University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Community gardens for social capital: a site suitability analysis in Akron, Ohio

(USC Thesis Other)

Community gardens for social capital: a site suitability analysis in Akron, Ohio

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content COMMUNITY GARDENS FOR SOCIAL CAPITAL:
A SITE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS IN AKRON, OHIO
by
Allison Oulton
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY)
December 2012
Copyright 2012 Allison Oulton
Table Of Contents
List of Tables List of Tables iii
List of Figures List of Figures iv
Abstract Abstract v
Chapter One: Introduction Chapter One: Introduction 1
Motivation 1
Chapter Two: Background Chapter Two: Background 4
Akron 4
Social Capital 5
Community Garden Benefits 7
Successful Models and Physical Characteristics 9
Chapter Three: Methodology Chapter Three: Methodology 12
Physical Variables 15
Spatial Index of Social Capital 19
On-site Assessments 24
Limitations 24
Chapter Four: Results Chapter Four: Results 25
Physical Variable Ranking Results 25
Social Variable Ranking Results 30
Analysis of Social Capital 34
Overall Ranking Results and Ground-truthing 36
Adjusted Ranking for Nearby Community Gardens 44
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion 50
References References 55
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Combined (overall) ranking system 15
Table 2. Soil characteristic ranking system 16
Table 3. Sun exposure characteristic ranking system 17
Table 4. Other characteristic ranking system 18
Table 5. Census data ranking system 20
Table 6. Membership-to-population calculation, rankings, and final total 20
Table 7. Final physical variable ranking 29
Table 8. Final social variable ranking 32
Table 9. Organizations and their memberships 35
Table 10. Final combined initial ranking 42
Table 11. Adjusted analysis physical variable ranking 46
Table 12. Adjusted analysis social variable ranking 48
Table 13. Adjusted analysis combined variable ranking 49
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. 773 Lovers Lane, Physical Variables 27
Figure 2. 630 Diagonal Road, Physical Variables 27
Figure 3. 983 Stadelman Avenue , Physcial Variables 28
Figure 4. 773 Lovers Lane, Social Variables 30
Figure 5. 672 Mallison Avenue (photograph) 31
Figure 6. 135 Mustill Court, Social Variables 33
Figure 7. 773 Lovers Lane (photograph) 36
Figure 8. 630 Diagonal Road (photograph) 38
Figure 9. Overall ranking distribution 43
Figure 10. 135 Mustill Court (photograph) 45
Figure 11. 917 Baughman Street (photograph) 47
iv
Abstract
Community gardens foster many potential benefits, including food security,
environmental stability, neighborhood beautification, and community cohesion
(Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007). Social capital, commonly
recognized as the sense of community, is an intangible asset fostered through civic
engagement and correlated to increased quality of life (Putnam, 1993). This model tested
the viability of social capital as a measurable indicator for community garden planning in
conjunction with traditional agricultural criteria modified for urban agriculture in Akron,
Ohio. The study identified vacant parcels in areas with fewer hubs of civic engagement in
which to place community gardens as a tool for fostering social capital.
In an adapted methodology, this study introduces spatial components to social
capital at the neighborhood scale, drawing from the theory behind Putnam’s work to
measure community involvement through membership counts at individual hubs of civic
engagement. Sites with greater need for social capital were identified. The principal hubs
of civic engagement identified were churches, which appeared to be a limitation to the
study. Further field work to identify site-specific social hubs will be required for this
method of measurement to be applied in Akron and other cities. However, the basic
methodology is an effective tool in site suitability analyses for community gardens and
social capital.
v
Chapter One: Introduction
Urban centers with vacant lands are indicative of the economic shift away from
major industrial manufacturing cities. This is evident in Akron, Ohio, which was
previously the rubber capital of the world (Ledebur, & Taylor, 2008). Utilizing these
vacant lands for community gardens may provide many benefits to the city and
communities, namely local food security, local economic support, environmental stability,
neighborhood aesthetics, and building of social capital. Using a methodological
framework adapted from the Re-imagining a More Sustainable Cleveland project, a site
suitability analysis in Akron was performed to determine optimal plots for community
gardens in areas fitting physical and social criteria to create such benefits from urban
agriculture (Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, 2008). Sites were selected with
regard to areas lacking social capital. The sites identified provide opportunities to build
social capital and increase food security for Akron, furthering the effort to rebuild
sustainable cities in America.
Motivation
Like other industrial communities, Akron has faced the economic challenges and
social consequences presented by declining trends in manufacturing. As the former
rubber capital of the world, the city benefited from cheap coal and labor, abundant water
resources, and an advantageous transportation infrastructure, including railroads, several
major highways, and the Ohio Canal (Ledebur & Taylor, 2008). While Akron retains
1
these physical resources, the faltering manufacturing sector and national trend toward
suburbanization have created lasting damage to the health of the city. Between 1970 and
1980, 38,000 residents left the city of Akron, a population loss of 14%!the decline
slowed in the1990’s, but continued into the first decade of the 21st century (Ledebur &
Taylor, 2008). This exodus resulted in many neglected and vacant parcels of land,
presenting both a need and opportunity for revitalization.
Community gardens foster many potential benefits, including food security, local
economic support, environmental stability, neighborhood beautification, and community
building. The value of urban gardening has been increasingly recognized by the Federal
Government and city leaders, and subsequently incorporated into planning and policy
initiatives (Nord & Andrews, 2002). Larger cities have already adopted these policies in
order to rebuild sustainable urban communities. Notable among these are efforts in
Seattle, WA and Cleveland, OH, the latter of which experienced hardships similar to
those in Akron due to their shared history as Rust Belt cities (CUDC, 2008; City of
Seattle, 2005). These successful analyses for policy implementation provide solid
motivation for the proposed research. Identifying sites through a spatial analysis will
potentially foster sustainability efforts in Akron.
The City of Cleveland recently developed a proposed solution to both the spatial
and social deficiencies of neglected urban neighborhoods. Through the practical
repurposing of vacant lands for green space networks and agriculture, the Re-imagining a
More Sustainable Cleveland project intends to not only provide tangible benefits in the
2
form of locally sourced food, it aims to improve quality of life for residents (CUDC,
2008). Previous findings have suggested that natural features and open spaces in
residential neighborhoods play an important role in civic attitudes, with particular
emphasis on the effect of community gardens!these have been well documented as a
valuable source of social cohesion within communities, and have been especially
successful in neighborhoods suffering from poverty (Armstrong, 2000; Grootaert & van
Bastelaer, 2002a; Kim & Kaplan, 2004; Townsend, 2006; Wakefield et al., 2007;
Schilling & Logan, 2008). As a hub for community participation, community gardens
inherently cultivate social capital, an asset rooted in the strong correlation between trust
and civic engagement (Putnam, 1995).
GIS is a valuable tool that can be used to analyze social capital distribution.
Social capital is viewed as a valuable intangible asset, the geography of which can be
mapped by the various associational activities that contribute to its formation (Mohan &
Mohan, 2002; Putnam, 2001). Through the identification of existing hubs of civic
engagement!such as churches, fitness centers, community centers, and existing
community gardens!a profile of the levels of social capital in Akron was mapped. The
areas that lack social capital were addressed with a further site suitability analysis to
identify parcels for community gardens where the garden itself could contribute to
increasing social capital in the neighborhoods.
3
Chapter Two: Background
Understanding the history and current trends of Akron is essential to identifying
ways in which the city may be improved. The various potential benefits of community
gardens may help to remedy these specific challenges. Previous successful models offer
the background to the developed methodology.
Akron
The Metropolitan Policy Program sponsored by the Brookings Institution
examined cities facing the steepest economic challenges in the United States (Vey, 2007).
Results of this study indicated that most underperforming cities were older industrial
communities in the Northeast and Midwest. The analysis considered eight indicators of
economic health and vitality, including changes in city employment, payroll, and
establishments, as well as residential statistics on income, unemployment, and poverty
rates (p. 11). Data reflected that Akron was lacking prosperity, but had experienced an
increase in “economic and/or residential well-being” between 1990 and 2000. It was
removed from the list of most challenged cities (p. 48). These findings led to an in-depth
case study on Akron to determine the driving factors behind the progress that has been
made and what the city needs in order to restore prosperity (Ledebur & Taylor, 2008).
Ledebur and Taylor (2008) document the economic and social history of Akron,
identifying factors contributing to upward trends. Initiatives that began in the 1990s have
set the stage for restoring the health of the city. Particularly important to the revitalization
4
efforts, the city invested over $170 million in developing the civic infrastructure of
downtown Akron, including a new convention center, museum, and baseball stadium, as
well as renovating and expanding the historic Akron Civic Theatre and Akron-Summit
County Public Library (Ledebur & Taylor, 2008). Additionally, the University of Akron,
located in the heart of downtown, committed more that $200 million to their “New
Landscape for Learning” program, a building and renovation project, designed, in part, to
connect the University to the surrounding city in order to foster civic networking (The
University of Akron, 1999). It is clear that Akron is making great efforts to utilize civic
engagement in order to restore the prosperity of the city, emphasizing the value of
building social capital in communities.
Social Capital
Civic engagement lies at the heart of social capital. The term social capital is
credited to Lyda Judson Hanifan (1916) who, when emphasizing the importance of
community involvement for successful schools, defined the term as “...those tangible
substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely good will,
fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who
make up a social unit” (as cited in Putnam, 2000, p. 19). These principles were explored
by Robert Putnam (1993) in Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Patterns of civic involvement and social solidarity were traced throughout various regions
in Italy, and a clear correlation was discovered between strong civic involvement, high
institutional performance, and quality of life (Putnam, 1993). Through his work, Putnam
5
(1995) refined the definition of social capital as, “features of social organization such as
networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual
benefit” (p. 67). Nearly all literature on social capital draws strongly from Putnam's
