e.g., for a review of neighborhoodindicators projects). Food is linked to these objectives inmultiple ways that need greater attention from planners(Pothukuchi and Kaufman 2000, 1999).
� Nine CFAs: Common Threads to Planning
This section discusses nine CFAs conducted since 1993 andidentifies characteristics that are common to planning. It alsocompares assessments led by planners with those bynonplanners in a range of categories, including issues, meth-ods, and outcomes. Table 2 provides a brief overview of theassessments’ goals, issues, methods, products, and outcomes.
The analysis is based on the findings of a survey conductedof leaders or representatives of organizational sponsors of nineCFAs in a range of categories, including objectives, questionsor issues addressed, methods of data collection and analysis,geographic scope, funding, people and groups involved, typeand extent of community participation, outcomes and follow-up actions, and documentation and dissemination.3 Outputssuch as reports, journal articles, links to Web sites, and otherrelevant information were also collected whenever possible.4
Finally, brief case summaries, based on findings from the sur-vey and follow-up interviews, written for another publication(Pothukuchi et al. 2002), with feedback from assessment lead-ers or organizational representatives, offered yet anothersource of data for this article.
Four assessments were led by faculty in academic depart-ments of urban planning (Los Angeles, Madison, Milwaukee,and Detroit). All four involved students of urban planning inthe planning, implementation, and dissemination of theresearch. This group of assessments will be referred to, for con-venience, as “planning-related CFAs.”5 See Tables 3, 4, and 5, aswell, for summary information in other categories. A review oftabulations of findings from the survey in the categories men-tioned above surfaced differences among planning-relatedCFAs and others, which were then examined more closely fortheir content and possible explanations. These are discussedin subsequent paragraphs. What follows is a general descrip-tion of the assessments and common characteristics.
Assessments ranged from a focus on a single neighborhood(San Francisco) or small area (Austin) to regions comprisingmultiple counties (North Country) and studies that encom-passed multiple geographic scales depending on the issuesexamined (Detroit, Los Angeles, Madison, Milwaukee). Goalsfor assessments embraced a variety of aspirations: understand-ing (and resolving) problems faced by residents in gainingaccess to nutritious foods, creating university-community part-nerships, improving access to locally produced and healthfulchoices of food while strengthening regional agriculture, anddevising community food policy councils.
Besides the expected fact of food’s linkage to various com-munity facets, all studies shared five important characteristics.These characteristics are familiar planning interests and there-fore constitute common threads to planning, as follows.
Needs of low-income residents. All studies focused on the needsof low-income residents and shared a concern for the prob-lems they faced with respect to obtaining culturally appropri-ate choices of nutritious foods in their neighborhoods. Allcommented on the equity and social justice implications of thepoverty of food choices in low-income neighborhoods in termsof costs incurred and opportunities forgone by families wholive there. All studies discussed specific difficulties faced bylow-income families in obtaining nutritious food from a varietyof market, government, and nonprofit sources and the strate-gies families adopted to cope with these difficulties. Seven ofthese documented low-income families’ options in or experi-ences with obtaining food from federal food programs(Women, Infants, and Children—WIC, food stamps, summernutrition programs for children, etc.) or area food-assistancesources, such as difficulties encountered in enrolling in pro-grams or obtaining adequate food from them. Recommenda-tions from the CFAs ranged from the institution of a new busroute connecting low-income neighborhoods to larger gro-cery stores (Austin), to better coordination of food assistanceefforts across the community (North Country and Somerville),to the development of a year-round farmers market that alsoprovided educational and entrepreneurial opportunities(Milwaukee).
Concerns related to equity and meeting the needs of poorand vulnerable segments of society are shared by most, if notall, planners, who try to devise alternative systems to meet basicneeds of residents who are unable to pay for them. The need toredress distribution problems caused by the normal operationof markets and their failure and to provide a voice for thoseexcluded in decisions due to poverty or other sources of vul-nerability are two important rationales for planning. This
362 Pothukuchi
(text continues on p. 366)
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le 2
.O
verv
iew
of
nine
com
mun
ity
food
ass
essm
ents
.
Goa
ls o
f Ass
essm
ent
Issu
es E
xam
ined
Dat
a So
urce
s, M
etho
dsFo
rms
of D
isse
min
atio
nO
utco
mes
Aus
tin
, TX
Rai
se a
war
enes
s of
com
mun
ity
nee
ds,
prob
lem
sIn
form
sys
tem
atic
act
ion
on
com
-m
unit
y fo
od p
robl
ems
Food
acc
ess
prob
lem
s in
cen
tral
Aus
tin
, cop
ing
stra
tegi
esQ
ualit
y of
food
ava
ilabl
e in
poor
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d
Info
rmal
inte
rvie
ws
wit
h r
esid
ents
,ke
y in
form
ants
Cen
sus
Pric
e co
mpa
riso
n
Rep
ort
Pres
s re
leas
esC
omm
unit
y, c
onfe
ren
cepr
esen
tati
ons
New
“gr
ocer
y” b
us r
oute
Leg
isla
tion
allo
win
g pu
blic
lan
ds fo
r co
mm
unit
y ga
rden
s,fa
rmer
s m
arke
tsG
roce
ry s
tore
ren
ovat
ion
Aw
aren
ess
of fo
od a
cces
sFo
od p
olic
y co
unci
l est
ablis
hed
Ber
kele
y, C
AE
nh
ance
com
mun
ity
know
ledg
