Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
En vedette
En vedette (10)
Similaire à Food final6
Similaire à Food final6 (9)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Food final6
- 1. Seattle Food System Enhancement Project Program on the Environment Certificate in Environmental Management Keystone Project Project Team: Rich Cook, Dan Morgan, Heidi Radenovic, & Stephanie Renzi
- 2. Community Partner City of Seattle Food Policy Interdepartmental Team (IDT) – Department of Neighborhoods – Planning and Development – Human Services – Office of Sustainability and the Environment – Seattle Public Utilities – Seattle King County Public Health
- 3. 2005-2006 Project Phase 1 - Phase 2 - Phase 3 – Characterize the Validate and Findings and local food system City roles Recommendations The 2005-2006 Food System Enhancement Project and the Mayor’s Climate Action Plan prompted the City to ask additional questions about the local food system. The 2006-2007 Food System Enhancement Project is thus designed to: 1) Understand residents’ experience of the food system in specific neighborhoods 2) Investigate the relationship between the food system and climate change. 2006-2007 Project Neighborhood Food Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
- 4. Neighborhood Food System Assessment Project Team: Rich Cook, Dan Morgan, Heidi Radenovic, & Stephanie Renzi
- 5. What is a Food System? The food system includes all processes involved in keeping us fed: • Production • Processing • Distribution • Access/Consumption • Disposal/Recycling
- 6. USDA CFA Components 1. Profile of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics 2. Profile of food resources 3. Assessment of household food security 4. Assessment of food resource accessibility 3. Assessment of food availability and affordability 4. Assessment of food production resources
- 7. USDA CFA Components 1. Profile of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics 2. Profile of food resources 3. Assessment of household food security 4. Assessment of food resource accessibility • Assessment of food availability and affordability • Assessment of food production resources
- 8. USDA CFA Components 1. Profile of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics 2. Profile of food resources 3. Assessment of household food security 4. Assessment of food resource accessibility • Assessment of food availability and affordability • Assessment of food production resources Focus Groups
- 9. Neighborhood Selection FIRST HILL SOUTH BEACON HILL
- 11. Neighborhood Food System Assessment: Findings and Recommendations Project Team: Rich Cook, Dan Morgan, Heidi Radenovic, & Stephanie Renzi
- 12. Findings Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics FIRST HILL SOUTH BEACON HILL 17% 26% 74% 83% below poverty level below poverty level above poverty level above poverty level Poverty Rate
- 13. Findings Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics FIRST HILL SOUTH BEACON HILL 13% 10 12 11% 24% 17% 62% white 51% white black black asian asian other other Race
- 14. Findings Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics FIRST HILL SOUTH BEACON HILL 2% 1% 5% 20% 17% 45% 30% 80% walk drive public transportation other walk drive public transportation other Commute to Work
- 15. Findings Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics FIRST HILL SOUTH BEACON HILL 30% 31% FIRST HILL FIRST HILL 69% 70% 18 and under 65 and above 18 and under 65 and above Age
- 16. Findings Neighborhood Food Resources FIRST HILL SOUTH BEACON HILL BUS ROUTES BUS ROUTES P-PATCHES P-PATCHES 0 10 20 30 40 0 50 10 20 3 FARMERS' MARKETS FARMERS' MARKETS FOOD BANKS FOOD BANKS 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 EATING PLACES EATING PLACES FOOD RETAIL FOOD RETAIL 0 10 20 30 40 0 50 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 0 50 10 20 30 0 10 20 0 30 1040 2050
- 17. Findings Food Focus Groups ACCESS AFFORDABILITY AVAILABILITY QUALITY FOOD SECURITY
- 18. Findings Food Focus Groups ACCESS AFFORDABILITY I would like to shop at WholeFoods for AVAILABILITY expensive… organic food, but it’s too far and QUALITY FOOD SECURITY
- 19. Findings Food Focus Groups ACCESS AFFORDABILITY AVAILABILITY QUALITY When my food stamps run out, FOOD SECURITY I buy cheaper, less desirable food
- 20. Findings Food Focus Groups Traffic, parking, and crowds detract ACCESS from shopping on weekends residents’ AFFORDABILITY AVAILABILITY QUALITY FOOD SECURITY
- 21. Recommendations • Increase availability of food locations • Improve access to locally produced food • Support education programs around food and nutrition • Bring awareness to residents
- 22. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Project Team: Rich Cook, Dan Morgan, Heidi Radenovic, & Stephanie Renzi
- 23. Project Goals 2. Quantify connection between GHG emissions and Seattle’s food system 3. Identify opportunities to lower GHG emissions …via a Life Cycle Analysis
- 24. Comparing local and imported food • Apple, Asparagus, Potato, Salmon • Two plates: Washington State vs. Imported • Cultivate, harvest and deliver food to Seattle
- 25. Findings 1. Local plate of food emits 33% less GHGs 2. Fuel use at the farm/boat is the biggest source 3. Salmon dominates the emissions for each plate 4. Each food item tells a slightly different story
- 26. Findings: 1. Local plate of food emits 33% less GHGs Total Global Warming Potential for Each Plate 4,000 3,086 Grams of CO2 equivalent 3,000 2,091 2,000 Local Imported 1,000 0 1
- 27. Findings: 2. Fuel use at the farm/boat is the biggest source Global Warming Potential for Each Plate by Emission Category 2,841 3000 2500 2,027 Grams of CO2 Equivalent 2000 1500 Local 1000 Imported 500 213 27 31 37 0 Chemical Fuel Used at Fuel Used in Production Farm/Boat Transportation
- 28. Findings: 3. Salmon dominates the emissions for each plate Global Warming Potential for Each Item 2,927 3000 Grams of CO2 Equivalent 2500 2,013 2000 1500 Local Imported 1000 500 33 70 29 49 16 40 0 Apple Asparagus Potato Salmon
- 29. Findings: 4. Each food item tells a slightly different story Global Warming Potential for Fruits and Vegetables Only 98 100 Grams of CO2 Equivalent 80 60 33 Local 40 27 31 30 Imported 18 20 0 Chemical Fuel Used at Fuel Used in Production Farm Transportation