work, utilizing his extensive empirical research to define the various forms of social
capital, document its benefits, and develop methods of measurement. Putnam's body of
work documents the definition, forms, sources, and importance of social capital, each of
which illustrates the value of rebuilding communities in Akron.
In Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community, Putnam
(2000) examined civic engagement in America, measuring trends in community
involvement through factors including political participation, religious participation,
connections in the workplace, volunteering, and levels of honesty and trust. In Social
Capital: Measurement and Consequences, Putnam (2001) simplified the description of
his guidelines, breaking the measurement of social capital down into two indicators: (1)
membership and participation in organizations and (2) volunteering and philanthropy.
Identifying the spatial distribution of social capital is key to the research in Akron.
As an intangible asset cultivated through civic engagement, the location of hubs fostering
these two indicators serve as geographic reference points that were selected against. In
order to identify these hubs, criteria were set by the definition of social capital in existing
literature. Mohan and Mohan (2002) offered support for this methodology through further
explanation of social capital, addressing it in the framework of spatial measurement.
They support that variations in social distributions naturally result in variations in civic
6
engagement, lending to measurable spatial variations of social capital (p.197). A similar
methodology is also employed by Rupasingha, Goetz, and Freshwater (2006), who
developed an index to measure social capital at county scale for the entire United States.
This was also used as a guideline for the proposed research in a new spatial index of
social capital.
Community Garden Benefits
Community gardens inherently offer a wide variety of benefits to individuals and
communities, and have a valuable role to play in building social capital. These benefits fit
the definition of social capital set by Mohan and Mohan (2002), particularly in the effects
benefiting both individuals and communities!this definition includes promoting better
health, social interaction, and stimulating economic development (p. 193).
Benefits of community gardens are often interrelated, widespread co-benefits,
which are greatly quantified and discussed in available literature. Armstrong (2000)
surveyed 63 gardens in upstate New York, identifying the benefits sought by community
members through participation in community gardening. The top three reasons given
were access to better food, to enjoy nature, and reaping mental and physical health
benefits (Armstrong, 2000, p. 322). This research also addressed the impact existing
gardens had on their respective communities by demographics. As Armstrong (2000)
writes: “Gardens in low-income neighborhoods (46%) were four times as likely as non
low-income gardens to lead to other issues in the neighborhood being addressed” (p.
319). Armstrong drew conclusions about the potential benefits of community gardens that
7
may contribute to the development of theoretical models of community health promotion
(p. 326). To fill the gap in research on these potential benefits, Wakefield et al. (2007)
collected data on the perceived health impacts of community gardening in South-East
Toronto. Through interviews, participant observation, and focus groups, gardeners
indicated that they benefitted from access to food, improved nutrition, increased physical
activity, and improved mental health, as well as promoted social health and community
cohesion (p. 92). This study was quite relevant to the proposed research, in that the
physical and social circumstances of Toronto are similar to that of Akron. Available
literature does not reflect exclusively the study of any one benefit, as these are all so
interrelated.
Food security may be addressed as a particular benefit to this research due to the
strong relationship between poverty and insecurity, and their relationship to the selected
sites lacking social capital (Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2009). This correlation is
supported by Grootaert and van Bastelaer (2002b) in an exhaustive empirical study
focusing on social capital and poverty!the results emphasized the role of social capital
as a critical asset for sustainable development in impoverished communities. As Nord et
al. (2009) document: “43 percent of households with incomes below the official poverty
line were food insecure, compared with 7.6 percent of those with incomes above 185
percent of the poverty line” (p. 11). Based on criteria set by the definitions of social
capital and the correlation between food insecurity and poverty, there may be an overlap
between impoverished neighborhoods in Akron and fewer hubs of civic engagement. If
8
this is the case, a site suitability model that addresses social capital deficiency will also
address food insecurity.
Successful Models and Physical Characteristics
Urban agriculture is one key to rebuilding sustainable cities. Brown and Carter
(2002) identified garden projects across the United States and the beneficial impact they
have on communities. Statistics were included as to the potential production of farms in
similar climates, such as two vacant lots in Boston totaling 21 acres that annually yield
more that 120,000 pounds of fresh vegetables (p. 9). Heimlich and Bernard (1992)
offered further statistics, with findings indicating that the productivity per acre of urban
farms generally exceeds that of rural crop yields. Brown and Carter (2002) addressed
specific challenges in establishing and maintaining community gardens, offering possible
solutions to each concern. These include start-up costs, seasonal limitations, and soil
contamination, a common concern when farming urban soils (p. 14-18).
Urban soils differ greatly in both structure and content from their rural
counterparts. Urban development and intensive human activity deeply impact the land,
lending to disruption, compaction, and nutrient depletion of the soil (DeKimpe & Morel,
2000). DeKimpe and Morel (2000) discussed the various soils and potential hazards in
urban agriculture!particularly relevant to Akron, the authors discussed the risk and
occurrences of heavy metal contaminants found in a variety of former industrial sites.
The U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that between 130,000 and 425,000 of
these sites, known as brownfields, exist nationwide (Bailkey & Nasr, 1999). This can be
9
addressed through a variety of remediation techniques, particularly when it is cost-
prohibitive to conventionally remediate by physically removing the contaminated soil. By
using plants to take up metals from the soil!a process known as phytoremediation!and
immobilizing heavy metals in the soil with a high pH and organic matter, contaminants
will not be passed into food grown in urban plots on or near contaminated brownfields
(Deelstra & Girardet, 1999; DeKimpe & Morel, 2000).
The Re-imagining a More Sustainable Cleveland project employed these
techniques when planning for agriculture. As all intensive human activity has an impact
on the soil, remediation applications are not limited to industrial sites, though they are
less commonly applied in residential areas. According to the report, the sites where
remediation was typically used included municipal landfills, agricultural fields, wood
treating sites, military bases, fuel storage tank farms, gas stations, army plants, sewage
treatment plants, and mining sites (CUDC, 2008, p. 24). Used as a guideline for the
research in Akron, contamination through proximity to brownfields was reported (1) in an
attempt to achieve a full physical profile for each vacant parcel and (2) for potential
future studies of identified sites and subsequent phytoremediation applications. Due to
successful remediation techniques, contaminants do not necessarily rule out sites selected
by the other criteria—however, these parcels are considered less suitable due to the
additional resources required to bring the parcel up to agricultural standards, and were
ranked accordingly.
10
Utilizing GIS, the Re-imagining a More Sustainable Cleveland project, provided a
complete spatial analysis of many physical and social characteristics that were key to the
proposed research in Akron. With the intention of repurposing vacant lands, sites were
selected with regard to lead contamination, vacancy rates, population changes,
impervious surfaces, hydrology, soil data, sun exposure, food deserts, and existing
community gardens (CUDC, 2008). However, this study did not explicitly look at social
capital as a factor for determining community garden sites.
Social factors took precedence in determining site suitability for the study in
Akron since soil quality can be managed, and social capital and food security remain top
priorities. The Re-imagining a More Sustainable Cleveland model established the goal of
placing every Cleveland resident within a " mile radius of a community garden or
market garden in order to increase local food security, reinforce neighborhood
relationships, beautify vacant lots, and promote local entrepreneurship (CUDC, 2008, p.
32). This project design drew strongly from extensive research performed by the City of
Seattle's Department of Planning and Development in which a benchmark of one
community garden for every 2,500 households was developed, specifically in order to
ensure food security (City of Seattle, 2005). Marking the comprehensiveness and
successful implementation of the research in Cleveland and Seattle, a similar
methodological framework was used in order to identify potential sites for equal strides
in Akron.
11
Chapter Three: Methodology
To identify ideal plots for community gardens, both physical and social variables
were considered. Physical variables were analyzed through parcel and soil data. Social
variables were analyzed through a spatial index of social capital designed for this
analysis. The methodology follows four main steps: (1) identify vacant parcels and pre-
screen for suitable size; (2) analyze and rank vacant parcels by physical criteria; (3)
buffer, analyze, and rank vacant parcels by social criteria, followed by the combined
ranking; and (4) ground-truthing through on-site analysis and interview with city planner.
Previously, social capital has overwhelmingly been measured through survey
methods (Armstrong, 2000; Fukuyama, 2000; Grootaert & van Bastelaer, 2002b;
Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow-Stith, 1997; Lochner, Kawachi, & Kennedy,
1999; Putnam, 1993, 1995, 2000, 2001; Wakefield et al., 2007). However, this type of
survey method was not employed in this study due to time constraints and reliability—
Rupasingha et al. (2006) noted that survey methods have well-known reliability issues
associated with consistent participant responses in real-world versus laboratory settings.
This variable instead relied on the geographic reference points of hubs of civic
engagement—sources of social capital for the City of Akron. A survey method was used
in this study, but asked for a more concrete variable—membership numbers—instead of
personal views of trust toward the community.
12
The spatial index of social capital drew from the definition of social capital and
previous literature on its spatial measurement to identify hubs of civic engagement. As
Mohan and Mohan (2002) discussed, variations in social distributions naturally result in
variations in civic engagement. The term social distributions describes both (a) where
people are gathering and (b) who is gathering—therefore, social distribution can include
both spatial distribution of the population as well as socioeconomic data (i.e. poverty and
unemployment rates). These social variables were both utilized in the spatial analysis of
social capital by Rupasingha et al. (2006), and was subsequently used in this Akron
methodology. Hubs of civic engagement—the places where people are gathering that
cultivate social capital—can be mapped as geographic reference points to identify the