e,aw
aren
ess
of lo
cal
food
sys
tem
sSt
udy
feas
ibili
ty o
f new
way
s to
link
farm
ers
mar
kets
an
dco
mm
unit
ies
Loc
al fo
od p
rodu
ctio
n: f
arm
san
d ur
ban
gar
den
sFo
od r
etai
lR
ole
of e
duca
tion
al in
stit
u-ti
ons
Publ
ic p
olic
ies
rela
ted
toab
ove
issu
es
Loc
al o
rgan
izat
ion
al, a
gen
cy d
ata
Surv
eys
of b
usin
ess
own
ers,
sch
ool
child
ren
, far
mer
s, m
arke
tco
ordi
nat
ors,
an
d em
erge
ncy
food
sys
tem
sta
ff
Rep
ort
Pres
s re
leas
eC
omm
unit
y, c
oalit
ion
pres
enta
tion
s
Form
aliz
ed c
olla
bora
tion
betw
een
Ber
kele
y Fo
od P
olic
yC
oun
cil a
nd
area
pro
duce
rs,
reta
ilers
, an
d co
mm
unit
y-ba
sed
non
prof
its
(in
clud
ing
yout
h)
Lin
ks b
etw
een
loca
l pro
duce
rsan
d B
erke
ley
sch
ool
cafe
teri
asD
isse
min
atio
n o
f stu
dy to
ols
nat
ion
ally
Det
roit
, MI
Supp
ort c
omm
unit
y fo
odse
curi
ty p
lan
nin
g, a
ctio
ns
Cre
ate
univ
ersi
ty-c
omm
unit
ypa
rtn
ersh
ips
on c
omm
unit
yfo
od is
sues
Food
in lo
cal e
con
omy
(in
clud
ing
con
trib
utio
ns
to lo
cal e
con
omy;
gro
cery
stor
e lo
cati
on; f
ood
acce
ss,
avai
labi
lity
in p
oor
nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds)
Nut
riti
on, f
ood
inse
curi
tyN
eigh
borh
ood
impr
ovem
ent,
incl
udin
g co
mm
unit
yga
rden
sR
egio
nal
agr
icul
ture
Cen
suse
s of
pop
ulat
ion
, eco
nom
yIn
stit
utio
nal
, org
aniz
atio
nal
dat
a(M
ich
igan
Dep
artm
ent o
fA
gric
ultu
re, D
etro
it P
ublic
Sch
ools
, etc
.)M
appi
ng
of c
omm
unit
y ch
arac
-er
isti
cs, f
ood
reso
urce
sN
ewsp
aper
art
icle
sSm
all a
rea
food
ava
ilabi
lity
inve
n-
tory
(st
ores
, res
taur
ants
)
Rep
orts
New
spap
er in
terv
iew
sC
omm
unit
y, p
rofe
ssio
nal
pres
enta
tion
sPu
blic
age
ncy
pre
sen
tati
ons
Col
labo
rati
on b
y n
onpr
ofit
orga
niz
atio
ns
in n
utri
tion
,so
cial
ser
vice
s, g
reen
ing,
com
-m
unit
y de
velo
pmen
t, et
c., t
ode
velo
p co
mm
unit
y fo
odpr
ojec
tsG
reat
er p
ublic
, non
prof
it, p
ri-
vate
, un
iver
sity
col
labo
rati
onon
com
mun
ity
food
issu
esN
atio
nal
dis
sem
inat
ion
of s
tudy
tool
s, fi
ndi
ngs
Prod
ucti
on, d
isse
min
atio
n o
fD
etro
it Fo
od H
andb
ook
for
loca
lpl
ann
ing
(con
tinue
d)
363
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
364
Los
An
gele
s,C
AA
sses
s fo
od in
secu
rity
in in
ner
city
, fol
low
ing
1993
un
rest
,ad
equa
cy o
f fed
eral
food
prog
ram
s, a
nd
role
of f
ood
indu
stry
in in
ner
cit
yco
mm
unit
y ba
sed
stra
tegi
esfo
r ch
ange
Prop
ose
fram
ewor
k fo
r co
mm
u-n
ity
food
sec
urit
y pl
ann
ing
Com
mun
ity
food
acc
ess,
ava
il-ab
ility
, pri
ces
Hun
ger
and
food
inse
curi
tyFo
od r
etai
l str
uctu
reSu
stai
nab
le p
rodu
ctio
n, d
istr
i-bu
tion
mod
els
Cur
ren
t foo
d po
licie
s; a
lter
na-
tive
app
roac
hes
Popu
lati
on a
nd
econ
omic
cen
suse
sD
emog
raph
ic, l
and
use,
spa
tial
anal
yses
Tele
phon
e, in
per
son
, bus
ines
s,su
rvey
sPr
ice
com
pari
son
sL
ocal
pol
icy,
pro
gram
an
alys
isC
ase
stud
ies
of fo
od p
olic
y co
unci
ls
Rep
ort
Pres
s re
leas
esC
omm
unit
y, p
rofe
ssio
nal
pres
enta
tion
sPr
ofes
sion
al jo
urn
alpa
pers
Form
atio
n o
f Los
An
gele
s C
om-
mun
ity
Food
Sec
urit
y N
et-
wor
k, L
os A
nge
les
food
pol
icy
coun
cil
Gro
wth
of c
omm
unit
y ga
rden
s,fa
rmer
s m
arke
ts, f
ood
stam
pou
trea
chFo
od a
sses
smen
ts in
oth
erco
mm
unit
ies
Cat
alys
t for
com
mun
ity
food
secu
rity
mov
emen
t in
the
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Mad
ison
, WI
Incr
ease
kn
owle
dge,
un
der-
stan
din
g of
loca
l foo
dsy
stem
Info
rm s
trat
egie
s fo
r im
prov
ing
food
sec
urit
yE
stab
lish
un
iver
sity
,co
mm
unit
y pa
rtn
ersh
ips
Con
ven
tion
al fo
od s
yste
m(p
rodu
ctio
n, p
roce
ssin
g,w
hol
esal
e, r
etai
l) a
nd
its
impa
cts
on e
nvi
ron
men
t,fo
od a
cces
s, a
vaila
bilit
yA
nti
hun
ger
reso
urce
sC
opin
g st
rate
gies
of l
ow-in
com
e re
side
nts
Alt
ern
ativ
es to
con
ven
tion
alsy
stem
Polic
ies
hel
pin
g, h
urti
ng
com
mun
ity
food
sec
urit
y
Spat
ial m
appi
ng
of fo
od r
esou
rces
Food
ret
ail p
rici
ng,
ava
ilabi
lity
Res
iden
t, bu
sin
ess,
non
prof
it a
nd
publ
ic a
gen
cy s
urve
ys, i
nte
rvie
ws
Focu
s gr
oups
Polic
y an
alys
isC
ase
stud
ies
of a
lter
nat
ive
sour
ces,
polic
y ap
proa
ches
Rep
ort
Med
ia r
elea
ses,
inte
rvie
ws
Com
mun
ity,
pro
fess
ion
alpr
esen
tati
ons
Polic
y re
port
sPr
ofes
sion
al jo
urn
alpa
pers
Dev
elop
men
t of D
ane
Cou
nty
RE
AP
(Res
earc
h, E
duca
tion
,A
ctio
n, a
nd
Polic
y) F
ood
Gro
upG
reat
er v
isib
ility
of f
ood
issu
esin
Mad
ison
Incr
ease
d n
etw
orki
ng,
col
labo
-ra
tion
am
ong
indi
vidu
als
and
orga
niz
atio
ns
arou
nd
food
issu
esM
adis
on F
ood
Syst
em W
orki
ng
Pape
r se
ries
Nat
ion
al d
isse
min
atio
n o
fas
sess
men
t too
lsM
ilwau
kee,
WI
Exa
min
e th
e ro
ot c
ause
s of
hun
ger
Dev
elop
par
tner
ship
s to
prom
ote
food
sec
urit
y an
dsy
stem
ic c
han
ge in
Milw
auke
e C
o.
Popu
lati
on c
har
acte
rist
ics
Food
acc
ess
and
tran
spor
tati
onFo
od r
etai
l: lo
cati
on,
avai
labi
lity,
pri
ces
An
tih
unge
r, an
d al
tern
ativ
efo
od s
ourc
esPe
rcep
tion
s an
d ex
peri
ence
s of
poor
indi
vidu
als
and
fam
ilies
Popu
lati
on a
nd
econ
omic
cen
suse
sTe
leph
one
and
in-p
erso
n s
urve
ysFo
cus
grou
psSp
atia
l map
pin
g of
sto
res,
food
reso
urce
s, c
omm
unit
y co
ndi
tion
s
Four
rep
orts
Med
ia r
elea
ses
Com
mun
ity,
pro
fess
ion
alpr
esen
tati
ons
Form
atio
n o
f Milw
auke
e Fa
rm-
ers’
Mar
ket A
ssoc
iati
onD
evel
opm
ent o
f Fon
dy F
ood
Cen
ter
Proj
ect (
mar
ket,
kitc
hen
incu
bato
r, in
form
a-ti
on c
ente
r)O
verh
aul o
f em
erge
ncy
pan
try
net
wor
k, c
omm
unit
y m
eal
prog
ram
coa
litio
n, a
nd
incl
u-si
on o
f new
type
s of
tech
nic
alas
sist
ance
an
d gu
idel
ines
Exp
ansi
on o
f WIC
Far
mer
s’M
arke
t Nut
riti
on P
rogr
am to
all f
arm
ers
mar
kets
Incr
ease
d un
iver
sity
-com
mun
ity
part
ner
ship
sN
atio
nal
dis
sem
inat
ion
of s
tudy
tool
s, fi
ndi
ng
Tab
le 2
.O
verv
iew
of
nine
com
mun
ity
food
ass
essm
ents
.
