Kathryn Entner

Growing Opportunities in Boston

An analysis of the current urban agricultural movement in Boston

P.AD 910 Independent Study Suffolk University

Spring 2013

P a g e | 1

Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………….…..page 2

Urban Farming in America, Then and Now…………………..…….…page 2

Benefits of Urban Farming……………………………….………….….page 5

Urban Farming in Boston………………………………..……….….….page 9

Inputs and the Production Process of Urban Farming………………page 13

Public Policy………………………………………………..…………....page 20

Urban Farming as an Industry…………….…………………………...page 24

Conclusion………………………………………….…………………....page 28

References……………………………………………………………….page 29

References for Figures………………………………………………….page 31

P a g e | 2

Introduction

Farming is no longer reserved for rural areas. City dwellers have picked up their trowels and are joining

in the urban agricultural movement that has spread throughout the country, and Boston is no exception.

Home to many different organizations, the city boasts many initiatives and programs from all sectors that

encourage farming within Boston in a variety of ways.

This study serves as a snapshot analysis of what the movement and industry currently looks likes in

Boston as of this spring of 2013, and where it is heading. While it is impossible to study an entire

industry that only focuses on Boston since most organizations have a scope beyond the city limits, this

study will concentrate on those organizations that have a focus in the metro Boston area. The analysis

will begin with an overview of what urban agriculture in America has looked like in the past and what the

current movement involves, followed by the benefits of urban agriculture, a review of several

organizations involved in Boston, the production process, and an industry analysis.

Urban agriculture is defined in Boston as “the use of a Lot for the cultivation of food and/or horticultural

crops, Composting, Aquaponics, Aquaculture and/or Hydroponics generally for income-earning or food

production activities”1. This cultivation includes the use of rooftop farming, both open-air and enclosed

structures such as greenhouses, as well as ground level production. While Boston does not consider

farming for personal consumption, either in community gardens or on private residential land, to be

included in the definition of urban agriculture, this study will include these activities since the goal is to

analyze farming in its many variations throughout the city. For the purpose of this study, the keeping of

hens and other livestock will not be addressed; however bees are included because of their relationship

with crop production. Also, despite sometimes having different connotations and implications, the terms

agriculture and farming will be used interchangeably in this study.

Urban Farming in America, Then and Now

Urban farming is not a new development within the United States or even Boston. The most notable

nation-wide movement was the use of Victory Gardens during World War I that encouraged communities

to garden for their own consumption2. Since most of the commercially produced food at this time was

1 City of Boston, “Changes in draft Article 89 since March 7, 2013 Working Group Meeting”, p.3 2 City of Boston, “Open Space Management Mission: Community Gardens”

P a g e | 3

sent abroad, the community gardens were a crucial effort that was brought back again during World War

II. By the end of the war, an estimated 20 million gardens were established across the country, producing

40% of America’s vegetable supply. The Fenway Victory Gardens in Boston are the oldest and only

victory gardens to remain in use since it began in 19433. The 1970’s and 80’s saw an increase in

community efforts to preserve property rights and encourage community gardening in Boston’s

neighborhoods4. These efforts have continued over the past few decades, setting the stage for the trends

in the food movement that have been growing in the past few years.

The Buy Fresh Buy Local movement can be used as an indicator of the overarching national trend to

purchase more local food. Since it began in 2003 by the FoodRoutes Network, the campaign states that

its purpose is “dedicated to reintroducing Americans to their food – the seeds it grows from, the farmers

who produce it, and the routes that carry it from the fields to their tables”5. This shift toward slow food, as

opposed to fast food, and the knowledge of how food is grown and where it is sourced is something that

has arguably been lost in the commercialization of our modern food system6. There are many factors for

the recent push for local food: there are environmental concerns over production and transportation,

skepticism of commercial agriculture, and a desire to support local economies and therefore local farmers.

Those who are interested in purchasing local food can expect fresher produce of higher taste quality than

the commercially grown options, although buyers will typically pay a premium for the better flavor7. The

term “locavore” has become ubiquitous when discussing food systems and preferences in America. It

describes a person who chooses “a diet consisting of food harvested within a 100-mile radius”, a term first

popularized during the World Environment Day in 20058. While the average American will most likely

not describe themselves as a locavore, the desire for and interest in local food has begun to reshape the

food industry, and with it urban agriculture.

On the other end of the income spectrum, urban agriculture has also been reshaped as it addresses a very

different need. There are significant shortages when it comes to having access to fresh food, and millions

of Americans live in what has been referred to as food deserts. These areas have recently been redefined

by the USDA as “low-income areas where a significant number or share of residents is far from a

supermarket…using ½ mile and 1-mile demarcations to the nearest supermarket for urban areas”9. There

are several valid reasons why grocery stores move out of urban areas, beginning with the issue of cost and

3 Nordahl, p.136 4 City of Boston, “Open Space Management Mission: Community Gardens” 5 Buy Fresh Buy Local 6 Nordahl, p.10, 115-6 7 Steucek, Guy.

8 Ladner, p.12 9 Food Access Research Atlas, USDA

P a g e | 4

availability of land. Grocery stores need to provide at least some space for parking as well as the store

itself, and if someone has access to a car then they are also capable of driving a few more miles to a more

desirable location for the store. In low income neighborhoods there is less per-capita spending on food,

and often a declining population, neither of which make up for the meager 1-5% profit margins that the

store can expect10

. While the debate about whether the lack of access to a grocery store is synonymous

with a lack of nutrition in one’s diet will be saved for another research project, the fact remains that there

are gaps in our current food system that leave out a significant portion of our population.

Although Boston is more fortunate than a few other American cities when it comes to the number of food

deserts, it is at the top of the list with Philadelphia for the fewest supermarkets per capita as of a 2001

study by the Food Trust11

. The USDA recently developed an interactive Food Access Research Atlas,

identifying the low income and low access layers in different segments of each county. Using ½ and one-

mile increments to measure the distance a resident needs to travel to a supermarket in low income areas,

Boston has only two one-mile segments in East Boston, but it does have many ½ mile segments, although

favorable when compared to Detroit or Los Angeles. The segments in Boston are mainly congregated in

Roxbury, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain, and Mattapan, and for this reason many of the organizations that

work to address food access issues are located in these neighborhoods (see map)12

. Valerie Burns, the

10

Ladner, p. 221-222 11 Ladner, p.218 12 Food Access Research Atlas, USDA

Figure 1: USDA map indicating low income and low access segments

P a g e | 5

president of Boston Natural Areas Network which owns many community gardens around Boston, says

that they note an increase in community gardening when the economy is not faring well13

. Since there

was already a concern to bring farms to these neighborhoods to provide fresh food for the residents, this

could help explain the more recent increase of interest in community gardening, especially if these low

income neighborhoods have felt the economic strains of the recent recession.

Whatever the blend of factors may be, the result of this trend has been an increased desire for urban

farming in order to supply the dense populations of city dwellers with more fresh and local food. Every

city seems to take on urban agriculture in its own style to fit its particular needs and environment. In

Portland, the municipal government has proactively encouraged farming within the city in a variety of

highly visible ways. Several of these initiatives have included allowing fruit trees to be grown in public

spaces, having “harvesting parties” that help prevent waste from these trees, and implementing programs

that teach residents how to garden and encourage the production of local food14

. Detroit has begun to take

back some of the city’s numerous vacant lots, and many urban projects are transforming these plots into

farming projects. The project with the most news coverage recently has been John Hantz’s controversial

plan to convert 200 acres of vacant lots first into lumber production, and then to expand into fruits and

vegetables. The goal of this project is to reduce the number of vacant lots in Detroit in order to create

scarcity of land to help rejuvenate the city15

. The nature of urban farming in Boston has taken on its own

form and identity, and this will be revealed through the identification of the groups and organizations that

are involved in the movement and how they hope to change the future of farming in Boston.