spatial framework of social capital resources in Akron.
To map these hubs, locations identified were required to fall under Putnam's
definitions of social capital, which followed five criteria!namely, locations include
those that foster community activity, political participation, religious participation,
networking, and volunteering (Putnam 2000, 2001). The index also drew from the
methodology of Rupasingha et al. (2006), who developed a similar spatial index at the
county scale using counts of the following establishments in each county: civic
organizations, bowling centers, golf clubs, fitness centers, sports organizations, religious
organizations, political organizations, labor organizations, business organizations, and
professional organizations (p. 89). The index used in Akron attempted to derive its
geographic references points from these categories, including civic organizations,
13
bowling centers, golf clubs, fitness centers, sports organizations, religious organizations,
and political organizations. Existing community gardens were also mapped as
representative geographic reference points of civic engagement. The spatial distribution
of social capital was reflected through these geographic reference points, which were
weighted by each establishment’s membership counts. The membership counts, in
contrast to the Rupasingha et al. (2006) measurement of establishment counts per county,
better suit the city scale, and were examined against the population count surrounding
each vacant parcel. In order to accurately compare vacant parcels, these variables had to
be normalized. The percentage of memberships in the population were calculated for each
vacant parcel’s buffer zone. Parcels with low percentages were ranked as more suitable,
allowing the model to address areas lacking social capital resources.
Physical and social characteristics were both weighted for individual vacant
parcels. The term vacant parcels refers to plots of land belonging to the City of
Akron!these properties are often acquired as foreclosures through land reutilization
programs to be resold by the city (Wheat & Kleinhenz, 2012). This study was constrained
to vacant parcels because they (1) were not being utilized at the time of this writing, (2)
were often unkempt and unsightly, reflecting negatively on community, and (3) belonged
to the City of Akron, operators of the city’s community garden program, Akron Grows
(York, 2010). The Land Marketing division of Akron's Department of Planning and
Urban Development maintained tabular data for each parcel. These data were joined with
spatial parcel data provided by the Summit County Fiscal Office (2011). A ranking
14
system for each vacant parcel allowed for a properly weighted overall ranking of the final
parcels, as an average of each parcel’s rank (Table 1). This returned three ranks assigned
to each parcel—physical, social, and overall—allowing for selection of parcels based on
overall rank or priority of variables.
Physical
Rank
Social Rank Combined Rank
Parcel
Number
P S
Table 1. Combined (overall) ranking system.
In this model, vacant parcels analyzed were selected through a preliminary size
screening. The minimum size was greater than or equal to the smallest existing
community garden (0.13 acres), accounting for multiple smaller adjoining vacant parcels
that may fit the criterion. This measured the existing low end of the city’s investment in
viable community garden space. The maximum size was determined by the acreage of
available parcels and the feedback received from the City of Akron’s Department of
Planning and Urban Development. In analysis, greater parcel size was considered an asset
and a parcel’s rank was higher with greater parcel acreage. Following this preliminary
screening, vacant parcels were ranked by physical and social characteristics.
Physical Variables
1. Soil Characteristics
Soil data from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) was used to
determine soil profiles of each vacant parcel (Soil Survey Staff, 2012). This step
allowed for the determination of preferences for selection based on soil
15
characteristics. Preference was to be given to parcels that require the least amount
of remediation, particularly prime farmland and well-drained soils. Rankings are
detailed in Table 2. Slope and drainage rankings were derived from data of the
soil types present in the study area. As drainage classifications were only
represented in four categories, this ranking maintained a maximum score of four
to account for the total possible score normalization. However, this scoring
method was a limitation to the study because the drainage score was not weighted
equally, and therefore the best drainage scores contribute somewhat less to the
overall score.
Slope Drainage Approximate Percent
Prime Farmland Status
Parcel Number 5 = 0-2%
4 = 2-6%
3 = 6-12%
2 = 12-18%
1 = >18%
4 = well
3 = moderately well
2 = somewhat poorly
1 = very poorly
5 = all
4 = 75%
3 = 50%
2 = 25%
1 = none
Table 2. Soil characteristic ranking system
2. Sun Exposure
An essential criterion for each proposed garden site in the Re-imagining a More
Sustainable Cleveland project was at least 8 hours of sun exposure each day
(CUDC, 2008). This variable was measured for the study in Akron by the
approximate percentage cleared of canopy and buildings, and was assessed with
aerial imagery (surveyed during leaf-off seasons) and on-site analysis. Vacant
parcels with more open area were ranked higher, as these would require the least
16
amount of physical surface alterations to be prepared for agricultural production
(i.e., no removal of trees or structures). Additionally, the potential existed for sun
exposure to be affected by surrounding tree/structure shadows cast on the plot—
this variable was also adapted from the Re-imagining a More Sustainable
Cleveland project (CUDC, 2008). It was assessed through on-site analysis (taken
twice during early June, mid-morning and mid afternoon) and aerial imagery, and
recorded for each vacant parcel with the following rankings in Table 3.
Sun Exposure (% Clear of
Canopy and Buildings)
Structure/tree Shadow
Parcel Number 5 = 100%
4 = 80%
3 = 50%
2 = 30%
1 = <30%
5 = no shadows cast and no structures/trees around
border
4 = structures/trees on N side of border only,
shadows cover less than 50% of lot
3 = structures/trees on S, E, or W sides lot,
shadows cover less than 50% of lot
2 = structures/trees on S, E, or W sides lot,
shadows cover more than 50% of lot
1 = tall structures/trees on all sides
Table 3. Sun exposure characteristic rankings
3. Additional Physical Variables (Table 4)
a. Brownfield Status
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2012) maintains a Brownfield
Inventory Database. Using this database, brownfields identified in Akron were
matched to parcel data provided by the Summit County Fiscal Office (2011).
Vacant parcels were then compared to the brownfield parcels to determine
their status. Parcels on or directly adjacent to a brownfield would likely
17
require the removal of industrial waste and/or heavy metals, therefore
reducing rank by requiring more resources.
b. Parcel Size
Acreage of parcels will be treated as an asset in this model; (1) a larger
number of community members may partake in gardening with greater
available space, and (2) a parcel that is considered too large for a community
garden by the City of Akron’s Department of Planning and Urban
Development may be divided into multiple lots. Size ranking categories were
determined by the Jenks natural breaks in the dataset.
c. Hydrant Access
Hydrant access for irrigation is a variable adapted from the Re-imagining a
More Sustainable Cleveland project (CUDC, 2008). This variable was
assessed through on-site analysis and manually digitized due to a lack of
utilities data. Each parcel was ranked according to its proximity to the nearest
hydrant.
Size (acres) Brownfield Hydrant Access Total = Final
Rank (P)
Parcel
Number
5 = 2-5
4 = 4-1.9
3 = 0.2-0.39
2 = 0.15-0.19
1 = < 0.15
5 = not a brownfield, not within ! mile
4 = not a brownfield, not within " mile
3 = not a brownfield, but is within " mile
2 = not a brownfield, but adjacent to one
1 = is a brownfield
5 = Along border
4 = within 50ft
3 = within 100ft
2 = within 500ft
1 = >500ft away
Total points
possible = 39
Table 4. Other characteristic rankings and final total
18
The physical analysis was followed by a proximity analysis to characterize social
variables near potential sites using the spatial index of social capital. The proximity
analysis also characterized accessibility to the garden, using a buffer distance of " mile
around each vacant parcel!this was drawn from the goals of the Re-imagining a More
Sustainable Cleveland project to put every within a " mile radius of a community garden
and to site new gardens at least " mile away from existing gardens (CUDC, 2008). Using
this distance identified any sources of social capital immediately surrounding the vacant
parcels, and provided a socioeconomic profile of residents that would reap the benefits of
the community garden sites.
Spatial Index of Social Capital
Census Data
All census data was analyzed at the block group scale within each vacant parcel buffer.
There were five categories in the ranking system determined by natural breaks (Jenks) in
the census data (Table 5). If multiple category rankings were within a buffer zone, the
value was averaged. To determine the inclusion of a block group in the analysis, 75% of
the total block group area had to lie within the buffer boundary. Of 196 block groups that
intersected with the boundary study areas, 121 were included in the analysis.
1. Median Household Income (Esri, 2010a)
Increased rank for high poverty rate, drawing from the correlation between
poverty and food insecurity.
2. Population (Esri, 2010b)
19
Increased rank for high population allows for the greatest potential of community
member involvement and prevents vacant parcel selection in deserted regions of
the city.
3. Unemployment (Esri, 2010c)
Increased rank for high unemployment rate to address lower social capital in
correlation with economic depression.
Avg. Unemployment Rate Avg. Income Population Range
Parcel
Number
5 = 22.8 - 100%
4 = 15.4 - 22.7%
3 = 8.0 - 15.3%
2 = 4.1 - 7.9%
1 = 0 - 4.0%
5 = $0 - $27,000
4 = $27,001 - $41,000
3 = $41,001 - $70,000
2 = $70,001 - $84,000
1 = $84,001 - $375,000
5 = 6000+
4 = 5000-5999
3 = 4000-4999
2 = 3000-3999
1 = <3000
Table 5. Census data ranking system
Hubs of Civic Engagement
All defined hubs of civic engagement were identified and selected against in analysis.
These variables were selected by the known local establishments in Akron, the definition
of social capital by Putnam (2000, 2001), and the social capital index designed by
Rupasingha et al. (2006).
(Population
Total)
(Total
Memberships)
(Memberships /
Population)
Membership Rank Total =
Final
Rank (S)
Parcel
Number
Total population
to be used in
membership
rank calculation,
not to be added
to total
Total memberships
to be used in
membership rank
calculation, not to be
added to total
Percent of
population that
have memberships
Rank number (24-1)
after comparing
percentages against
other parcels—
lower membership
percentage = higher
rank
Total
points
possible =
39
Table 6. Membership-to-population calculation, rankings, and final total
20
1. Existing Community Gardens
A list of existing community gardens was provided by the City of Akron's Akron
Grows program (York, 2010). With only six community gardens listed, all without
distinct addresses, these sites were manually digitized for a proximity analysis
with vacant parcels.
2. Churches
A point shapefile of churches listed in the Geographic Names Information System
(GNIS) was used (Esri & United States Geological Survey, 2010). These points
were used to identify their corresponding polygons in a Parcel shapefile from the
Summit County Fiscal Office (2011)—this allowed for a comparison consistent
with other polygon variables in analysis (i.e. more consistent proximity distance
from perimeter rather than centroid). Parcel data were also examined to add any
churches not included in the GNIS list.
3. Synagogues