Goa
ls o
f Ass
essm
ent
Issu
es E
xam
ined
Dat
a So
urce
s, M
etho
dsFo
rms
of D
isse
min
atio
nO
utco
mes
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
365
Nor
th C
oun
try
Reg
ion
, NY
Mob
ilize
an
d en
gage
a b
road
net
wor
k of
cou
ntr
y re
side
nts
Impr
ove
acce
ss to
hea
lth
ful,
loca
lly p
rodu
ced
food
sw
hile
str
engt
hen
ing
econ
omic
via
bilit
y of
regi
onal
agr
icul
ture
s
Dem
ogra
phic
s, h
ealt
h, e
con
-om
y, a
gric
ultu
re, f
ood
avai
labi
lity
Sour
ces
of fo
od, e
atin
gpa
tter
ns
Way
s to
bui
ld a
str
onge
r co
m-
mun
ity
thro
ugh
alt
ern
ativ
em
anag
emen
t of l
ocal
food
reso
urce
sV
isio
ns
for
how
loca
l foo
d sy
s-te
m s
hou
ld lo
ok a
nd
wor
k in
five
yea
rsV
isio
ns
for
twen
ty y
ears
Seco
nda
ry s
ourc
es r
elat
ed to
pop
u -la
tion
, hea
lth
,ec
onom
y, fo
od p
rodu
ctio
n a
nd
reta
ilSe
arch
con
fere
nce
met
hod
to e
nga
ge p
arti
cipa
nts
in a
nal
ysis
and
visi
onin
g in
each
cou
nty
ove
r a
two-
day
peri
od
Rep
orts
Med
ia r
elea
ses
Com
mun
ity,
pro
fess
ion
alpr
esen
tati
ons
Prof
essi
onal
jour
nal
art
icle
s
Dev
elop
men
t of a
n E
xten
sion
staf
f pos
itio
n to
con
tin
uew
ork
Incr
ease
d n
etw
orks
am
ong
com
-m
unit
y, a
gen
cy m
embe
rsC
reat
ion
of a
fello
wsh
ip k
itch
ento
ser
ve a
ll co
mm
unit
y m
em-
bers
, in
clud
ing
nee
dy a
nd
vuln
erab
le h
ouse
hol
ds in
Ess
ex C
oun
tyPr
ogra
m to
pro
vide
don
atio
ns
of v
enis
on a
nd
beef
to lo
cal
food
pan
trie
s in
Lew
s an
d St
.L
awre
nce
cou
nti
esE
stab
lish
men
t of w
eekl
y fa
rmer
sm
arke
t in
Jef
fers
on C
oun
tyIm
prov
ed fo
od d
istr
ibut
ion
net
-w
orks
bet
wee
n th
e co
mm
u-n
ity
acti
on p
rogr
ams
ofJe
ffer
son
an
d Fr
ankl
inC
ooun
ties
.In
crea
sed
stor
age
and
truc
kin
gfa
cilit
ies
thro
ugh
join
t eff
orts
of a
food
sec
urit
y co
mm
itte
eSa
n F
ran
cisc
o,C
AId
enti
fy a
nd
prom
ote
stra
tegi
es to
impr
ove
food
acce
ss to
nut
riti
ous
food
s in
Bay
view
Hun
ters
Poi
nt
nei
ghbo
rhoo
dPr
ovid
e jo
b tr
ain
ing
for
nei
gh-
borh
ood
yout
h
Food
sou
rces
for
resi
den
ts,
barr
iers
to a
cces
s,co
nsu
mpt
ion
Pref
erre
d al
tern
ativ
es fo
r fo
odpr
ocur
emen
t
Res
iden
t sur
veys
con
duct
ed v
ia a
part
icip
ator
y ac
tion
res
earc
hm
odel
to e
mpo
wer
you
th to
pla
n,
impl
emen
t, an
d di
ssem
inat
eas
sess
men
t
Rep
ort
Med
ia r
elea
ses
Com
mun
ity,
pro
fess
ion
alpr
esen
tati
ons
Cre
atio
n o
f a n
ew B
ayvi
ew C
om-
mun
ity
Farm
ers
Mar
ket
Com
mit
men
ts o
n th
e pa
rt o
fco
rner
sto
re o
wn
ers
to s
tock
fres
h p
rodu
ceTr
ansi
t aut
hor
ity
agre
emen
t to
prov
ide
tran
sit s
hut
tles
tofo
od s
ourc
esSk
ills
deve
lopm
ent,
empo
wer
-m
ent o
f nei
ghbo
rhoo
d yo
uth
Som
ervi
lle,
MA
Stre
ngt
hen
pla
nn
ing
and
polic
y fo
r co
mm
unit
y-ba
sed
food
an
d n
utri
tion
reso
urce
s fo
r lo
w-in
com
ere
side
nts
Food
an
d n
utri
tion
nee
ds,
reso
urce
sC
ensu
s of
pop
ulat
ion
, in
stit
utio
nal
data
Key
info
rman
t, st
akeh
olde
rin
terv
iew
s
Rep
ort
Med
ia c
onta
cts
Com
mun
ity,
pro
fess
ion
alpr
esen
tati
ons
Publ
icat
ion
of a
n e
xten
sive
com
mun
ity
food
an
d n
utri
-ti
on g
uide
Coo
kin
g cl
asse
s fo
r lo
w-in
com
ere
side
nts
Impl
emen
tati
on o
f a C
omm
u-n
ity
Kit
chen
Tas
k Fo
rce
toex
amin
e th
e fe
asib
ility
of
com
mer
cial
kit
chen
faci
litie
sFo
rmat
ion
of a
Pub
lic H
ealt
hN
utri
tion
Tas
k Fo
rce
to c
on-
duct
com
mun
ity
food
an
dn
utri
tion
str
ateg
ic p
lan
nin
g
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
concern for low-income residents who are excluded from thedominant food system, and are unable to meet a very basicneed, therefore constitutes a strong thread to planning.
Sustainability of the food system. All studies shared a concernabout the sustainability of the food system, or specific compo-nents relevant to their communities, and displayed a commit-ment to developing sustainable solutions to the types of prob-lems discussed in an earlier section. Sustainability, as expressedin these CFAs included notions related to creating spatiallycloser links among two or more food system activities (produc-tion, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste dis-posal); making specific food system practices more environ-mentally sensitive; including previously excluded players suchas small farmers and low-income consumers; and educatingcommunity residents about their participation in food systemsand ways to enhance sustainability.
Sustainability is a common enough refrain in planning aca-demic and practitioner circles, even as debate continues onthe content of strategies and their implementation for pre-ferred outcomes. Many planners have embraced the social,ecological, and economic aspects of sustainability suggestedabove and continue to offer sustainable development as a goaland guide for community planning activities (Berke 2002;Jepson 2001; Beatley and Manning 1997; Haughton andHunter 1994). Planners and community food security advo-cates therefore bring shared understandings on sustainabilitythat can be put to mutually productive use.
Community as a unit of solution to food system problems. All rec-ognized community as a unit of solution to food system prob-lems. All studies were conducted with the objective of
designing community-based solutions to problems that werestudied. Thus, these CFAs stand in contrast to large—andmore typical—bodies of research on food systems that tend tocall for changes in personal behavior, industry practices, orfederal or state policies. In all assessments, communities weregenerally defined in terms of geographic areas for operationaland political reasons but also included group membership intheir definition (low-income, racial, and ethnic minoritydemographic groups, such as youth or seniors, or occupationalgroups, such as farmers and processors). Recommendationswere targeted for action by local community action agencies,nonprofit organizations or coalitions, and local governments.In their understanding of community, many also identifiedspecific groups of people who should be involved in and bene-fit from the design and implementation of the CFA researchitself, thus building or enhancing the definition of communityduring CFA implementation. For example, interviews withfood shoppers in the San Francisco study were conducted byyouth living in public housing, who then disseminated resultsand recommended solutions in various forums. Buildingyouth capacity was an important objective of this research.
The idea of community is resonant in planning literaturefor pragmatic, idealistic, and critical reasons (Altshuler 1970;Medoff and Sklar 1994; Baum 1997; Talen 2000; Kretzmannand McKnight 1993; Turner 1995; Rubin 2000). Plannersunderstand that is in local communities where residents expe-rience opportunities or constraints even if the sources of theselie outside. Community planning as an activity is premised onthe notion that communities are able to meet needs and solveproblems that neither individuals or families on one hand norstate or federal governments on the other hand are able to orhave jurisdiction over. Spatial community is yet another
366 Pothukuchi
Table 3.Communities addressed by community food assessments.
Case Study Assessment Area Total Population
Austin East Austin, TX East Austin: 24,000Berkeley West and South Berkeley, CA West and South Berkeley: approximately 35,000Detroit Selected zip codes for pilot studies, City of Detroit,
Southeastern Michigan region, consisting of six countiesDetroit: 950,000; Southeastern Michigan:
4,740,000Los Angeles South Central Los Angeles, Los Angeles region, CA South Central Los Angeles: 53,000Madison/Dane County City of Madison and surrounding area City of Madison: 207,000; County: 400,000Milwaukee Milwaukee County; near-north and near-south sides of the
city of MilwaukeeCity of Milwaukee: 959,275
New York, The NorthCountry
Jefferson, Lewis, St. Lawrence, Franklin, Clinton, and EssexCounties of New York state
North Country: approximately 431,000
San Francisco Southeast San Francisco, CA—Bayview Hunters Pointneighborhood
Bayview Hunters Point: 34,000
Somerville Somerville, MA Somerville: 77,500
Source: Table 3 was prepared by Hannah Burton.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
common thread to planning: planners are familiar with theproblems associated with spatial mismatch and the segregationof land uses and people, even if they may be unfamiliar withtheir food-related aspects or outcomes. Many planners are alsoin positions to design and recommend spatial policies thatcontribute to preferred outcomes.