Benefits of Urban Farming

There are many benefits to urban agriculture beyond the aforementioned desire to increase our knowledge

of how food is grown. There is also a growing concern over food security fueled by several recent

incidences of e.coli and salmonella outbreaks in produce which sickened hundreds of people and called

into question the safety and reliability of our centralized food system. The reasoning follows that “a

decentralized system of many small, local farms and garden plots simply could never have the potential of

infecting that many people over so large a geographic area”16

. While soil contamination is a large issue

for urban farmers, which will be discussed in more detail later, the idea of sourcing one’s food locally will

help to reduce the exposure to such incidences that many people have become fearful over.

13 Gaines, Nancy. 14

Nordahl, p.54, 112, 118 15 Dolan, Matthew 16 Nordahl, p.27

P a g e | 6

Food security concerns are not limited to just safety issues, but also the reliability of food production.

Subject to weather conditions and the growing season, producing crops can be a gamble unless there is

some form of control over these conditions. In 2008 alone, California experienced one of the driest

seasons in 80 years which hurt the many farms that spring, while Iowa suffered from heavy rains that

ruined over 20% of their grain production17

. Not only do these irregularities hurt the farms, but they also

usually result in increased food prices in order to make up for lost revenues.

Greenhouses have allowed farmers to extend their growing season which in many areas can be vital in

order to have the ability to grow at all. One such extreme case can be found in the Inuvik Community

Greenhouse, located 125 miles north of the Arctic Circle in Canada which provides residents the ability to

garden indoors despite the short growing season outside18

. Not only do greenhouses give colder climates

longer growing seasons, but they also provide a climate-controlled environment where growing crops is

not conditional on optimal weather conditions during the season. Although Boston is not quite as far

north as Inuvik, it would still benefit from the benefits of an extended growing season that a greenhouse

would supply. Marie Mercurio from the Boston Redevelopment Authority points to greenhouses as the

future in farming, not only in Boston but across the country and internationally, for their extended seasons

and controlled climates, as well as their ability to protect the produce from air pollution that is a concern

in cities19

.

Greenhouses often can use hydroponic technology, a method of growing plants without soil but rather

nutrient-enriched water, and this efficient use of resources with the optimal growing conditions can

equate to much higher yields: “One acre of hydroponic greenhouse can produce 600,000 pounds of food

per year; that’s ten times what a one-acre field could produce – and there’s no wasted fertilizer”20

. In

urban areas where the cost of land, or a rooftop, will be significantly higher than in rural areas, the ability

to produce more crops throughout the year makes greenhouses a more attractive option for the urban

farmer. Vertical farming, which expands greenhouses in height rather than in floor space, is particularly

beneficial to urban farming since it maximizes the use of the costly square footage. In Chicago, The

Plant, a former meatpacking plant, is now home to an aquaponics system that cycles the waste from fish

tanks to fertilize the vegetables in hanging rafts, and the clean water back to the fish tanks, which are also

grown for consumption. In Sweden, a twelve story, triangular greenhouse named Plantagon will utilize

17 Nordahl, p.19 18

Ladner, p.64 19 Mercurio, Marie 20 Ladner, p.63-4

P a g e | 7

mechanical tracks to carry the plants from the top floor down to ground level where they will be

harvested, efficiently utilizing sunlight exposure on their way down21

.

A green roof, one that is open-air as opposed to a greenhouse, offers many benefits to the building owner

and the surrounding city. A green roof is “a system of layers that is laid over an existing roof” the top

layer being vegetation of some type (see image)22

. This layering helps to insulate the building which

decreases the costs of heating and cooling, reduces its combustibility, and helps to preserve the roof’s

waterproof membrane, increasing its average lifespan two to three times. These benefits will help reduce

the maintenance costs of the building as well as earn it LEED

points for its environmental benefits. A green roof will also

help to reduce the storm water runoff from the building, and

this runoff can be used in the irrigation system for any

gardening on the roof. Also, since the layering covers the

black rooftop which is subject to intense temperature

fluctuations during summer months, the green roof can help

reduce the Urban Heat Island effect, where a city retains heat

particularly in summer, since it keeps a more consistent

temperature23

.

Urban farming on the ground will also have many environmental benefits, mainly around the reduction in

greenhouse gases (GHG) that are produced on urban farms in comparison to conventional farming.

Urban farming typically does not use large machinery which contributes to GHG emissions, and since

soil naturally absorbs carbon, this will offset, and perhaps even help to reduce slightly, the CO2 emissions

in a city, depending on the amount of farms24

.

Bees are an important aspect of any type of agriculture, pollinating over 130 crops, including fruits and

vegetables, as well as the alfalfa and hay that livestock consume, affecting over $20 billion of America’s

food production each year. Honey bees have suffered from a disease which has decreased their

population, requiring many farmers to purchase the hives and bees necessary to complete their

agricultural production. This is true for urban farmers as well as commercial farmers, and both will

benefit from the pollination of their crops as well as the honey and wax produced in the hives25

.

21 Fletcher, Owen 22 Higher Ground Farm 23

Recover Green Roofs 24 “Growing Green”, p.16 25 Wilson-Rich, Noah; “A Good ‘Beesness’”

Figure 2: Green roof layering system

P a g e | 8

The greatest social potential for urban agriculture is its ability to turn vacant or unused plots of land into

something that benefits the local community. Mentioned earlier, Detroit is the prime example of a city

that is burdened with excess land, estimated at over a quarter of the city’s square mileage, which strains

Detroit’s already limited resources and real estate values. Taking advantage of the cheap land, urban

gardens have flourished in the past few years, totaling almost 900 gardens in 201126

. However, beyond

just getting rid of these eyesores by putting the vacant lots to use, gardening in undesirable urban

neighborhoods helps to strengthen the community as well as reducing violence.

In 2000, Philadelphia began to reclaim and maintain about eight percent of the city’s vacant lots by

planting trees, installing fences, and providing regular maintenance. They began to see a reduction in

violence near these areas, and it was not simply because the lots were no longer available as hiding places

for guns. The number of calls to the police over minor public disturbances increased greatly near these

areas as the residents began to feel more connected not only with the land but also with their neighbors.

This reclamation of the community can also be seen at Chicago’s Growing Home project, which is

located in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city. The farm sells most of its produce on the other

side of town, but its employs the local residents, some of whom may be unable to find other employment

because of past records. Growing Home started with the intention of bringing fresh produce to this food

desert but has since modified its mission due to the lack of customers. They now “use food as a tool to

change individual lives and to change the community”, which can be seen through the efforts of one

employee, a former convict, who is helping is family and neighbors to build gardens in their own

backyards27

.

While not every initiative may hire former criminals, the potential job creation is certainly another benefit

that urban agriculture brings. The Conservation Law Foundation published a study in 2012 that examined

the economic development potential for farming in the Greater Boston area. Their research is based on

the use of fifty acres, which is about the equivalent of the Boston Commons, and well below the

estimated 800 acres of private and publicly owned land that would meet the requirements for urban

farming. The report finds that these fifty acres would “create between two and five direct, on-farm jobs

per acre, or 130-220 total jobs; create additional jobs in the agricultural services sector (equipment sales,

composting and soil inputs, and food processing)…[and] generate approximately 1.5 million pounds of

fresh produce for sale into local markets”28

. While this may not seem like very many jobs, the effect

would be scalable for additional acreage added. Also, many of the available spaces are in low-income

26

Voigt, Kate, p.545 27 Kotlowitz, Alex 28 “Growing Green”, p.4

P a g e | 9

neighborhoods which would be beneficial to those communities if the farming followed the same

principles as Chicago’s Growing Home project.

Urban Farming in Boston

As the Fenway Victory Gardens can attest, farming has long been a part of Boston’s history and is

positioned to become thoroughly integrated into its future. While the following is in no way a

comprehensive list of every organization and business that is involved, this section will highlight several

that are currently involved in urban agriculture in Boston. The ones that are covered were chosen for

their prominence in the city or as a representation of the other similar organizations.