These locations were joined with parcel data through address matching. Address
data was provided by Google Maps (2012d).
4. YMCA Locations
Parcel data and address matching were used to identify YMCA locations.
Addresses were provided by the YMCA (2012).
5. Free Mason Lodges
21
Parcel data and address matching were used to identify the locations of Free
Mason lodges, with lodge information provided by The Grand Lodge of Ohio
(2012).
6. Service Organizations (Lions Club, Kiwanis Club)
Parcel data and address matching were used identify the locations of service
organizations and their meeting places, with addresses provided by the Akron
Host Lions Club and Kiwanis International's Akron Kiwanis Club (Akron Host
Lions Club, 2012; Kiwanis International, 2012).
7. Political Organizations
The Democratic Party of Summit County maintained a list of all democratic clubs
and their meeting locations for Akron (Democratic Party of Summit County,
2012). These locations were joined with parcel data through address matching.
The Summit County Republican Headquarters address was the only officially
listed address found as a gathering place for the Republican party in Akron, which
was also joined to the parcel data through the address field (Summit County
Republican Party, 2012).
8. University of Akron
This was included as a variable due to the recent efforts by the university to foster
civic networking through creative landscape and renovation projects (The
University of Akron, 1999). Due to the size and distribution of the university, this
variable was digitized as several polygons for proximity analysis.
22
9. Akron’s Civic Initiative Projects
This variable was included to incorporate the recent efforts towards developing
the civic infrastructure of downtown Akron. Locations were joined with parcel
data through address matching (Downtown Akron Partnership, 2012).
a. Convention Center
b. Akron Art Museum
c. Baseball Stadium
d. Akron-Summit County Public Library
e. Akron Civic Theater
10. Bowling Centers
As the theme of bowling has carried through social capital literature, notably in
the work of Putnam (1993, 1995, 2000, 2001), and then into Rupasingha et al.
(2006), this variable was included in the model. These locations were joined with
parcel data through address matching. Address data was provided by Google
Maps (2012a).
11. Golf Clubs
Golf Link (2012) offered a comprehensive list of golf courses in Akron, OH.
These locations were joined with parcel data through address matching.
12. Fitness Centers
As a common facility for community members to participate in exercise, sports,
and recreational activities, fitness centers are a hub of civic engagement—this
23
particular variable was supported by Rupasingha et al. (2006). These locations
were joined with parcel data through address matching. Address data was
provided by Google Maps (2012b, 2012c).
On-site Assessments
On-site assessments of each vacant parcel were performed to determine local
social capital conditions through perceptible signs of urban blight. Breger (1967) defines
the term urban blight as functional and social depreciation of property beyond acceptable
condition to the community. Breger states that this definition is subjective by nature in
determining what is acceptable. However, this can be assessed by physical indicators,
particularly under-maintenance of property and perceptible disutility of land and
buildings (Breger, 1967, p. 372). This may include buildings falling into disrepair, litter
scattered, graffiti, and any other signs of neglect and depreciation.
Limitations
There was one primary limitation to this methodology. This is the decision to not
implement the individual survey technique for measuring social capital. Though this
method has well-known shortcomings (Rupasingha et al., 2006), by not implementing
these surveys, the study was limited to the measurement of social capital by documented
memberships at physical locations rather than individual opinions of trust and community
well-being. Following this singular school of thought does not assess real-world, local
conditions, though this was partially addressed in the ground-truthing exercise at sites
estimated to be lacking social capital resources.
24
Chapter Four: Results
Of the 268,497 parcels within the Akron proper jurisdiction, thirty-nine parcels
are listed for sale of the City of Akron. Twenty-four parcels passed the preliminary size
screening. The minimum size of analysis was 0.13 acres in area, including possible
adjoining parcels. After these were ranked, an adjusted analysis was run for parcels not
within a " mile radius of any existing community garden. Sixteen parcels qualified for
the adjusted ranking.
Physical Variable Ranking Results
The results of the physical variable ranking system returned results that generally
matched the ground-truthing exercises in the field (the on-site assessment of observable
physical variables and feel of each location suitability for a community garden). Table 7
shows the vacant parcels ranked in order of highest-to-lowest score according to the
devised methodology.
The total score possible for each parcel was 39. The results reflect an average total
score (P) of 23.3 with a standard deviation of 3.8. The median score was 22. No parcel
had any prime farmland nor were any parcels brownfields or within " mile of a
brownfield. As predicted, all parcels contained urban soil types, which would require
some form of remediation to be suitable for agriculture. Frequently soils were Chili-
Urban land complex, undulating or rolling (CuB and CuC, respectively). Also common
were Canfield-Urban land complex, undulating (CfB), Ravenna-Urban land complex
25
(Rn), and Rough broken land, silt and sand (Rw). Parcel number 6815312, 123 East Lods
Street, partially contained soil from a sanitary landfill (Uf). When a parcel contained two
or more soil types with different slope and/or drainage characteristics, the most prominent
soil type’s characteristics were used. Slope rank in the vacant parcels varied between 3-5
( all parcels < 12% slopes). Drainage classes were determined from the tabular data of
each soil type. When drainage class or slope data were not available for these soils, a
score of 0 was assigned. Two parcels tied for the highest ranking position—interestingly,
one of these parcels (773 Lovers Lane) is an existing city-run community garden,
meaning that it falls on one of the vacant parcels listed for sale by the Land Marketing
Division. This detail is discussed in the ground-truthing exercise with the City of Akron’s
Department of Planning and Urban Development. 773 Lovers Lane and 630 Diagonal
Road, the other top-ranked parcel, both received identical scores for slope (4/5), drainage
(2/4), percent prime farmland status (1/5), building/tree shadow (5/5), brownfield status
(5/5), and hydrant access (5/5). 773 Lovers Lane received a slightly lower score than 630
Diagonal Road (4/5 and 5/5, respectively), and a slightly higher score for sun exposure
(5/5 and 4/5, respectively). Both were mostly comprised of Canfield-Urban land
complex, undulating (map unit symbol CfB) from which soil characteristics were
determined and then confirmed by a digital elevation model (DEM) from the State of
Ohio Office of Information Technology (2007).
A parcel with a median score of 22 was 445 Alexander Street. The limiting
variables for this parcel were size (1/5), building/tree shadow (2/5), and hydrant access
26
Figure 1. 773 Lovers Lane, an existing community garden, imagery and acreage (left), and DEM
displaying relatively even terrain with soil map unit symbol (right)
Figure 2. 630 Diagonal Road imagery and acreage (left), and DEM with soil map unit symbol (right)
27
(2/5). As for the other variables, scores were relatively average: slope (4/5), drainage
(2/4), percent prime farmland status (1/5), sun exposure (5/5), and brownfield status
(5/5). This parcel also contained Canfield-Urban land complex, undulating, which was
again confirmed though a digital elevation model.
The parcel ranking the lowest in the physical variable analysis was 983 Stadelman
Avenue, with a score of 18 out of the possible 39 points. This parcel scored well for slope
(4/5) and brownfield status (5/5), but had lower scores for drainage (2/4) and hydrant
access (3/5), and the lowest scores for size (1/5), percent prime farmland status (1/5), sun
exposure (1/5), and building/tree shadow (1/5). This parcel would require a great deal of
alteration to the surrounding parcels in order to be more suitable as a community garden,
a cost that would likely not be outweighed by the benefits.
Figure 3. 983 Stadelman Avenue imagery and acreage (left), and DEM and soil map unit symbol (right)
28
Table 7. Final physical variable ranking
Parcel
Number
Address Slope Soil
Drainage
Size
(acreage)
Prime
Farmland
Status
Sun
Exposure
(Percent
Cleared)
Building/
Tree
Shadow
Brownfield Hydrant
Access
Total: (P)
6840195
6822628
6839979
6815312
6762933
6762932
6763023
6857980
6845928
6762878
6735737
6807290
6814108
6849195
6747341
6712894
6860896
6860902
6860904
6745042
6736167
6738336
6831777
6830360
773 LOVERS LN 4 2 4 1 5 5 5 5 31
630 DIAGONAL RD 4 2 5 1 4 5 5 5 31
642 DIAGONAL RD 4 2 5 1 2 4 5 5 28
123 E LODS ST 5 0 3 1 5 4 5 5 28
299 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 5 4 5 3 28
303 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 5 4 5 3 28
309 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 5 4 5 3 28
943 COPLEY RD 5 2 2 1 4 3 5 4 26
917 BAUGHMAN ST 5 2 1 1 4 3 5 4 25
353 HICKORY ST 3 4 5 1 1 2 5 4 25
426 CUYAHOGA ST 4 2 2 1 1 3 5 5 23
135 MUSTILL CT 4 4 2 1 1 1 5 5 23
445 ALEXANDER ST 4 2 1 1 5 2 5 2 22
1202 COPLEY RD 4 3 2 1 3 1 5 2 21
88 OAKDALE A VE 3 2 3 1 2 2 5 3 21
672 MALLISON A VE 3 2 2 1 5 2 5 1 21
197 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 1 1 5 3 21
171 HICKORY 3 4 3 1 1 1 5 3 21
155 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 1 1 5 3 21
948 BRITTAIN RD 4 2 1 1 1 3 5 3 20
610 MADISON A VE 5 2 2 1 1 1 5 3 20
876 GARFIELD ST 3 2 1 1 1 4 5 1 18
849 GARFIELD ST 3 2 1 1 1 4 5 1 18
983 STADELMAN A VE 4 2 1 1 1 1 5 3 18
29
Social Variable Ranking Results
Table 8 shows the vacant parcels ranked in order of highest-to-lowest score
according to the devised methodology. Interestingly again, 773 Lovers Lane was the
highest ranked (with two others) in the social variable analysis, with 36 of 39 possible
points. The average social variable score (S) was 26.6, with a median score of 25.5 and a
standard deviation of 5.8. The top parcels that were not existing community gardens were
876 Garfield Street and 849 Garfield Street. These two parcels had lower population
ranges than 773 Lovers Lane (4/5 instead of 5/5), but had the highest membership rank
score (24/24), and equal unemployment and median household income scores (4/5).
Figure 4. 773 Lovers Lane ! mile buffer with membership hubs (left) and unemployment rates (right)
30
A vacant parcel with an approximate median score of 25 was 672 Mallison
Avenue, which received unemployment and median household income scores of 5/5, a
population score of 2/5 and a membership rank score of 13. The lowest ranking vacant
parcel, 135 Mustill Court, received unemployment and median household income scores
of 5/5, a population score of 1/5, and a membership rank of 8. The calculation of reported
memberships divided by approximate population yielded a number greater than 1—there
were more reported memberships than population determined by the census data analysis.
This error may be a result of (1) inaccurate membership numbers reported during
interviews, (2) inaccurate census data, or (3) inaccurate calculation of approximate
population during analysis. Additionally, this may not be an error, but an accurate report
reflecting church members coming from an outside area to attend. Regardless of the
Figure 5. 672 Mallison Avenue, (right), and adjacent house.
31
Table 8. Final social variable ranking
Parcel
Number
Address Avg.
Unemployment
Rate
Avg. Median
Household
Income
(Population
Total)
Population
Range
(Memberships) (Memberships/
total pop)
Membership
Rank
Total: (S)
6840195
6738336
6831777
6830360
6849195
6845928
6735737
6857980
6747341
6822628