- 30. Recommendations 1. Promote local food 2. Educate about the environmental benefits of local food 3. Examine how people get their food
- 31. Acknowledgements Special thanks to: Faculty Mentor: Branden Born, PhD, Urban Design and Planning City of Seattle: Laura Raymond, Department of Neighborhoods Food Policy IDT Members Pam Emerson, Office of Sustainability and the Environment Community Partners: Joyce Cooper, University of Washington Horizon House, First Hill Neighborhood House, First Hill and New Holly Co Lam Pagoda, South Beacon Hill First Hill Improvement Association Yesler Terrace Community Council South Beacon Hill Community Council Tammy Morales, Seattle Food Policy Council Graciela Gonzales, El Centro de la Raza
- 32. Questions Project Team: Rich Cook, Dan Morgan, Heidi Radenovic, & Stephanie Renzi
- 33. Focus Group Methodology Thematic Coding: A methodology for transforming qualitative information by way of thematic analysis and code development. Codes Defined: • Availability • Quality • Affordability • Access • Food Security • Other
- 34. What is a Community Food Assessment? An approach to assessing community food security… so that,“community residents can obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes self-reliance, social justice and democratic decision-making” (Winne, 1997).
Notes de l'éditeur
- The first two components involve gathering secondary data
- The last four are a proxy for community doing its own assessment of food resources - Participant Action Research
- In multiple conversations with the IDT, we decided two underserved neighborhoods would be most useful to them. The City has already defined community reporting areas based on census tracts.
- In multiple conversations with the IDT, we decided two underserved neighborhoods would be most useful to them. The City has already defined community reporting areas based on census tracts.
- All these indicators are highly associated with food security.
- All these indicators are highly associated with food security.
- All these indicators are highly associated with food security.
- All these indicators are highly associated with food security.
- Thank you Heidi. I’m going to talk about the Greenhouse Gas study and how we looked at the impact of bringing food into the city.
- The reason for carrying out this study is to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of specific food items that are typical of the Northwest. It is often asserted that buying locally produced food must create fewer GHG emissions, but few studies have been done in the United States to directly quantify this relationship. This study is specific to Seattle and allows us to quantify the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the food system here and identify opportunities to lower emissions To do this we are going to use a tool called a Life Cycle Analysis. A Life Cycle Analysis Internationally standardized method of studying the environmental impacts throughout a product’s life, taking a cradle-to-grave approach.
- To accomplish this, we are going to compare the greenhouse gas impact of locally produced and imported food. We will compare two plates of food made up of items that are easily available in Washington: an apple, asparagus, potato, and salmon. One of these plates will be made up of items that are grown in Washington State, and the other plate will be all imported items: the apple is from New Zealand, the asparagus is from Peru, the potato is from Idaho, and the salmon is Norwegian farmed salmon. The scope of this study is to examine all of the impacts from cultivating and harvesting the food (so looking at all of the fertilizers, herbicides, etc applied and all of the fuel used to run farm equipment, like diesel fuel in a tractor) and then transport the food to Seattle to the point-of-sale. There are a few things that are not within the scope of this study and these are things like making the buildings to store and package the food, or building the roads for trucks to travel on.
- The main findings from this study are listed below. The first is that the local plate emits about 1/3 as many greenhouse gases as does the imported plate, so locally produced food does have less of a greenhouse gas impact. The second is that the largest source of emissions of these plates is from burning fuel at the farm or on the boat. This comes from burning fuel to run the tractors and the boats. Third, for each plate, the salmon represents over 90% of the total emissions, so it is by far the dominant source of emissions. So, as number four says, it’s important to examine each of the four items because they each tell a different story.
- Let’s look at these findings in a little more detail. First, the local plate emits about 2100 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents and the imported plate emits about 3100 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents. For a comparison, burning one gallon of gasoline in a passenger car emits just over 9,000 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents, so we can say that the local plate emits about as many greenhouse gases as burning a quarter of a gallon of gas, and the imported plate is like burning a third of a gallon of gas. So, the environmental impact of these plates is equivalent to driving a passenger car a few miles.
- If we look at the sources of emissions for these plates, we can see that producing the chemicals like the fertilizers and herbicides is a very small amount of the total emissions, and the fuel used to transport the food to Seattle is a little bit larger. The largest source of the emissions from these plates is clearly burning fuel in the tractors at the farm and on the fishing boats.
- However, it’s important to note that the salmon fishing is the dominant source of all of the emissions for the plate. The fruits and vegetables all emit less than 50 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents, but the salmon are emitting 2 to 3 thousand grams. So, it is important for us to take a closer look at the emissions.