Focus on assets. A focus on assets in addition to problems wasyet another characteristic of the CFAs. CFAs wished to makebetter use of existing resources to meet the food needs of low-income residents (Somerville, Austin); use and connect exist-ing resources in innovative ways (Berkeley, Detroit, Madison,Los Angeles, North Country); identify resources to matchfunds raised from outside sources for proposed programs(Detroit); modify or improve current resources (Berkeley, Mil-waukee); and involve community members and enhance indi-vidual and organizational capacity (San Francisco, NorthCountry). Assets included land, existing land uses and infra-structure that could be programmed for community food pur-poses; organizations working on issues connected to food andrelated community systems; organizational capacity; policyframeworks and plans; and existing programs and institutionsthat could be enlisted in efforts to foster community food secu-rity. The involvement of community members in the CFA wasalso sought to varying degrees by different assessments toenhance the accuracy, validity, and legitimacy of research;community participation in the assessment was seen as centralto identifying effective strategies and building support foractions.
Asset-based community development has, over the lastdecade especially, gained significant currency in planningthought and practice (Kretzmann and McKnight 1993), even ifthe notion of engaging local resources to solve local problemsis not entirely a new concept to planners. Traditional compre-hensive planning has always included activities for inventory-ing assets and employing them to further community goals.Asset-based approaches to planning have, nonetheless, con-tributed important insights to which planners now attend: thatcommunities—especially those that experience various formsof disadvantage—contain not just deficits to eliminate but alsoresources in the form of local residents and their networks andorganizations; that people who experience problems can befruitfully engaged in solving problems; that asset-basedapproaches have the capacity to be more effective, efficient,meaningful, and sustainable; and that such approachesstrengthen planning by building local capacity and enhancingsupport for making and implementing decisions.
Variety of categories and multiple sources. Data gathered in avariety of categories and from multiple sources represented yet
another shared feature of the assessments. Typically, theseincluded social, economic, demographic, and health datafrom censuses; other institutional databases or surveys; com-munity directories; and primary modes such as surveys andinterviews, conducted specifically for the assessment. Substan-tive categories in which food-related data were collected variedamong CFAs and included elements related to agriculture,food access, food’s connection to the local economy, health,nutrition, and environment. Several studies also systematicallycollected “visioning” information, in which residents andstakeholders articulated preferred futures in one or more cate-gories of their area’s food system. The North Country
Community Food Assessment � 367
Table 4.Sponsoring organizations forcommunity food assessments.
CommunityFood AssessmentLocation Sponsoring Organizations
Austin Sustainable Food Center
Berkeley San Francisco State UniversityNorthern California Food Systems Alliance
Detroit Department of Urban Planning,Wayne State University
Hunger Action Coalition of Michigan
Los Angeles Department of Urban Planning,University of California, Los Angeles
The Southern California InterfaithHunger Coalition
Madison/ Department of Urban and Regional Planning,Dane University of Wisconsin–MadisonCounty Madison Food System Project
Milwaukee Center for Urban Initiatives and Research,University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Hunger Task Force of MilwaukeeWisconsin Food System Partnership
New York, Division of Nutritional Sciences,The North Cornell UniversityCountry The New York Department of State
New York State Community Action AssociationCornell Cooperative Extension
San Francisco San Francisco Department of Public HealthSan Francisco League of Urban Gardeners
(SLUG)Center for Literacy for Environmental Justice
(LEJ)
Somerville Friedman School of Nutrition Science andPolicy, Tufts University
University of Massachusetts/AmherstCommunity-based Food and Nutrition Service
Providers
Source: Table 4 was prepared by Hannah Burton.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
368 Pothukuchi
Table 5.Categories of information gathered by community food assessments.
Community, population characteristicsCommunity spatial, natural resource, and economic base descriptionsPopulation characteristics: race/ethnicity, age, single-parent status, income, poverty status, etc., including spatial organization of
population groups
Socioeconomic makeupIncomes, employment, vehicle ownershipParticipation in government welfare programs, etc.Hunger/food insecurity statusSpatial distribution of characteristics
Community-based antihunger resources/servicesEmergency food assistance availability, characteristics; mappingGovernment food assistance programs/services, eligibility, enrollment, etc.Other antihunger services/outreach
Community health and nutritionDiet-related disease incidence (mortality and morbidity)Community public health programs and resourcesAccess to and availability of culturally suitable, nutritious dietsQuality of diets/nutritional status of householdsCoping strategies in food deserts: hunting/fishing and neighborhood production, scavenging, pantry/soup kitchen dependenceOther health risk factors: smoking, exercise, stress, lifestyle factorsHealth/nutrition outreach/referral servicesFood/nutrition related projects
Conventional food systemBroad food system characteristics: production, processing, distribution activitiesRetail food sector data: employees, sales, wages, types of stores/eating and drinking places, etc.; price comparisons; availability, types
of food resources; mapping of grocery stores; analysis of food retail structureWholesale: employees, sales, wages, types of firms, etc.Manufacturing: employees, value-added, types, etc.Institutional food service: hospitals, schools, senior centers, etc.
Community-based and/or local food systemsLocal/regional agriculture status (numbers, acres of farms; products; scale of agriculture, etc.)Local/regional agriculture links to community (e.g., community supported agriculture farms—or other forms of subscription
farming—farmers markets, locally sourced restaurants, institutions)Community-based food production, processing (e.g., gardens)
Infrastructure/transportationPublic transportation/paratransit access, routes (connection to grocery stores), schedulesVehicle access
Community organizations/institutionsCommunity institutional resources (universities, hospitals, foundations, unions, large employers, consumer organizations,
environmental organizations, etc.)Community leadership and power (local politics, food related coalitions and organizations)
Community development/economicFood system related (entrepreneurial urban agriculture, food processing, entrepreneurship and business development, youth
activities)Food activities integrated into other community development activities (affordable housing development, parks and recreation,
food-related transportation, etc.)
Environmental (food system–related issues)Waste disposal/recycle/compostWater qualityAir quality impacts of long-distance trucking of food productsLand contamination/hazardous wasteOpen space/land use or access
(continued)
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
assessment is especially notable for including a visioningcomponent among its participants.
Planners’ research typically poses questions in multiple cat-egories, uses theory to build questions, uses a variety of datasources and methods to connect patterns, and achieves a realis-tic picture of community conditions through triangulation.Planners also routinely seek a pragmatic middle groundbetween convenience and responsiveness of data sources andattempt to overcome data and other operational constraints.For example, although census data are a widely available anduseful in a range of categories, their usefulness toward the endof the decennial period declines, and planners have to makedecisions about going with census data or local estimatesderived from more recent surveys. This is especially critical ifthey are collecting trend information. Planners also routinelycombine measures of social welfare and those of institutionalperformance in their community assessments (Sawicki andFlynn 1996). This suggests yet another common threadbetween community assessments in general and CFAs.
In sum, these characteristics suggest that CFAs, whatevertheir impetus, source of sponsorship, goals, or particular issuesstudied, have common elements among themselves that arealso shared with community assessments and other activitiesled by planners. Given these common threads, CFAs of thekind presented in this study should find a sympathetic audi-ence among most community planners.
� How a Planning ApproachCan Strengthen CFAs
Despite common threads between the CFAs studied andplanning, differences exist between those initiated and imple-mented by urban planners and others. These differencesbecame apparent through a content analysis of survey
responses and brief case summaries reported in Pothukuchi etal. (2002) and a review of reports and other materials madeavailable by assessment leaders or sponsors. In cases wherereports or publications were unavailable (Berkeley and SanFrancisco), I relied solely on participant self-reports in the sur-veys and amendments to case reports.
Seven CFAs (including all planning-related assessments)were also closely linked academic institutions. The differencesemanate from the special contributions that planners are in aposition to make, rather than necessarily derived from exter-nal causes such as funding, time, stakeholder participation, oraudiences. Comparisons also suggest insights fromnonplanning CFAs that planners might integrate intoresearch, pedagogy, and practice for greater effectiveness infood-related planning and perhaps planning on other topics aswell. These are discussed in the next section. It is worth repeat-ing here that CFAs conducted by actors without an educationalor professional background in community planning are none-theless exercises in community planning; these comparisonsare not designed to present a narrative of planning’s inherentsuperiority. Still, the substantive and operational differencesbetween them and the ones involving planners are real andnontrivial. They have implications for informing communityassessments and planning in general on one hand and effec-tive community food security practice on the other. Six majordifferences are noted below.