6839979
6736167
6712894
6814108
6745042
6860896
6860902
6860904
6815312
6762933
6762932
6763023
6762878
6807290
773 LOVERS LN 4 4 7838 5 310 0.0395509058 23 36
876 GARFIELD ST 4 4 5606 4 209 0.0372814841 24 36
849 GARFIELD ST 4 4 5606 4 209 0.0372814841 24 36
983 STADELMAN A VE 4 4 6996 5 475 0.0678959405 22 35
1202 COPLEY RD 4 3 6304 5 450 0.0713832487 21 33
917 BAUGHMAN ST 4 4 7233 5 725 0.1002350339 18 31
426 CUYAHOGA ST 5 5 2834 1 209 0.0737473536 20 31
943 COPLEY RD 4 3 5180 4 475 0.0916988417 19 30
88 OAKDALE A VE 4 4 5431 4 675 0.1242865034 17 29
630 DIAGONAL RD 4 4 5297 4 1225 0.231262979 15 27
642 DIAGONAL RD 4 4 5297 4 1225 0.231262979 15 27
610 MADISON A VE 4 4 5512 4 1325 0.2403846154 14 26
672 MALLISON A VE 5 5 3976 2 1073 0.2698692153 13 25
445 ALEXANDER ST 5 4 4670 3 2955 0.6327623126 12 24
948 BRITTAIN RD 3 3 3161 2 455 0.1439417906 16 24
197 HICKORY ST 5 5 3711 2 2500 0.6736728645 11 23
171 HICKORY 5 5 3711 2 2518 0.6785233091 11 23
155 HICKORY ST 5 5 3711 2 2518 0.6785233091 11 23
123 E LODS ST 4 4 3603 2 2868 0.7960033306 10 20
299 HICKORY ST 5 4 3035 2 2500 0.823723229 9 20
303 HICKORY ST 5 4 3035 2 2500 0.823723229 9 20
309 HICKORY ST 5 4 3035 2 2500 0.823723229 9 20
353 HICKORY ST 5 4 3035 2 2500 0.823723229 9 20
135 MUSTILL CT 5 5 2599 1 2900 1.1158137745 8 19
32
source of anomaly, this parcel stood out as significantly lower ranked—if compensating
for possible error in calculation, assuming that the population could have been up to the
maximum, one category higher (a score of 2 instead of a 1, and a population count of
3999) the membership ranking would be 10, and the total S rank would be 22 out of 39.
In Table 6, the parenthesized columns were used in calculation, but not added to
the final rank score. All parcels were located in areas having higher rates of
unemployment and lower median household incomes. Twenty-one parcels were located
in areas which had a median household income of less than $41,000, and twenty-three
parcels had unemployment rates of 15.4% or greater—these scores (4 and 5) were
derived from the census dataset’s existing income ranges. The lowest income range ($0-
$27,000) accounts for six of the twenty-four vacant parcels.
Figure 6. 135 Mustill Court ! mile buffer with membership hubs (left) and unemployment rates (right)
33
Analysis of Social Capital
This study attempted to identify a diverse set of social capital sources through
hubs of civic engagement. While many types were initially identified and located, those
that fell within the study area were restricted primarily to church memberships, a
significant limitation which leaves much room for subjectivity in the social capital
variable. A future analysis should incorporate more rigorous field work to identify a more
exact profile of each neighborhoods memberships.
When analyzing memberships in analysis, hubs of civic engagement that fell
within the study area were comprised of forty-seven churches, four existing community
gardens, and a fitness center. Of the forty-seven churches that fell within the " mile
buffer of each vacant parcel, twenty-two churches responded when asked about
membership numbers (detailed in Table 9). The other twenty-five churches that did not
respond (i.e. did not return phone calls, emails, and/or did not hold regular office hours at
which they could be reached) are presumed to be small enough that membership numbers
would not be significant to this study. Church memberships varied from 70 to 2300,
existing garden memberships ranged from 3 to 18, and the fitness center had 1350
members. As the membership rank variable carried more weight than the other social
variables, the lowest membership ratios (higher membership rank) correlated with the
overall highest S rank. This variable is weighted to normalize the overall C rank and to
emphasize the significance of civic engagement as a variable in community development.
34
Table 9. Organizations within the study area and their memberships according to interviewees responses
Organization Memberships Interviewee Position Date of Interview
Abundant Life Center of Eternal Truth
Akron Alliance Fellowship Church
Arlington Church of God
Bethel Seventh Day Adventist Church
Bethel Temple Original Glorious Church
Church of Our Savior
Emmanuel United Church of Christ
Faith United Methodist Church
First Apostolic Faith Church
Good Shepherd Baptist Church
Goodyear Fitness Center
Greater Bethel Baptist Church
Macedonia Baptist Church
Mount Calvary Baptist Church
Mount Olive Baptist Church
Mount Zion Baptist Church
New Mission missionary Baptist Church
Parcel 6734572, 342 Turner Street Garden
Parcel 6828536, Cuyahoga Street Garden
Parcel 6840195, 773 Lovers Lane Garden
Parcel 6847002, Vernon Odum Blvd Garden
Peoples Baptist Church
Providence Baptist Church
Saint Anthony's Catholic Church
United Baptist Church
Unity Church of God in Christ
Wesley Temple African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
90 Darlene Garber Pastor Jun 9, 2012
250 Gus Brown Pastor Jun 9, 2012
1155 Natalie DeGraffenreid Receptionist Jun 6, 2012
200 Ann Clark Church Secretary Jun 13, 2012
2300 Connie Rohaley Receptionist Jun 13, 2012
175 Patricia Wilson Financial Administrator Jun 13, 2012
285 Demetria Davis Church Secretary Jun 13, 2012
170 Linda Bradley Office Manager Jun 13, 2012
600 Lula Hampton Church Secretary Jun 13, 2012
75 Anonymous Church Employee Jun 13, 2012
1350
Carol jordan Fitness Center Coordinator
Jun 18, 2012
80 Rachelle Henderson Church Secretary Jun 13, 2012
300 Pamela Bray Administrative Assistant Jun 6, 2012
500 Lisa Davis Church Administrator Jun 13, 2012
200 Jean Dixon Office Manager Jun 13, 2012
200 Carissa Martin Church Administrator Jun 13, 2012
70 Anonymous Church Employee Jun 6, 2012
18
Kurt Mulhauser City Planner Jun 27, 2012
9
Kurt Mulhauser City Planner Jun 27, 2012
10
Kurt Mulhauser City Planner Jun 27, 2012
3
Kurt Mulhauser City Planner Jun 27, 2012
130 Danita Smith Church Clerk Jun 13, 2012
200 Lilian Smith Church Secretary Jun 13, 2012
400 Jenny Toth Receptionist Jun 13, 2012
250 Sonya Harris Church Secretary Jun 13, 2012
200 Jackie Owen Church Secretary Jun 13, 2012
150 Kirsten Eckley Church Secretary Jun 13, 2012
35
Overall Ranking Results and Ground-truthing
The overall ranking results of the twenty-four vacant parcels returned one clearly
top-ranked parcel, 773 Lovers Lane. This normalized average score (33.5 out of 39)
revealed that this existing community garden is the most ideal, in terms of physical and
social variables, for fostering social capital according to this study’s devised
methodology. Second to this existing garden, 630 Diagonal Road appears again for its
suitability as a community garden based on both sets of variables (a P score of 31, an S
score of 27, and a C score of 29). The average C score was 25.08333, with a median
score of 24, and a standard deviation of 2.984. A vacant parcel with a median ranking (C
score of 24) was 299 Hickory Street, with a P score of 28 and an S score of 20. The
lowest ranking vacant parcel was, again, 135 Mustill Court, with a P score of 23, and S
score of 19, and a C score of 21.
Figure 7. 773 Lovers Lane, an existing community garden
36
As part of the ground-truthing exercise, an interview with Kurt Mulhauser, the
City Planner for Akron’s Department of Planning and Urban Development, was
conducted on June 27th, 2012. As the city’s community garden program is relatively new,
the department relies on Mr. Mulhauser as the singular person in charge of identifying
sites for and implementing community gardens for the Akron Grows Program. In a
presentation of the results of this study, Mr. Mulhauser was very interested to see the
physical variables identified in the study match the variables he sought when identifying
potential sites. It was revealed that, in efforts identical to this study, he has been
attempting to utilize vacant parcels owned by the city for community gardens—this
explained why 773 Lovers Lane was identified as both a vacant parcel and an existing
community garden in analysis.
While walking Mr. Mulhauser through the results of this analysis, he gave
feedback on the top parcels and their real-world suitability as community gardens. First,
the top-ranked parcel that was not already a community garden was discussed, as the
analysis and field work point to this parcel as an ideal location out of all twenty-four
researched. The lot was notably larger than the others, included room for parking, and
was lined by trees and greenspace. However, upon closer inspection, the lot and
surrounding neighborhood reflected recognizable signs of urban blight that reinforced
this parcel’s high ranking—nearby abandoned buildings, and litter scattered on and
around the property indicated neglect. Mr. Mulhauser agreed that he would have chosen
630 Diagonal Road as one of the best sites for a community garden, and had previously
37
tried to discuss this with other planning departments. Unfortunately, they held other
agendas and had reserved this land, as well as the adjacent 642 Diagonal Road, for a cul-
de-sac development. Mr. Mulhauser was impressed that the analysis returned this plot as
one of the most suitable, as he had previously identified it as well, but went on to explain
that many of the plots identified—by both this study and himself—were unfortunately
reserved for residential uses. Could this have been a potential garden site, the atmosphere
was ideal—the lot is in a walkable neighborhood, close to residential areas as well as
restaurants and historical districts, but is also surrounded by more green space, providing
a beautiful oasis in an urban center.
Figure 8. 630 Diagonal Road, a top-ranked parcel for a future community garden
38
In contrast to this potential garden site, we discussed the real-world suitability of
the top-ranked existing community garden. The area surrounding 773 Lovers Lane also
reflected signs of urban blight through functional and social depreciation while
conducting field research—there were several seemingly abandoned properties within
sight, graffiti, and copious amount of litter in neighboring properties. The outer
neighborhood looked neglected, but the garden was well-cared for. The parcel was fenced
and very visibly located on a busy street. However, according to Mr. Mulhauser, there
have been reports of theft from gardeners’ plot, perpetrators being both outside
community members and fellow gardeners. Truly, these factors only solidify this parcel
as the top-ranked ideal location to foster social capital for the community. Mr. Mulhauser
stated that he does not like this community garden location. It is relatively new compared
to the other gardens and has not yet fostered community betterment. Comparatively, Mr.
Mulhauser reported that Akron Grows maintains two community gardens on Cuyahoga
Street and one at Turner Street which are very successful, safe, and have a “community”
feeling. He stated, “We can’t really predict what makes one garden work and another one
not. It comes down to the people you get there, and that can’t be put into numbers and
equations.” He preferred that gardens be placed in neighborhoods that already have social
capital resources, and therefore would be safer for gardeners.
Similarly to the atmosphere of 630 Diagonal Road, the median ranked parcel (299
Hickory Street) was also in a semi-residential, semi-urban center that was very walkable
and in an existing natural green space. Mr. Mulhauser also would have agreed to putting a
39
community garden on any of the Hickory Street plots, but they were also reserved for
residential development.
The lowest ranking parcel, 135 Mustill Court, did not appear to meet any criteria
as an ideal location for a community garden when visiting sites in the ground-truthing.
The lot was very small, the surrounding houses were in good condition, and the
neighborhood and lot did not outwardly reflect the signs of urban blight and lack of social
capital as other neighborhoods did in the on-site assessments.
Overall, the results of the on-site assessments adhered to the results of the model
in identifying areas with greater social capital need that were also physically suited for