One non-profit that has helped to shape and influence what urban agriculture has looked like over the past

few decades is the Boston Natural Areas Network (BNAN). Since it was established in 1977, BNAN

works across the public, private, and non-profit sectors, along with community groups, with the mission

“to preserve, expand, and improve urban open space through community organizing, acquisition,

ownership, programming, development and management of special kinds of urban land – Urban Wilds,

Greenways and Community Gardens”29

. Of the 172 community gardens in Boston, BNAN owns 59 of

these, and leases plots in the gardens to community members. Rented out at $20-80 year, which covers

the cost of water and other fees associated with the land, a recent study estimated that about $450 of

produce could be grown from a plot each year. Focusing on neighborhoods such as Mattapan and

Roslindale that have very few gardens, BNAN encourages production for the individual or family’s own

use and advocates for the community to become involved in the gardens, incorporating them into the

neighborhood and becoming invested in it. BNAN also hosts numerous educational programs, open to the

public and for all ages and all types of urban lands, many of which focus on teaching people farming

skills such as their Master Urban Gardener and Seed, Sow & Grow programs30

. They also offer

educational programs on healthy cooking, composting, community organizing, and one that even teaches

Boston Public School teachers about gardening with students, along with a plethora of other events that

encourage the introduction of and participation with the many green spaces within the city31

.

The Food Project is another organization that has strong roots in Boston’s food system since it began in

1991. Also a community-based non-profit organization, the Food Project farms in Lincoln, Beverly,

Boston, and Lynn. They grow produce that is both donated to hunger relief organizations and sold at

29

Boston Natural Areas Network 30 Chaffee, Karen 31 Boston Natural Areas Network

P a g e | 10

farmer’s markets and community supported agriculture (CSA) shares that are available at each farm

location as well as several other locations within the city. Though also supported by many volunteers, the

Food Project focuses on their youth programs to teach responsibility, leadership, and an understanding of

food accessibility in their community with an intentionally diverse group of teenagers32

.

City Growers is a for-profit organization that farms on many small, formerly vacant lots around Boston,

and aggregates together their production to sell to restaurants, local markets, and their affiliate, City Fresh

Foods, which provides meals to schools, elder services, child care services, and other institutional meals33

.

With the intention to help revitalize the communities where their farms are located, City Growers uses a

model that is both economically and environmentally sustainable. With farms in Dorchester, Roxbury,

and a future site in Mattapan, their goals include job creation and increasing the food security and access

for these communities34

.

Recover Green Roofs is a for-profit company located in Somerville that provides design consulting,

installation, and maintenance services for green roofs and living green walls across New England and

New York. Using the layering process discussed earlier, the green roofs all have environmentally

conscious designs that address issues such as preventing nutrient runoff from the soil. Most of Recover’s

clients are restaurants that use the green roofs to garden for their own use; however they also have many

schools, residential

homes, and other

businesses that use

Recover’s services to

create green roofs

specific to each one’s

needs. Ledge Restaurant

in Dorchester is one of

their highlighted clients,

using their rooftop

garden to produce much

of the vegetables and

herbs that are then

brought downstairs to their

32

Food Project, The 33 “Growing Green”, p.8 34 City Growers

Figure 3: The rooftop garden at Ledge Restaurant

P a g e | 11

kitchen and served in the restaurant35

. Both Ledge and Recover work closely with Green City Growers

who provided the installation of the garden at the restaurant and continues to deliver maintenance services

for the garden. Green City Growers partners with Recover on many rooftop projects in the Boston area,

but the former also has ground-level services for many schools, businesses, and residential gardens.

Providing the initial equipment such as raised beds, cold frames, and the fencing to keep out critters,

Green City Growers also offers the services to install and maintain the gardens for those who lack the

farming knowledge or even just the time but still wish to receive the benefits from the gardens. They also

provide educational programs that teach students of any age how to grow their own vegetables and

maintain their gardens36

.

Higher Ground Farm is another for-profit rooftop farm, located atop the Boston Design Center in the

Seaport district, and is set to be the second largest rooftop farm in the world. Working with Recover to

build the farm, Higher Ground will begin its first growing season this spring with the expectation to grow

about 100,000 pounds of food during the season37

. The farm will sell the produce to local, high end

restaurants, as well as having CSA shares for local residents to purchase. Higher Ground plans to be very

community oriented: they have a partnership with the Boston Collaborative for Food and Fitness to

subsidize share for those who cannot afford the full payment. They also give the option to purchase and

donate shares of produce to the South Boston Community Health Center38

.

ReVision Urban Farm is a part of ReVision Family Home, a shelter for homeless mothers in Dorchester

and a division of Victory Programs

which is a non-profit that focuses on

services for the homeless population in

Boston. When the home was started in

1990, they also began to help farm the

community garden next door,

eventually taking over the stewardship

of the garden while providing food for

the shelter and job training for the

women. The farm has now expanded

to include the vacant lot across the

35 Winterer, Mark 36

Green City Growers 37 Feshazion, Faivan 38 Hennessey, Courtney

Figure 4: Lettuce growing in the greenhouse at ReVision Farm

P a g e | 12

street from the house which now includes a greenhouse, as well as a lot in another part of Dorchester.

ReVision hosts a youth program over the summer, internships for shelter residents, and many educational

programs throughout their community to teach farming skills. ReVision also partners with a few other

local farms to pool together their combined produce to sell at farmer’s markets, their farm stand, and a

CSA offering. The CSA shares can be purchased at two different price points, the full cost of the share or

a price-adjusted share for lower-income needs, to allow for anyone who desires the fresh produce to have

access to the shares, regardless of income39

.

Although it is a Montreal-based company, Lufa Farms has been searching for a building to establish a

Boston location to expand its large-scale rooftop greenhouse operations40

. Utilizing different growing

methods that maximize the growth of each plant, Lufa employs science and technology to create a variety

of growing climates within the same greenhouse, all while avoiding the use of pesticides and managing

their water and energy use as efficiently as possible. Their produce is then sold through CSA shares to

individuals, restaurants, and catering services all year long41

.

Freight Farms is another company that looks to maximize food production in a controlled environment,

but rather than greenhouses, this company uses recycles shipping containers. Fitted with LED lights and

a drip irrigation system, Freight Farms sells the containers that can fit in almost any space, such as a

parking lot or rooftop, and have the added benefit of being able to be stacked one on top of another to

maximize ground space, and thus food production42

.

Many farms around Boston also are home to bee hives, and there is one company that will not only

provide the thousands of honey bees and their hive, but also the routine care if the farmer prefers. Best

Bees has hives all over the city and even on Cape Cod, at universities, private residences, and many

businesses including the Fairmont Copley Plaza and the Four Seasons Hotel43

. They also partner with

Green City Growers to bring the hives onto many of those farms, including Ledge Restaurant44

. Using

non-aggressive Italian honeybees which good honey producers, the farmers will not only benefit from the

honey and wax production, but also the pollination that the bees will provide to their produce. A non-

39 Olivetti, Jolie 40 Kirsner, Scott 41 Lufa Farms 42

Kirsner, Scott 43 Wilson-Rich, Noah 44 Green City Growers

P a g e | 13

profit organization, Best Bees uses the proceeds from its operations in their research to find a vaccination

for the disease that has been declining the honeybee population45

.

Overall, the endeavors in Boston are typically on a smaller-scale than what can be seen in some cities

such as the Brooklyn Grange in New York, the world’s largest open-air rooftop farm, and The Plant in

Chicago with its aquaponics system. Higher Ground Farm, though, may begin to change that archetype,

as well as Lufa if it does establish a branch in Boston. Since most of the farms are too small to sell

directly to grocers or provide enough to meet the demands of a restaurant, a few businesses help to

aggregate multiple farms’ production and then distribute it around the city. One such company is FoodEx

who connects buyers with sellers and then provides the logistics and distribution with their fleet of seven

trucks. FoodEx recently partnered with Oregon based FoodHub, which will provide the online portion of

what they are calling “an online dating site for the local food industry”46

. Previously, FoodHub’s

platform was primarily producer driven but the joint venture looks to also include a buyer side platform to

increase the transparency about order and shipping costs47

. Metro Pedal Power also provides delivery

service by bicycle around the city for a variety of courier service needs which include some farms and

CSA share delivery48

. Providing an eco-friendly option for distribution, they operate all year long, and

Chef Peter Davis from Henrietta’s Table Restaurant is just one customer who commends their reliability

regardless of the weather49

.

Inputs and the Production Process of Urban Farming

The following graphic is a chart that attempts to map out the various aspects and inputs involved in the

supply chain for the urban agriculture sector in Boston. Just as it was stated before, this is not an attempt

to include every business and organization currently operating in the city, but rather it serves to organize

and detail the vertical steps of the supply chain50

.

The inputs into the production process for urban farming can be divided into three categories: materials,

informational resources, and funding. The materials needed to begin farming vary from the seeds, soil,

45 Wilson-Rich, Noah 46 FoodEx 47 Dietz, Jonathan 48 Metro Pedal Power 49 Davis, Peter 50 The chart also does not include the value-adding process, which would come either before or after the distribution process. While some farms participate in value-adding, such as turning raw vegetables into salsa, the majority of the farms that are covered in this study did not mention that they do this, and I chose not to include it to keep more of a focus on the growing and selling of raw produce.

P a g e | 14

Agg

rega

tio

n &

Dis

trib

uti

on

Farm

ers

& P

rod

uct

ion

Bu

yers

& R

etai

l

Lan

d O

wn

ers BNAN

Private Residences

City of Boston

Universities

Hospitals

Hotels

Ledge Restaurant

The Food Project

City Growers

ReVision

Individuals (Community Gardens)

The Food Project

Green City Growers

Higher Ground Farm

ReVision

Ledge Restaurant

City Growers

Best Bees

FoodEx/Food Hub

Metro Pedal Power

Katsiroubas

Customers

Own Company

Farmer's markets / stands

Grocers

Restauran

Public Schools

Hospitals

Universities

and fertilizer needed for the actual crop production, to the equipment such as any shovels, wheelbarrows,

and irrigation systems. If raised beds, a greenhouse, or green roof is utilized, then the construction of

these will also need to be considered. Green City Growers is one such supplier for raised beds, cold

frames, and other growing equipment51

, whereas Freight Farms can provide the shipping container for a

greenhouse52

. Also, since many of the farms also include a bee hive to make the most of their crop

production, this would be another input into the start of the farming process.

51 Green City Growers 52 Freight Farms

•Seeds

•Soil/Fertilizer

•Equipment

•Construction materials

•Bees

Mat

eria

ls

•Consultants

•Design

•Magazines & Websites

•Workshops/ Programs In

form

atio

nal

R

eso

urc

es

•Capital Investments

•Bank Loans

•Crowdsourcing

•Grants

•Donations

Fun

din

g

Public Policy ISD BPHC MA FPC

BRA

BWS

Farm to School

Program

SNAP/BBB

Production Process Inputs

Figure 5: Supply chain map for urban agriculture

P a g e | 15

Many urban farmers are new to the industry, and even those familiar with farming may not have all the

expertise to transition to the urban environment. As a result, there has been a surge in informational

resources available for anyone wishing to become involved, from the individual who wants to grow basil

on their kitchen sill to the more commercial farmer. ReVision farm and BNAN are among many other

organizations that offer workshops and other programs that are open to the public that teach basic farming

skills for those who have a backyard or community garden plot53

. There are also numerous books and

magazines that the burgeoning farmer can subscribe to for all the latest information and techniques, most

notably Urban Farm magazine which encourages self-sustainability for urban dwellers54

. Then of course

there are websites that can be found by the dozen that will provide any aspect of information or chronicle

the experiences of other urban farmers. For those who are involved in agricultural production beyond the

basic hobby level, there are other resources such as consultants in design, engineering, or other highly

skilled areas which will benefit more commercial productions. Particularly if a farm requires any

construction such as a greenhouse or if it is located on a roof, then these types of projects would need a

consultant such as Recover Green Roofs to help assess the needs and requirements for such a project

before construction or farming were to begin.

Many of these farming projects require a solid foundation of capital funding before they can begin.

Whether the organization is for profit or not, urban farming is expensive, and particularly for the projects

that will not see profits from the produce grown, funding is essential to the start of any organization. In

the not-for-profit sector, there is an estimated $5 million in grants and donations each year in Boston

toward farming55

. Many of the other farmers have had to look to bank loans to get their enterprise started,

and some have gotten very creative with their fundraising. Although they are for-profit companies, both

Higher Ground Farm and Freight Farms have raised over $20,000 and $30,000, respectfully, on the

fundraising website Kickstarter56

. Some of the farms that require immense construction and have high

tech systems to help increase production have begun to seek out capital investments, and vice versa.

Venture capitalists are beginning to look at urban farming ventures as a means to disrupt traditional

commercial agriculture. Investing in such projects and helping to scale up urban production was the

theme at one venture capitalist conference in Silicon Valley, Agriculture 2.057

. While Boston is not at the

forefront of these high-volume productions, it is noteworthy that the national movement may be headed in

that direction, especially if companies such as Lufa Farms intend to establish multi-city operations.

53 Olivetti, Jolie; Karen Chaffee 54 Urban Farm 55

Gaines, Nancy 56 Let’s Raise the Roof (Farm)! 57 Woody, Todd

P a g e | 16

The production process in urban farming can be categorized into four subdivisions: the land owners,

farmers and production, aggregation and distribution, and the buyer and retailers. This chart is an

oversimplification of the processes because each organization and farm operates on a different model than

the next; it does, however, help to bring some clarity to the various factors involved in the process.

The land owners were given their own category since many of the farms and gardens are on land that is

under some type of contract to be used by the farmer or organization. As it was noted earlier, BNAN

owns the land where many community gardens exist, leasing plots to the residents in those communities,

while the organization does not do the farming itself58

. The city of Boston also owns several of the plots

of land that is now being used for farming: in an initiative to encourage more urban agriculture, several

city-owned plots were given to a few organizations including ReVision Farm and City Growers on a five

or ten year lease59

. Many institutions have sought to utilize their grounds and rooftops to help source

some of their food, in particular universities and hospitals, as well as some up-scale hotels. Then there

are several organizations that own, in part or entirely, the land in which they operate, including the Food

Project, City Growers, and ReVision Farm. Ledge Restaurant could also be included in that list since the

farm is located on the roof of the restaurant, although it is unclear whether they own their property or

lease.

Some organizations lease the land, or roof, where they are located, such as Higher Ground Farm which

leases the rooftop from the Boston Design Center60

. Other organizations, such as Green City Growers, do

not own or lease the land they farm, but rather are hired to provide the farming set up and maintenance at

the business, school, or restaurant that owns the land and desires the garden61

. This is the same for Best

Bees who sets up the hive on the property and then provides maintenance services and honey harvesting

for the business or home owner62

.

Once the produce has been harvested, if it is not being used on-site, for example some of ReVision’s

production supplies the shelter itself, then it needs to be transported elsewhere. Sometimes there also

needs to be a step to aggregate together the produce from many small farms in order to fulfill the demand

of a customer. FoodEx provides both of these services, sometimes picking up the produce from the farm,

and sometimes the farmers bring the produce to their warehouse. Once the food has been collected from

its various sources, FoodEx delivers to their buyers which include many Whole Foods grocery stores,

58 Chaffee, Karen 59 Olivetti, Jolie 60

Hennessey, Courtney 61 Green City Growers 62 Best Bees

P a g e | 17

independent markets, North Eastern University, Salem State University, and the public schools in

Weston, Belmont, and Brookline63

. Katsiroubas Bros. is another food distributor in Boston that focuses

on local food producers and vendors, working closely with their producers to establish strong working

relationships64

. ReVision and the other farms that they partner with coordinate their own aggregation of

the produce for the CSA shares, and then transport it themselves since they own a van65

. Higher Ground

Farm will begin its CSA by having the customers come to their site in the Boston Design Center to pick

up their share of produce, thereby eliminating the need for any distribution66

.

The last step and category of the production process are the retailers

or other buyers of the produce. Farmers markets in Boston have more

than doubled in the past few years, from 13 in 2004 to 28 in 201167

.

The Boston Public Market Association, which looks to open in June

of 2014, will be an indoor, 30,000 square foot market that will be

operated year-round right next to Faneuil Hall68

. An indication of the

growing interest in local and fresh food and the number of farms in

the city, the markets are one of the more visible retailers for the local

produce. Another would be farm stands on the farms’ own property;

however the stands seem to typically serve residents in its immediate

vicinity rather than being the destination that customers seek out such

as the markets or grocery stores69

. There are neighborhood grocery

stores that source their produce locally, as well as the Whole Foods

grocery chain, which FoodEx delivers to 28 locations in New

England70

.

Many restaurants boast menus full of locally sourced ingredients so that they can serve fresh food of the

highest quality, and often for the sustainable economic and environmental reasons as well. Peter Davis

has been the chef at Henrietta’s Table in Cambridge since he began the restaurant in 1995, and he takes

pride in offering the highest quality meals and his support of local farms. He works closely with his

suppliers, addressing everything from the seeds for the upcoming season to the volumes in each order to

63 Dietz, Jonathan 64 Ruuttila, Eero, et al. 65 Olivetti, Jolie 66 Hennessey, Courtney 67 Farmers Markets 68

Boston Public Market Association 69 Olivetti, Jolie 70 Dietz, Jonathan

Figure 6: Door advertising the Boston Public Market

P a g e | 18

keep costs down71

. Recover Green Roofs cites these relationships as one of the many reasons restaurants

are interested in green roofs: the ability to have this relationship with the farmer, or in Ledge’s case the

ability to harvest your own food, creates marketing value for the restaurant and it benefits the quality of

the work environment for the chefs72

.

Institutions that serve meals regularly are also on the purchasing end of this movement, including many

hospitals and universities. Public schools are also becoming more involved with the help of the

Massachusetts Farm to School program. Fostering the relationships and benefits from supporting local

farmers and providing nutritious school meals, the program now has over 250 participating school

districts and 110 farms73

. Some schools participate in an “urban ring buying group” where they combine

their orders together so that they can purchase in volume74

.

Since each organization operates on a different model, there are some farms that may only participate in

two or three steps of the production process, or a single company may provide more than one service,

which is why a few may be listed under more than one category. Ledge restaurant, for example, since it

has its own rooftop garden, could be listed under each category: the restaurant’s rooftop is the garden, the

chefs help to harvest the food which is then carried downstairs to the kitchen and cooked to serve in the

dining area. On the other hand, those who lease plots in community gardens harvest food for their own

consumption, thereby only participating in the first two steps of the process. Each organization operates

according to who their end customer is and in a way that serves their mission and goals.

One could argue that many of the organizations involved in the various stages of the supply chain provide

another output other than produce, and that would be education. Some organizations have very structured

programs, such as the Food Project, BNAN, and ReVision Farm, since education is a part of the

organizations’ mission to teach skills, educate about farming and nutrition, outdoor appreciation and

stewardship, or other similar goals. Best Bees has interns from local colleges throughout the year, and

Higher Ground Farm has plans to also take on interns once the farm has developed75

. Green City

Growers considers education to be part of their company’s strategy to help grow business since they often

speak at different events and conferences76

.

71 Davis, Peter 72 Winterer, Mark 73 “Growing Green”, p.45 74

Ruuttila, Eero, et al. 75 Wilson-Rich, Noah; Hennessey, Courtney 76 Rose, Lyndsey

P a g e | 19

Some of the education has been much less formal, and often is necessary in order to win over community

support. While many residents may approve of the concept of urban farming, occasionally resistance can

be found when it is in close proximity to residential areas, spurring not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY)

sentiments. ReVision Farm has maintained good relations with the neighbors near the shelter and

greenhouse throughout the years, however since their other plots of land are in other parts of town they

make a specific effort to introduce themselves to abutters and attend neighborhood associations to address

any concerns77

. Recover Green Roofs does education in their marketing and design phase to help dispel

any fears of leaking roofs and structural concerns78

. Best Bees not only hosts interns and educates the

new bee owners how to care for the hives, but founder Noah Wilson-Rich has given numerous talks and

interviews about the company and his research in order to inform the public about bees and their

importance to agriculture, most notably featured on TED talks79

. Many of these organizations are also

involved in some capacity with the Boston Redevelopment Authority in helping to influence and draft a

new article to address zoning regulations for urban agriculture.

After reviewing the sector, those who are involved and the customers they are serving, it is difficult to say

whether the urban farming movement is trending in a particular direction of both mission and end

customers. The farming efforts in Boston seek to address both food access concerns in low-income areas

as well as serving the niche preferences displayed by the locavore movement and other similar, more

expensive options. While the non-profit organizations tend to get more interest and news coverage

because of their good efforts, there are far more for-profit ventures and restaurants, though they may be

on a smaller scale than the many acres of the Food Project.

Boston is home to both trends within the urban farming movement, and while it may not be important as

to which trend is more popular, it is interesting to note that many of the organizations are involved in both

aspects. Higher Ground Farm was started with the intention of providing fresh produce to a local food

pantry along with selling to high-end restaurants and their purchased CSA shares80

. The Food Project

and ReVision Farm sell CSA shares at both standard and subsidized price increments. The two farms

also sell to restaurants or on farm stands that help to sustain their production of food for their shelter or

local food pantries81

. City Growers’ mission is to help revitalize the communities in which they grow

through job creation and access to fresh food82

. One process supports the other, and in Boston the efforts

77 Olivetti, Jolie 78 Winterer, Mark 79 Wilson-Rich, Noah 80

Hennessey, Courtney 81 Olivetti, Jolie; The Food Project 82 City Growers

P a g e | 20

are intertwined. It may be perhaps because the people who are involved in producing fresh food believe

that everyone should have access to it, or because the community efforts to increase food access are only

sustainable when balanced by selling to upscale retailers and restaurants. One journalist, Richard

Longworth, sees an ulterior motive by some advocates for the local movement: “You’ve got a lot of the

locavore trendy people, who just hate big farming, who are using this, who are using the misery of people

in big cities…I know a lot of people who are hungry who are not interested in local farms”83

. It may be

too early to tell if this movement is a trend that will fade, or if it will continue to gain momentum and

present a real challenge to commercial agricultural production. Either way, public policy is changing in

favor of urban farming, and only time will prove whether these practices really are sustainable and have

the purchasing support of the public.

Public Policy

In 2002, an Executive Order established the Massachusetts State Sustainability Program which

encourages sustainable practices by the government. Over the past decade, this program has influenced

public policy across the state, including a grant to the Boston metropolitan area from the Environmental

Protection Agency in 2005 to encourage sustainable regional planning84

. Since then there have been

numerous programs initiated to stimulate both local farming and purchases. Previously mentioned, a pilot

farm program took a few plots of city-owned vacant land, and has leased them to City Growers and

ReVision Farm on either five or ten year leases to help increase their production85

. The Buy Local

Groups have encouraged residents to change their purchasing behavior86

. Massachusetts also authorized

farmers markets to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to encourage low-

income families to purchase fresh produce. Taking the program even further, Boston teamed up with the

Food Project to create the Boston Bounty Bucks Program, which matches SNAP purchases at farmers

markets, dollar-for-dollar up to ten dollars87

.

As the previous chart describes, there are many programs and offices that influence and regulate the steps

of the farming process, as can be expected for any industry and especially for one that involves the

production and selling of food. The Inspectional Services Department (ISD) and Boston Public Health

Commission (BPHC) are two major offices that are involved in the oversight of the farming industry

83 Files, Emily 84 Goldstein, Mindy et al. 85

Mercurio, Marie 86 Buy Fresh Buy Local 87 Amuda, Aisha

P a g e | 21

since they cover many aspects that urban farming reaches. The Massachusetts Food Policy Council (MA

FPC) is another, more recently added council that has been charged with analyzing each step involved in

order to “improve coordination among state agencies that regulate all aspects of the food system”88

. For

those who are involved in the farming, however, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) is the main

office that has oversight over this step in the production process.

As cities and suburbs developed in the early 20th century, pushing agricultural production farther away

from residential and commercial areas, zoning was then also adapted to these specific land uses,

separating one from another89

. The BRA has taken on the task of drafting new zoning regulations in

Article 89 that will facilitate urban agriculture in the city. Community gardens are not included in the

rezoning since there already exists a zoning district, Open Space-Community Gardens (OS-CG), which

allows people to farm for their own personal consumption. Headed by Marie Mercurio and Tad Read, the

project planning team developed a working group consisting of local farmers, experts, advocates, and

neighborhood representatives to consult on the drafting of the article. Representatives from BNAN, the

Food Project, and City Growers are a few of the participants in the working group that help to advise the

BRA through this process90

.

The BRA has hosted open public meetings each month for the past year at City Hall to discuss the

revisions and implications. This spring Article 89 will be brought out into the neighborhoods for review

and feedback, with the expectation to go before the BRA Board and Zoning Commission for review this

summer. This process of having the neighborhoods review the article is in line with Mayor Thomas

Menino’s intention to allow each neighborhood to be a part of the approval process, rather than a

blanketed approach by the city. The article intends to not only shape and foster urban agriculture, but it is

also a part of the economic planning of Boston and will be used as a long-term planning initiative to bring

about the many benefits associated with the farms, including community building, education,

beautification, and access to local food91

.

The rezoning group acknowledges that urban agriculture occurs on land that is already zoned for

commercial or residential use, so rather than creating an open space zoning district specifically for

agriculture, similar to the one already in use for community gardens, the article seeks to change the

allowances for commercial or residential zones. This will allow for agriculture to take place in

conjunction with commercial and residential zones, rather than being exclusive to just one purpose which

88 “Growing Green”, p.47 89

Nordahl, p.3 90 “Working Group Meeting #13” 91 Mercurio, Marie

P a g e | 22

is what the OS-CG zone specifies92

. Depending on the existing zoning for the land, the size of the farm,

and whether it will be at ground level or on a rooftop, the new zoning would make the possibility of a

farm either allowable or under conditional use, previously having been deemed a forbidden use (see

charts). The article will also put specific requirements on the placement and requirements for the varying

aspects involved with farming such as the proximity of bee hives, hens, and compost bins to property

borders and the allowable height of a greenhouse structure93

.

The article will also include soil safety protocols since plants absorb nutrients as well as contaminants

from the soil in which they are grown. Since Article 89 addresses the regulation of produce grown to be

sold to the public, this is a concern particularly for growing in an urban environment. City land has been

exposed to decades of building and construction materials that could potentially leave behind traces of

chemicals and materials in the soil which could be absorbed by crops, including heavy metals such as lead

and pesticides. Even raised beds and other growing methods that require importing “clean” soils have the

potential to be re-contaminated due to the run-off of water from other areas or wind that transfers

contaminated soil94

.

Since the standards that soils will have to meet are still being developed by the BPHC, the draft for

Article 89 does not currently include it. During the March open meeting, a representative from the BPHC

presented their initial draft of protocols for soil safety. There was much concern from the attendees,

representing many of the organizations previously mentioned, over the frequency and cost of the testing

standards that were proposed. It was mentioned that these standards were much higher than other

residential lands, and that the soil in the urban lots were essentially being treated as hazardous waste

92

“Working Group Meeting #13” 93 City of Boston, “Changes in draft Article 89 since March 7, 2013 Working Group Meeting” 94 “Growing Green”, p.19, 20-21

Figure 7: Proposed zoning allowances in Article 89, Urban Farm at ground level

P a g e | 23

sites95

. The draft testing protocol states that commercial farmers must have their soil tested once per year,

the first time requiring a sample for every 1,000 square feet, and the following years would require one

sample for every 5,000 square feet of growing area96

. Despite the intent to protect the public from

consuming produce grown in soil that may have been exposed to hazardous building materials, the costs

associated with this level of testing would be unaffordable by many of the small farms in the city, even

those that operate as for-profit ventures, and subsequently would be deterring to any new farmers97

. As a

result, the soil safety protocols are still under review to find an agreeable measure to use as a standard.

The other part of Article 89 that has a great impact on the farmers is the Comprehensive Farm Review

(CFR). Required for any ground level, rooftop farm or greenhouse, the CFR was created “to ensure that

Urban Farms are sited and designed in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood”98

. The

CFR will require a site visit from the BRA to the farm to ensure that regulations will be followed. The

fire department had also recently expressed concern over issues of having dry plant matter on a rooftop

farm and planned to conduct an analysis to be included in the CFR. Boston Water and Sewer (BWS) is

not included in the CFR since it is a separate commission from the rest of the city, but would also be a

requirement in order to get approval for a farm99

. The review process is stated to take no longer than 45

days, which is a shorter time frame than an approval process has been previously, and once this is

completed and the farm deemed appropriate, the BRA will submit its approval to ISD100

.

Marie Mercurio from the BRA acknowledges that Boston is somewhat behind many other major cities in

America in regards to having regulations already established for urban agriculture, a sentiment felt by

many of those involved in this movement. However, the amount of research that has gone into each

aspect of Article 89, from the soil safety protocols to the fire department’s concern for a rooftop farm

code, far exceeds what most other cities have addressed. For better or worse, Boston has approached this

topic much more conservatively, which is typical for the city, and it hopes that those affected by the

rezoning will be better off because of the precautions that it is taking. Mercurio also mentioned that

people have been appreciative that the BRA has allowed the public to be receptive to the idea of having

95 “Working Group Meeting #13” 96 City of Boston, “Draft Soil Safety Protocol for Urban Farms” 97 The exact costs for the testing were not defined; during the meeting several possible testing sites and fees were presented as possibilities, none of which were favorable to the attendees. 98

City of Boston, “Changes in draft Article 89 since March 7, 2013 Working Group Meeting”, p.10 99 “Working Group Meeting #13” 100 City of Boston, “Changes in draft Article 89 since March 7, 2013 Working Group Meeting”, p.11

P a g e | 24

urban farming become a part of their neighborhoods through the review process, rather than pushing the

issue forward101

.

Mark Winterer from Recover Green Roofs agrees that despite the slow process to bring about the changes

in zoning laws, it is important that the process is done well. He pointed to the fire department’s desire for

a new code for rooftops as the largest challenge that Recover now faces: the Boston fire chief would like

a fire protection engineer hired to asses each roof’s combustibility and prevention. Since this would be an

added cost, either directly to Recover or indirectly through their clients, Winterer noted that although it

would unrealistic to expect, it would be beneficial if Boston had a structural engineer that could provide

the city with any analysis needs. He also mentioned that Newton and Reading have in place a method to

charge building owners for storm water runoff, since it costs the cities to treat the water, and Boston could

implement a similar system to charge for storm water utilities. This would not only incentivize building

owners to have green roofs, but would also bring in more revenues for the Boston Water and Sewer

Commission102

.

Jolie Olivetti, the farm manager for ReVision Farm, expressed some concern over the nature of all the

regulations surrounding farming. Since ReVision has been operating for many years before there were

more formal requirements, she says that some of the policies could potentially be a barrier for some of the

smaller farmers. Beyond the number of regulations that farms now have to adhere to, there is also no

singular department that will provide the information that a beginning farmer would need to get started,

and Olivetti believes that a streamlined process would be helpful to those wishing to get involved103

.

Article 89 will certainly have many restrictions and requirements on any future urban farming in Boston,

however by making it an allowable use in many areas this will remove the foremost barrier, being the

current status of forbidden use in the city. Mercurio believes that many people are waiting to see the

outcome of Article 89 before they get started on any projects, and she hopes that the rezoning will open

the doors for many newcomers to farm in Boston104

.

Urban Farming as an Industry

It is very difficult to be profitable in any type of farming, and urban agriculture only presents more

challenges and costs than traditional, large-scale agricultural productions. To start, the cost of land is

101 Mercurio, Marie 102

Winterer, Mark 103 Olivetti, Jolie 104 Mercurio, Marie

P a g e | 25

much higher in cities, even those with recessed land values such as Detroit, and it is typically only

available in small lots in between buildings, rather than the acreage that could be bought for a fraction of

the price in rural areas. Even those farms such as City Growers that utilize many smaller plots to

aggregate together their production face the challenge that the plots are usually not close to one another

and often may be in different neighborhoods. Once the land is secured, then begin the challenges around

zoning codes for any structures, soil quality, and the many other regulatory hurdles the farmer may face

before they plant any seeds. If the farmer plans to develop a rooftop farm, this presents a whole other set

of regulations that they need to ensure the building meets for weight load capacity, water proofing, and

fall protection, which only an estimated 5-15% of the existing buildings in Boston meet105

. Greenhouses,

irrigation systems, hydroponics, and any other system or structure that will help increase production also

means higher starting costs, and either more loans or fundraising which are required in order to begin.

Some believe that over time technological advances will help to bring down the costs associated with

greenhouses and other capital-intensive farming techniques, but how long this will take is uncertain106

.

Once the farm is finally growing and harvesting, even if they are able to sell CSA shares, which help to

guarantee cash flows for the season, or restaurants that are willing to pay full price for the fresh produce,

it is still hard to remain profitable since food can only fetch so high of a price. Even for the traditional,

commercial food productions, it is “an extremely competitive field where profit margins are typically so

low that it is often challenging to maintain profitability”107

.

Despite all these barriers, there are many people and organizations that are willing to take the chance and

be a part of the urban farming movement, and there remain many opportunities for entrepreneurs to

become involved. A few organizations have approached their business models creatively in order to keep

costs low or find a niche in the farming market. Higher Ground Farm will focus on growing the basics,

greens, tomatoes, and herbs, rather than branching into more exotic produce which some CSA shares

offer. This will not only maximize the use of their space for those crops that will remain in demand, but

also ensure that CSA purchasers will remain satisfied with what they receive in their shares108

. Green

City Growers has eliminated the need for costly land or rooftops since they provide the farming

equipment and services for gardens on the hiring resident or businesses’ property109

.

105 Winterer, Mark 106 Fletcher, Owen 107

Introduction to the Food and Beverage Industry 108 Hennessey, Courtney 109 Green City Growers

P a g e | 26

Since selling produce does not come with a high profit margin, farmers could look to other specialty crops

that do have higher profits, and Mark Winterer of Recover suggests that marijuana could be one such

plant110

. This is a feasible opportunity that could soon be considered if the legal progress toward

increasing allowances for marijuana continues. Possession of up to an ounce of marijuana has already

been decriminalized and is now just subject to a civil violation and fine. Also, a bill has been filed for

Massachusetts to allow the possession and cultivation of marijuana to adults 21 years and older, and to be

regulated like alcohol, following the example of Washington and Colorado111

. Although this cash crop

may have higher prices than other typical produce, the professional growers of marijuana in Washington

and Colorado are finding that this too is a hard market to stay profitable. The surge of interest in growing

marijuana now has an estimated 2,000-4,000 producers, which has led to a decline in price because of the

competition. Facing the same startup costs as any other farmer, marijuana growers also have strict state

regulations, including extensive background checks for the managers, which will all take away from the

profit margins112

. Depending on if and how Massachusetts was to legalize the use and production of

marijuana would certainly affect the profitability of growing this plant.

There remains a lot of potential for urban agriculture, particularly in Boston, as long as there are vacant

lots, unused rooftops, and people who are interested in sourcing their food nearby. There is especially

potential for capital investors to back these ventures, whether it is directly in farming, another step in the

production process, or an input to the industry. Investors are interested in the transformation of the food

industry and backing those entrepreneurs who will be able to provide both strong returns on their

investment and potentially a new order to our food system. While this may be quite idealistic at the

current state of the urban farming industry, if the shift to urban production can prove to be substantial and

have the public’s support, then a shift in policy regarding agricultural subsidies may also help urban

farmers to turn a profit. If the government recognizes the small-scaled farms as equally important to

providing our food supply, then urban farmers may be able to apply for state or federal subsidies to ensure

that the farms stay in production.

The urban farming sector has a very distinct characteristic to it, and that would be the relatively non-

competitive and very collaborative nature of the many participants involved. The movement is still

comparatively new to Boston, so while this may be due to the fact that the competition among the urban

farmers is still growing, it is more likely because every organization relies on strong working

relationships with their partners in the industry. Most of the organizations are very mission-oriented,

110

Winterer, Mark 111 Marijuana Policy Project 112 Campoy, Ana

P a g e | 27

even those who are for-profit, and that helps to encourage them despite the many barriers the

organizations face. It is also a very labor-intensive industry to work in, even for those who are not doing

the actual farming, but Chef Davis says that when you really believe in the importance of local food, all

the extra work is worth it113

. That sentiment is felt throughout the city, and it lends to a distinct culture to

those involved in urban farming.

Michael Porter’s Five Forces are used to analyze the competitiveness of an industry and whether or not it

is an attractive market to enter. Since the urban agricultural movement is gaining momentum, this

analysis will provide anyone who may be interested in entering this sector with an overview of its general

environment. The analysis reviews the bargaining power of customers, bargaining power of suppliers,

threat of substitute products, threat of new entrants, and the competitive rivalry within the sector.

The bargaining power of the customer is very high. Customers can be considered businesses such as

grocers and restaurants as well as the people who purchase from them. Even upscale retailers are price

sensitive, and grocers and their customers are even more sensitive to increases in costs. There are no

costs to the shoppers to purchase produce from another grocery store or farm stand, and unless a retailer

has a formal contract or agreement their ability to switch suppliers is also simple and at little or no cost to

the retailer.

The bargaining power of suppliers is moderate. Certain inputs such as highly skilled consultants and

labor costs are high, as well as the technologies and equipment that may be used. The fact that Boston

still has relatively few farmers involved in urban agriculture, however, suggests that the suppliers do not

have much power to be able to leverage one farm against another and are subject to the demands and

quantity that the farms need.

The threat of substitute products is high. Not only do urban farms have to compete with traditional farms

whose prices are generally lower, but fresh produce as a food category has to compete against all other

food types in the grocery store as well as restaurants including fast food chains. Particularly in food

deserts where there are no grocery stores, in contrast fast food restaurants tend to be more prevalent.

The threat of new entrants is moderate. There are significant barriers to enter the market considering the

low prospect of profitable returns and this does provide some protection for those already established.

New ventures that are able to secure capital investments or have an established working business model

such as Lufa Farms will find it much easier to enter the market. With the increasing popularity and

113 Davis, Peter

P a g e | 28

interest among investors to consider urban agricultural endeavors, this will potentially ease the entry for

many new businesses.

The competitive rivalry within the sector is low. As it was described before, those currently involved

with urban farming in Boston feel that the movement is new enough that there is plenty of business to be

shared among the different organizations. Coupled with the collaborative nature and desire to keep strong

business relationships among the organizations suggests that it will take a while for the industry to grow

strong enough to begin to break down this culture and make the competition more aggressive.

Competition against traditional farming remains strong, though the urban farmers have countered this by

finding the niche retailers that wish to source locally.

A business looking to start in this industry in Boston is presented with many challenges, but there remains

plenty of opportunity for entrepreneurs. Having adequate funding or investors is crucial along with a

sustainable business model. The successful company will be able to find a niche role for them to play in

the system, either as a part of the production process or providing a specialty input or other function.

Conclusion

This is an exciting time to be evaluating the current status of urban farming in Boston. On the precipice

of launching a new zoning code that will usher in new organizations with differing missions and goals,

this will also begin to shape how urban agriculture will grow and become incorporated into the city. In

order for this industry to become a sustainable and permanent part of the local food system, there will

need to be even greater public support and perhaps more policy changes that will allow the organizations

to flourish. The educational efforts that most of these organizations provide will also be fundamental to

encouraging these shifts. Boston, along with the many other cities that are home to such farming efforts,

stands to benefit from the many opportunities that this industry would bring as it continues to grow and

mature.

P a g e | 29

References

“A Good ‘Beesness’.” FinancialTimes.cc. BeesFree Inc., 28 Feb. 2012. Web. 12 April 2013.

<http://financialtimes.cc/bees/gen/pdf/beesfree_inc_general_report.pdf>.

Amuda, Aisha. “Boston Farmer’ Market Incentive Programs: Increasing Access to Fresh and Local

Produce.” TheFoodProject.org. The Food Project, Feb. 2011. Web. 31 Dec. 2012.

Annear, Steve. “Boston to get very first roof-top farm, will be second largest in the world.”

Bostinno.Streetwise.co. BostInno, 14 Nov. 2012, Web. 8 April 2013.

Best Bees. BestBees.com. BB, 2013. Web. 14 April 2013.

Boston Natural Areas Network. BostonNatural.org. BNAN, 2006. Web. 12 April 2013.

Boston Public Market Association. Boston Public Market.org. BPMA, n.d. Web. 12 April 2013.

Buy Fresh Buy Local. FoodRoutes.org. FRN, n.d. Web. 12 April 2013.

Campoy, Ana. “The Pot Business Suffers Growing Pains.” The Wall Street Journal 20-21 April 2013,

Eastern ed.:A1, A12. Print.

Chaffee, Karen. Personal Interview. 5 March 2013.

City Growers. CityGrowers.WordPress.com. CG, n.d., Web. 12 April 2013.

City of Boston. Boston Public Health Commission. Office of Public Health. “Draft Soil Safety Protocol

for Urban Farms.” BostonRedevelopmentAuthority.org. Boston Public Health Commission, 5 Feb. 2013.

Web. 8 Feb. 2013.

City of Boston. Boston Redevelopment Authority. Office of Economic Development. “Changes in draft

Article 89 since March 7, 2013 Working Group Meeting.” BostonRedevelopmentAuthority.org. Boston

Redevelopment Authority, n.d., Web. 25 April 2013.

City of Boston. Parks and Recreation Dept. Office of Public Property. “Open Space Management

Mission: Community Gardens.” CityofBoston.gov. Boston Parks and Recreation Dept. Sept. 2002. Web.

1Jan. 2013.

Davis, Peter. Personal Interview. 27 Feb. 2013.

Dietz, Jonathan. Personal Interview. 21 Feb. 2013.

Dolan, Matthew. “New Detroit Farm Plan Taking Root.” Online.WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal, 6

July 2012. Web. 24 Jan. 2013.

Farmers Markets. CityofBoston.gov. CB, 2013. Web. 14 April 2013.

<http://www.cityofboston.gov/food/farmers/>.

Feshazion, Faiven. “Urbanites combat climate change with rooftop farms.” Tv.MSNBC.com. MSBNC, 23

Feb. 2013, Web. 7 March 2013.

Files, Emily. “The sprouting of the urban agriculture movement in Fenway.” Boston.com. The Boston

Globe, 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 1 March 2013.

P a g e | 30

Fletcher, Owen. “The Future of Agriculture May Be Up.” Online.WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal, 15

Oct. 2012. Web. 7 March 2013.

Food Access Research Atlas. United States Department of Agiculture, 1 March 2013. Web. 12 April

2013. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/about-the-

atlas.aspx#.UXnZu7WG2uI >.

FoodEx. ORFoodEx.com. ORFE, n.d. Web. 12 April 2013.

Food Project, The. TheFoodProject.org. TFP, n.d. Web. 14 April 2013.

Freight Farms. FreightFarms.com. FF, 2012. Web. 12 April 2013.

Gaines, Nancy. “Urban Growth: In Boston, farm-to-table doesn’t have to leave your street.”

Improper.com. The Improper Bostonian, n.d. Web. 1 Jan. 2013.

Goldstein, Mindy, Jennifer Bellis, Sarah Morse, Amelia Myers, Elizabeth Ura. “Urban Agriculture: A

Sixteen City Survey of Urban Agriculture Practices Across the Country.” Law.Emory.edu. Turner

Environmental Law Clinic at Emory Law School, 1 June 2011. Web. 1 Jan. 2013.

Green City Growers. GrowMyCityGreen.com. GCG, 2012. Web. 26 April 2013.

“Growing Green: Measuring Benefits, Overcoming Barriers, and Nurturing Opportunities for Urban

Agriculture in Boston.” CLF.org. Conservation Law Foundation, July 2012. Web. 1Jan. 2013.

Hennessey, Courtney. Personal Interview. 27 March 2013.

Higher Ground Farm. Higher-Ground-Farm.com. HGF, 6 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 April 2013.

Introduction to the Food and Beverage Industry. PlunkettResearch.com. PR, 2013. Web. 28 April 2013.

<http://www.plunkettresearch.com/food-beverage-grocery-market-research/industry-trends>.

Kasdon, Louisa. “Homegrown and Hyper-Local.” StuffBoston.com. Phoenix Media Communications

Group, 11 June 2012. Web. 28 March 2013.

Kirsner, Scott. “Firms plant hopes on urban garden space.” BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, 1 July

2012. Web. 1 March 2013.

Kotlowitz, Alex. “There Grows the Neighborhood.” MotherJones.com. Mother Jones, July/Aug. 2012,

pp.38-42. Web. 7 March 2013.

Ladner, Peter. The Urban Food Revolution. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2011. Print.

Let’s Raise the Roof (Farm)!. Kickstarter.com. KS, 15 March 2013. Web. 28 April 2013.

<http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/highergroundfarm/lets-raise-the-roof-farm>.

Lufa Farms. Lufa.com/en. LF, 2013. Web. 28 April 2013.

Marijuana Policy Project. MPP.org. MPP, 29 April 2013. Web. 29 April 2013.

<http://www.mpp.org/states/massachusetts/>.

Mercurio, Marie. Personal Interview. 7 Feb. 2013.

Metro Pedal Power. MetroPedalPower.com. MPP, 2009. Web. 16 April, 2013.

P a g e | 31

Nordahl, Darrin. Public Produce: The New Urban Agriculture. Washington: Island Press, 2009. Print.

Olivetti, Jolie. Personal Interview. 12 Feb. 2013.

Recover Green Roofs, LLC. RecoverGreenRoofs.com. RGF, 2013. Web. 18 April 2013.

Rose, Lyndsay. Personal Interview. 25 Feb. 2013.

Ruuttila, Eero, Anthony Grein, Paul O’Connor, Hannah Matthews, Jamey Lionette. “Buyer Seminar”

SBN Buy Local Food Trade Show & Seminar. Seaport World Trade Center, Boston. 19 March 2013.

Steucek, Guy. “Hooray for Urban Farming.” LancasterFarming.com. Lancaster Farming, 23 March 2013.

Web. 8 April 2013.

“Urban farming taking root in Boston.” WCVB.com. WCVB The Boston Channel, 10 Aug. 2012. Web.

1March 2013.

Voigt, Kate A. “Pigs in the Backyard or the Barnyard: Removing Zoning Impediments to Urban

Agriculture.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 38.2 (2011): pp.537-565. Web. 7 March

2013.

Wilson-Rich, Noah. Personal Interview. 15 Feb. 2013

Winterer, Mark. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2013.

Woody, Todd. “Silicon Valley investors place bets on sustainable ag.” Grist.org. Grist: A Beacon in the

Smog, 27 March 2010. Web. 1 March 2013.

“Working Group Meeting #13.” Boston Redevelopment Authority. City Hall, Boston. 7 Feb. 2013.

Urban Farm. HobbyFarms.com. HF, 2013. Web. 16 April 2013.

References for Figures

Title page picture: Peltz, Lauren. Personal Photograph. Date unknown.

Figure 1: “Food Access Research Atlas.” Map. Ers.USDA.gov. United States Department of Agriculture,

28 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 April 2013. < http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-

atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx#.UX_KUbWG2uI >.

Figure 2: Entner, Kathryn. Personal Photograph. 16 Feb. 2013.

Figure 3: “Ledge Kitchen & Drinks Restaurant – Dorchester, MA.” Photograph. RecoverGreenRoofs.com.

Recover Green Roofs, LLC, 2013. Web. 28 April 2013. < http://recovergreenroofs.com/?projects=ledge-

kitchen-drinks-restaurant-boston-ma >.

Figure 4: Entner, Kathryn. Personal Photograph. 12 Feb. 2013.

Figure 5: Entner, Kathryn. Chart. April 2013.

Figure 6: Entner, Kathryn. Personal Photograph. 18 April 2013.

Figure 7: City of Boston. Boston Redevelopment Authority. Office of Economic Development. “Changes

in draft Article 89 since March 7, 2013 Working Group Meeting.” BostonRedevelopmentAuthority.org.

Boston Redevelopment Authority, n.d, p.6. Web. 25 April 2013.