Incorporation of Space in Complex Ways,Including Mapping Community-Food Links
Planning-related CFAs, such as those in Los Angeles, Madi-son, Milwaukee, and Detroit, examined multiple geographicscales at which different community-food links or problemsmanifest and included neighborhood, small area, city, or
Community Food Assessment � 369
PolicyLegislation/funding/regulations at state and national levels
Analysis of local plan documents (comprehensive, land use, neighborhood, sectoral plans) from a food security perspectiveFood policy councils
MediaCoverage of national and local food issues, analysis of food advertisements, community-food planning editorials/opinions
Any other dataHunting, fishing, and trapping licenses/game deer takePhysical activity resources
Source: Table 5 was prepared by Hannah Burton.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
county boundaries as appropriate. The others tended to focuson particular geographic areas—generally neighborhoods—as in the case of the Austin and San Francisco studies, particu-lar cities (Berkeley, Somerville), or counties (North Country)because of the relevance of these spatial entities for the explo-ration of concerns or questions raised in their assessments.Planning-related CFAs also tended to use Geographic Infor-mation Systems (GIS) technology to map the location of cur-rent or potential food resources and population groups. Onlyone nonplanning CFA used GIS as a tool to map the location ofdiverse food assets (Somerville).
Mapping served many purposes in these projects: to docu-ment the number, density, and location of particularresources; to examine the spatial relationships among differ-ent types of food activities or between resources and popula-tions in need (e.g., mapping food assistance sites and low-income populations); to suggest locations for resources andprograms; and to explore possible programmatic connectionsamong spatially proximal but unconnected food resources(such as possible sales outlets for gardens in particular neigh-borhoods). The outputs of such computerized mapping tech-niques are powerful tools for exploratory, community-organiz-ing, or policy-advocacy purposes. GIS technology tends to beavailable to a greater degree to academic planning depart-ments or public planning agencies than community-basednonprofits that may sponsor or implement studies of this kind.Partnerships with academic planning departments or publicagencies and planners familiar with this technology maycontribute valuable analytic and policy insights to CFAs.
Community Planning and Local Governmentas Sources of Solution
Planning-related CFAs tended to provide a greater focus onlocal government and consider multiple functions, especiallypublic agencies, other than those related to health or CountyCooperative Extension (the latter have traditional connec-tions, respectively, to community-based, antihunger activitiesand local agriculture). Planning CFAs examined both the posi-tive and the negative roles of local governments in a variety ofcommunity-food categories, including land use, transporta-tion, open space, health, environment, and equity. These stud-ies were premised on the need for and ability of local govern-ment to act on these issues and discussed specific policies, suchas parks and neighborhood policies for community gardens;initiatives to attract supermarkets to underserved areas;transit; and actions for public health departments.
To be fair, a couple of nonplanning CFAs also examined theroles of local government functions. However, they tended to
limit themselves to the particular issues under considerationand their natural city government connections, such as, forexample, the lack of direct transit connections to low-mobilitycommunities underserved by grocery options (Austin) or theextent to which public school cafeterias were and could be sup-plied by local sources (Berkeley). Nonplanning CFAs alsotended to examine food-assistance or market issues with lessattention to their local planning connections. Thus, their rec-ommendations attended to the need to, for example, increasethe enrollment of qualified families in food programs,improve the coordination of social services offered by areanonprofits, or devise innovative means to help neighborhoodstores stock fresh produce from local farms with little involve-ment suggested of local government. Planning-related CFAswere far more extensive in their examination of links to localgovernment. For example, Madison’s CFA studied and ana-lyzed city policies (from comprehensive, neighborhood, andfunctional plan documents) that facilitated or hamperedresidents’ access to healthful food choices.
More and Broader Linksto Community Concerns
All CFAs were somewhat exploratory in nature, with com-munity-capacity objectives included in the implementation ofseveral assessments. The nature of the exploration, however,differed among the two groups of assessments. Those involvingplanning identified and explored a broad range of possibleconnections between food and communities, while othersfocused on particular issues or questions in their exploration.A review of assessment goals (Table 2) supports this reading.Planning-related CFAs (with the exception of Los Angeles) dif-fered from nonplanning CFAs (with the exception of the Aus-tin assessment) by offering community-process or broad foodsystem objectives, such as creating university-community andother community-based partnerships (Madison, Detroit, Mil-waukee), raising awareness of community food needs andproblems (Madison, Austin), informing strategies for improv-ing community food security (Madison, Detroit, Milwaukee,Austin), or examining the root causes of hunger (Milwaukee).On the other hand, nonplanning CFAs (and the Los Angelesassessment) had specific community-food objectives in mind,such as examining the feasibility of linking farmers marketsand communities (Berkeley); studying inner-city food retail inthe wake of the 1992 civil unrest, along with many other issues(Los Angeles); strengthening the economic viability ofregional agriculture (North Country); promoting access tonutritious foods in Bayview Hunter’s Point neighborhood (SanFrancisco); and strengthening planning for community-based
370 Pothukuchi
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
food resources for low-income residents (Somerville). Thesecommunities instituted assessments as a way to gain knowledgerelevant for particular concerns or actions.
Planning-related CFAs tended to be interested in uncover-ing the planning implications of food’s varied linkages to com-munities: in land use, economic development, natural envi-ronment, food assistance, and health. The Detroit CFA, forexample, identified five sets of linkages: food in communityeconomic development, food in neighborhood revitalization,food in community health, hunger and food insecurity, andregional agriculture. These assessments offer a broad base ofknowledge that can help promote a more comprehensiveapproach to community-food issues.
A Broader Range of Research Methods
Relatedly, planning CFAs adopted a broader range of meth-ods to explore the variety of issues they considered. Table 2identifies these methods. For example, the Madison and Mil-waukee CFAs conducted focus groups of different groups ofresidents including youth, conducted interviews with keyinformants in public agencies and community-based organiza-tions and with residents, mapped resources, analyzed policydocuments, conducted economic analyses from data derivedfrom the economic censuses, conducted price comparisons,and implemented small-area studies. On the other hand, theAustin study involved an examination of socioeconomic anddemographic statistics derived from secondary sources, com-bined with interviews with community leaders and residentsand food inventories at local stores, while the Somervilleassessment analyzed census and institutional data andconducted interviews of key informants.
Wider Distribution of Studies among Planners
Unsurprisingly, planning-related studies were widely dis-tributed among local planners and decision makers and to anational audience of planners and food system professionals.For example, the Los Angeles and Madison CFAs were dissemi-nated among planners through a variety of means, includingpresentations at local (e.g., Wisconsin American PlanningAssociation) and national American Planning Association con-ferences (Seattle, Washington, 1999; a session that wasattended by sixty participants), the Association of CollegiateSchools of Planning conference (Fort Lauderdale, Florida),and an article in the Journal of the American Planning Association(Pothukuchi and Kaufman 2000). Two planning CFAs werealso published in Agriculture and Human Values, a journal read
by those with an interest in promoting local food systems(Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999; Gottlieb and Fisher 1996).Only one nonplanning study, the North Country assessment,was also reported in this journal (Pelletier et al. 1999, 2000).Educating planners about community-food links and theimportance of these links to community goals and values canbe important to building local food systems. While all studiessought and got coverage in the local media and were able toraise the awareness of the local citizenry as well as leadership,targeting local government agencies, officials, and planners isan important step (not the only one, of course) in initiatingactions and building support for them.
CFAs Help Catapult Planners intoLeadership Roles on Community Food Issues
All planning-related studies involved students either in theclassroom or outside and contributed to their training in sub-stantive and methodological topics related to community foodsystems. The Los Angeles and Madison CFAs were classroomprojects, the former undertaken as a result of student initia-tive, and the latter offered as a mandatory capstone profes-sional seminar to students completing their graduate studiesin planning. Milwaukee’s CFA also involved students of urbanplanning, while the Detroit study employed five students asresearch assistants. Significant outcomes have resulted fromthis involvement of planning students and faculty. The Milwau-kee CFA resulted in a range of outcomes, including a year-round farmers market called the Fondy Food Center to pro-vide a sales outlet for local farmers; a source of fresh food forthe city’s residents, especially in nearby low-income neighbor-hoods; a food-business incubator and community kitchen;opportunities for education in nutrition and healthful cook-ing; and a central information source for community foodissues. Tim Locke, a student of urban planning, went on tobecome its first director. Andy Fisher, a key participant in theLos Angeles CFA, became the founding executive director ofthe Community Food Security Coalition, a national organiza-tion with a mission in policy-advocacy, education, technicalassistance, and research in community food security; with astaff of ten persons; and with an annual budget of three-quar-ters of $1 million. Three planning faculty—Jerry Kaufman,Bob Gottlieb, and Kami Pothukuchi—have served on its gov-erning board (as well as the boards of other related local andregional organizations). Other planning students in theseCFAs have also become sensitive to community food concernsas evidenced by reports of their personal contacts followinggraduation to planning faculty who led these CFAs. In short,the incorporation of planning approaches has not only
Community Food Assessment � 371
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
strengthened CFAs in important ways but also catapultedplanning students and faculty into leadership roles in thenational community food security movement.
� What Community PlannersMight Learn from CFAs
Planners might also benefit by incorporating practicesmore central to nonplanning CFAs. These lessons, listedbelow, are not entirely new exhortations to planners. They arebeing presented here more because they received lower levelsof attention in planning-related CFAs, and because commu-nity food planning could benefit from greater consideration tothese issues, than necessarily because these characteristicswere shared by all nonplanning CFAs.
A more systematic incorporation of the health impacts of commu-nity-food linkages. Somerville and North Country assessments,especially, incorporated concerns related to the nutrition andthe health implications of food insecurity and current food-consumption patterns. Evidence is increasing on the positivehealth implications of neighborhood proximity to supermar-kets (Morland, Wing, and Roux 2002; Whelan et al. 2002) andof involvement in backyard- and community-garden activities(Feenstra, McGrew, and Campbell 1999; Blair, Giesecke, andSherman 1991). These health impacts are direct, throughhealthful consumption and increased physical activity, andindirect, through improved quality of neighborhood life, envi-ronment, and social networks. This emphasis on the connec-tions between land-use and neighborhood planning on onehand and health issues related to food access and physicalactivity on the other needs greater and more systematic atten-tion from planners. Planners have special contributions tomake in this regard; the medical field has traditionally concen-trated on individuals and families as units of analysis and onlyrecently started paying attention to community factors such asaccess, proximity, food availability, and the quality of commu-nity infrastructure (Glanz et al. 1995; Cheadle et al. 1995,1991). Planners’ focus on community would be a valuablecontribution to positive health outcomes from the frameworkof community food security.
Relocalizing food systems as an approach to community planning.An earlier section reported that all CFAs discussed concernsrelated to sustainability problems posed by the dominant foodsystem and planners’ expertise in framing and addressingthese concerns. CFAs (planning and nonplanning) advocatingrelocalization of food systems simultaneously addressed prob-lems faced by central-city and rural areas and sought to reduce
social and environmental costs currently externalized in thedominant food system, while also conceptualizing communityroles in planning for these urban-rural links. These CFAs pro-vided visions and models not just for community food plan-ning but for planning in general, in the regional interdepen-dency they see and advocate and in their vision of regional self-reliance in food as a tool for sustainable development.
In addition to attending to the environmental conse-quences of sprawl and current farming practices, plannersmight attend to the air-quality and energy impacts of the long-distance travel of food and related (and other) products. Theymight devise more localized food systems in addition to advo-cating for more sustainable practices in production, includingmore direct links between producers and consumers, throughfarmers markets, urban vegetable gardens, and grocery storesin low-income areas that are locally sourced whenever possi-ble. They might also help public institutions such as schools,universities, hospitals, and prisons better fulfill their missionsin education, health, and rehabilitation by supporting foodproduction on their lands and the participation of their con-stituencies in these processes. Finally, planners might paygreater attention to the social and economic dimensions ofsustainability related to food systems in terms of wages, work-ing conditions, spatial distribution, neighborhood quality, andthe health and environmental costs that are currentlyexternalized from food prices.
Building skills in and implementing participatory action researchmethods. Although most planners are exposed to the impor-tance of participatory planning processes (cf. Forester 1999;Arnstein 1969), only a few are trained intensively in these pro-cesses. Most CFAs studied for this article, including those ledby planners, had some form of an advisory committee of indi-viduals who were also food system stakeholders. In Somerville,these members represented nonprofit food assistance organi-zations, government food and nutrition programs, and healthproviders and included nutritionists. Many CFAs involvedstakeholders in the assessment planning stages as key infor-mants or data sources and for dissemination purposes. Thiskind of consultation is, indeed, a valid form of communityinvolvement in planning (Arnstein 1969). However, generallyspeaking, planners used students or planning professionals inthe actual planning and implementation of the CFA, with fewcommunity members directly involved in these activities. Thissuggests that although the research was informed by commu-nity involvement and was disseminated widely to stakeholders,few capacities in actually doing research—formulating specificquestions, collecting data, analyzing, and compiling and dis-seminating results—were built among community residents.Indeed, while mapping Detroit’s food resources, the CFA
372 Pothukuchi
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
coordinator was approached by a representative of a commu-nity nonprofit who wished to learn the technique to advancehis organization’s activities. However, lack of easy access to thetechnology on his part and lack of affordable access touniversity-based training stymied his quest.
Arguably, involving community members in CFAs designedas participatory action research would have been difficult toaccomplish while fulfilling educational or planning researchgoals; possibly, community members themselves may not havebeen able to be involved in a timely basis without training andcompensation. However, studies such as those involving youthas in the San Francisco CFA, community members in Austin, ora variety of stakeholders in a seamless process of visioning,analysis, strategy development, and implementation of actions(North Country, Somerville) build community skills in facilita-tion, coordination, research-design and implementation, andmanaging complex group processes and help build supportfor actions. Planners need this kind of involvement, skills, andleadership, and communities themselves would benefit fromthem in multiple ways (Greenwood and Levin 1998).
Community visioning as a means to develop shared understand-ings related to community food security. Visioning is a fundamentalpart of any process that deserves to be called planning. Plan-ners are familiar with ideas related to visionary planning and tovisions as products and processes (Shipley and Newkirk 1998).In recent times, the process elements of visioning, especiallythose in which futures are imagined and articulated by com-munity members as guides for planning activities, have gainedcurrency. Community food planning is a relatively new field;few shared understandings exist among community membersof concepts, analytic frameworks, current states, preferredgoals, and conceptions of future states of entire systems. CFAscan be an effective vehicle to help elicit these understandingsamong community residents and use group processes todevelop shared understandings that can form the basis forplanning.
Planning-related CFAs tended to use models of researchthat were somewhat traditional, possibly because many plan-ning researchers tend to see visioning, goal formulation, strat-egy-design, and actions as distinct steps. Experienced commu-nity practitioners, however, understand the advantages ofdesigning processes in which visioning, planning, and actionoccur in more integrated patterns. It is possible that profes-sional planners might be in a position to implement commu-nity-visioning processes more effectively than academic plan-ners; CFAs in general would be well served to embracevisioning for the opportunities for dialogue and mutual learn-ing that such processes generate. Of all CFAs in this study, theNorth Country assessment especially exemplified this process.
Linking local planning concerns with state and federal policy.Nonplanning CFAs linked local food-planning concerns tostate and federal policy and programs, especially in the areas ofagriculture, social welfare, and nutrition. Such links could begreater and more systematic and could benefit all communi-ties doing CFAs not just those involving planners. This lesson isnot so much a critique of those CFAs that did not incorporatesuch links to external policy contexts, because, after all, thepoint of doing CFAs was to focus attention precisely on localfood issues and their local policy and action implications.Nonetheless, as noted in Table 1, community food conditionsare tied to a larger market and policy environment, and localefforts need to be supported by larger policy contexts. Severalpolicy initiatives informed by community food security haverecently been introduced at the federal level and presentunprecedented opportunities for enabling such links. Theseinclude the Community Food Projects Competitive GrantsProgram,6 Farmers Market Nutrition Programs (for Seniorsand low-income families with young children), and Farm-to-School initiatives that support school districts’ efforts toincrease the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables by chil-dren while enhancing markets for local farmers. CFAs couldhelp identify broad directions for policy or specific initiativesat state and federal levels. Legislation enabling the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development, for exam-ple, to design “food empowerment zones” to introduce foodproduction, processing, and retailing in vacant industrial areasand community block grant funding for food-related planningare two such possibilities. As more and more CFAs are doneand disseminated widely, national organizations and coalitionscan help develop policies and programs at state and federal lev-els that are sympathetic to and foster community food securityactions at the local level. These advocacy efforts, to besuccessful, will need more systematic support from localplanners and leaders.
� Conclusion
This article reported on nine CFAs around the country,identified shared elements among them that also constitutecommon threads to planning, and discussed both strengthscontributed by a planning approach to CFAs and lessons fromthem that planners might incorporate in mainstream practice.CFAs are, at their root, planning activities. Regardless of thebackground of CFA implementers, planners could serve asable partners in CFAs and in the actions that follow from assess-ments. Indeed, this article discusses reasons why planners maywant to become involved in—or even lead—CFAs. The CFAsreported here are at the cutting edge of community food
Community Food Assessment � 373
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
practice but represent baby steps in community food planning.This study is, therefore, inherently exploratory, and the con-clusions are presented to identify broad new directions forplanning research and practice.
All planning CFAs were conducted from within universitysettings, while such is less the case with the nonplanning ones.Possibly, CFAs led by practicing planners may be limited bylower access to resources, unsupportive political or organiza-tional contexts, and increased pressures on planners’ time andattention. It is also possible that those conducted by profes-sional planners might be superior in some respects, and theirexperiences in encouraging community participation, stake-holder group management, and other community processescould result in a CFA that is more participatory than the plan-ner-led CFAs reported in this article. In their ongoing efforts toresolve particular problems faced by their communities, suchas stemming farmland loss, attracting supermarkets tounderserved areas, or making more land available for commu-nity gardens for residents to grow their own food, some plan-ners may also bring valuable experiences to their communi-ties’ food assessments that could result in outcomes far morepowerful than those from university-based models.
This study has multiple implications for planning educa-tion, research, and practice. Faculty colleagues might conductCFA workshops, such as those in Los Angeles, Madison, andMilwaukee, and thereby greatly increase planning knowl-edge—generally and with implications for particular commu-nities and regions. Departments might offer courses on com-munity food security or incorporate relevant material in moretraditional courses such as community economic developmentplanning, environmental planning, sustainable development,and land-use planning.
Community food planning could benefit from researchthat examines community strategies informed by assessmentsand outcomes of strategies and that extends these CFAs sub-stantively and methodologically. Future assessments mightdelve deeper into causal relationships moving beyond the sim-pler descriptions and correlations of most described here. Par-ticular community food topics might benefit especially fromgreater planning attention: food deserts and spatial access tofood for low-income residents, policies supporting urban agri-culture, food policy councils, and means to sustain foodproduction in metropolitan areas.
Planning practitioners are in a position to make significantcontributions to community food issues. Many already may bepursuing related actions, albeit unconsciously and withoutenhancing community food security such as devising efforts tosave farmland, but not necessarily for food production; insti-tuting procedures for community gardens, but only as recre-ational options in senior housing complexes rather than as a
comprehensive community strategy for food security; or pur-suing national supermarket operators to open stores inparticular low-income neighborhoods rather than devising amore competitive, citywide strategy with multiple locationsand incentives. Planners especially need to become moreaware of the possible negative impacts of routine planningdecisions on community food security. One example of thismight be the land-use planner who advises against the locationof a food pantry near a mixed-income neighborhood for fearthat it might attract “the criminal element.”7
On a more sober note, it is possible to be too sanguineabout planners’ interest and capacity to become involved inCFAs wholesale. Planners are, after all, scarcely a unitarygroup, with unitary interests, inclinations, and political con-texts of their work. Not all planners may see themselves or theirday-to-day practice reflected in the previous discussion on“common threads”; more basically, not all planners may bepersuaded of the usefulness of CFAs for their communities. Yetanother fear is that community food security advocates them-selves may see cities’ planning agencies as the enemy becauseof a history of planning decisions that may have produced out-comes antithetical to community food security. Hopefully,rather than the realization of these fears, it will be the leader-ship provided by some planners to the community food secu-rity movement that will be the model for planners’ futureinvolvement in community food issues.
Author’s Note: The author is grateful to Jerry Kaufman and three anony-mous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this article.
� AppendixCommunity Food Assessment Reports
Austin, TX
Sustainable Food Center. 1996. Access denied. Austin, TX: Author.http://www.main.org/sfc/access_denied/.
Berkeley, CA
Pinderhughes, R., and J. Miner. 2001. Good farming, healthy commu-nities: Strengthening sustainable agriculture sectors and local food sys-tems. San Francisco: San Francisco State University, Urban andEnvironmental Studies Program.
Detroit, MI
Pothukuchi, K. 2003. Detroit food system: A handbook for communityplanners. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Los Angeles, CA
Ashman, L., M. Dohan, J. De la Vega, A. Fisher, R. Hippler, and B.Romain. 1993. Seeds of change: Strategies for food security for theinner city. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles,
374 Pothukuchi
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning. http://www.foodsecurity.org/pubs.html/.
Madison, WI
University of Wisconsin Department of Urban and Regional Plan-ning. 1997. Fertile ground: A study of the Madison/Dane County foodsystem. Madison: Author. http://www.wisc.edu/mfsp/pubsf/pub.html/.
Milwaukee, WI (all reports published by University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Center for Urban Initiatives and Research)
Varela, O. J. 1996. Socio-spatial relationships and food programs in Mil-waukee’s food system.
Johnson, K., S. Percy, and E. Wagner. 1996. Comparative study of foodpricing and availability in Milwaukee.
Varela, O. J., D. P. Haider-Markel, and S. L. Percy. 1998. Perceptionsand experiences of consumer access to food in Milwaukee’s inner-cityneighborhoods.
Varela, O. J., K. Johnson, and S. Percy. 1998. Food insecurity in Mil-waukee: A qualitative study of food pantry and meal program users.
North Country Region, NY
Pelletier, D. L., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, and U. Uusitalo. 2000. Val-ues, public policy and community food security. Agriculture andHuman Values 17 (1): 75-93.
Pelletier, D. L., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, U. Uusitalo, and R. Rich.1999. Community food security: Salience and participation atcommunity level. Agriculture and Human Values 16:401-19.
San Francisco, CA
Bhatia, Rajiv, Cory Calandra, Laura Brainin-Rodriguez, and PaulaJones. 2001. Food access study of the Bayview Hunters Point. SanFrancisco: San Francisco Department of Public Health; SanFrancisco League of Urban Gardeners.
Somerville, MA
http://nutrition.tufts.edu/consumer/somerville.html/.
� Notes
1. Food insecurity occurs when individuals or families face lim-ited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safefoods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods insocially acceptable ways. The concept of food insecurity was devel-oped to reflect more accurately conditions faced by U.S. popula-tions. Extreme food insecurity can cause hunger, which is the pain-ful sensation caused by a lack of food, and may producemalnutrition over time. The opposite of food insecurity is foodsecurity. Survey data on food insecurity are typically collected atthe individual and household levels. By contrast, community foodsecurity is a much broader conception and incorporates, in addi-tion to household food security, notions related to social equity,environmental sustainability, and local and regional self-reliance.
2. These functions were adapted from an article by MartinMeyerson, “Building the Middle Range Bridge for Comprehensive
Planning” (1956), which addressed the role of city planningagencies.
3. The survey was led by Hugh Joseph, Gerald J. and Dorothy R.Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University,with research assistance from Hannah Burton (currently with TheFood Trust, Philadelphia). Surveys consisting of a combination ofopen- and closed-ended questions were initially distributed elec-tronically in 2000, with several follow-ups (by Burton) by e-mailand phone to urge return of surveys and to seek clarifications andelaborations on responses. Responses from a total of ten assess-ment leaders (or representatives of organizations sponsoringassessments, if assessment leaders were unavailable) were assem-bled over the next two years. Of these, one was dropped from thefinal analysis because it was a more traditional university-spon-sored research project in nutritional and food security assessment,without community-based partners in planning or implementa-tion. Case summaries for Pothukuchi et al. (2002) were preparedby Hannah Burton, with significant input from Kai Siedenburgand Kami Pothukuchi.
4. In two cases, reports were unavailable to the author: SanFrancisco and Berkeley, California. However, informal interviewsin phone and person with assessment leaders helped fill gaps inknowledge, in addition to case summaries prepared forPothukuchi et al. (2002).
5. These are separated for analytic reasons discussed in follow-ing sections. On no account does this separation of “planning-related” and “other” community food assessments imply that thelatter fall outside community planning, broadly defined. In fact, abasic thesis of this article is that community food assessments are,indeed, a form of planning activity.
6. This program funds community-based projects that offer cre-ative, community-based solutions to hunger, nutrition, farming,and food system problems, while also meeting the food needs oflow-income residents. For more information, browse http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/cfp/community.htm.
7. Pothukuchi and Kaufman (2000) interviewed a planner whogave this example. The response was to a question that soughtplanners’ perceptions of the effects of planning activities on com-munity food security.
� References
Allison, D. B., K. R. Fontaine, J. E. Manson, J. Stevens, and T. B.VanItallie. 1999. Annual deaths attributable to obesity in theUnited States. Journal of the American Medical Association 282(16): 1530-38.
Altshuler, A. 1970. Community control. New York: Praeger.Ammons, D. N. 1996. Municipal benchmarks: Assessing local perfor-
mance and establishing community standards. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners 35 (8): 216–24.
Baum, H. S. 1997. The organization of hope: Communities planningthemselves. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Beatley, T., and K. Manning. 1997. The ecology of place: Planning forenvironment, economy, and community. Washington, DC: IslandPress.
Berke, P. 2002. Does sustainable development offer a new direc-tion for planning? Challenges for the twenty-first century. Jour-nal of Planning Literature 17 (1): 21-36.
Community Food Assessment � 375
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Blair, D., C. G. Giesecke, and S. Sherman. 1991. A dietary, socialand economic evaluation of the Philadelphia urban gardeningproject. Journal of Nutrition Education 23 (4): 161-67.
Bryson, J. M., and B. B. Crosby. 1996. Planning and the design anduse of forums, arenas and courts. In Explorations in planning the-ory, edited by S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. W. Burchell.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.
Cheadle A., B. M. Psaty, S. Curry, E. Wagner, P. Diehr, T. Koepsell,and A. Kristal. 1991. Community-level comparisons betweenthe grocery store environment and individual dietary practices.Preventive Medicine 20 (2): 250-61.
Cheadle A., B. M. Psaty, P. Diehr, T. Koepsell, E. Wagner, S. Curry,and A. Kristal. 1995. Evaluating community-based nutritionprograms: Comparing grocery store and individual-level surveymeasures of program impact. Preventive Medicine 24 (1): 71-79.
Crane, R., and A. Daniere. 1996. Measuring access to services inglobalized cities. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(2): 203-19.
Doll, R., and R. Peto. 1981. The causes of cancer: Quantitative esti-mates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today.Journal of the National Cancer Institute 66:1191-308. http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/risks73.html(accessed August 27, 2002).
Feenstra, G., S. McGrew, and D. Campbell. 1999. Entrepreneurialcommunity gardens: Growing food, skills, jobs and communities. Agri-cultural and Natural Resources Publication 21587, Universityof California.
Food Research and Action Center. 1991. WIC: A success story. Wash-ington, DC: Author.
. 2000. New data show persistent hunger and food insecurityamong American families. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.frac.org/html/news/foodsecurity99.html (accessedAugust 29, 2002).
Forester, J. 1988. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
. 1999. The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatoryplanning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gallo, A. 1999. Food advertising in the United States. In America’seating habits: Changes and consequences, edited by E. Frazao. Agri-culture Information Bulletin No. 750:173, USDA EconomicResearch Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib750/ (accessed August 29, 2002).
Gilbert, J. D. 1982. United States food stamp program: The changing pic-ture. Monticello, IL: Vance.
Glanz, K., B. Lankenau, S. Foerster, S. Temple, R. Mullis, and T.Schmid. 1995. Environmental and policy approaches to cardio-vascular disease prevention through nutrition: Opportunitiesfor state and local action. Health Education Quarterly 22 (4): 512-27.
Gottlieb, R., and A. Fisher. 1996. Community food security andenvironmental justice: Searching for a common discourse.Journal of Agriculture and Human Values 3 (3): 23-32.
Greenwood, D. J., and M. Levin. 1998. Introduction to action research:Social research for social change.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hamm, M. W., and A. C. Bellows. 2003. Community food security:Background and future directions. Journal of Nutrition Educa-tion & Behavior 35 (1): 37-43.
Hatry, H. P., L. H. Blair, D. M. Fisk, J. M. Greiner, J. R. Hall Jr., and P.S. Schaenman. 1992. How effective are your community services?Procedures for measuring their quality. 2nd ed. Washington, DC:Urban Institute and International City/County ManagementAssociation.
Haughton, G., and C. Hunter. 1994. Sustainable cities. London:Jessica Kingsley.
Hendrickson, M., W. D. Heffernan, P. H. Howard, and J. B.Heffernan. 2001. Consolidation in food retailing and dairy: Implica-tions for farmers and consumers in a global food system. Columbia:University of Missouri. http://www.competitivemarkets.com/library/academic/heffernan.pdf (accessed August 29, 2002).
Innes, J. E. 1996. Group processes and the social construction ofgrowth management. In Explorations in planning theory, editedby S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. W. Burchell. New Bruns-wick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Jepson, E. J., Jr. 2001. Sustainability and planning: Diverse con-cepts and close associations. Journal of Planning Literature 16(4): 499-511.
Jerardo, A. 2002 The import share of US consumed-food continues to rise.Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fau/july02/fau6601/fau6601.pdf (accessed September 23, 2002).
Kloppenburg, J., J. Hendrickson, and G. W. Stevenson. 1995. Com-ing into the foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values 13:33-42.
Krebs, A. V. 1994. Cargill: Dredging up the profits. The AgBiz tiller,http://www.ea1.com/CARP/tiller/archives/backlog.htm(accessed August 29, 2002).
Kretzmann, J. P., and J. L. McKnight. 1993. Building communitiesfrom the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a commu-nity’s assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and PolicyResearch, Northwestern University.
Lucy, W. 1994. If planning includes too much, maybe it shouldinclude more. Journal of the American Planning Association 60 (3):305-18.
Medoff, P., and H. Sklar. 1994. Streets of hope: The fall and rise of anurban neighborhood. Boston: South End Press.
Meyerson, M. 1956. Building the middle range bridge for compre-hensive planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 22(2): 58-64.
Morland, K., S. B. Wing, and A. D. Roux. 2002. The contextualeffect of the local food environment on residents’ diets: Theatherosclerosis risk in communities study. American Journal ofPublic Health 92 (11): 1761-67.
Nestle, M. 2002. Food politics: How the food industry influences nutritionand health. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pelletier, D. L., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, and U. Uusitalo. 2000. Val-ues, public policy and community food security. Agriculture andHuman Values 17 (1): 75-93.
Pelletier, D. L., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, U. Uusitalo, and R. Rich.1999. Community food security: Salience and participation atcommunity level. Agriculture and Human Values 16:401-19.
Poppendieck, J. 1998. Sweet charity: Emergency food and the end of enti-tlement. New York: Viking.
Pothukuchi, K., and J. Kaufman. 1999. Placing the food system onthe planning agenda: The role of municipal institutions. Agri-culture and Human Values 16:213-24.
. 2000. The food system: A stranger to the planning field.Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (2): 113-24.
Pothukuchi, K., H. Joseph, H. Burton, and A. Fisher. 2002. What’scooking in your food system: A guide to community food assessment.Los Angeles: Community Food Security Coalition.
Quercia, R. G. 1999. Assessing the performance of affordableloans: Implications for research and policy. Journal of PlanningLiterature 14 (1): 16-26.
376 Pothukuchi
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rohe, W. M., R. E. Adams, and T. A. Arcury. 2000. Communitypolicing and planning. Journal of the American Planning Associa-tion 67 (1): 78-90.
Rubin, H. J. 2000. Reinventing hope within neighborhoods of despair:The community-based development model. Albany: State Universityof New York Press.
Sawicki D. S., and P. Flynn. 1996. Neighborhood indicators: Areview of the literature and an assessment of conceptual andmethodological issues. Journal of the American Planning Associa-tion 62:165-83.
Schlebecker, J. T. 1975. Whereby we thrive: A history of American farm-ing, 1607-1972. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Shipley, R., and R. Newkirk. 1998. Visioning: Did anyone see whereit came from? Journal of Planning Literature 12 (4): 407-16.
Takahashi, L. M., and G. Smutny. 1998. Community planning forHIV/AIDS prevention in Orange County, California. Journal ofthe American Planning Association 64 (4): 441-56.
Talen, E. 2000. The problem with community in planning. Journalof Planning Literature 5 (2): 171-83.
Throgmorton, J. A. 1996. Impeaching research: Planning as per-suasive and constitutive discourse. In Explorations in planningtheory, edited by Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, andRobert W. Burchell. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityCenter for Urban Policy Research.
Turner, J. F. C. 1995. Tools for building community: An examina-tion of 13 hypotheses. Habitat International 20 (3): 339–47.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2002. A status report on hunger and home-lessness in America’s cities. Washington, DC: Author.
USDA Economic Research Service. n.d. Diet and health: Overview.Washington, DC: Author. http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/DietAndHealth/ (accessed August 29, 2002).
Wallace, R., D. Wallace, and H. Andrews. 1997. AIDS, tuberculosis,violent crime, and low birthweight in eight US metropolitanareas: Public policy, stochastic resonance, and the regional dif-fusion of inner-city markers. Environment and Planning A29:525-55.
Whelan, A., N. Wrigley, D. Warm, and E. Cannings. 2002. Life in a“food desert.” Urban Studies 39 (11): 2083-100.
Community Food Assessment � 377
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on May 27, 2009 http://jpe.sagepub.comDownloaded from