agricultural purposes. Vacant parcels that ranked higher in the analysis results reflected
more urban blight through under-maintenance than parcels that ranked lower.
After the presentation and reviewing the full report, Mr. Mulhauser said, “I am
judging the methodology based on the results, and it definitely seemed useful in selecting
good lots in good areas.” He did advise for future analyses the addition of a lot visibility
variable, possibly from using traffic data, because of aesthetics and safety. Apart from the
devised methodology, he expressed the desire to expand the successful community
gardens, and suggested choosing vacant parcel suitability by proximity to successful
community gardens. However, this would (1) require a methodology to measure success
of existing community gardens and (2) unevenly distribute the city’s resources in favor of
neighborhoods that already house social capital resources, bypassing the purpose of this
study, which prioritizes neighborhoods that are low in social capital
40
To more directly address the lack of community gardens as a specific source of
social capital, an adjusted analysis ranking was run through the devised methodology
excluding parcels that are within " mile of an existing community garden. This
amendment better adheres to the Re-imagining a More Sustainable Cleveland project’s
goal, to site new gardens at least " mile away from existing gardens (CUDC, 2008). This
was not part of the initial methodology because all sources of social capital were broken
down and measured as memberships, without discriminating against type of organization
or club, in an effort to test the validity of measuring social capital through membership
counts. It was assumed that the number of memberships to these gardens would be
enough to lower the suitability of vacant parcels near existing community gardens.
However, as the initial results reflect, this was not the case, as vacant parcels near
community gardens are distributed throughout the ranking.
41
Parcel Number Address Total: (P) Total: (S) Combined Rank: (P+S)/2
*6840195
6822628
6845928
6857980
6839979
*6735737
*6738336
*6831777
6849195
6830360
6747341
*6815312
6762933
6762932
6763023
*6712894
6736167
6814108
6762878
6860896
*6860902
*6860904
6745042
6807290
773 LOVERS LN 31 36 33.5
630 DIAGONAL RD 31 27 29
917 BAUGHMAN ST 25 31 28
943 COPLEY RD 26 30 28
642 DIAGONAL RD 28 27 27.5
426 CUYAHOGA ST 23 31 27
876 GARFIELD ST 18 36 27
849 GARFIELD ST 18 36 27
1202 COPLEY RD 21 33 27
983 STADELMAN A VE 18 35 26.5
88 OAKDALE A VE 21 29 25
123 E LODS ST 28 20 24
299 HICKORY ST 28 20 24
303 HICKORY ST 28 20 24
309 HICKORY ST 28 20 24
672 MALLISON A VE 21 25 23
610 MADISON A VE 20 26 23
445 ALEXANDER ST 22 24 23
353 HICKORY ST 25 20 22.5
197 HICKORY ST 21 23 22
171 HICKORY 21 23 22
155 HICKORY ST 21 23 22
948 BRITTAIN RD 20 24 22
135 MUSTILL CT 23 19 21
Table 10. Final combined initial ranking, including parcels within ! mile of an existing community
garden (indicated by asterisk)
42
Figure 9. Overall ranking distribution
43
Adjusted Ranking for Nearby Community Gardens
Initially, the variable of existing community gardens existed as only a
consideration of memberships within a vacant parcel buffer. As a secondary
consideration, an adjusted analysis ranking of vacant parcels was conducted to exclude
vacant parcels that are within " mile of an existing community garden. This amendment
to the methodology more practically applies the analysis to neighborhoods lacking the
social capital resources brought by community gardens. The original results are still
useful for the application of expanding existing community gardens that have been
particularly successful. However, the secondary results best suit the original intention of
the study, as well as providing a better distribution of resources within the city.
After screening for parcels within " mile of an existing community garden,
sixteen vacant parcels were left for the adjusted analysis ranking. The physical ranking
system was relatively unaffected by the removal of these parcels, as the scores used in
ranking were not dependent upon the other parcels’ scores.
The adjusted analysis results of the social variable ranking were different from the
initial results, due to the membership rank variable being dependent on the other parcels.
The results had a mean S score of 28.6 (compared with the first mean of 26.6), a median
score of 28.5, and a standard deviation of 4.8. The top-ranking vacant parcel is 983
Stadelman Avenue, with an unemployment score of 4/5, a median household income
score of 4/5, a population score of 5/5, and a membership rank of 24/24, for a total S
score of 37/39. In the initial results, this vacant parcel was the fourth most suitable parcel,
44
with a membership rank of 22/24. A vacant parcel with approximately a median score
was 445 Alexander Street (S score of 28, up from the previous S score of 24). This was
caused by the membership rank moving from 12 to 16, while the other variables
remained the same. The lowest ranking vacant parcel was, again, 135 Mustill Court. The
S rank moved from 19 to 21, but the same anomaly in calculation existed here as before
(more memberships than population), as the raw data was not affected by adjusting the
analysis. This calculation still had the most significant impact on the S rank, leaving 135
Mustill Court to remain as the bottom ranked parcel.
Figure 10. 135 Mustill Court, ranked lowest in physical suitability and social capital need
45
Table 11. Adjusted analysis physical variable ranking
Parcel
Number
Address Slope Soil
Drainage
Size
(acreage)
Prime
Farmland
Status
Sun
Exposure
(Percent
Cleared)
Building/
tree Shadow
Brownfield Hydrant
Access
Total: (P)
6822628
6839979
6762933
6762932
6763023
6857980
6845928
6762878
6807290
6814108
6860896
6747341
6849195
6736167
6745042
6830360
630 DIAGONAL RD 4 2 5 1 4 5 5 5 31
642 DIAGONAL RD 4 2 5 1 2 4 5 5 28
299 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 5 4 5 3 28
303 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 5 4 5 3 28
309 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 5 4 5 3 28
943 COPLEY RD 5 2 2 1 4 3 5 4 26
917 BAUGHMAN ST 5 2 1 1 4 3 5 4 25
353 HICKORY ST 3 4 5 1 1 2 5 4 25
135 MUSTILL CT 4 4 2 1 1 1 5 5 23
445 ALEXANDER ST 4 2 1 1 5 2 5 2 22
197 HICKORY ST 3 4 3 1 1 1 5 3 21
88 OAKDALE AVE 3 2 3 1 2 2 5 3 21
1202 COPLEY RD 4 3 2 1 3 1 5 2 21
610 MADISON AVE 5 2 2 1 1 1 5 3 20
948 BRITTAIN RD 4 2 1 1 1 3 5 3 20
983 STADELMAN AVE 4 2 1 1 1 1 5 3 18
46
As for the adjusted-analysis combined variable results (Table 13), the mean C
score was 26.3125, the median score was 26.25, and the standard deviation was 2.516. Of
the sixteen vacant parcels, 630 Diagonal Road remained the top-ranked parcel with a C
score of 30.5 (up from 29 in the initial results), 299 Hickory Street had an approximately
median C score of 26.5 (up from 24), and 135 Mustill Court remained the lowest ranking
parcel with a C score of 22 (up from 21). This final set of results lays out the most
accurate portrayal of site suitability based on the methodology for the intended purpose
of this study. The second highest ranked parcels were 917 Baughman Street (C = 29.5)
and 943 Copley Road (C = 29.5), which, unlike 630 Diagonal Road, had no future plans
detailed.
Figure 11. 917 Baughman Street, the second highest ranked parcel
47
Table 12. Adjusted analysis social variable ranking
Parcel
Number
Address Avg.
Unemployment
Rate
Avg. Median
Household
Income
(Population
Total)
Population
Range
(Memberships) (Memberships/
total pop)
Membership
Rank
Total: (S)
6830360
6849195
6845928
6857980
6747341
6822628
6839979
6736167
6814108
6745042
6860896
6762933
6762932
6763023
6762878
6807290
983 STADELMAN AVE 4 4 6996 5 475 0.0678959405 24 37
1202 COPLEY RD 4 3 6304 5 450 0.0713832487 23 35
917 BAUGHMAN ST 4 4 7233 5 725 0.1002350339 21 34
943 COPLEY RD 4 3 5180 4 475 0.0916988417 22 33
88 OAKDALE AVE 4 4 5431 4 675 0.1242865034 20 32
630 DIAGONAL RD 4 4 5297 4 1225 0.231262979 18 30
642 DIAGONAL RD 4 4 5297 4 1225 0.231262979 18 30
610 MADISON AVE 4 4 5512 4 1325 0.2403846154 17 29
445 ALEXANDER ST 5 4 4670 3 2955 0.6327623126 16 28
948 BRITTAIN RD 3 3 3161 2 455 0.1439417906 19 27
197 HICKORY ST 5 5 3711 2 2500 0.6736728645 15 27
299 HICKORY ST 5 4 3035 2 2500 0.823723229 14 25
303 HICKORY ST 5 4 3035 2 2500 0.823723229 13 24
309 HICKORY ST 5 4 3035 2 2500 0.823723229 12 23
353 HICKORY ST 5 4 3035 2 2500 0.823723229 11 22
135 MUSTILL CT 5 5 2599 1 2900 1.1158137745 10 21
48
Table 13. Adjusted analysis combined variable ranking
Parcel Number Address Total: (P) Total: (S) (P+S)/2
6822628
6845928
6857980
6839979
6849195
6830360
6747341
6762933
6762932
6763023
6814108
6736167
6860896
6745042
6762878
6807290
630 DIAGONAL RD 31 30 30.5
917 BAUGHMAN ST 25 34 29.5
943 COPLEY RD 26 33 29.5
642 DIAGONAL RD 28 30 29
1202 COPLEY RD 21 35 28
983 STADELMAN AVE 18 37 27.5
88 OAKDALE AVE 21 32 26.5
299 HICKORY ST 28 25 26.5
303 HICKORY ST 28 24 26
309 HICKORY ST 28 23 25.5
445 ALEXANDER ST 22 28 25
610 MADISON AVE 20 29 24.5
197 HICKORY ST 21 27 24
948 BRITTAIN RD 20 27 23.5
353 HICKORY ST 25 22 23.5
135 MUSTILL CT 23 21 22
49
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion
This model tested the viability of social capital as an indicator for community
garden planning in conjunction with traditional physical variables adapted for urban
agriculture. Practical, suitable sites fitting both sets of devised criteria were identified in
areas with lower social capital resources using the measurable variable of memberships
within the buffer zone—therefore, this project is considered successful. The model
provided a physical and social profile for each site, allowing for selection with preference
of physical or social variable priority.
As expected from a study in urban agriculture, physical variables were
unremarkable, but this may vary when applied to other cities. There was a surprising, yet
welcome, lack of brownfield presence in the results—this raised the rankings of all
parcels, as they would require less remediation to be brought up to gardening status. The
overall physical variable ranking methodology was sound in assessing variables and can
readily be applied on its own for site suitability analyses for urban gardens. With the
spatial index of social capital adjusted to site-specific hubs of civic engagement, the
ranking systems may be used in conjunction to effectively select suitable community
gardens sites to foster social capital in areas with the most need.
Through the on-site assessment, the ground-truthing exercise afforded the
confirmation of the suitability ranking of each parcel.This was mostly useful for
assessing and documenting the physical criteria, as social capital findings can also be
50
cross-checked with qualitative observations of neighborhoods to back up social
information from the census data. The ground-truthing in speaking with Mr. Mulhauser
provided some valuable insight as to social capital in some potential sites, but further
interviews would be required to assess each individual vacant parcel identified. However,
Mr. Mulhauser’s assessment of suitability did not adhere to the ideas presented in this
study. His opinion of site suitability should only comprise part of each parcels’ final
ranking—but in the real-world setting, his word as a city planner is final. To prioritize the
distribution of the city’s resources for fostering social capital, this methodology affords
an assessment tool in aiding the decision to place community gardens and to improve
Akron communities through community gardens, a proven method of promoting social
health and community cohesion (Wakefield et al., 2007). Addressing these areas of the
city will provide the greatest return, as food security and community betterment through
community gardening is most greatly returned in lower income areas (Armstrong, 2000).
To improve upon this study in the future, a city with a differently structured planning
department may be chosen. Having one person responsible for this decision leaves much
bias to the results of this portion of the ground-truthing.
There are several other drawbacks to ground-truthing. The temporal aspect of this
measurement offers either only a brief glimpse of the sites due to limited time availability
to observe or requires extensive investment of time resources. Without living on-site, it
would be difficult to gauge the true atmosphere of a neighborhood, and the costs,
benefits, and limitations of this measure must be weighed. Additionally, this measure is
51
rather subjective in nature because every observer may have a different perspective of a
neighborhood—this may vary even so simply as the differences in perspective from male
to female observers.
Another limitation already mentioned was the measure of hubs of civic
engagement. Though many types of hubs based on the definition of social capital were
taken into consideration, churches comprised the vast majority of those that fell into the
study area. One factor that may have contributed to this is unlisted businesses/hubs that
would have only local recognition. Also, hubs that are not categorizable may exist—for
example, a cafe where many community members meet every morning for coffee
together (though this is not formal membership in a club or organization). To remedy this
limitation, intensive local assessment is required for each site to determine all hubs of
civic engagement and their memberships. Local knowledge is truly the only way to
determine this variable. This explains the reliance in previous studies on individual
surveys for social capital (Putnam 1993, 1995, 2000, 2001; Rupasingha et al., 2006). All
other variables of the social ranking (those derived from census data) are more readily
available for determining local conditions, allowing this analysis to be successful despite
limitations from membership measurement.
Apart from intensive local assessment, a future amendment to this study may
include individual surveys in assessment. Specifically, as a human study, this would
adjust for the observed anomaly in memberships-to-population calculation. Surveying the
home addresses of individual members would add a valuable spatial component to more
52
accurately profile the distribution of social capital through memberships and place of
residence.
Less a limitation, and more a policy ramification, is the status of 773 Lovers Lane
as both a city-run community garden and a vacant parcel for sale. The consequences on
neighborhood social capital ought to be considered should the parcel be purchased and
the neighborhood lose the established garden. If the city's policy is that vacant parcels are
to be maintained as gardens, a full investment should be made rather than temporarily
hosting gardens while awaiting sale of the parcel. The eviction of gardeners may undo all
the initial intentions of the garden, causing setbacks for both the residents and the city.
While the city attempts to sell the parcels back into taxable status, it would seem
they are trying to optimize their profits by reserving land for specific zoning (i.e. 630
Diagonal Road for a cul-de-sac development). Mr. Mulhauser did not make it clear his
source of these details when discussing the futures of reserved parcels. It’s possible that
this was from first-hand knowledge, an informal list, or a proper database. This
information would have been incredibly useful to amend the pre-screening and remove
any reserved parcels from the analysis.
The data and methodology used varies in usefulness, for this study and for future
studies. Soil data is commonly used to determine slope, drainage, and prime farmland
status—a finer scale may have been more useful to record parcel-to-parcel differences,
but the Soil Survey data that was used is the most detailed soil data available in the State
of Ohio (Soil Survey Staff, 2012). Sun exposure variables were devised for this study due
53
to a lack of data for the City of Akron. Datasets where these variables have been less
subjectively measured would be useful when applied to other cities, as well as future
Akron studies. The brownfield database was very useful, as all parcel IDs were accurately
matched between county records and allowed for the profiling of possible contaminants.
When measuring social variables, census data were invaluable to ranking social capital,
and would be useful for future studies in any U.S. city.
Though it may seem easier to place community gardens in neighborhoods that
already have a sense of community, overpopulated and impoverished neighborhoods of
urban centers should not be overlooked and are often in greatest need of the benefits. For
the overall betterment of the city, these social capital deserts must be nurtured and
resources should be distributed accordingly. Time will tell if the existing garden at 773
Lovers Lane will be successful, if there will cease to be theft because the community will
come together and step in, and if the garden will bring a safer feel to the neighborhood. In
the mean time, it is not sitting unused or overgrown—it is a well-cared for garden, and it
is serving a purpose.
54
References
Akron Host Lions Club. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.e-clubhouse.org/sites/
akronhost/
Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications
for health promotion and community development. Health and Place, 6, 319-327.
Bailkey, M., & Nasr, J. (1999). From brownfields to greenfields: Producing food in North
American cities. Community Food Security News.
Breger, G. E. (1967). The concept and causes of urban blight. Land Economics, 43(4),
369-376.
Brown, K. H., & Carter, A. (2002). Urban agriculture and community food security in the
United States: Farming from the city center to the urban fringe. Venice, CA:
Community Food Security Coalition.
City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development. (2005). City of Seattle
Comprehensive Plan, UV-A5.
Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, College of Architecture and Environmental
Design Kent State University. (2008). Re-imaging a more sustainable cleveland
study: Citywide strategies for reuse of vacant land. Cleveland, OH: CUDC.
Deelstra, T., & Girardet, H. (1999). Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Cities. Growing
Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda: A Reader on
Urban Agriculture. Resource Center on Urban Agriculture and Forestry.
DeKimpe, C. R., & Morel, J.L. (2000). Urban soil management: A growing concern. Soil
Science, 165, 31-40.
Democratic Party of Summit County. (2012). Democratic Clubs. Retrieved from http://
summitdems.org/index.php?page=display&id=116#1
Downtown Akron Partnership. (2012). Downtown Akron Destinations. http://
www.downtownakron.com/enjoy/destinations
55
Esri (2010a). USA median household income, 2010 Census Summary File 1–Ohio [Data
file]. Retrieved from http://www.arcgis.com/
Esri (2010b). USA population density, 2010 Census Summary File 1–Ohio [Data file].
Retrieved from http://www.arcgis.com/
Esri (2010c). USA unemployment rate, 2010 Census Summary File 1–Ohio [Data file].
Retrieved from http://www.arcgis.com/
Esri & United States Geological Survey. (2010). USA churches [Data file]. Retrieved
from http://www.arcgis.com/
Fukuyama, F. (2000). Social capital and civil society (International Monetary Fund
Working Paper 74). Retrieved from http://xbzhu.cn/jlq/UpFile/UpAttachment/
2010-3/201031044010.pdf
Golf Link. (2012). Akron, OH Golf Courses. Retrieved from http://www.golflink.com/
golf-courses/city.aspx?dest=akron+oh
Google Maps. (2012a). [Bowling, Akron, Ohio] [Street map]. Retrieved from http://
maps.google.com/
Google Maps. (2012b). [Fitness, Akron, Ohio] [Street map]. Retrieved from http://
maps.google.com/
Google Maps. (2012c). [Gym, Akron, Ohio] [Street map]. Retrieved from http://
maps.google.com/
Google Maps. (2012d). [Synagogue, Akron, Ohio] [Street map]. Retrieved from http://
maps.google.com/
The Grand Lodge of Ohio. (2012). Lodges in District 21. Retrieved from http://
www.freemason.com/lodge-locator/326-district-21.html
Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. (2002a). The Role of Social Capital in Development:
An Empirical Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. (2002b). Understanding and measuring social capital:
A multidisciplinary tool for practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank
Publications.
56
Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 67, 130-138.
Heimlich, R., & Barnard, C. (1992). Agricultural adaptation to urbanization: Farm types
in northeast metropolitan areas. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, 21(1), 50-60.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B.P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social capital,
income inequality and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87,
1491-1498.
Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community.
New Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior,
36(3), 313–340.
Kiwanis International. (2012). Kiwanis Akron meeting schedule. Retrieved from http://
akron.kiwanisone.org/public/pub_page.aspx?PageID=66130
Ledebur, L., & Taylor, J. (2008). A restoring prosperity case study: Akron, Ohio. The
Brookings Institution. Washington, DC.
Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B.P. (1999). Social capital: a guide to its
measurement. Health & Place, 5, 259-270.
Mohan, G., & Mohan, J. (2002). Placing social capital. Progress in Human Geography,
(26)2, 191–210.
Nord, M., & Andrews, M. (2002). Reducing food insecurity in the United States:
Assessing progress toward a national objective (Food Assistance and Nutrition
Research Report No. 26-2). Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research
Service.
Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2009). Household food security in the United
States, 2008. (Economic Research Report No. 83). Washington, DC: USDA,
Economic Research Service.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Brownfield Inventory Database
[Database]. Retrieved from http://www.derr.epa.ohio.gov/BrownfieldInventory/
Database.aspx
57
Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of the American
community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R.D. (2001). Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences. ISUMA -
Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41-51.
Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S.J., & Freshwater, D. (2006). The Production of Social Capital in
US Counties. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 83-101.
Schilling, J., & Logan, J. (2008). Greening the Rust Belt: A green infrastructure model for
right sizing America's shrinking cities. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 74(4), 451-466.
Soil Survey Staff. (2012). Soil_oh153Summit [Data file]. Retrieved from http://
soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/
State of Ohio Office of Information Technology, Ohio Geographically Referenced
Information Program. (2007). Summit County OSIP DEM (feet) [Data file].
Retrieved from http://metadataexplorer.gis.state.oh.us/metadataexplorer/
explorer.jsp
Summit County Fiscal Office. (2011). Parcels [Data file]. Retrieved from http://
fiscaloffice.summitoh.net/index.php/documents-a-forms/viewcategory/68
Summit County Republican Party. (2012). Retrieved from http://
www.summitcountygop.org/republicans/
Townsend, M. (2006). ‘Dig in’ to Social Capital: Community Gardens as Mechanisms for
growing Urban Social Connectedness. Urban Policy and Research, 24(4),
525-537.
The University of Akron. (1999). The University of Akron’s Master Plan: A New
Landscape for Learning. Akron Magazine, 13(2), 17.
58
Vey, J. (2007). Restoring prosperity: The state role in revitalizing American’ s older
industrial cities. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing Urban
Health: Community Gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion
International, 22(2), 92-101.
Wheat, F., & Kleinhenz, D. (2012). Land Marketing. Retrieved from http://
akronohio.gov/planning/devserv/landmarketing.htm
YMCA. (2012). Branch locations. Retrieved from http://www.akronymca.org/
York, S. (2010, April 6). City again provides sites for community gardeners: Akron grows
offers 100 lots. City of Akron News Releases. Retrieved from http://
www.ci.akron.oh.us/news_releases/Display.asp?RecNum=129
59

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Site location suitability analysis for a smart grid network

PDF

A site suitability analysis for an inland port to service the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

PDF

Investigating bus route walkability: comparative case study in Orange County, California

PDF

Finding food deserts: a study of food access measures in the Phoenix-Mesa urban area

PDF

Mapping firing ranges as social capital generators in Houston, Texas

PDF

Relocation bay: identifying a suitable site for the Tampa Bay Rays

PDF

Spatial analysis of urban built environments and vehicle transit behavior

PDF

Identifying suitable sites for sheltering outside in Long Beach, California

PDF

Selection of bridge location over the Merrimack River in southern New Hampshire: a comparison of site suitability assessments

PDF

Installing public electric vehicle charging stations: a site suitability analysis in Los Angeles County, California

PDF

Site suitability analysis: small-scale fixed axis ground mounted photovoltaic power plants in Fresno, CA

PDF

Population disaggregation for trade area delineation in retail real estate site analysis

PDF

Surface representations of rainfall at small extents: a study of rainfall mapping based on volunteered geographic information in Kona, Hawaii

PDF

Locating the need for financial education

PDF

Scenario-based site suitability analysis and framework for biodiversity conservation: agricultural zone, Galapagos Archipelago, Ecuador

PDF

Redefining urban food systems to identify optimal rooftop community garden locations: a site suitability analysis in Seattle, Washington

PDF

Onshore wind power systems (ONSWPS): a GIS-based tool for preliminary site-suitability analysis

PDF

Cartographic approaches to the visual exploration of violent crime patterns in space and time: a user performance based comparison of methods

PDF

Improving the communication of water allocation decisions using interactive maps

PDF

Visualizing historic space through the integration of geographic information science in secondary school curriculums: a comparison of static versus dynamic methods

Asset Metadata

Creator Oulton, Allison (author)

Core Title Community gardens for social capital: a site suitability analysis in Akron, Ohio

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Geographic Information Science and Technology

Publication Date 09/18/2012

Defense Date 08/30/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Akron,Community gardens,GIS,OAI-PMH Harvest,Ohio,site suitability,social capital,urban gardens

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Vos, Robert O. (committee chair), Oda, Katsuhiko (Kirk) (committee member), Ruddell, Darren M. (committee member)

Creator Email allyoulton@gmail.com,oulton@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-97597

Unique identifier UC11289870

Identifier usctheses-c3-97597 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OultonAlli-1205.pdf

Dmrecord 97597

Document Type Thesis

Rights Oulton, Allison

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA