Citation
The Multifunctional Agricultural Park: Assessing the suitability of golf courses as sites for publicly-owned multifunctional agricultural parks and visioning conversion possibilities and relationships

Material Information

Title:
The Multifunctional Agricultural Park: Assessing the suitability of golf courses as sites for publicly-owned multifunctional agricultural parks and visioning conversion possibilities and relationships
Creator:
Kovachich, Sara
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
Project in lieu of thesis

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of Landscape Architecture)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Committee Chair:
Williams, Sara Katherine
Committee Co-Chair:
Acomb, Glenn
Committee Members:
Hanse de Chapman, Gail Marie

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture ( jstor )
Cities ( jstor )
Crops ( jstor )
Farms ( jstor )
Golf ( jstor )
Golf courses ( jstor )
Pesticides ( jstor )
Ponds ( jstor )
Stormwater ( jstor )
Urban agriculture ( jstor )

Notes

Abstract:
Due to a declining interest and the oversaturation of the market, both public and private golf courses have been struggling to attract users. Some courses continue to operate with financial losses, yet owners, both private and public, are considering re-purposing the land. Private courses are commonly converted to residential or commercial developments, but declining publicly-owned golf courses could be converted into new uses that can better serve the needs of the public. Publicly-owned golf courses have been converted to nature preserves, community parks, and green cemeteries, among other options. While golf courses have been declining, an interest in localized food production or urban agriculture in urban areas has been on the rise. Community gardens and urban farms have proven to provide a great deal of benefits to the urban community including access to healthy food, opportunities to socialize, educational programs, environmental services, jobs, and cost savings. While urban agriculture provides numerous benefits to the urban community, large scale production systems have been off limits due to the constraints of land size and the absence of urban agriculture in the planning of public spaces. Proponents of urban agriculture advocate the possibility of adding new uses in addition to food production to urban agricultural sites. Researchers propose coupling environmental services, green energy, recreation, and education with food production to increase the multifunctionality of urban agriculture. At the same time as urban agriculture has been on the rise, new trends in park and recreation planning have emerged. Today’s parks are working to address public agenda issues of youth development and education, health, and stormwater management. Considering the benefits of urban agriculture, components of urban agriculture can contribute to continuing these new park objectives. This project proposes the re-purposing of a golf course into a multifunctional agricultural park with agricultural production elements, recreational amenities, and environmental services and seeks to identify how to link the varied program elements to the golf course landscape. ( , )
Abstract:
In the end, this project serves to inform designers, planners, and public officials of the possibility of converting underused publicly-owned golf courses into multifunctional agricultural parks that offer food, recreation, education, and environmental benefits.
General Note:
Landscape Architecture terminal project

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Sara Kovachich. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE MULTIFUNCTIONAL AGRICULTURAL PARK: Assessing the suitability of golf courses as sites for publicly owned multifunctional agricultural parks and visioning conversion possibilities and relationships By: Sara Kovachich A Graduate Terminal Project to the Department of Landscape Architecture University of Florida as a Partial Requirement for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture 2015 Committee Chair: Sara Katherine “Kay” Williams Committee Co Chair: Glenn Acomb Committee Member: Gail Hansen de Chapman University of Florida College of Design, Construction, and Planning

PAGE 2

2 Dedication To my “Papa” who shared his love for nature and the peace he found in his garden with me

PAGE 3

3 Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the support, generosity, and love from my family, friends, and mentors . Thank you, Granny, for your love, continued support, a dvice , and counseling over all the years . And to my Mom, I can’t thank you enough for your loving and sweet spirit to keep me going. And also to my Dad, thank you for always being there for me and helping whenever I needed it. To all my classmates, thank you for your kind and th oughtful words of encouragement, brainstorming sessions , and fun times of silliness and lau ghter . You have made these past couple of years a trul y unforgettable experience. I owe a special thank you to my classmate and roommate, Christie , for her continued interest in my project and patience to listen. And also, to Jason, whose love, support, an d compassion I am truly grateful for. I am extremely grateful for the guidance of my committee members, Gail, Glenn, and Kay who challenged and guided me and shared their passion and expertise with me. And lastly, I would like to thank my professors a nd mentors who guided me and shared their knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

PAGE 4

4 Table of Contents Dedication ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledge ments ....................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 2: Sustainability + Urban Agriculture ............................................................................................ 13 Chapter 3: Defining Urban Agriculture and Identifying Trends .................................................................. 19 Chapter 4: Future Park Demands and Trends ............................................................................................. 31 Chapter 5: Golf Course Decline and Conversion Examples ........................................................................ 37 Chapter 6: Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 51 Chapter 7: Identifying Opportunities and Constraints of Golf Courses ...................................................... 54 Chapter 8: Case studies of urban farms ...................................................................................................... 68 Chapter 9: Considerations for Siting Agricultural Elements ....................................................................... 79 Chapter 10: The Matrix, Discuss ion, and Illustrations ................................................................................ 84 Chapter 11: Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 118 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 121 Appendix A: Approximate sizes and Recommendations for Program Elements ...................................... 129 Appendix B: Image Sources for Chapter 10 .............................................................................................. 133

PAGE 5

5 List of Figur es Figure 1: Research Strategy (Adapted from L. Groat and D. Wang. (2002). Architectural Research Methods . New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.) .................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Research Questions and Process ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3: The concentric sustainability framework ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 4: The three land uses for a sustainable community (Source: House 2009, p. 285) ....................... 14 Figure 5: Business as Usual vs. the Sustainable Community ...................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Various scales of urban agriculture along the transect (Source: Duany, Garden Cities: Theory and Practice of Agrarian Urbanism, 56) ...................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7: Urban Agriculture's Three Main Typologies: Multifunctional, Subsistence Oriented, and Market Oriented ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 8: Landforms in adventure playgrounds (Image Source: Moore 2014, 91) ..................................... 32 Figure 9: Loose parts in an adventure playground: .................................................................................... 33 Figure 10: The Waterfall at Cascades Park ................................................................................................. 35 Figure 11: 18hole golf course closings ....................................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: Declining numbers of rounds played: 2001 2013 ...................................................................... 38 Figure 13: Activities replacing golf .............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 14: The halflife and Koc values of pesticides .................................................................................. 56 Figure 15: Rainfall and soil conditions' effects on the mobility and persistence of pesticides .................. 57 Figure 16: Phytoremediation methods: volatilization, degradation, stabilization, and extraction (Source: urbanomnibus.com) .................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 17: Subsurface drainage of the greens ........................................................................................... 65 Figure 18: Axonometric view of Viet Village Farm ...................................................................................... 69 Figure 19: Plan view of Viet Village Farm .................................................................................................... 69 Figure 20: Plan view of Riverview Gardens ................................................................................................. 72 Figure 21: Plan view graphic of Prairie Crossing Farm ................................................................................ 75 Figure 22: Aerial view of Prairie Crossing Farm .......................................................................................... 76 Figure 23: Chinampas .................................................................................................................................. 80 Figure 24: Hortillonnages ............................................................................................................................ 81 Figure 25: The Prescription Guide .............................................................................................................. 83 Figure 26: The Matrix .................................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 27: Matrix Reference for the greens and tees ................................................................................. 86 Figure 28: Greens and Tees on the golf course .......................................................................................... 86 Figure 29: Raised Beds ................................................................................................................................ 86 Figure 30: Vertical growing systems ........................................................................................................... 87 Figure 31: Greenhouse example ................................................................................................................. 87 Figure 32: Chicken coop .............................................................................................................................. 88 Figure 33: Westmill Solar Park .................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 34: Community scale wind turbine .................................................................................................. 89 Figure 35: Outdoor classroom .................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 36: Bocce Ball ................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 37: Matrix Reference for Fairways ................................................................................................... 92 Figure 38: Fairways in the Golf Course ....................................................................................................... 92 Figure 39: Inground vegetable production ................................................................................................ 92 Figure 40: Best Management Practices (BMPs) .......................................................................................... 93 Figure 41: Composting Systems .................................................................................................................. 94

PAGE 6

6 Figure 42: Market spaces ............................................................................................................................ 95 Figure 43: Food truck rally .......................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 44: Stage ........................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 45: Adventure Playground ............................................................................................................... 96 Figure 46: Matrix reference for the rough .................................................................................................. 97 Figure 47: The Rough in the golf course ..................................................................................................... 97 Figure 48: Fruit Production ......................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 49: Bee production and goats .......................................................................................................... 98 Figure 50: Wi ldflower Meadow .................................................................................................................. 99 Figure 51: Bioswale ..................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 52: Trails ......................................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 53: Matrix reference for tree breaks ............................................................................................. 101 Figure 54: Tree breaks in the golf course .................................................................................................. 101 Figure 55: Silvopasture .............................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 56: Pine Rockland ........................................................................................................................... 1 02 Figure 57: Municipalscale composting .................................................................................................... 103 Figure 58: Shade from Pine Trees ............................................................................................................. 103 Figure 59: Matrix reference for sand bunkers .......................................................................................... 104 Figure 60: Sand bunkers in the golf course ............................................................................................... 104 Figure 61: Sand playground ...................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 62: Matrix reference for the water hazards .................................................................................. 106 Figure 63: Water Hazards in the golf course ............................................................................................. 106 Figure 64: Tilapia pond .............................................................................................................................. 106 Figure 65: Terraced bioretention .............................................................................................................. 107 Figure 66: Wading bird .............................................................................................................................. 108 Figure 67: Broadwalk over wetland .......................................................................................................... 108 Figure 68: Matrix reference for Entrance + Clubhouse ............................................................................ 109 Figure 69: Various details of the smallscale vegetable garden ............................................................... 109 Figure 70: Petting zoo ............................................................................................................................... 110 Figure 71: Cascades Park Waterfall ........................................................................................................... 110 Figure 72: Meditation Garden .................................................................................................................. 111 Figure 73 : Outdoor Kitchen ....................................................................................................................... 111 Figure 74 : Play structures in the garden ................................................................................................... 111 Figure 7 5: Amphitheater ........................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 76: Play water feature with loose parts ......................................................................................... 112 Figure 77: Labyrinth with aromatic herbs ................................................................................................. 113 Figure 78: Trail Signage ............................................................................................................................. 113 Figure 79: The Continuum of Uses ............................................................................................................ 115 Figure 80: Typical Clubhouse and Entrance to the Golf Cou rse ............................................................... 115 Figure 81: Potential Uses and Conceptual Relationships for a Repurposed Tree Break + Fairwa ys ........ 116 Figure 82: Typical existing stormwater ponds .......................................................................................... 117 Figure 83: Staged Stormwater Treatment ................................................................................................ 117

PAGE 7

7 Abstract Due to a declining interest and the oversaturation of the market, both public and private golf courses have been struggling to attract users. Some courses continue to operate with financial losses, yet owners, both private and public, are considering re purposing the land. Private courses are commonly converted to residential or commercial developments, but declining publicly owned golf courses could be converted into n ew uses that can better serve the needs of the public. Publicly owned golf courses have been converted to nature preserves, community parks, a nd green cemeteries, among other options. While golf courses have been declining, an interest in localized food production or urban agriculture in urban areas has been on the rise. Community gardens and urban farms have proven to provide a great deal of be nefits to the urban community including access to healthy food, opportunities to socialize, educational programs, environmental services , jobs, and cost savings. While urban agriculture provides numerous benefits to the urban community, large scale production systems have been off limits due to the constraints of land size and the absence of urban agriculture in the planning of public spaces. Proponents of urban agriculture advocate the possibility of adding new uses in addition to food production to urban agricultural sites. Researchers propose coupling environmental services, green energy, recreation, and education with food production to increase the multifunctionality of urban agriculture. At the same time as urban agriculture has been on the rise, new t rends in park and recreation planning have emerged. Today’s parks are working to address public agenda issues of youth development and education, health, and stormwater management. Considering the benefits of urban agriculture, components of urban agricult ure can contribute to continuing these new park objectives. This project proposes the re purposing of a golf course into a multifunctional agricultural park with agricultural production elements, recreational amenities, and environmental services and seeks to identify how to link the varied program elements to the golf course landscape. This project serves to provide a starting point for the conversion of golf courses to multifunctional agricultural parks in three ways. First, project seeks to address the environmental suitability of the golf course for agricultural production through an extensive review of scientific literature. Secondly, elements of urban farms suitable for the scale of the golf course landscape are identified through case studies. Lastl y, by combining the suitability conclusions and the case study results, a matrix is created to link the two findings, and a subsequent discussion details the opportunities of the golf courses with various elements of urban agriculture. Various agricultural, recreational, and environmental uses and relationships are identified in the discussion and explained via illustrations . Along with this methodology, a thorough literature review of sustainability and agriculture, design and planning trends of urban agriculture, and park planning and design explains and highlights the inspiration and reasoning for this project. In the end, this project serves to inform designers, planner s , and public officials of the possibility of converting underused publicly owned gol f courses into multifunctional agricultural parks that offer food, recreation, educati on, and environmental benefits.

PAGE 8

8 Chapter 1: I ntroduction 1.1 :: Research Strategy This project seeks to discover and understand the process of converting golf courses to m ultifunctional agricultural parks that would be layered with elements of agriculture, environmental services + green energy, and community building + recreational events and activities . In ord er to understand how to foster such change, this project employs a mission oriented or action research technique to reach the final goals of developing practical results and setting change in motion. The methodology is comprised of case studies and thematic content analysis to produce des criptive suggestions to illustr ate and discuss the possibility of converting golf courses to multifunctional agricultural parks. The research strategy described is illustrated below; the strategy is adapted from Groat and Wang’s Architectural Research Strategies: Ontological, Epistemolo gical and Methodological Orientations (2002) and was based upon the work of Robert Johnson. Research Goal The goal is to un derstand the process of converting golf courses to multifunctional parks and set change in motion Methodological Orientation To accomplish the goal, case studies and thematic content analysis are employed to identify areas of concern, trends, and opport unities. Research Design Approach The research design utilizes descriptive orientation to influence outcome and empower change. Data Analysis Findings from the case studies and thematic content analysis are discussed in a descriptive/qualitative analys is Research Report The final report provides a holistic perspective of considerations for pragmatic applications. Figure 1 : Research Strategy ( Adapted from L. Groat and D. Wang. (2002). Architectural Research Methods . New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.)

PAGE 9

9 1.2 :: Research Questions The action based research strategy employs literature review , case studies, and thematic analysis to investigate possibilitie s, link information, and analyze the potential for conversion to reach the end goal of developing an action plan for the golf course to multifunctional agricultural park retrofit . Three areas of inquiry are investigated to identify current conditions, tren ds , and possibilities and provide the foundation for the thematic analysis and discussion of retrofit potential. The three areas of inquiry have been addressed to assist in answering the overarching question, “Can golf courses be retrofitted into multifunc tional agricultural parks?” More specifically, t he three areas of inquiry provide a comprehensive assessment of opportunities and constraints of the golf course landscape, identify a palette of suitable program elements for the multifunctional park, and la stly link the opportunities and constraints to the program elements. The three areas of inquiry , presented as questions, and a brief summary of their methodological approaches are presented below. Question 1 :: What are the constraints and opportunities of the existing conditions of the generalized golf course landscape with respect to the possibility of conversion to agricultural production? This question serves to identify the overall suitability and safety of the golf course landscape for conversion t o agricultural production. While the project intends to analyze the possibilities for a multifunctional agricultural park as the end goal, this first question provides the valuable foundation of first assessing the suitability for conversion to agricultur al production. C onstraints to conversion are identified as 1) the risk of exposure to existing contaminants from residual pesticide application and 2) the risk of exposure to contaminants in r eclaimed water. As further described in the methodology chapter , scientific literature is reviewed to assess the risk of contamination. Secondly, the opportunities for conversion are provided by reviewing the various landscape types of the golf course. The features of the various landscapes (tees, greens, fairway, the rough, tree breaks, water hazards, and the clubhouse) are identified , and opportunities for conversion to agricultural production are highlighted. The information provided here was pr imarily gathered from Blake Con ant’s 2013 thesis, Bankrupt Golf Courses: An Historical Review and Options for Repurposing, from UGA’s MLA program. Question 2 :: What “program elements” exist on urban farms of varying acreage that contribute to agricultural production, community building + recreation, and environmental servic es + green energy ? To address this second question, case studies of existing multifunctional urban farms are generated to identify a palette of suitable elements for the golf course to multifunctional agricultural park retrofit. E xisting multifunctional urban farms of acreage comparable to that of golf courses are identified. Prairie Crossing (100 acres), Riverview Gardens (76 acres), and Viet

PAGE 10

10 Village Farm (25 acres) will be used for the case studies. The case studies will identify specific details of the urban farms: location, owner, date completed, and a comprehensive list of the agricultural techniques, environmental services + green energy elements , and community building + recreational events and activities. It is assumed that a golf course to multifu nctional agricultural park retrofit would benefit from considering similar components that comprise the three case studies. Question 3 :: What environmental conditions must first be considered when siting agricultural production elements and secondly, what possibilities of retrofit and relationships among program elements can be envisioned by linking the opportunities of the golf course landscape with the identified program elements of the multifunctional farms? Question 3 seeks to link the opportunitie s of the golf course landscapes (Question 1) with the identified palette of suitable multifunctional program elements (Question 2). First, a review of significant literature b y urban agricultural authors , Timothy Beatley, April Phillips and Jac Smit , is pr esented to identify the existing suggestions when siting agricultural elements in systems of urban agricultural production. After reviewing the literature, a prescription guide is generated to link agricultural elements identified in the case studies and a ny additional production techniques identified by the three authors to various site conditions. Following this section, a matrix is presented to link the multifunctional program elements with the various golf course landscapes (tees, greens, fairway, the rough, tree breaks, water hazards, and the clubhouse) . Each relationship between program element and golf course landscape is identified as suitable, varies , and un suitable in the matrix. Following the matrix, a discussion follows to comprehensively ident ify the reasoning behind the assessment and provide ideas and images to illustrate the range of conversion opportunities. At the end, illustrations are produced to communicate suitable relationships among elements for consideration and use by those conside ring a golf course to multifunctional agricultural park retrofit. 1.3 :: Project Purpose The purpose of this research is to communicate to designers, planners, and those in public office the opportunities of converting golf courses to multifunctional p arks. Publicly owned golf courses are identified as highly suitable golf courses for conversion as hundreds of thousands of public funds are needed to upkeep the grounds each year and records indicate a decrease in golf course attendance. The purpose of the proposed golf course to multifunctional agricultural park retrofit is to serve all community members and contribute to sustainable urban development. This project serves to provide an assessment of the general suitability of the golf course landscape as a site for a multifunctional agricultural park and highlight possibilities of conversion as a starting point to enact change. The specific programming and design of each golf course to multifunctional agricultural park retrofit will vary based upon existi ng conditions, contextual analysis, and community needs and desires, yet this project serves to provide the foundation for such consideration.

PAGE 11

11 1.4 :: Project Specifics and Delimitations This project seeks to identify the opportunities and constraints of the generalized golf course landscape to communicate to a bro ad audience across the nation the possibility of converting golf courses to multifunctional agricultural parks . While this project intends to provide information to a wide audience, special atten tion to trends in golf course decline and environmental conditions is provided for Florida. The research provided here serves as a foundation to begin considering retrofitting golf courses to multifunctional agricultural parks. The project does not addres s the eco nomic feasibility of conversion or conceptual phasing of conversion, outline the necessary process of contextual analysis (l and use, policy, etc.), or identify avenues of eliciting community response. Each of these identified areas were not specifically addressed in this project as each potential golf course conversion will experie nce a r ange of economic conditions, political constraints, and community needs and interests . 1.5 :: Research Process Diagram (See the following page )

PAGE 12

12 Figure 2 : Research Questions and Process

PAGE 13

13 Chapter 2 : Sustainability + Urban Agriculture 2.1 :: Introduction Our current means of producing food outside of the urban sphe re appears as a steadily functioning system as food is readily and consistently supplied to cities. Yet, as agriculture has been pushed to the edge, consumers have lost an awareness of the agricultural landscape and the consequences of industrialized agriculture . No longer do we actively participate or show concern for food or the agricultural landscape; the system replaces caring and engaged participants with blind consumers as food production and the consequences of industrialized and large scale agriculture have become mysteries . Our once strong agricultural heritage has succumbed to an industrialized system reliant on unsustainable practices. The environmental sustainability of this form of food supply is questioned as the system depends on long distances traveled fueled by fossil fuel reserves , the overuse and loss of soil, heavy fertilizer and pesticide use, the pollution of waterways by agricultural runoff, and the open loop nutrient cycle as food is consumed and then waste is shipped to the land fill. To begin this discussion, an understanding of sustainability and a sustainable relationship with food production is needed to more complet ely understand the pitfalls of our current mode of food production and seek an alternative. Secondly, urban agriculture and localized food production are proposed as options to ameliorate some of the consequences of far removed industrial agriculture. While localized food production and urban agriculture will not replace the industrialized system of agriculture, it serves as a thoughtful avenue for informed urban areas to provide a sustainable alternative. 2.2 :: Defining Sustainability Our Common Future , the report from the Bruntland Commission, introduced the now popular definition of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations to meet our own needs” (WCE D 1987, 43). Urban Sustainability: Reconnecting Space and Place, a compilation of contributions of Canadian urban planning and sustainability experts, offers a more targeted definition of urban sustainable development as “a process of reconciliation of thr ee imperatives : the ecological imperative to ensure global Figure 3 : The concentric sustainability framework The three imperatives sustainability: environmental, social, and eco nomic capital as seen as the top rings in this diagram are founded upon personal values that prioritize a safe, fair, and healthy world. (Source: Marco Tavanti, DePaul University)

PAGE 14

14 biophysical carrying capacity for the future, the social imperative to ensure the development of culturally sustainable systems of governance, and the economic imperative to ensure a viable standar d of living for all” . (Dale 2012, 4) As seen in Figure 3, reaching those three imperatives is an expression of underlying values of creating a safe, fair, clean, and healthy world for current citizens and future generations. The first attempts to discuss the meaning and scope of sustainability are embodied by the early efforts to gather stakeholders together, yet the currentday response to continue sustainability is more focused on addressing sustainability through concrete action that requires thoughtfu l consideration “about form and function, product and process” (Dale 2012, 6). Well designed and planned operations of urban agricul ture take into consideration all four factors to create sustainable systems that allow cities to consciously grow while con sidering the environment, society , and the economy . Through the encouragement of increased integration of agriculture within the city, urban areas c an develop more sustainability, and this project seeks to present a new form of urban agriculture through the conversion of golf courses to productive and multifunctional landscapes. 2.3 :: Sustainable Relationships with Food Production The proponents of urban agriculture identify the need for a sustainable and healthy relationship with our environment. Our current unsustainable food production system supported by heavy petroleum use, pesticide application, unfair treatment of workers, and other externalities is not immediately observed by the mainstream public. The incorporation of agriculture into urban are as serves to rebuild our connection back to the land to help us “recognize ourselves as working members within the web of life rather than separate or immune from biophysical processes” (House, 284). As an element of Euclidean zoning, agricultural producti on and urban communities were kept at a safe distance from each other. While this separation of land uses kept urbanites from the toils and smells of agriculture, a growing disconnection to the natural world and subsequent lack of stewardship resulted along with a lack of awareness concerning the environmental and social consequences of industrialized agriculture. Yet for sustainable communities to emerge, the three land uses need to be located at a reasonable distance from each other (Odum 1983; Vail 200 8). With the three land uses supporting each other, a sustaina ble community can prosper. (See Figure 4 ) Figure 4 : The three land uses for a sustainable community (Source: House 2009, p. 285)

PAGE 15

15 Howard Odum, a pioneer of ecosystem ecology along with his brother Eugene, recognized the need for sustainable communities to allocate significant areas of land for both natural and agricultural use (Odum, 1983). The graphic above proposed by Gar House in Retrofitting Suburban Landscapes with Sustainable Agroecosystems illustrates three land uses that comprise a sustainable community: natural ecosystems, local organic agriculture, and sustainable community. The natural ecosystems, woodlands, and riparian zones provide essential ecosystem services, the food production areas provides food for man and habitat and food for wildlife and lastly, the community area serves as the central hub for social enrichment, education, commerce, art, and medicine. As a principle of sustainable and biophilic design, looking to nature’s relationships and forms can provide valuable information. When looking for guidance conce rning the planning of communities, one can look to natural ecosystems as they exhibit sustainable relationships o f nutrient use and provide life supporting services. Our human created urban areas can become more like ecosystems if they try to mimic the pri nciples of ecosystem functioning and embrace ecosystem services including nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and flood control. Today urban areas reflect an unsustainable openloop system in which nutrients enter and are discharged as w astes, necessitating the endless need for new resources. As seen in Figure 5 , the diagram illustrates our current system or the “Business as Usual” model. This relationship does not support the nutrientcycling and re use of nutrients found in ecosystems . On the other hand, the sustainable community (right) illustrates the benefits of a closedloop system. Urban agriculture can support a closed loop system of nutrient cycling through the re use and transformation of organic wastes (Smit, 1996). Along with p roviding for the recycling of nutrients, localized food production supports the seven other components of a sustainable community. The following chapter discussing urban agriculture provides an assessment of the comprehensive social, environmental, and eco nomic benefits of localized food production.

PAGE 16

16 2.4 :: Sustainability and urban agriculture Urban agriculture is accepted as a means for urban areas to enhance the sustainability of their environmental, social, and economic networks. Allocating urban spac e for food production can greatly enhance the sustainability of urban areas as new markets are opened, more social opportunities are born, and increased access to fresh food is increased. As highlighted by Nick Weigeldt, a Canadian sustainability planner, the future security of food resources is perceived as “one of the single most important sustainability challenges and, as a basic need, stretches across all facets of sustainable development. By planning for and within local and urban community food systems, the three imperatives of sustainability may not only be met; they may be bridged and given a broader role that simply improving the individual aspects of urban life they affect.” (Weigeldt 2012, 165 166) As he suggests, localized food production can support all three pillars of sustainability (society, environment, and economy) as reconnecting food production to urban areas increases the city’s internal control of managing food resources and increasing food security while building new social and economic opportunities. 2.5 :: Past and present movements of planning for urban agriculture Over a century ago, Ebenezer Howard proposed building communities around 5000 acres of agricultural land in his work, Garden Cites of To Morrow . He praises the county fo r it is “all that we are and all that we have comes from it” (Howard 1898, 48) and proposes that A sustainable community exhibits the eight principles of minimized fossil fuel usage, maximized ecosystem support process, recycling, high internal control, high local production, high biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and high food security. Localized food production through urban agriculture supports ur ban areas with establishing these sustainable practices. (Source: House 2009, 289) Figure 5 : Business as Usual vs. the Sustainable Community

PAGE 17

17 “town and country must be married” for “a new hope, a new life, a new civilization” (Howard 1898, 48). His theoretical model has served as a design inspiration for the communities of Village Homes in Davis, Prairie Crossing outside Chicago, and Serenbe near Atlanta, among other settlements centered around a working farm. Some residents may actively participate in the food production, but a Community Supported Ag riculture (CSA) operation produces the crops for the community. Today, this deliberate planning of communities around agriculture continues through the efforts of urban agricultural and local food thinkers and planners. Today, current movements of Agrarian Urbanism (Duany) and Agricultural Urbanism (de la Salle and Holland) propose the integration of localized food production within the city through restructuring and redesigning of urban areas. Agrarian Urbanism adds to the concept of garden cities by i ntroducing settlements “where the society is involved with food in all its aspects: organizing, growing, processing, distributing, cooking, and eating it” (Duany 2011, 8). Sketches found in both Garden Cities: Theory and Practice of Agrarian Urbanism and Agricultural Urbanism illustrate the opportunities of layering agriculture in urban areas. Food production, sales, education, and celebration can take place on buildings in a rooftop garden or on balconies, in urban plazas as farmer’s markets and education al events, on streets as edible landscaping and markets, and in neighborhood parks as community gardens. These are just a few options of layering agriculture in cities and building a stronger connection to our food through every day activities. Each descri ption and graphic in the texts highlights the multifunctionality of urban agriculture as these productive places are more than places to grow food. They are also where people come to share experiences, learn, and build community capacity. Figure 6 : Various scales of urban agriculture along the transect (Source: Duany, Garden Cities: Theory and Practice of Agrarian Urbanism , 56)

PAGE 18

18 2.6 :: Parks as spaces for urban agriculture This project seeks to consider the current trends of urban agriculture in the public sphere and continue the current efforts by offering a new model. As already suggested by Canadian planners and urban agriculture enthusias ts in Agricultural Urbanism , Jan ine de la Salle and Mark Holland, pa rks provide immense opportunities for urban agriculture. De la Salle and Holland present a few elements of urban agriculture suitable for the park setting: community gardens, demonstration gardens and educational programs , farmer’s markets and festivals, areas for eating, restaurants and concessions, the edible landscape (orchards and other productive operations/operative farms), smallscale local food processing (i.e place to make cheese, bread, pies, jams, etc.), habitat, and stormwater management. These elements will vary based on location and community profile and needs, yet they provide a strong collection of elements suitable for the park landscape. This project will be considering the se elements as program elements for the converted golf course along with agricultural elements found through case studies of existing urban farms. 2.7 :: Summary As already introduced, t his project seeks to enhance the sustainable practices of cities by providing a design concept of a multifunctional park with e lements of urban agriculture. The public production of food in an urban setting will serve to increase the urban area’s capacity to provide food and resources locally (food security), recycle nutrients and provide ecosystem services , create new markets and jobs, and create new social opportunities through education, events, and activities.

PAGE 19

19 Chapter 3: Defining Urban Agriculture and Identifying Trends 3.1 :: Introduction With growin g interest in community gardens, urban farms, and other forms of localized food production and the capacity of urban agriculture to support sustainable urban development, urban agriculture was the inspiration for this project. To begin, urban agriculture w ill be defined along with the identification of typologies. Benefits are presented and urban agriculture’s contributions to urban sustainability, smart growth, and new urbanism are discussed. A call for a stronger incorporation of urban agriculture into urban planning is noted along with suggestions for sources of funding and planning initiatives. Finally, opportunities for the scaling up of urban agriculture and prospects of multifunctionality are addressed. This project builds on the concept of the multifunctionality and scaling up of urban agricultural sites by presenting the concept of layering localized food production with environmental services, green energy, recreation (trails, adventure playgrounds, event space, etc.) and education (interpretative s ignage, classroom space and buildings, etc.) uses. 3.2 :: Definition Urban agriculture takes root in urban areas in diverse forms from a small community garden with individually owned plots to a large, community driven or privately owned farm. Some autho rs refer to edible landscaping and smallscale production of food by a singular producer as urban agriculture, yet this project focuses on forms of UA with the capacity of benefiting the urban community as a whole. Various definitions exist to explain urba n agriculture, yet Mougeot’s (1999) definition of urban agriculture (UA) serves as an introduction and broad understanding of UA. He defines urban agriculture as: “an industry located within (intraurban) or on the fringe (peri urban) of a town, an urban c entre, a city or metropolis, which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and nonfood products, reusing mainly human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area". His description of UA as an industry highlights the integration of UA into the urban network rather than the production of food products for a singular household. Parallel to Mougeot ’s definition, the definition of urban agriculture from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations refers to this public integrated food production as community based urban agriculture that produces food and “other services as a sha red activity focused on building communities” (FAO 2007, p. 20). Continuing this notion of community based agriculture, Tom Lyson (1999) identifies local food production that fully involves the community through educational programs and farmto school ini tiatives, upholds environmentally sound practices of composting, and proves economically sound as "civic agriculture"(Feenstra, 101). This project intends to introduce a new concept of integrating civic agriculture into the urban community.

PAGE 20

20 3.3 :: Typo logies of Urban Agriculture In less developed countries where 80 percent of their population engages in urban food production, urban agriculture takes the form of subsistence agriculture, whereas in developed c ountries, urban agriculture serves other purpo ses of recreation, relaxation, socialization, and education along with production (Zezza an d Tascottiu, 2008)(FAO, 2007). As seen through history, urban agriculture has served as a means to meet nutritional needs in times of war and depressions as in the W WII victory gardens, has supplied food during import reductions as demonstrated by Cuba’s agglomeration of urban community gardens and farms, and today has served to revitalize urban and minority communities such as Detroit and New Orleans and serve the public good. Today, interest in localized food production is on the rise and can take various forms. Considering the modern forms of urban agricultur e, three main typologies exist: subsistence oriented urban agriculture, market oriented urban agriculture, a nd mul tifunctional urban agriculture ( de Zeeuw et al., 2011) . Under these typologies the physical form can range from community based gardens to large scale farms. Urba n agriculture’s three main typologies: subsistence, market or multifunctional meet different needs and provide various functions. All three target the Millennium Development Goals of sustainable development through their initiatives. (Source: Dubbeling and de Zeeuw, 2007) Figure 7 : Urban Agriculture's Three Main Typologies: Multifunctional, Subsistence Oriented, and Market Oriented

PAGE 21

21 The FAO defines community based gardens as a “large garden plot subdivided into several small plotsthey are located on city or community owned land or on grounds of schools, churches, community centers, food pantries and housing developments. They are either managed by members of the community (with production mainly for use by the members’ households) or by the institution involved (for feeding school children, hospital clients or prisoners, or for income generation).” (FAO, 2007, p. 19) Community gardens have been on the rise in cities such as Seattle, Portland, and Detroit as a response to community activism and grassroots organization for access to fresh and affordable food, job creation, and education. On the larger scale of urban agriculture, urban farms produce more goods and revenue compared to community gardens. These urban farms can be municipally or privately owned and are operated by a team of paid staff. They can range from recreation farms that are less than 100 acres and sell less than $10,000 of product annually to traditional farms that are larger than 200 acres (Brown, 200 3). The United Kingdom’s Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens constitutes 200 city and school farms that employ 500 people ( https://www.farmgarden.org.uk/about us ). These urban farms can serve as places of employment, but also as recreational venues as Leeuwen (2010) notes the increasing use of urban farmland in developed nations as “urban recreation area where citizens can walk, cycle, or enjoy nature” (Leeuwen, 2010, p. 21). This project is greatly informed by the current elements and programs of urban farms as they would provide suitable for the scale of the converted golf course. 3.4 :: Products As urban community gardens and farms produce food and non food products in response to climat e or a community’s preferences, there exists a wide range of production options, yet a mix of vegetables, fruits, animals, and non food products can usually be found. According to Bhatt (2009) products from urban agriculture can include vegetables, medicinal plants, spices, mushrooms, fruit trees, and other productive plants along with the raising of livestock for eggs, milk, meat, wool, or other products. Additionally, some urban agricultural systems include nonfood products such as ornamental plants and seed, wood, fuel, and other tree products (FAO, 2007). For the purposes of this project, all product s are considered as potentially suitable for the golf course landscape. 3.5 :: Economics of Urban Agriculture Considering the high prices of urban land, t he appropriation of urban space for agriculture may seem economically unsound, yet urban agriculture does prove profitable especially if high intensity production strategies are employed and high values crops are grown. A Time article from 2008 highlighte d Will Allen’s Growing Power urban farm in Milwaukee, WI that grossed more than $200,000 per acre and reported sales of $2 million of fresh food and related products per year (McLaughlin, 2008). With closer proximity than commercial farms and decreased need for packaging and processing, the farmer can gross 200 to 250 percent higher selling at farmer’s market than compared to distributor sales (Abel et al 1999).

PAGE 22

22 While operations like Growing Power have demonstrated the ability of urban agriculture to be profitable, authors such as Nugent identify the difficulty of comprehensively measuring the economic benefits of urban agriculture due to “environmental externalities, economic multiplier effects, and social interactions” (Nugent 1999, 207). Even though di fficulties exist, she concludes that the monetarily measurable benefits outweigh the costs. Leeuwen (2010) identifies the nonuse values of “intangible functions of space, e.g. aesthetic pleasure, psychological wellbeing, and social interaction, etc.” as benefits of localized food production to the community, yet yield no measureable benefit (Leeuwen, 2010 p. 23).The environmental, social, and health benefits to the urban community are difficult to quantify, and if economics could capture their value, urban agriculture would prove even more economically sound than suggested by current measures of economic success . 3.6 :: Benefits of Urban Agriculture Urban agricultural systems generate wide ranging economic, social, health, and environmental benefits. Loc alized food production can support the local economy through job creation, the generation of new markets, increased profits to the farmers, cost reduction from reduced packing, transportation, and storage. Considering the benefits to the community members, community gardens and farms offer spaces for socialization and relaxation, foster a sense of empowerment and community involvement, and provide educational opportunities in food production, marketing, sales, and cooking along with other programs. Addition ally, local food systems can increase access to fresh and healthy food to those in impoverished areas and help reduce rates of hunger, malnutrition and obesity. Lastly, urban agriculture creates livable and sustainable environments by recycling nutrients through re using organic wastes and treated wastewater, capturing and treating stormwater, regenerating healthy soils, providing habitats for wildlife, mitigating the urban heat island effect, capturing air pollutants, and reducing the carbon emissions gene rated from transportation and production to commercially produced food. Pearson (2010) captures the comprehensive benefits of urban agriculture by identifying them as semi closed systems of “integrated green space/built environments that totally recycle w astewater, re use the vast majority of solid wastes, improve aesthetics, reduce heat, and improve personal well being, reduce absenteeism and improve community (workplace or neighborhood) cohesion” (Pearson, 2010, p. 16). All of these benefits can support a wide range of sustainability efforts of urban areas. In relation to a world wide scale of sustainability initiatives, the outcomes of urban agriculture contribute to the climate change agenda and Millennium Development Goals of sustainable urban environm ents. The following chart summarizes various benefits associated with the environmental, social, health, and economic realms.

PAGE 23

23 Table 1 : Environmental, Social, Health, and Economic Benefits of Urban Agriculture Benefits Source Environmental Stormwater capture and improved hydrology (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000) (Hall n.d) (Mougeot, 2006) Composting of municipal food waste (Nasr 2010) and (Lee et al. 2007) Using treated water (Pearson, 2010) Lowered transportation distance (Lovell, 2010) and (Mougeot, 2006) Less packaging and processing (Lovell, 2010) Microclimate benefits of regulating humidity, reducing wind, providing shade, and reducing the effects of the urban heat island (Lovell, 2010) and (Leeuwen et al, 2010) So il conservation and/or improved soil conditions (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000) Better air and soil quality (Hall n.d) (Mougeot, 2006) Providing habitat for wildlife, especially birds and insects Social Educational programs offer instruction in cooki ng, nutrition, science, environment, business management, and cultural sensitivity and understanding. (Neustrom, 2009, Lautenschlager, 2007, and Somerset, 2009) Socialize with friends and family (Holmer, 2005) Recreation and relaxation from gardening (Motsenbocker, 2009 and Wakefield 2007) Improved interracial relationships and decreased crime (Shinew, 2004) and (Ferris, 2001) Preservation of cultural heritage by providing space to grow rare and culturally significant food (Wakefield, 2007) Envir onmental awareness (Deelstra, 2000 and East, 2009) A feeling of empowerment (Reid, 2009) Health/Food Security Visual quality, health and well being (Koont, 2009) and (Smardon, 1988) Improves access to fresh food which may help those suffering from obesity, diabetes, and poor nutrition (Vitiello, 2008, Alaimo, 2008, and Parmer 2009) Alleviate hunger while improving food security (Mougeot, 2006) Health and nutritional benefits to those in food insecure areas (Nasr et al. 2010) Economic benefits Job creation in the production, distribution, marketing, and sales of food along with the management and other positions of social programs and more (Midmore, 2003) (Nasr et al, 2010) (Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999) Diversification of economic opportu nities including retail, social programs, agro tourism, and education (De la Salle and Holland, 2010) Cost reduction saving in food packing, transportation, and storage costs associated with long distance food travel (Toronto Public Health, 2010) Cost reduction in the disposal of food waste and possible revenue source from the production and sale of compost (Bohn, 2005)

PAGE 24

24 3.7 :: Sustainability of Urban Areas + Urban Agriculture For sustainable urban areas, health, social justice, and environmental safety and health must be ensured, and considering the benefits of urban agriculture identified above, urban agriculture has the capacity of contributing to the sustainable development of cities. Whether in developing or developed nations, urban agricultur e can contribute to increasing the sustainability of cities, particularity if the urban agricultural systems are integrated with the resources and markets available in the city. Community gardens and farms contribute to sustaining a healthy urban environm ent. As food constitutes 30 40% of urban municipal solid waste, an opportunity exists to re use nutrients and save money on disposal (Lee et al. 2007). Instead of urban areas needing to haul, dump, or pipe away their unwanted nutrients, they can instead utilize urban agriculture systems to manage and recycle nutrients. With the production of food within the city, energy and resource use is reduced through “lowered transportation distance, less packaging and processing, and greater efficiency in the producti on inputs”. (Lovell, 2011, p. 2501) In addition, the use of urban wastes, including treated wastewater and biodegradable materials for compost, conserve s energy and creates a closed loop system of urban recycling (Bohn 2005 and Goddard 2006). Lastly, urban agriculture can provide environmental benefits to enhance the livability of urban areas by “regulating humidity, reducing wind, and providing shade” (Lovell, 2011, p. 2501). Deelstra and Girardet provide a comprehensive account of urban agriculture’s cont ribution to urban environmental sustainability by noting urban agriculture’s capacity “to create an improved microclimate and conserve soils, to minimize waste in cities and to improve nutrient recycle, and to improve water management, biodiversity, the 02CO2 balance, and the environmental awareness of city inhabitants” (Deels tra and Girardet, 2000, p. 47). Yet the opportunities of UA to contribute to urban sustainability are often overlooked. Considering the other two legs of the sustainability triad, the social and economic agenda of urban areas is supported by sustainable outcomes of urban agricultural projects. Community gardens and farms open new markets, provide jobs and training, can partner with schools or non profits to offer educational tours and classes, create a space for urban residents to socialize with friends and meet new people, provide access to healthy food and exercise, and even reduce crime rates. 3.8 :: Urban agriculture and Smart Growth + New Urbanism The mission of Smart Growth an d New Urbanism to create sustainable, people friendly communities that provide multiple uses within walking distance can be realized through urban agriculture. The integration of urban agriculture in the urban core creates multifunctional space for food pr oduction, recreation, education, events, and commerce that supports humanscale communities. In addition to supporting principles of Smart Growth, urban agriculture can also serve an important role in sustainable community development as identified by New Urbanism. In 2008, the Congress of New Urbanism published Canons of Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism: A Companion to the Charter of New Urbanism and provided provisions for the

PAGE 25

25 integration of urban agriculture. Specifically Number 1 and 10 of the Neighborhood, Town, and City Canon list “ T he balance of jobs, shopping, schools, recreation, civic uses, institutions, housing, areas of food production and natural places shall occur at the neighborhood scale with these uses being within easy walking distances or easy access to transit.” and “A steady source of water and the production of a wide range of locally raised foods within an easily accessed distance establish the self sufficiency and overall size of neighborhoods and/or small towns” (CNU 2008). C onsidering the mission of Smart Growth and New Urbanism, urban agriculture provides resources and serves an integral role in creating walkable and human scale neighborhoods. Andres Duany, one of the designers of the new urbanist community Seaside, FL and author of design and planning texts including the Smart Growth Manual , identified localized food production as a means of helping to redesign sprawling communities into more walkable and self sustaining neighborhoods and provide an alternative to commercial food production. In his text, Agrarian Urbanism , Duany proposes a “neo agrarian way of life” that creates a community “involved with all aspects of food” (Duany, 2011, Preface). He refers to this Agrarian urbanism as “a typically pragmatic New Urbanist c onstruct” through agriculturally productive villages (Duany, 2011, 9). Along with food production and the farmyard, the agricultural sites have a “market square, the barn, which is also the meeting house, the administrative offices and instruction rooms, t he processing areas, grocery store and dining hall, the farmer’s market, shops with dwellings above, and residential buildings” (Duany, 2011, 57). Following these recommendations, he is advocating for a mixed use development centered around sustainable and community fostered agriculture. 3.9 :: Urban Agriculture and Urban Planning Food systems, so essential to sustaining an urban community, have rarely been incorporated into urban planning initiatives. I ts incorporation has been “almost completely avoided as an organizing strategy for improving communities” (Lovell 2010, 2501). Many authors identify the lack of planning for urban agriculture in the urban and regional planning community, and if urban planners considered the integration of food systems in urban environments, they could create new avenues of building heathier communities and enhancing the quality of life (Mubyami, 2006 and Pothukuchi, 2004). Zoning ordinances would need to be rewritten to allow for agricultural land use within city limits, a stark reversal to efforts of separating the rural and urban (House, 2009). Urban planners can connect transportation systems, designate areas for farmer’s markets, create appropriate zoning and protective measures for land security (Lovell, 2010)(Drescher, 2000), and identify “linkages among functional sectors, linkages between the public and the private sector, and linkages among multiple perspectives on community life” (Pothukuchi 2000, 220). Even though planning for urban agriculture is not widespread y et, some cities have taken the leap to incorporate it into planning. Portland established the “Diggable City” project to identify land suitable for urban agriculture, and Philadelphia has been working under the “Philadelphia Green” to promote green infrast ructure for 30 years and is now integrating urban agriculture into its agenda (Lovell, 2010). Lovell strongly advocates for the inclusion of urban agriculture into the planning agenda as “Top down efforts might work best to improve the

PAGE 26

26 coordination of urba n agriculture activities and to maximize the multifunctional benefits” (Lovell 2010, 2515). So far, municipalities have been organizing departments to plan for localized food production. A municipal Department of Food, city planning agency, or a Food Policy Council (FPC) made up of farmers, hunger prevention organizations, nutritional education programs, sustainable agriculture groups, and government officials, have proven to be successful at organizing for local food production systems and can continue to support municipalities in planning for local food systems in the future (Pothukuchi and Kaufmann, 1999). The food policy councils have proven very successful as they mobilize various stakeholders. They are in charge of “analyzing the impact of the private food industry on low income communities, improving food access through improved transportation or grocery store location, establishing community gardens and food related entrepreneurship, encouraging environmentally sustainable food production and distrib ution, and strengthening urbanrural links by connecting local farmers with local consumers” (URPL 1997, 17). The Toronto FPC is very successful since it is wellfunded and recognized by government officials and is in a progressive city health department ( Cosgrove 2000). Other cities have included provisions and planning for urban agriculture through their comprehensive plans. The City of Berkeley, CA’s comprehensive plan includes 11 government owned community gardens, and in Burlington, VT, the city manag es 350 plots that serve 1400 people (City of Berkeley, CA and City of Burlington, VT). In addition to including urban agriculture in comprehensive plans, cities can generate food charters to provide stronger goals and tactics for planning for urban agriculture. In the Province of Saskatchewan, the city of Prince Albert drafted the Prince Albert Food Charter to outline the mission, goals, and initiatives of planning for networks of localized food production (City of Prince Albert). As demonstrated by the va rious initiatives of municipalities to plan for urban agriculture in comprehensive plans and food charters and bring stakeholders together through food policy councils or municipal agencies, it is clear the field of planning plays an essential role in realizing community scale localized food production. 3.10 :: Realizing urban food production: partnerships, e conomic incentives, and funding The process of allocating urban land for food production seems a daunting task with unresolvable obstacles of land a ppropriation, land use restrictions, and funding, among other hurdles. Yet with the formation of partnerships with municipal departments and nonprofit organizations, economic incentives, and reallocation of current funding, urban food production can be realized and prove economically viable. First, municipalities can partner with nonprofit organizations who share the mission of providing resources to low income families, increasing food security, and education, among other initiatives. When discussing aven ues of retrofitting suburban landscapes with urban agriculture, House (2009) notes the need for the coordination of various organizations as he remarks, “The cooperation of a number of organizations would be necessary to accomplish such land alterations, r equiring the formation of a redevelopment or similarly authorized agency with active stakeholder support and participation” (House 2009, 289). Lovell (2515) mentions extension agents as potential partners. She highlights the opportunity of the urban

PAGE 27

27 contex t that would allow them to merge their interests of agriculture and ornamental planting and also share their research on food crop production, greenhouse management, composting, and gardening more readily to the public . Besides extension agents, other grou ps such as land banks and trusts, farm to school programs, and health and food security partnerships might be interested in partnering on a local food production project. Secondly, cities need to invent new ways of providing access to farmers and others interested in establishing an urban garden or farm. When considering the need for land and the difficultly of purchasing land, city governments could ease the process by opening up land to private owners for the establishment of “local organic farms, community gardens, pastures for grazing animals, and managed woodlots” (House 2009, 291). Along with sales and leases, economic incentives for multifunctional land use, such as tax breaks and subsidies, can ease the financial burden of purchasing and owning la nd (Deelstra, 2001). Beside s the issue of access and tenure of land, connection to local markets is essential to the viability of urban agriculture. Farmers must be able to connect to consumers through farmer’s markets and the distribution of goods to res taurants and grocers. The linkage between the farmers to the consumers can be strengthened through more distribution sites and provisions for local storage. Start ups costs of establishing an urban farm or community garden can prove extremely high. At the beginning, every project will need infrastructure, tools, seeds, and other supplies. S ources of funding from national, state, county, city or private organizations in the form of grants are available for urban agricultural projects. In California, Los Ang eles provided funding from the county boards of supervisors for seed funding and in Berkeley, the USDA provided funding for Berkeley’s Food System Project (Feenstra, 2002). Feenstra (2002) notes that start up funding is essential, yet maintenance funding i s also required to keep the project going. Additionally, knowledgeable project managers who are “fiscally responsible and creative” provide an essential role in the proper allocation and management of funds (Feenstra 2002, 104). While grants and other sou rces of government funding can be found, funding that currently exists can be rerouted for urban agricultural purposes. In Agrarian Urbanism , Duany (2011) notes the “great deal of land, money, and labor that is usually expended on ornamental landscaping” a t the scale of the private home in the form of voluntary work of the individual gardener or hired help (Duany 2011, 61 62). Besides individual household funds for landscaping, municipal budgets for public areas and the fees collected by homeowners associat ions or suburban developments for semi public landscaping could be allocated for agricultural landscapes. He clearly identifies this opportunity by noting, “Agrarian Urbanism reassigns those public, semipublic and private funds away from ornamental planting to the more demanding aspects of agriculture. Instead of lawns and exotic plants that require constant attention, the fees and salaries would be directed to edible landscapes” (Duany, 2011, 6162).

PAGE 28

28 3.11 :: The need for land and scaling up of urban agriculture Finding and accessing land in urban areas for agriculture has proven very difficult due to the lack of available urban land and the financial hurdles of affording the land. First, just finding land is problematic. As Beatley (2000) describes, “ Not surprisingly, farm size is the limiting factor in developed areas; finding sufficient area for a farm is a major problem for urban farms. ” (Beatley 2000, 215). Lovell calls this limited access to land “one of the greatest constraints to the widespread adoption of urban agriculture” (Lovell 2010, 2511). Secondly, the economic incentives of developing urban land for residential and commercial purposes provides a very strong motive to stray away from the idea of apportioning land for agriculture, and thi s economic disincentive has held back the continued development and scaling up of urban agriculture. To address the economic feasibility of appropriating more land for urban agriculture, Lovell (2010) presents the idea of opening publicly owned open space s uch as parks and schoolyards for urban agriculture. The difficulty in finding more available, open urban land for agriculture and economically justifying the land use has been holding back urban agriculture from taking root, but as suggested by Lovell (201 0) urban public land offers an easily accessible land for urban agriculture. Allocating publicly owned urban land for agriculture can help scale up urban agriculture operations and provide more resources for the community. Along with the demand for more land, urban agriculture needs to be re envisioned to fit the urban community. Nasr et al. in their 2010 report Scaling Up Urban Agriculture in Toronto , call for two approaches for effective scaling up of UA. The first is “extending growing strategies to the entire city” and secondly “enhancing the sophistication, productivity, and potential financial viabilit y of UA practices” (Nasr, 2010 ) . Increasing the multifunctionality of urban agricultural sites can enhance all three of the above mentioned features. D e la Salle (2010) supports the idea of layering food production with other uses to increase the attractiveness and eventually the overall s uccess of the site by noting, “Creative approaches in marketing, agro tourism, and education are some examples that h elp to diversify economic opportunities and ensure financial stability” (de la Salle, 2010) . Creating sites for urban agriculture that produce food but also provide recreation, education, special events, and other public oriented services can scale up urban agricultural sites and provide an attractive option for allocating more public land for multifunctional urban agriculture. 3.12 :: The Multifunctionality of Urban Agriculture At a first glance, urban agriculture serves the community’s needs of food pr oduction, yet as explained, urban agriculture can serve as a multi purpose landscape that offers opportunities of recreation, relaxation, social heritage, and education to the public and environmental services of enhancing biodiversity, microclimate contro l, and nutrient cycling (Lovell, 2010) The opportunity of scaling up urban agriculture into multilayered spaces offers new potentials and contributes to sustainability, both of which increase the quality of life for urban residents (de Groot, 2006). Heilig (2003) and Wilson (2008) note that a transition of agriculture to multifunctionality would bring the greatest number of benefits to the urban community. Shellhorn (2008) and Hough (2004) highlight the need to design urban landscapes

PAGE 29

29 for many functions with special attention paid to the context of the site and possible synergies and benefits for the urban community. A variety of functions can be coupled to create a multifunctional urban agricultural landscape. In Daugstad’s (2006) argument for the multifunctionality of agriculture landscapes, he identifies the meaning of multifunctionality as “the production of other values besides food and fibre, including collective goods such as cultural landscapes and heritage, biodiversity, recreational opportunities, rural settlement, and food security” (Daugstad 2006, 68). This definition provides a sweeping view of the possibilities of the multifunctional agricultural landscapes. Leeuwen (2010) introduces some specific ideas of multifunctionality of agricultural lan dscapes : 1) “agricultural and livestock farms for educational purposes or health care (See Care Farming in the UK), 2) food production combined with recreation and wastewater treatment, 3) aquaculture with water storage and water sports, 4) organic food and beverages and high quality standards in farm production in association with pro active tourism, 5) museum oriented activities related to innovative or scientific processes used in food products of farm origin, 6) urban forestry offering health and micro climate benefits, and 7) energy extensive crops allied to both recreation a nd educational goals” (Leeuwen 2010, 25) The town of Delft in the Netherlands provides an example of a multipurpose urban agricultural site. Six farmers decided to partner togethe r to operate 35 hectares of farmland and generated a plan to more ecologically manage the ditches that regulate water levels on the farmland. The farmers, along with the help of the municipality, devoted areas for “nature development” and created “a water meadow with fluctuating groundwater level, reed beds, and a marshy woodland” (Deelstra 2001, 34 ). The water meadow served an agricultural purpose of regulating the water levels on the site and also provided habitat for wildlife. Besides water management, t he site was re envisioned for public use as along the edges, there are walking and cycling paths and horse trails. The success of the project is captured by Deelstra’s description of the project: “Delft has obtained a viable organic farm, an attractive rec reation area and has restored the opportunities fo r wildlife in the urban fringe.” (Deelstra 2001, 34 ) . Combining land use functions can deliver extra income for farmers from unexpected sources. This in turn provides a valuable resource for environmental education in a densely populated urban region. Essential benefits in environmental, health, education, recreation and nature terms are provided to the city and its residents. Additionally, “ Combining land use functions can also deliver extra income for farmers from unexpected sources.” (Deelstra 2001, 34). This project serves to bring these multi faceted benefits of the multifunctional agricultural landscape to the greater urban community through the multifunctional urban agricultural park. 3.13 :: The Ca ll to Designers April Phillips refers to architects, landscape architects, and planners as “change agents” to “design for the integration of natural systems with urban systems into city infrastructure of which urban agriculture would be part of a food system network” (Phillips 2013, 6). Researchers of design and planning address the need for designers to expand the multifunctionality of urban agriculture. Lovell (2010) notes, “If urban agriculture efforts continue to expand, landscape designers can be invo lved in developing multifunctional alternatives for community farms and gardens that offer many benefits” (Lovell 2010, 2515). Looking at the broader needs of the

PAGE 30

30 future, Jorgensen addresses the need for landscapes of the 21st century to be focused on “pro moting multifunctionality, ecosystem services, and resilience” instead of “global capital, technological innovation, and conspicuous consumption” that are linked to landscapes of the 20th century (Jorgensen, 2011, 54). As described through this literature review, urban agriculture can pr ove to enhance all three needs of the 21st century. 3.14 :: Summary Like the Delft project, the re purposing of the urban golf course seeks to layer agricultural production with social programs of recreation, socialization, and education, among others, while providing environmental services thought the manage ment and treatment of water, provisions for enhancing biodiversity , and clean energy, among others . The multifunctional use of the urban agricultural landscape will prov ide numerous benefits to the community and enhance the sustainability of urban areas. Considering economic viability and sustainability, the multifunctional urban agricultural site can prove more economically viable through the increase in stakeholders, us es, exposure, and markets. Secondly, the site provides for a variety of needs through the increase in social, recreational, and educational programs and activities. And lastly, the environmental sustainability of urban areas in enhanced as the multifunctio nal site provides for stormwater management and treatment, the production of green energy, the restoration of native ecosystems, and the recycling of nutrients. The purpose of this project is to propose a large publicly owned , multifunctional urban farm. As such, the urban farm becomes a place to serve the public and provide for the common good. In a way, the “farm” becomes a new form of park .

PAGE 31

31 Chapter 4: Future Park Demands and Trends 4.1 :: Introduction The park landscape has served as a public green space to escape the noise and stress of the city, rejuvenate the body and soul, socialize with friends and make new acquaintances, promote health, and enhance the livability of the urban environment. Park planner, William La Page provides a sweeping understanding of the capacity of parks as he praises, “A park promotes peace, and understanding, preserves a child’s sense of wonder, rekindles reverence, and awe, encourages generosity and sharing, breeds thoughtfulness, and humility, fosters caring and stewardship, captures the imagination of those it touches, interprets itself to those who listen, returns its investment over and over, embodies ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is a billboard for our belief in ourselves, is democracy ’s dream spread upon the landscape.” (La Page 2007, 204). This project seeks to introduce food production to the park landscape to support the above mentioned values of parks. Public p arks have served the public since their conception in the early 19th ce ntury , yet the 21st century’s demands will present parks with new challenges to address. Park design trends have seen many changes since the first parks were commissioned. Beginning with Olmsted’ s Central P ark and many parks of the late 19th century, park s served as a pleasure ground with their idyllic scenery and ornate detailing. Following this era, the design of smaller parks closer to the urban core became more popular. Many of these parks of the early 20th century, considered reform parks, provided a space for social reform as cities were faced with assimilating waves of new immigrants and providing places for people to share ideas. L ater on in the 1930s to the 1960 s, parks were fashioned into site s for recreational facilities as many parks of this area were dominantly equipped with sports facilities. During this time period, the rigid and structured design displaced the open green space and artistic envisioning of parks. Most recently, starting in the mid 1960s, the era of park planning referred to as the Open Space System created a network of connected public spaces. Plazas, boardwalks along the waterfront, neighborhood, county, and state parks all contribute to this system (Cranz, 1997). After nearly 50 years since this trend of the open space system , what now might be in store for parks? Today’s 21s t century parks are challenged to meet some of the current day issues and have been responding as demonstrated by new park trends. Parks are looking at new features and programs to more completely serve t he needs of the public. Chris Walker, an Urban Institute researcher, calls for parks to contribute to larger urban policy objectives “such as job opportunities, youth development, public health, and community building” (Walker 2004, 1) . Parks have added fe atures and new programs such as walking programs to promote physical activity, “nature play” playgrounds and other youth centered activities to promote youth development, and community wide events and activities to foster more social capital. Along with ad dressing social needs, parks have added areas for stormwater capture and treatment to safely cleanse water before entering water bodies or percolating into the water table. The following review addresses recent park trends and proposes a stronger planning effort for food production areas in parks.

PAGE 32

32 4.2 :: Youth development Parks play an essential role in providing areas for imaginative play and programs to help children transition into young adults. First, areas for “nature play” allow children to build motor skills, learn social skills, and support cognitive growth. Secondly, parks provide educational and social programs that help to enhance their learning experiences, broaden their knowledge, build leadership and professional skills, and prepare them fo r adulthood. Considering the dwindling wilderness landscape once readily available to children, parks provide a place for nature play. Instead of manufactured play structures, nature play is composed of loose parts that allow children to use their imagina tion and create objects structures. Nature play, as defined by Nature Play & Learning Places: Creating and managing places where children engage with nature , is “A designated, managed location in an existing or modified outdoor environment where children o f all ages and abilities play and learn by engaging with and manipulating diverse natural elements, materials, organisms, and habitats, through sensory, fine motor, and gross motor experiences” (Moore 2014, 21). Elements of nature play can include “trees, shrubs, vines, ground covers, stones, water, dirt piles, fallen trees, hollowed out logs, and a multitude of other natural elements designed to encourage hands on manipulation and discovery” (Moore 2014, 21). Landscape elements can include meadows, multipurpose lawns, landforms, woodlands, aquatics, and areas with sand, dirt, and water (Moore 2014, 70). Without areas of such play, children may develop nature deficit disorder from a lack of connection to natural places. Taken originally from Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods , nature deficit disorder has resulted in “an unreasonable fear of nature, a decline in sensitivity toward living things, a shrinkage of neighborhood and community, and an inability to form connections to nature and to each other” (L a Page 2007 34). Figure 8 : Landforms in adventure playgrounds (Image Source: Moore 2014, 91)

PAGE 33

33 Figure 9 : Loose parts in an adventure playground: Secondly, along with creating places for nature play, parks should provide physical, intellectual, emotional, educational and social programs for child and young adult development. When considering broader uses for parks, Walker presents “that children and adolescents are best served by a constellation of com munity based activities that helps them build essential skills, knowledge, and aptitudes” (Walker 2004, 2) . Parks serve as venues of outdoor classrooms for schools and summer camps, provide recreational activities, and programs for socialization. For young adults, parks can provide jobs. This project takes into account all of these programs and elements to develop the multifunctional agricultural park with intentions of supporting youth development. The proposed agricultural park could incorporate an adven ture playground and nature play areas to allow children to engage in more creative play. Additionally, small demonstration gardens can incorporate play areas and structures for children. Lastly, the spaces of agricultural production and allied processing a nd teaching spaces serve as educational tools and could provide students with internships and adults with jobs. Engaging children so directly with the land through nature play or agricultural areas will serve to rebuild our connection back to the land and sense of stewardship. Loose parts (rocks, sand, leaves) of a stream allow children to imagine endless play opportunities and share them with others (Image Source: Moore 2014, 19)

PAGE 34

34 4.3 :: Health Pa rks create a publicly available space for outdoor activities and exercise and can greatly contribute to increasing and maintaining the health and well being of the community. Parks have been proven to improve the health of adults 50 years of age an older (Payne et al. 1998) , and other park users such as cyclists, joggers, and walkers “were found significantly healthier than non park users and reported feeling renewed after using the park, with greater frequency o f use linked to better health” (Walker 2004, 3). Park based walking programs have helped encourage park users to commit to a regular walking routine (Hannan, 2012). With rates of obesity on the rise, especially among low income groups, parks provide an acc essible space for exercise. Considering the capacity of parks to prevent or combat obesity, park planner, Will La Page remarks, “ Our public parks offer three important keys to dealing with America’s obesity epidemic: the pursuit of happiness, the discovery of self, and a healthy lifestyle” (La Page 2007, 24) . With the need for parks to provide health enhancing activities, the multifunctional park will incorporate trails for walking and biking , areas for sports , and other activities as appropriate . Additionally, the strongly agricultural program of the multifunctional agricultural park strongly supports healthy lifestyles through access to fresh food, exercise through gardening, and educational resources concerning health and nutrition through associated act ivities and events. 4.4 :: Social capital, lowered crime, and jobs Parks can help increase the social capital of a community, provide jobs, and help reduce crime rates. First, parks help bring people together and build community networks among neighbors and others who are divided by either class or race. Low income residents, who might otherwise be confined to their apartment, greatly benefit from the ability to s ocialize and make friends with those they meet at the park (Walker, 2004). Walker (2004) fin ds that parks provide people with the opportunity to work together on projects which can help build social capital. The social capital that is formed “provides avenues through which information, values, and social expectations flow, and they empower people to tackle communitywide problems, embark on collective actions, and advocate effectively for their community” (Walker 2004, 3). Many times increased social capital and shared connections can help reduce crime rates (Walker, 2004). Finally, parks can provide jobs through welfare to work programs that provide leadership development, personal and social skills building, and job readiness (Walker, 2004). The multifunctional agricultural park will offer wide ranging opportunities for socialization and communit y building through classes, the time spent gardening, agricultural festivals and other events, and a farmer’s market, among oth er programs and elements (amphitheater, stage, etc.) in the multifunctional park.

PAGE 35

35 The grand fountain and water treatment area of Cascades Park functionally provides water treatment while allowing for public in teraction. (Image source: http://www.genesisgroup.com/images/screen_photos/484_1401219109.j pg) 4.5 :: Clean Wate r Park designers and plann ers are beginning to take stronger initiatives to blend the collection and treatment of water in the park landscape. The Jackie Kennedy Onassis Reservoir in New York’s Central Park provides a historic example of water retention. The reservoir was construct ed in 1860 and served the city’s need for water until it was decommissioned in 1993 (CPC, n.d). More recently, the City of Tallahassee commissioned the construction of a 5.2 mile stormwater corridor in the newly constructed Cascades Park. Here detention and retention ponds, stilling pools and riffles, a constructed wetland habitat, and water quality enhancements combine to retain, detain, and reduce the flow of stormwater in a very low lying area of the city. In addition to the stormwater treatment agen da, the site also provides for public engagement through an interactive fountain and water play area, the prominent Cascades Fountain and surroun ding pond overlooks, and nature oriented activities for children and adults (Genesis). These features along wit h a network of trails, an amphitheater, memorials, monuments, and garden create a space to bring together arts, entertainment, education, history and wellness. Parks can serve an essential role in providing safe drinking water for the future. Stormwater treatment areas in parks can slow the movement of stormwater and treat water and allow for percolation into the water table. La Page recommends that more clients and designers consider the blending of park space with stormwater treatment as he remarks, “T he two critical needs for that future are food and water, and while recognized, the role of parks in assuring clean water supplies has certainly not taken on the importance that it deserves in setting aside park land.” (La Page 2007, 81). Therefore, provid ing for water collection and treatment in the park setting can meet the continuing demands for stormwater management and present unique opportunities for public engagement. The mul tifunctional agricultural park will incorporate stormwater treatment to cle anse runoff. The water will travel through a series of treatment stages to then become stored for irrigation use in a reservoir. Interpretative signage will serve to inform users of the process. Figure 10 : The Waterfall at Cascades Park

PAGE 36

36 4.6 :: Parks as a place for food From picnics in parks, wat ching the local team play and eating popcorn, and birthday parties with barbeques to even fine dining in some parks, food has been an integral part of the park experience. According to La Page, parks have always been a place for celebrating food. He remark s how, “Food is a necessity, but in a park setting, it is often also ceremonial as an integral part of family reunions, barbeques, weddings, and ethnic and cultural festivities of all sorts. Parks and food go together like baseball and hot dogs.” (La Page 2007, 81). Parks have embraced the inclusion of restaurants that offer “new park experiences and new sources of park income” (La Page 2007, 81). Central Park’s Tavern Green Restaurant offers visitors a fine dining experience with view s of the park landscap e and the activity of cyclists, rollerbladers, and joggers passing by. Taking this connection to food in the park landscape to the next level, parks could serve as potential sites for food production. As addressed in the discussion of urban agriculture, p ublicly owned land s and parks were identified easily accessible site s for localized food production. La Page addresses that localized food production i n park s could serve as a source of conserving crop diversity as he notes, “As America relentlessly embrac es the monolithic, monoculture, agribusiness model of food production, our large tracts of preserved biodiversity on public lands take on a special value as potential sources of seed for the future.” (La Page 2007, 80). In addition to the capacity of local ized food production to conserve heirloom and culturally significant crops, the food producing space can become learning spaces for children and the urban community at large (Moore, 2014 and de la Salle, 2010 ). These spaces can help “children to better understand that food comes from plants” which can be “a magical realization for a young child” as children actively engage with planting seeds, maintaining vegetable beds, harvesting crops, and preparing dishes (Moore 2014, 80). When considering the contributions to nature play, these foodproducing areas allow children to directly engage in a natural setting with loose parts. The activities centered around the foodproducing gardens can help children improve motor skills, experience new social interactions, and use their imaginations. Lastly, the park could provide space for farmer’s markets and exhibits to showcase and sell the food produced at the park (La Page, 2007). The park landscape has a longstanding relationship with the enjoyment and celebration of food, and through the inclusion of food production, parks can continue to be a place to celebrate food while meeting a great number of future needs. 4.7 :: Summary As seen, the proposition of converting underused golf courses to multifunctional agricultural parks comes at a time when the public can greatly benefit from the healthy food produced and increased access to recreational and educational programs. The park would serve a multitude of residents, from children learning and playing to adults and se niors looking for venues of socialization. On the environmental side, the multifunctional agricultural park provides stormwater management, nutrient cycling, urban heat island mitigation, and reduced food miles.

PAGE 37

3 7 Chapter 5: Golf Course Decline and Conversion Examples 5.1 :: Introduction Urban golf course landscapes have been experienc ing an on going decline in use , and new possibilities of their conversion have surfaced as alternatives for more sustainable development. The Trust for Public Land asks “What is the future of golf in crowded, park hungry cities?” (Harnik 2011, 1). Municipalities have an obligation of allocating green spaces to best serve the public. These green spaces should be increasing the urban capacity for social engagement, recreation, improved health, and environmental protection, among other public needs. With golf courses operating with steep financial losses each year coupled with the increasing demand by the public for more park space, the publicly owned golf courses may not be meetin g the needs of the community. Therefore, municipalities are called to consider if their city and county owned golf courses are best serving the needs of the public and are worthy of the investment. As seen by the examples below, golf courses throughout t he country have been converted to recreational parks or nature preserves and have been widely accepted among the communities. The following review highlights the decline in golf and provides case studies of sustainable golf course conversions. 5.2 :: Decli ning Interest in Golf Over the last 30 years or so, a nationwide decline in golf course use has been occurring as shown from dwindling numbers of golf course attendees, a decrease in rounds played, and surveys. In the late 1980s, the average course saw about 40,000 rounds a year, but that number has fallen to about 33,000 today (Harnik, 2011). A more recent study from the National Golf 18 hole courses have been closing and their numbers declining, especially in recent years. The most closings were reported in 2012 as 120 courses closed that y ear. (Image Source: Tobenkin, 2012) Figure 11 : 18 hole golf course closings

PAGE 38

38 Foundation reported a 16% decline in the number of golfers between 2003 and 2011 and more than 1,000 golf course closu res since the downfall of the golf industry in 2003 (NGF, 2012). Interest in golf seems to be declining as other activities are capturing the attention of the community at large. According to a 2004 study of recreation facility desires, San Francisco resid ents ranked golf 16th out of 19th amenities. Highest on the list were preferences for trails, pools, and community gardens (Harnik, 2011). A multitude of factors have been influencing the declining interest in golf. Peter Harnik, who leads the Trust for P ublic Land’s (TPL) Center for City Park Excellence, and TPL researcher Ryan Donahue, note that social and economic factors are causing decline, and the expenses of an entry fee, golf equipment, and knowledge of a “complicated game” are keeping people from the greens (Harnik 2011, 1). According to their report, with such a decline golf users, “many golf operations are competing over a limited number of customers, and cities are trying to figure out what to do with courses that no longer turn a profit or eve n cover costs.” (Harnik 2011, 1). Data from the National Golf Foundation shows the declining trend in th e number of rounds played (red line) and declining number of golf courses (blue bar) (Image Source: NGF, 2012) Figure 12 : Declining numbers of rounds played: 2001 2013

PAGE 39

39 5.3 :: Declining Interest across age groups Interest in golf has been seen to be declining a cross all age groups. In the la t e 1990s, many golf courses were built to meet the expected demand of the ba by boomers with an average of 343 golf courses added each year (Max, 2014). The retirees of the 1950s through the 1990s were expected join a golf club, but as Douglas Main, director of real estate consulting with Deloitte Transaction and Business Analytics , notes “while plenty of baby boomer s still love to golf, many are working longer, traveling more, and taking up other leisure activ ities” (Max 2014, 1 ). A recent report by the Wall Street Journal reported a 13% decline in the number of golfers aged 18 to 34 between 2009 and 2013 (See Figure 13 ) , with most of these “millennials” choosing active sports like running (Germano, 2014). As golf appears to be declining in interest for a range of age groups, the continued interest in golf is uncertain. Besides ag e specific decline in interest, it i s possible that the game of golf doesn’t meet the needs or interests of our society at large. Chris Monti, senior design associate at Bobby Weed Golf Design in Ponte Vedra Beach, remarked, “I look at our society today, a nd golf can seem so ill positioned” (Tobenkin 2012, 3). He further commented that leisure time is short, and at least reducing the number of holes on a golf course can fit our lifestyles today and save money for the golf course operators. 5.4 :: Golf Decl ine in Florida Throughout Florida’s major metropolitan areas, such as Orlando and South Florida, golf courses have experienced difficulties attracting users and generating revenue. In Orlando, more than a quarter of the courses built in the last five years are not meeting revenue projections, according to George Marderosian, president of Clubhouse Capital, a Providence, R.I., a company that lends money and advises banks on financing golf courses (Harden, 200 1). Jim Harper from the Biscay ne Times warns that Florida golf courses are going to need to change. He reports “Hundreds of courses around the nation have closed in the past three years, including 375 public courses, according to the National Golf Foundation, and considering that Florida has more golf co urses than any state (more than 1100), it also has the most to lose. In order to survive, courses must change.”(Harper 2010, 3). In South Florida, The Sun Sentinel reports that Broward County golf courses have been struggling and are considering land use c hanges. “Several golf courses around the county have closed in the past few years due to escalating maintenance costs and dwindling memberships. No fewer than three in Deerfield Beach have sought land use changes with an eye on redeveloping the properties. ” (Roberts, 2011) As Florida contains an abundance of golf courses, more golf course closings and conversions will occur. Among users aged 18 34, interest in golf has been declining in lieu of other sports such as yoga and running. Figure 13 : Activities replacing golf

PAGE 40

40 Taking these considerations into account, this project will highlight specific trends of golf course closings in Florida in this s ect ion. In the discussion section of this project, sample conditions from Florida golf courses will be selected to represent commonly found conditions on golf course landscapes for the generation of conceptual illustrations. 5.5 :: An over supply of golf cou rses With the post World War II democratization of golf for the middle class fueling the push to develop golf courses and golf course communities, too many golf courses were created for the demand. In 1988, the National Golf Foundation saw a bright future for golf by announcing “Build a Course a Day for 10 years” (NGF, 1997). That push to develop golf courses did happen, but also caused an oversupply of golf courses, and as such, golf courses are in competition for survival. In an NPR broadcast, Greg Nathan from the National Golf Foundation (NGF) confirmed that golf courses have “more supply than demand” (NPR, 2011). In a 2010 report in the Journal of Sustainable Real E state, Dr. Joe Beditz, Presid ent and CEO of the National Golf Foundation remarked, “the problem of oversupply will fix itself once the industry loses some 1,500 to 2,000 golf courses” (Hueber and Worzala 2010, 8 ). Taking into account the average golf course size of 150180 acres and the NGF’s estimation of golf course closures, 250,000 to 400,000 acres of green space will become available for re use in an economically, socially, and environmentally sound manner (Gimmy, 2003). Therefore, a declining interest in golf and the subsequent oversupply of golf courses have been leaving cities with u nd erused spaces, and these spaces add up to a significan t amount of acreage for conversion to new uses. Public golf courses are of specific importance to this project as the publicly funded golf courses may fail to compete with the private sector, and if clo sed, leave large tracts of green space available for development. Since the golf courses belong to the public, this project intends to provide a conversion option that continues to provide green space and enhance public benefits though a multifunctional ag ricultural park. 5.6 :: The Costs of Golf 5.6.1 :: Monetary Costs Golf courses require grounds maintenance, staff, materials, and general upkeep that can prove very expensive. They require full time staff, constant maintenance, and often a fleet of elect ric cars, and a restaurant (Harnik, 2011). As reported in the New York Times , the average golf course requires $500,000/year in turf maintenance alone (Max, 2014). The Coral Gables Golf Course confirms the high price of golf course maintenance by reporting $740,000 in annual maintenance costs (Flechas, 2014). The maintenance costs of golf courses are only expected to increase as a newspaper article from the StarTibune in Minneapolis notes , “Golf course operators, meanwhile, continue to face ever higher main tenance costs exacerbated by waves of tree diseases and a changing climate that seems to bring more floods, extreme storms and unpredictable conditions” ( Editorial board, 2014). Private golf courses may be able to bear the cost with high rates of attenda nce and fees, but public golf courses are stuck with affording management and maintenance on a tight

PAGE 41

41 budget. The report by Harnik and Donahue noted that public golf courses are most taxing on a community since they are not low cost facilities and many were designed to compete with the private sector (Harnik, 2011). Therefore, both public and private golf courses require constant maintenance and financial investment, but public golf courses struggle to provide an affordable game of golf considering the mounting maintenance costs and competition from private courses. 5.6.2 :: Environmental Costs Along with golf courses requiring steep financial investments, their regular maintenance often requires the uses of pesticides and herbicides to control weeds, nemato des, and other pests. While the agrochemicals prove useful in providing a perfectly manicured green, the chemicals that are sprayed can spread through the air or leach into the soil, eventually causing groundwater contamination. An article from Audubon no ted that the maintenance of fairways and greens requires “heavy applications of pesticides and fertilizers which can run off and pollute local water ways and enormous quantities of water” (Cosier 2013, 22). An earlier report in 2006 from the journal Sport in Society noted that while the amount of agrochemical application varies by course, an average of 1.5 tons of agrochemicals is applied annually on golf courses and that 90% of the chemicals, when sprayed do not end up on the ground but rather in the air, where people are directly exposed possible inhalation of chemicals, many known to be carcinogenic (Cosier, 2013). Arsenic based agrochemicals applied on golf courses breakdown and leave traces of arsenic in the soil. In a 1999 study by the Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protection, traces of arsenic were found in the groundwater of five municipal golf courses (Wiegand, 1999). The traces of pesticides are a concern considering the suitability of the golf course for edible plant production and are a subj ect of inquiry in this project. Along with heavy pesticide use, golf courses demand a constant supply of water to maintain the greens. On a day in peak season, a regulation 18 hole golf course can consume 300,000 to 700,000 gallons of water per day (Barr ett 2003). Taking into account the heavy use of pesticides and herbicides and watering need to maintain 100 200 acres of turf, these practices do not support the agenda of sustainable landscapes. The above mentioned environmental complications may be exag gerated in Florida due to our soil conditions. Sandy soils that compose much of the Florida landscape offer excellent drainage, but turf has proven difficult to establish. As such, golf courses comprised of sandy soils require heavy watering and topdressin g (Conant, 40). Upon establishment, the continual maintenance of the green necessitates the application of chemicals and fertilizers. 5.7 :: The trend towards convert ing publicly owned golf courses As some golf courses have been failing to meet the needs of the community or have been struggling financially for too long , city officials and planners are considering repurposing golf courses to open the spa ce for more popular activities. As Peter Harnik from the Trust for Public Space remarks, “The game of go lf has never been an efficient use of space, but in the past it could be argued that it was still a worth while public investment that subsidized a system’s other parks through green fees. NO longer. Golf’s popularity is not keeping up with

PAGE 42

42 population grow th not with the explosion in the number of private golf venues; it’s also losing out to other self directed activities like running and cycling.” (Harnik 2011, 3). Continuing with this thought, Meredith Thomas, the director of San Fran’s Neighborhood Park Council, notes, “Continuing to invest in golf courses that are not financially self sustaining at the cost of other urban recreation is completely unjustifiable.” (Harnik 2011, 1 2). If cities find their publicly owned golf courses are failing to attract users and struggling financially , repurposing may offer a more financially sustainable option while still preserving the green space for public use. A report from Public and Municipal Finance concluded that “municipal golf courses have had a direct negativ e financial impact on the communities that own and operate them” as they found a mean operating loss of nearly $200,000 from 2002 to 2009 from a data collected from all Florida municipal golf courses (Ingram 2013, 46). Some golf courses have tried to attra ct users by adding new features or fixing certain areas, but the investments have not yielded the expected results. The Ingram (2013) reported, “It has been established that returns on golf course investments in the last 15 years have not yielded what even the safest government investment would, and the trend indicates that operating income may very well continue to decline.” (Ingram 2013, 49). In order to stop the bleeding of public funds to support a continuous stream of losses supported by the taxpayers, the authors advise the termination of public funds for the golf course operation and instead recommend donating the golf courses to a private or charitable organization or turning it into a park, biking trails or any other loss free form of recreation (Ingram, 2013). 5.8 :: Declining municipal golf courses in South Florida Municipal golf courses in South Florida have been operating with financial losses, yet tax dollars are still being used for their operation. Taken as a whole, South Florida municipalit ies have spent millions to update their city owned courses (Bryan, 2011). Taken from a 2011 SunSentinel report, “Some South Florida cities spend big on municipal golf courses to lure players: Critics question whether fairways will ever turn a profit”, the following municipal golf courses provide examples of financial hardships faced by publicly owned golf courses (Bryan, 2011). Sunrise: The city spent $ 3million in 2010 to renovate Seven Bridges at Springtree Golf Club and has spent $ 8.3 million in the last decade to maintain the course. The golf course loses about $1 million/year. Boca Raton: The city is considering selling t he municipal course because it is a “ money loser ” ; its two city owned courses don’ t cover the operating expenses (Bryan, 2011) . Hollywood: Its two courses lost $95,000 in 2009 and $273,000 in 2008. Delray Beach: Its golf course experienced a $160,00 deficit in 2011. Considering the oversupply of golf courses in South Florida and recent financial struggles to maintain the g olf courses, this project will produce conceptual design illustrations of converted golf course spaces taken from existing South Florida golf courses.

PAGE 43

43 5.9 :: Conversion Considerations Publicly owned golf courses that are chosen for conversion to new use s are challenged with considering the best use of the land for a wide diversity of users. To illustrate challenges that arise when repurposing golf course s, the Gunpowder Golf C ourse in Baltimore, Maryland demonstrates the dynamics of converting a golf course to a park. The Gunpowder Golf Course was bought in 2004 for $2.1 million at a foreclosure sale by the Baltimore County Revenue Authority. The agency invested in the golf course by adding a spacious clubhouse and other additions, totaling $1 million. E ven so, during the years after the investments, only 32,000 rounds of golf were played, and 40,000 were needed to make a profit. Since then, the 112 acre golf course has been turned over to the county, but the golf course has proven unprofitable wi th a los s of $250,000 in 2008. O fficials want “to put the pr operty to optimum use” and agree that “The only thing that is not possible is a golf course.” (Hare, 2009). George Hale, the director of the Baltimore County Revenue Authority noted “A regional park would be the best use of this property” (Hare, 2009). A community meeting was held to assess the community support of a conversion of the golf course to a regional park with trails and athletic fields. A consensus was difficult to reach as “golfers continue t o argue for the course and residents push for more recreational opportunities” (Hare, 2009). As such municipalities will be challenged with repurposing the golf course to meet the needs and interests of most citizens. While conversions to a completely new use exist, downsizing golf courses offers the alternative of opening the golf course to new uses while continuing the game of golf. The Trust for Public Land reports, “Just downsizing from 18 holes to 12 would open up a sizeable chunk of land for all kin ds of other uses.” (Harnik 2011, 4). Even Jack Nicklaus suggested to Golf Magazine in a 2007 interview that 12 hole courses make more sense in our hurried times (Keates, 2012). Bobby Weed, a golf course architect, is working on proposals to convert 18 ho le courses to 9 hole courses (Keates, 2012). Therefore, municipalities could keep the game of golf available on failing golf courses by downsizing while opening the course to other uses. By downsizing, the financial cost of maintaining the grounds decrease s, and the new uses on the converted course might prove more financially profitable. 5.10 :: Repurposed golf courses for the future: Sustainability and Future Demands As golf courses are being sold and re purposed for other land uses, the proposed land use must prove sustainable on all three levels: environmental, economic, and social. Environmental concerns such as natural resource use and pollution prevention need to be considered alongside economic growth and cost savings and social issues of standard of living, education, community, and equal opportunity (Conant, 2013). As we consider sustainability, we must also consider the “expected shift in resource priorities during the 21st century from oil and fossil fuels to water, food, and energy”(Conant 2 013 , 92) . He noted that “As population rises, so does our demand for natural resources,

PAGE 44

44 concern about food security and water security, energy production, and effects of climate change.” (Conant 2013, 92). As projected by the American Geosciences Institu te, providing reliable energy supplies and sufficient quantities of water are the two most pressing needs in the future (AGI, 2012). Financially unst able golf courses offer a prime opportunity for re purposing underutilized land for food security, energy s upply, and water supply for the 21st century. The option of converting a golf course to a multifunctional urban agricultural park will serve to address the abovementioned demands and through its various programs will provide educational and social programs to the public as a whole. Before considering this conversion, various other sustainable golf course retrofits were explored to identify various program elements included. 5. 11 :: Precedent review of Golf Course Conversions Various golf courses have be en bought by conservation groups and other non profit organizations and re purposed with a new use to serve our future needs. The following case studies provide examples of golf courses repurposed for sustainable purposes. The examples provide public space for recreation, treat water, create habitat for wildlife, or provide land for green burials. Royal Palm Beach bought a golf course and converted it to a new city park. In Southwest Florida, the Lemon Bay Conservancy repurposed a golf course into a restor ed wetland system and natural prairie. Just outside Gambier, Ohio, a land trust associated with the local Kenyon College, bought some of the golf course for a green burial site and left some land for a smaller golf course.

PAGE 45

45 5.11.1 :: Royal Palm Beach Gardens

PAGE 46

46

PAGE 47

47 5.11.2 :: Wildflower Preserve

PAGE 48

48

PAGE 49

49 5.11.3 :: Kokosing Nature Preserve

PAGE 50

50

PAGE 51

51 Cha pter 6: Methodology The preceding literature review served to provide strong supporting evidence and information for this project’s goal of converting golf course s to multifunctional agricultural park s . In order to investigate the suitability and opportuni ties of converting golf courses to public spaces with agricultural elements, a series of questions will be addressed through a review of scientific literature, case studies, the generation of a matrix, and illustrations. As introduced in the beginning of t his project, three questions will be addressed: Question 1 :: What are the constraints and opportunities of the existing conditions of the generalized golf course landscape with respect to the possibility of conversion to agricultural production? Methodol ogy First, a comprehensive review of scientific literature is provided to investigate the possible constraint of contamination risk and opportunity of reclaimed water application . Assessing the risk of contamination is generated by considering the followi ng: The risks and pathways of exposure to contaminants The types of contaminants that exist from residual pesticide application. Note : Through a review of scientific literature, a chart is generated to identify the commonly applied pesticides and herbici des on Florida’s golf courses today and in the past. The pesticide or herbicide’s common name, mobility, persistence, and degradation processes are identified in the chart. Degradation of pesticides and Methods of mitigation Exposure to contamination from the use of reclaimed water Benefits to crop production of reclaimed water application Secondly, the opportunities of the golf course landscape are provided by assessing the features and conditions of each of the identified landscape types of golf course s: tees, greens, the fairway s , the rough, tree breaks, w ater hazards, and the clubhouse. The various landscape types of the golf course were identified in a recently published thesis, Bankrupt Golf Courses: An Historical Review and Options for Repurposing , produced in 2013 by Blake Conant from UGA’s MLA program. The relevant information from Conant’s work concerning the various landscape types and their sizes, dimensions, properties, and features are summarized. Additionally, considering the features and op portunities of the landscape types, various conversion opportunities to agricultural production techniques are discussed. Detailed information from scientific literature to address the risk of contamination along with the identified opportunities are pres ented together in Chapter 7: Identifying Opportunities

PAGE 52

52 and Constraints of Golf Courses . At the end of the chapter, a summary section highlights the main findings of the risk of contamination and opportunities for conversion. Question 2 :: What “program elements” exist on urban farms of varying acreage that contribute to agricultural production, community building + recreation, and environmental services + green energy? Methodology To address this second question, case studies of existing multifunctiona l urban farms are generated to identify a palette of suitable elements for the golf course to multifunctional agricultural park retrofit. Prairie Crossing (100 acres), Riverview Gardens (76 acres), and Viet Village Farm (25 acres) will be used for the case studies due to their function as agricultural + multifunctional landscapes and comparable size of typical golf courses. They represent urban agricultural operations in diverse geographical regions , and their case studies contribute to capturing a wide ra nge of multifunctional program elements for consideration. The case studies will identify specific details of the urban farms: location, owner, designers, date com pleted, and a comprehensive assessment of the agricultural techniques, environmental services + green energy elements, and community building + recreational events and activities. It is assumed that a golf course to multifunctional agricultural park retrofit would benefit from considering similar components that comprise the three case studies. T o clearly communicate the identified program elements from each case study and the benefits of each of the elements, a chart is provided after each case study to provide a clear representation of the elements found at each farm. Additionally, each of the e lements is linked to various productive, environmental, social, and economic benefits as assessed by the author after consulting previous literature presented in the discussion of urban agriculture, Chapter 3: Defining Urban Agriculture and Identifying Tre nds. The identified multifunctional program elements from the three case studies are combined in a comprehensive chart to communicate the palette of multifunctional program elements for the golf course to multifunctional agricultural park conversion. All o f the information explained above is provided in Chapter 8: Case Studies of Urban Farms . Question 3:: What environmental conditions must first be considered when siting agricultural production elements and secondly, what possibilities of retrofit and re lationships among program elements can be envisioned by linking the opportunities of the golf course landscape with the identified program elements of the multifunctional farms? Methodology Question 3 seeks to link the opportunities of the golf course la ndscapes (Question 1) with the identified palette of suitable multifunctional program elements (Question 2) . To address the first part of this question, a review of literature by urban agricultural authors,

PAGE 53

53 Timothy Beatley, April Phillips , and Jac Smit, is presented to identify the existing suggestions when siting agricultural elements in systems of urban agricultural production. Much of their suggestions for siting agricultural elements are rooted in considering four main areas of concern: soil properties, conditions and variability of topography, availability of sunlight, and the presence of water bodies. Their suggestions are summarized and then utilized in the creation of a “prescription guide”. After considering the comprehensive review of the literature, the author generated a prescription guide to link agricultural elements identified in the case studies to various site conditions. The literature review and the prescription guide are presented in Chapter 9: Considerations for Siting Agricultural Elemen ts . In order to address the second part of this question, “ what possibilities of retrofit and relationships among program elements can be envisioned by linking the opportunities of the golf course landscape with the identified program elements of the mult ifunctional farms?”, a matrix was generated by the author to link the landscape types identified in Question 1 with the list of program elements produced by the findings of Question 2. The author cons idered the suitability of each of the program elements f or placement on the various landscapes of the golf course (tees, greens, fairway s , the rough, tree breaks, water hazards, and the clubhouse) by considering the suggestions and prescription guide created in Chapter 9. Each relationship between program eleme nt and golf course landscape is identified as suitable, varies, and un suitable in the matrix. Following the matrix, a discussion follows to comprehensively identify the reasoning behind the assessment and provide an “idea book” of descriptive analysis and supporting images to illustrate the range of conversion opportunities. To graphically communicate suggested conversion possibilities and relationships among program elements, illustrations are produced to i dentify three areas of concern: the entrance and continuum of uses , suitable agricultural and recreation elements around a tree break, and the sequence of water treatment for both agricultural runoff and contributions from offsite stormwater. The author selected to illustrate these areas of concern to communicate suitable relationships among elements. These specific situations were selected to be illustrated graphically to demonstrate safe and suitable relationships among elements . Other situations and relationships could have been identified, yet the three provided here were highlighted in the discussion and merited a graphic illustration to completely illustrate conversion options. A descriptive written analysis is provided in conjunction with the graphics to explain the reasoning behind the placement a long the continuum and the role of each of the elements in contributing to safe, productive, and suitable relationships. These illustrations and the aforementioned matrix and discussion are found in Chapt er 10: The Matrix and Discussion.

PAGE 54

54 Chapter 7: Identifying Opportunities and Constraints of Golf Courses 7.1 : : Introduction When considering the re purposing of a golf course to a multifunctional agriculture park, various opportunities and constraints present themselves. Many golf course greens hav e been treated with heavy metal and organic based pesticides since their conception, and safe growing conditions for crops in the golf course soils are an immediate concern. Additionally, t he common application of reclaimed water on golf courses needs to be considered as a potential risk for crop production. This section address the safety concerns of residual pesticides and proposes mitigation strategies and identifies any risks of applying reclaimed water on crops. On the other hand, the availability of l ong swathes of cleared land along with a combination of various landscape features such as ponds, forested areas, and some topography change present opportunities for an interesting re purposing of the golf course landscape into a multifunctional urban agr iculture park. Along with addressing the safety concerns, this section also identifies the opportuni ties presented by golf courses. By both addressing the opportunities and constraints, this review assists in addressing the first question, “ What are the co nstraints and opportunities of the existing conditions of the generalized golf course landscape with respect to the possibility of conversion to agricultural production? ” 7.2 :: Pesticides and Herbicides on Golf Courses Pesticides and herbicides are regularly applied on golf courses, and it is worthy to consider how or if the residues of these substances threaten the safety of edible plants grown on re purposed golf courses for human consumption. While golf course soils have been treated with pesticides and herbicides for years, the residues of pesticides and herbicides depends on multiple factors. The chemical make up of the substance, soil and climate factor s , and microbial and chemical processes determine the mobility and persistence of pesticides and her bicides in soil. Only when pesticides remain in the soil do they threaten human health by the risk of growing edible plants in toxic soil. Below, the health risks of pesticide exposure are explained, and the mobility and persistence of pesticides are identified along with the pesticides commonly applied to golf courses in Florida, their toxicity implications, and available mitigation strategies. In the end though, the toxicity of golf courses is primarily a perceived risk as the real risks of contamination in soils from past pesticide use have been tested and results show low bioaccessibility of plants to the contaminants, resulting in safe crops for consumption (Walker, 2009; McBride, 2013) 7.3 :: Health effects of pesticides and herbicides Pesticides and herbicides are applied on golf courses to control pests such as nematodes or unwanted weeds, yet human exposure to these substances can cause irritation to the skin, eyes, nose, or mouth; cause a person to become ill immediately or over time; or cause dea th depending on the toxicity of the pesticide. The toxicity of a pesticide is measured as either acute or chronic. Acute toxicity refers to “its ability to do systemic damage as a result of a one time exposure to relatively large amounts of the chemical” ( Nesheim 2014, 3). Absorption of

PAGE 55

55 even a very small amount of an acutely toxic substance can be deadly. Acute toxicity is measured by LD50, the lethal dose by which proved lethal to 50% of test animals in controlled laboratory conditions. A pesticide with a low LD50 value is more toxic. LD50 is expressed as milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) reflecting the milligrams of a substance per kilogram of animal body weight. (Note: Milligrams per kilogram is the same measure as parts per million.) Therefore, for the ins ecticide parathion with a LD50 of 4 mg/kg to be lethal to 50% of animals, “a dose of 4 parts parathion for every million parts of body weight” would need to be present (Nesheim 2014, 3). Alternatively, pesticides can prove to be chronically toxic as repea ted exposure to pesticides causes health problems in the future. Chronic exposure to pesticides results in six main adverse health effects: “carcinogenic effects (cancers), teratogenic effects (birth defects), mutagenic effects (genetic mutations), hemotox ic effects (blood disorders), endocrine disruption (hormonal problems), and reproductive toxicity (infertility or sterility)” (Nesheim 2014, 3). Therefore, the exposure to pesticides poses health risks to humans if they enter the body. Pesticides enter the body through the mouth (orally), through the skin (dermally), or through the noise (inhalation). 7.4 :: Persistence and Sorption: The break down and mobility of pesticides Once a pesticide is applied, it either stays in the soil or is removed from the sy stem. It may be taken up by plants, insects or microorganisms in the soil. If it remains in the soil matrix, the pesticide will either adhere to particles, dissolve, or leach further down into the soil layers, eventually to the groundwater. If a pesticide does not leach and remains in the top soil, its fate is determined by its two properties of persistence and sorption. The persistence of a pesticide describes its stability. According to The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, today’s pesticide s are designed to degrade by chemical and microbial reactions or sunlight (FDEP, 2007). The pesticides are broken down into intermediate substances, referred to as degradates. The persistence of the pesticide or degradate is measured by the halflife (T1/2), the time needed to reduce a pesticide or degradate by half of its concentration. For example if the half life of a pesticide is 30 days, the concentration of a pesticide should decrease from 100% to 50% over 30 days. The process by which a pesticide ad heres to substances, particularly organic matter or clay partic les in the soil, is referred to as sorption. The partition coefficient (Koc) provides an index to assess the pesticide sorption on soils. The Koc is defined as “the ratio of pesticide concentra tion in the sorbed state (i.e., bound to soil particles) and the solution phase (i.e., dissolved in the soil water)” (FDEP 2007, 83). Pesticides with low Koc values more easily move into a solution and leach, while those with higher Koc values are more lik ely to bind with soil and organic matter (FDEP 2007). Referring to the chart below, pesticides such as Glyphosate (Koc=24,000) with high Koc values are tightly held to the soil as these pesticides are easily adsorbed by particles in the soil. On the other hand, Dicamba (Koc=2) quickly leaches into lower soil layers (FDEP 2007). Therefore substances with high Koc values put a soil at high risk of prolonged risk of contamination.

PAGE 56

56 7.5 :: Soil and Climate Factors Soil and climate greatly influence the pers istence and mobility of pesticides. The degree to which a pesticide or herbicide remains in the soil is greatly influenced by soil composition, pH, and microbial activity. Generally, soils high in clay or organic matter are at risk of retaining pesticides as pesticides attach to minute soil particles. On the other hand, pesticides are more likely to leach in sandy soils where there is an absence or significantly low amo unt of clay or organic material, and therefore, there is reduced ris k of pesticide carry over. Secondly, soil pH greatly determines the break down rate and leaching potential, yet the influence of pH depends on the chemical structure of the pesticide or herbicide. For example, a low pH of 6.0 or below can increase the rate of dissipation of tr iazine and sulfonylurea herbicides while a low pH decrease s the rate of dissipation for imidazolinone herbicides, imazaquin (Scepter) and imazethapyr (Pursuit) (Curran, 2001). Lastly, soil microorganisms (fungi, bacteria, protozoans, etc.) metabolize pest icides and provide a very important pathway for degrading pesticides and herbicides. According to William Curran, professor of weed science at the University of Pennsylvania, “The types of microorganisms and their relative numbers determine how quickly dec omposition occurs. Microorganisms require certain environmental conditions for optimal growth and utilization of any pesticide. Factors that affect microbial activity are moisture, temperature, pH, oxygen, and mineral nutrient supply. Usually, a warm, well aerated, fertile soil with a nearneutral pH is most favorable for microbial growth and, hence, for herbicide breakdown.” (Curran 2001, 2). Therefore, the condition of the soil and abundance of soil microorganism greatly affects the persistence and mobili ty of pesticides and herbicides. The half life and Koc values of commonly applied golf course pesticides are identified. The lower Koc value signifie s a higher capacity to leach out of the soil and therefore lower persistence in the soil matrix. (Source: FDEP 2007, 84) Figure 14 : The half life and Koc values of pesticides

PAGE 57

57 Depending on the make up of the herbicide, rainfall and soil conditions can increase the persistence of herbicides. The pesticides are listed along the top, and soil + climate conditions are listed based upon their “importance” or degree to which they affect the mobility or persistence of the pesticide. (So urce: Curran 2001, 2) With regards to climate, rainfall and temperature affect the degradation rates of pesticides. Times of drought and cold temperatures increase the persistence of pesticides and herbicides as the microbial and chemical deg radation of the soil is hindered. Figure 15 identifies the influence of soil condition and climate on the dissipation rates of pesticide 7.6 :: The dissipation of pesticides and herbicides Most pesticides and herbicides are designed to break down into ina ctive substances, yet others leave traces of heavy metals that do not dissipate and instead remain in the soil. Depending on its chemical structure, herbicides and pesticides are degraded into inactive metabolites by soil microorganisms or chemical process es. If the soil conditions are right, a presence and abundance of soil microorganisms can degrade pesticides (FDEP 2007 and Curran 2001). While many pesticides and herbicides are designed to dissipate into inactive substances, a few remain that break down and leave traces of heavy metals. Pesticides such as MSMA leave traces of arsenic in soil. Therefore, since many factors such as the sorption and persistence qualities of pesticides and herbicides and the make up of soils influence the presence of pestici des, it is recommended that a chemical analysis or a bioassay is performed to golf courses to determine if toxic levels of pesticides or herbicides are present (Curran, 2001). 7.7 :: Heavy metals and crops Select pesticides and herbicides used today and m ore commonly in the past contained arsenic and lead. A survey conducted in 2003 of Florida golf courses found that 96% of golf courses applied herbicides with monosodium methanearsonate MSMA (Chen, 2003). While MSMA has since been banned for use on turfgra ss in Florida, the substance breaks down and leaves traces of arsenic in the soil. These heavy metals left over from previous pesticide application pose a health risk to humans when considering growing crops in possibly arsenic and lead contaminated soils. While the presence of these heavy metals poses a health risk, many factors such as soil condition, soil pH, and crop type greatly influence the degree to which these heavy metals are present in the soil and affect plants. The degree to which arsenic is a bsorbed by plants depends on the soil type. Soils with fine particles, especially clays, allow arsenic to latch on and remain in the soil. While in sandy soils, the arsenic leaches downwards Figure 15 : Rainfall and soil conditions' effects on the mobility and persistence of pesticides

PAGE 58

58 through the soil layers (Walker, 2009). A study by the Universit y of Nevada found that arsenic levels in the soil greatly reduced plant growth “before concentrations of arsenic exceeded the FDA standard in the edible portions of the plant” (Walker 2009, 4). Therefore, plants will fail to grow before their fruits have t oxic levels of arsenic. Similarly, a 2013 report from Cornell University found that fruit bearing crops like tomatoes grown in soils with high concentrations of arsenic and lead had very low traces of arsenic (McBride, 2013). On the other hand, crops like lettuce and beans were most susceptible to arsenic contamination (McBride, 2013). Lovell (2010) addresses the immediate implications of contaminated soils to urban agriculture by reporting, “In a study of the health risk of 28 different sites used for urban agriculture, Bramwell et al. found that even where soil samples contained lead and arsenic, the bioaccessibility of the contaminants was low, indicating vegetables were not accumulating the materials” (Lovell 2010, 2513). If safe soil conditions are st ill a concern, Lovell (2010) mentions that soils with some heavy metal contamination can be safely used for agricultural production if proper precautions are taken such using raised beds and periodically testing the soil . The influence of arsenic is highl y variable, but to ensure public safety, soils with traces of arsenic or a history of treatment with heavy metalcontaining pesticides and herbicides will require mitigation techniques. 7.8 :: Pesticides on Florida Golf Courses: Their presence and toxicity implications According the Best Management Practices for Florida Golf Courses, golf courses are encouraged to use integrated pest management which focuses on “ identifying the pests, choosing pest resistant varieties of grasses and other plants,. and ap plying biological and other nontoxic alternatives to chemical pesticides whenever possible. Chemical pesticide applications are carefully chosen for effective and site specific pest control that has a minimal effect on beneficial organisms and the environm ent...” (FDEP 2007, 4). While integrated pest management is encouraged, pesticides are used by golf courses, and residues of pesticides exist in the soils. The Best Management Practices guide notes that “Many of the older, environmentally unacceptable pest icides were taken off the market decades ago. However, traces may still remain in the soil and ground water” (FDEP 2007, 5). When considering re purposing a golf course into edible crop production, much attention must be paid to the types of pesticides, ap plication rates, and soil quality to determine the toxicity of the soil. Golf courses apply pesticides and herbicides to control weeds, insect pests, and nematodes. While no list of pesticides is recommended for Florida golf courses, various sources sugge st which pesticides are the most common and which ones have been the most persistent in golf course soils. In a 1996 study by Amy Swancar, the U.S Geological survey identified the presence of pesticides in groundwater and ponds of nine golf courses in Flor ida. Of those nine golf courses, seven of them tested positive for the presence of pesticides in groundwater. Atrazine, bromacil, diazinon, diuron, fenamiphos, metalaxyl, oxydiazon, and simazine were the most commonly occurring pesticides in groundwater an d golf course ponds. Her study also found traces of arsenic at three of the golf courses in the groundwater samples. Taking from the list of pesticides from the University of Florida’s Pest Control Guide for Turfgrass Managers (Unruh, 2008) and pesticides reported from the USGS study (Swancar, 1996) a chart was

PAGE 59

59 compiled to identify the types of pesticides and herbicides applied on Florida Golf Courses, their mobility and persistence, and degradation processes. Most are degraded through hydrolysis, chemical processes, and microbial metabolism. Table 2 : Common pesticides used in Florida Golf Courses and their Mobility, Persistence, and Degradation Processes Chemical Name Brand Name Type Mobility Persistence Degradation process Atrazi ne 1 (Herbicide) Aatrex, Aatram, Atratol, and Gesaprim Herbicide High High Chemical Hydrolysis; Microbial metabolism Bromacil 2 Krovar Weedblast Herbicide NA High Microbial metabolism Diazinon 3 Basudin, Dazzel, Gardentox, Kayazol, Knox Out, Nucidol, and Spectracide Pesticide Moderate Low (T1/2=21 to 103 days) Hydrolysis and microbial metabolism Dicamba 4 Banvel, Diablo, Oracle and Vanquish Herbicide High Low (T1/2=4 555 days Microbial metabolism Diuron 5 Direx, Karmex, and Krovar Herbicide Mo derate Moderate to high Microbial metabolism Fenamiphos 6 Nemacur Nematicide Moderate Moderate Aerobic process Glyophosate 7 Roundup, Rodeo, and Pondmaster Herbicide Low Low to moderate (T1/2=1 to 174 days) Microbes Iprodione 8 Kidon, Rovral, Chipco 26019, LFA 2043, and Verison. Fungicide Moderate Moderate (T1/2=20 160 days) Bacterial metabolism9 and isolated soil microorganisms 10 Metalaxyl 11 Ridomil, Apron, Delta Coat AD, Subdue 2E Fungicide High Moderate (T1/2=70 days) Hydrolysis and sunlight Metsulf uron methyl 12 Ally, Allie, Gropper, and Escort Herbicide High in alkaline soils Moderate (T1/2=14 180 days) Select microbes Monosodium methanearsonate (MSMA)13 Arsenic based Herbicide Moderate High (T 1/2 = 200 days) Cover crops to uptake arsenic Oxa diazon 14 Oxadiazon Herbicide Low Low (T1/2=2 35 days) Select microbial strains15 Simazine 16 Aquazine, Cekusan, Cekusima, Framed, G 27692, Gesatop, Primatol, and others Herbicide Low Moderate High (T1/2=36 234 days) Microbial activity and Persistence: Low = Remains active in soil for a short time usually less than two weeks.

PAGE 60

60 Moderate = Remains active in soil more than two weeks but less than one growing season. Long = Will probably remain active in the soil for more than one growing season. Mobility: The ability of the active ingredient to move through the soil. (Taken from Approved Herbicides for oils and gas use on the Little Missouri National Grasslands http://www.apdtest.com/exhibits/Herbacides/08_approved_herbicides_list.pdf ) 7. 9 :: Sources of data for the chart 1) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=336&tid=59 and http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/altrazine.pdf http://extoxn et.orst.edu/pips/atrazine.htm http://extension.psu.edu/pests/weeds/control/persistance of herbicides in soil (Good) 2) http://provmweb.com/english/Products/HKProducts/krovarI.pdf and http://www.apdtest.com/exhibits/Herbacides/08_approved_herbicides_list.pd f 3) http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/diazinontech.pdf http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/diazinon.htm 4) http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl dicrotophos/dicamba ext.html 5) http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/diuron.pdf 6) http://e xtoxnet.orst.edu/pips/fenamiph.htm 7) http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor glyphosate/glyphosate ext.html 8) http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop methylparathion/iprodione ext.html 9) http://aem.asm.org/content/61/9/3216.full.pdf 10)http://www.researchgate.net/publication/229874597_Iprodione_degradation_by_isolated_soil_microorganis ms 11) http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop methylparathion/metalaxyl ext.html 12) http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978 3 662 087244_26 http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/metsulfu.htm 13) http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehipm/pdf_terr/terrestrial%20actives/MSMA.pdf 14) http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/oxadiazon_fs.htm 15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub med/16516265 16) http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins ziram/simazine ext.html http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/simazine.htm 7.10 :: Degradation of Pesticides and Mitigation Techniques Many organic based pesticides are broken down by soil microorganisms and rendered ineffective by the metabolism of the microorganisms (Porto, 2011). Additionally, researchers from the University of Sao Paolo remarked on the effectiveness of soil microbes to degrade pesticides by saying, “The natural microbio ta is continuously exposed to pesticides. Therefore, it is no surprise that these microorganisms, that inhabit in polluted environments, are armed with resistance by catabolic processes to remove the toxic compounds. Biological degradation by organisms (fu ngi, bacteria, viruses, protozoa) can efficiently remove pesticides from the environment, especially organochlorides , organophosphates and carbamates used in agriculture” (Porto 2011, 429). Therefore, considering the use of organic based pesticides and the capacity of microbes to breakdown such substances, golf course greens could be a potentially safe place for food production considering precautions are taken. Yet if microbial metabolism does not prove a strong enough means of breaking down pesticides, mi tigation

PAGE 61

61 techniques including phytoremediation and activated biochar can help r ender a pesticide or herbicide contaminated soil safer for crop production . 7.11 :: Phytoremediation and Activated Biochar To remove heavy metals from soils, phytoremediation offers an effective and affordable solution to removing traces of arsenic and lead that may be present in the soil due to previous pesticide and herbicide application. Plants, referred to as “hyperaccumulator plants”, have the capacity to up take high leve ls of heavy metals (Beiby, 2011). Secondly, activated biochar can be introduced to a soil to collect any residual pesticides. According to the University of Florida Pesticide Information Office, activated charcoal can be used to absorb and deactivate pesti cides. Activated charcoal is derived from hardwood trees and coconut shells and is produced by heating materials under low amounts of air. The activated charcoal is comprised of small carbon particles that attract and bind to other organic compounds, inclu ding pesticides (Fishel, 2014). 7.12 :: Summary on Pesticides and Herbicides The presence of residual pesticides and herbicides on Florida golf courses can pose a slight health risk when considering growing plants for consumption on these re purposed lands . While pesticides and herbicides have been applied on golf courses, their persistence and mobility greatly varies. It is possible that residues of pesticides have been metabolized by microorganisms and deactivated or that they have moved to lower levels o f the soil due to leaching. The amount of residual pesticides will depend on the type of pesticide applied, soil conditions, and microbial activity, and therefore the risk of residual pesticides and herbicides will depend on the site. From research findin gs, crops grown in heavy metal contaminated soils do not seem to readily bioaccumulate heavy metals. Crops like lettuces have been shown to have some heavy metal accumulation from contaminated soils, yet fruit bearing crops like tomatoes and fruit trees ha ve very low or unnoticeable levels of heavy metals (McBride, 2013 and Lovell 2010). Heavy metal accumulation at the level dangerous to human consumption might not be possible since the crops will not be able to grow and mature with such heavy levels of con tamination (Walker, 2009). Therefore, risk of contamination is more of a perceived risk than an actual risk. Nonetheless, mitigation strategies exist for residual pesticides and heavy metals. Figure 16 : Phytoremediation methods: volatilization, degradation, stabilization, and e xtraction (Source: urbanomnibus.com)

PAGE 62

62 Even if the safety of the soil condition is uncertain, select fo rms of agricultural production are not threatened by contaminated soils. To reduce the health risks where soil contamination is a concern, the agricultural system can be adapted in several ways by “1) growing crops for nonedible production (Christmas tree s or cut flowers), 2) selecting plants that do not accumulate metals in their edible parts (many fruitbearing crops), and 3) establishing plants in raised beds above the contaminated soil” (Lovell 2010, 2513). After testing the soil and consulting with an agricultural and soil expert, the safety of growing crops can be assessed and certain crop types selected. Even if contamination is present, agricultural activity is still viable. 7.13 :: Reclaimed Water use for Agriculture Recl aimed water is commonly ap plied to golf courses as a source of irrigation in Florida. A 2007 FDEP report found that 462 golf courses in Florida used reclaimed water (FDEP, 2007). Considering the conversion of a golf course to a site of edible crop production, any possibilities of c ontamination in crops due to the application of reclaimed water was investigated. Considering the information below, the application of reclaimed water is suitable for crop production. 7.14 :: Safety and regulations The Environmental Protection Agency (E PA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Research Council (NRC) along with Florida agencies have deemed reclaimed water safe for edible crop production (EPA, 1992) (WHO, 1989) and (NRC 1996). The Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62 6 00, 62601, 62 610, and 62620 delineate how reclaimed water can be used on crops. First reclaimed water must undergo secondary treatment, filtration, and disinfection (York, 2011). The water is held to a standard of no detectable fecal coliforms which is a higher standard than Class III (recreation use) and Class IV (agricultural use) waters that allow for 200 fecal coliforms per 100 mL (York, 2011). Secondly, restrictions guide how reclaimed water can be irrigated onto certain types of crops. Reclaimed w ater can be spray irrigated onto crops that will be “be peeled, skinned, cooked, or thermally processed before consumption”, but the “salad crops” that are not peeled, skinned, or cooked can only be irrigated through “indirect contact methods” such as drip , subsurface, and ridge and furrow irrigation (SJWMD, 2013). With such precautions taken, the crops have been deemed safe for consumption. 7.15 :: Examples of Reclaimed Water Use in Florida Agriculture Reclaimed water has been safely used throughout Florida on a variety of agricultural products. As reported by the Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection, “In 1998, 88 million gallons/day (mgd) of reclaimed water was used to irrigate about 33,500 acres of agricultural land..with 20 mgd used to irrig ate over 15,200 acres of edible crops. While citrus represents the primary edible crop irrigated with reclaimed water, a wide range of other edible crops (tomatoes, cabbage, peppers, watermelon, corn, eggplant, strawberries, peas, beans, herbs, squash, and cucumbers) also are irrigated with reclaimed water” (York 2011, 1). The St.

PAGE 63

63 John’s Water Management District reported that “Reclaimed water is used in commercial agricultural operations including irrigation of edible food crops such as citrus, corn and so ybeans” (SJWMD, 2013). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) reported that strawberries, tomatoes, figs, pecans, peaches, grapes, blueberries, peas, beans, corn, herbs, and other unnamed fruits and vegetables were all irrigated with reclaimed water, and microirrigation was the primary irrigation method used (FDEP 2011). While reclaimed water is irrigated onto a variety of crops in Florida, its use on citrus crops is the most extensive and has been carefully monitored. The Water Conse rv II Project directed by the FDEP started irrigating 2,737 acres of Orange County, Florida citrus groves with reclaimed water. Researchers report that, “Extensive research over the past 24 years has been conducted at the site to determine the effects of irrigating citrus with reclaimed water, but no negative impacts on citrus have been observed” (Lewis 2014, 3). Additionally the study mentioned that crop yields increased with the use of reclaimed water compared to well water due to the nutrients found in reclaimed water. 7.16 :: Benefits of using reclaimed water The application of reclaimed water directly provides nutrients to crops, increasing crop yields and saving time and money for the farmer. Reclaimed water has elements such as calcium, boron, and phosphorus and therefore reduces the need for fertilizers with those nutrients (Lewis 2014). The level of nitrogen depends on the source as two studies found conflicting results. A 1999 study reported, “Although reclaimed water provides all the phosphorus, calcium, and boron required by trees in central Florida, this water cannot supply sufficient nitrogen, even if it is applied at high [100 inches/year] rates:” (Parsons 1999, 4). On the other hand, high nitrogen concentrations were reported by Magesan (200 0) that can be detrimental to crops due to excessive microbial growth and activity (Magesan 2000). Therefore, reclaimed water contains nutrients needed by crops, but the levels of nutrients must be matched with the crop’s needs. Either way, the use of rec laimed water has been shown to reduce fertilizer use, increase crop yields, and save money. A study in Australia found that the “use of reclaimed water could save 75 percent of the cost of chemical fertilizers” (Smith 1982, 71). In Florida, the Water Conse rv II project found an increase in citrus tree growth and fruit yields as they reported findings of increased canopy size and volume and improved fruit yield through the application of reclaimed water (Parsons 1992). Later Cross (2000) found that “citrus t rees irrigated with reclaimed water are in better condition, produce larger crops, and have better soil and leaf mineral profiles than those irrigated with well water.” (Cross 2000, 26). That same study by Cross (2000) found a $128/acre in annual energy sa vings through the elimination of irrigation pumping costs. Considering the multitude of benefits of irrigating with reclaim ed water, the multifunctional agricultural park’s success would not be hindered by the use of reclaimed water.

PAGE 64

64 According to IFAS, the use of reclaimed water on crops has the following benefits : (Lewis 2014) Conserves groundwater reserves Provides a dependable water supply during droughts and freezes Eliminates the need for a consumptive use permit that is required for irrigation wells Reduces fertilizer costs due to nutrients in reclaimed water 7.17 :: Public perception of reclaimed water While the use of reclaimed water for irrigation offers numerous benefits to farmers, its use is still a public concern as misunderstandings of the quality of reclaimed water tarnish its capacity to serve as a safe irrigation source. The IFAS report by Lewis (2014) reported public perception as “one of the largest obstacles to reclaimed water use on edible crops” (Lewis 2014, 3). The public has voiced concerns of pathological and heavy metal contamination from the use of reclaimed water on crops, yet a study by Toze (2006) found that after proper treatment of wastewater render the presence of pathogens and heavy metals not a major concern. K rauss and Page (1997) found that the public perception of fearing reclaimed water due to concerns of the presence of pathogen and heavy metals was due to a lack of adequate education. Therefore, public education of the safety of irrigating with reclaimed water offers an opportunity of employing the reclaimed water on the repurposed golf course as an educational tool to communicate the safety measures taken when applying reclaimed water and the benefits of using reclaimed water. 7.18 :: Summary on the Safety of Reclaimed Water Therefore, considering the findings above, reclaimed water is used on golf courses and will be suitable for use on a repurposed golf course for the irrigation of edible crops. Not only does reclaimed water meet water quality standards , but reclaimed water can lead to increased plant growth and crop yields, decreased fertilizer input, and reduced energy inputs. To ensure public safety, precautions such as drip irrigation on “salad” crops will be taken to ensure the safety of the crops, and educational signage will communicate to the public the safety and benefits of irrigating with reclaimed water. 7.19 :: Conversion Opportunities The golf course landscape offers a variety of opportunities for conversion over to an agricultural use. Aft er testing the soil conditions of the golf course, the new owner could grow crops on the long swathes of cleared land. The golf course ponds offer opportunities of creating a treatment wetland or other water feature or using the conditions for aquaculture. The forested areas of golf courses could be conserved and enhanced with native plants to provide habitat for birds and other wildlife. Besides the landscapes, the existing infrastructure of irrigation, golf cart paths, the clubhouse, and mowers, tractors, and other equipment could prove useful for agricultural applications and even reduce upfront development costs of repurposing the golf course.

PAGE 65

65 UGA Master’s student, Blake Conant, published his thesis, Bankrupt golf courses: An historical analysis and str ategies for repurposing, in 2013 and mentioned possible sustainable conversion options. Among the options was urban agriculture. 7.20 :: Golf course elements The following landscape types found on the golf course were identified by Conant (2013). The inf ormation here provides a summary of the specifications and details provided in his work. The main areas of concern include the greens, tees, fairways, the rough, water hazards, and the entrance + clubhouse. In a later section, the opportunities for convers ion to agricultural, social, and environmental uses for each landscape type will be d iscussed. The Greens : These cleared areas range, on average, from 4,500 to 6,500 square feet and can be in the shape of an oval, teardrop, square, or freeform shapes (C onant 2013, 46). Th e actual pinnable areas rarely “ exceed a slope of 3%, and the transition areas or humps rarely exceed a 10% slope” (Conant 2013, 46). The Tees : Like the greens, the teeing space ranges from 4,500 to 6,000 square feet. These areas have a very slight slope of 1% to promote some drainage. Unlike the greens, they are usually uniformly shaped (Conant 2013, 48 49). The Fairway and Rough : Between the teeing areas and the greens, lie the fairways and the rough. Fairway contours may resemble the existing contours of the land or were manipulated for proper drainage. Their slopes rarely exceed 10%. On the other hand, the rough contours may have slopes exceeding 10%, as the golf course architect tied the edges to the exis ting terrain (Conant 20 13, 49). Drainage infrastructure : A network of subsurface drainage lies below the 12 inches of growing media and the four inches of gravel. The lateral drainage lines are installed no more than 15 feet apart and extend across the entire green (Conant, 2 013). Water hazards : Lakes, ponds, creeks, rivers, wetlands, and/or man made irrigation pond s can exist on golf courses as hazards (Conant 2013, 50). Maintenance shed: Many golf courses are equipped with a maintenance shed for equipment storage, the mechanic’s shop, and even offices or a break room. Maintenance equipment: The existing maintenance equipment will vary based on the size and scale of the golf course. “Walking green mowers, triplexes, fairway mowers, gang mowers, aerators, chemical ap plication equipment, This diagram explains the layers of the sub surface drainage network. Under approximately 16 inches of growing media and gravel, drainage pipes move water off the greens. (Source: Conant 2013, 48). Figure 17 : Subsurface drainage of the greens

PAGE 66

66 bunker rakes, turf vehicles, tractors, skid steers, and sometimes front end loaders, backhoes, boom lifts, water trucks, and wood chippers” could be present at a golf course (Conant 2013, 55). Irrigation systems : Nearly all golf cou rses today have irrigation systems that over the tees, greens, and fairways. On a great number of golf courses, they are “computer controlled with a valve in head system”, and the water flow is regulated by pump houses (Conant 2013, 53). These systems can be spaced either in a triangular or square arrangement. Golf cart paths : Cart paths connect the clubhouse to all the holes on the course. A one way path is usually seven feet, and for two way traffic, a minimum of ten feet is required (Conant 2013, 555 6). Clubhouse : Many clubhouses have space for “cart storage, parking, social areas, pro shop, starter’s station, and the kitchen and bar” (Conant 2013, 52) and greatly vary in size. 7.21 :: Golf course elements converted to agricultural, green infrastru cture, recreational, and educational elements After reviewing Conant’s findings of the conditions provided by the various landscapes of the golf course, the landscapes of the golf course were linked to possible agricultural elements. This serves as a preview of the opportunities offered by the various golf course landscapes; in later sections, the matrix that is created and the discussion that follows will provide more details and fully explain the suitability of the golf course sites for various agricultural features. Greens, Tees, and Fairways : These cleared green areas with sub surface drainage, irrigation, and gentle slopes could readily be converted to areas of agricultural production including row crops, orchards, raised bed production, greenhouses, and flower/nursery production. Along with agricultural uses, recreational fields, event space, and educational venture could be placed on these cleared areas. The Rough : The landscape of the rough with variably topography and forested patches could be used as a conservation area and enhanced with the reintroduction of native plants. Additionally, apiaries and forestry related production types could take place in the rough. Considering the recreational options, adventure playgrounds could be constructed using the opportunities of the existing trees and “wild” landscape. Water hazards : The existing stormwater ponds, ponds and lakes present the opportunity of stormwater treatment and management or aquaculture. The ponds could be enlarged and/or connected to treat more stormwater. If the water quality is high and the size of the ponds is appropriate for aquaculture, the ponds could be used for fish or plant production. Besides ponds and lakes, streams may be present. A plant buffer could be used to protect the stream from pollutant uptake and re introduce native plants. These measures would help to enhance the quality of the stream. The stream could then be open to classes as a teaching laboratory or could be left as a preserved area.

PAGE 67

67 Irrigation systems : The existing irrigation infrastructure could be easily retrofitted for agricultural purposes. The financial savings from installing a new irrigation system would greatly reduce the start up costs of an agricultural operation. Maintenance equipment and s hed : The movers, rakes, and other landscape maintenance equipment would prove very useful to an agricultural operation. The maintenance shed provides a readily accessible space for storing agricultural equipment. Golf cart paths : The paths could be used as routes to the various agricultural fields and operations. Besides providing access to production areas, the paths provide connections to possible recreational (amphitheater, great lawn, etc.) and educational (teaching garden, educational building and k itchen, etc.) spaces. Additionally, t he paths could be used as walking, jogging, or biking trails. The Clubhouse : The clubhouse and its interior spaces (kitchen, dining area, shops) could be converted into an educational or outreach venue. The main buil ding could serve as an educational meeting space, and the kitchen could be used for cooking or nutrition classes. 7.22 :: Summary This chapter provided information to identify the constraints and opportunities of converting a golf course to a landscape w ith agricultural elements. The risk of contamination from exposure to pesticide degradate s, residual heavy metals, and pathogens from residual pesticide and herbicide use and the application of reclaimed water was investigated, and overall, the risk of exp osure to contaminants though the consumption of edible crops is low . If contamination exists, remediation options of increased microbial activity, phytoreme diation, and activated biochar could render the soil safe for edible crop production. The use of rec laimed water poses little to no threat of exposure to pathogens and heavy metals as long as the water source and conditions are known, precautions (drip irrigation) are taken when irrigating with reclaimed water, and proper crops are selected considering t heir level of contaminant uptake. As seen through the example of cultivating citrus with reclaimed water, the application of reclaimed water can be extremely beneficial as the water provides nutrients, provides a reliable source of water during drought con ditions , and save s money. Lastly, the review of Blake Con ant’s 2013 thesis highlighted the various landscapes of the golf course and their approximate sizes and features. As was discussed, the various golf course landscapes and features provide existing f eatures and conditions suitable for conversion to an agricultural use or the recreational/educational/social or environmental uses of the multifunctional park. In further sections, the greens, tees, fairways, the rough, water hazards, and the entrance + cl ubhouse will be discussed for their sp ecific potential opportunities and will be included in the matrix presented in Chapter 10.

PAGE 68

68 Chapter 8 : Case studies of urban farms 8.1 :: Introduction To address the second question of “What ‘program elements’ exist o n urban farms of varying acreage that contribute to agricultural production, community building + recreation, and environmental services + green energy?” , case studies of existing urban farms on acreage similar to that of golf courses are identified. Prairie Crossing (100 acres), Riverview Gardens (76 acres), and Viet Village Farm (28 acres) will be used for the case studies. The urban farms were selected for their multifunctionality and emphasis on large scale production for the public or community. The ca se studies will identify specific details of the urban farms: location, owner, agricultural production elements, social program elements, economic program, and scheduled events. It is assumed that a repurposed golf course into an urban farm would use simil ar components that comprise the three successful case studies. Each of the elements is linked to production, environmental, social, and economic benefits with some elements associated with more than one benefit. A chart of the elements and their associate d benefits accompanies each case study to demonstrate what features of the farm contribute to various benefits. The associated benefits are judged and provided based upon information in the preceding chapters and literature review and are provided to solel y illustrate the various benefits of these operations. 8.2 :: Case Study 1 V iet Village Urban Farm Size: 28 acres Location: New Orleans, LA Date conceived: 2008 Designers: Spackman, Mossop + Michaels 8.2.1 :: Description After being hit hard by Hurri cane Katrina in 2005, the Northeast Corner of New Orleans was looking for an avenue to revitalize the community and serve those most affected by the storm and the struggle of the aftermath. The Vietnamese community comprises a large portion of the area, an d there was demand for more space to grow culturally significant fruits and vegetables not provided in the stores. To provide a place to grow fruits and vegetables and share the fruits of labor at a community market, the Vietnam Community Development Corpo ration sought the help of Spackman, Mossop + Michaels to design a 28 acre urban farm. The farm is currently under development but will contain community gardens, commercial farming plots, an orchard, a nd livestock as production type s. To support the produ ction areas, a reservoir, water collection and management system, and solar and wind power generation will provide sustainably sourced water and energy. A windmill and water tower system helps disperse water from the reservoir to the crops. Any water drain ing from the fields is captured in a central biofiltration canal and sent back to the reservoir. Adding an

PAGE 69

69 In this plan view drawing, you can see how the farm is nes tled inside a residential neighborhood. At the main entrance, the visitor first finds the sports fields and community garden plots. Following the community gardens, the market pavilion serves as the hub for social interaction and trade during the market. T owards the back, the grass paver parking lot and livestock farm area serve essential functions but do not take center stage. (Source: Spackman, Mossop + Michaels) element of recreation, the site will also provide play areas and sports fields. The project was so well received by the American Society of Landscape Architects that Viet Village Urban Farm received the 2008 Professional Award by the society. The farm demonstrates the ability of urban farms to provide fresh and healthy produce, incorporate “green” energy production, manage stormwater, conserve water, an d help build a stronger community through elements of socialization, recreation, and new markets, followed by subsequent economic growth. T his axonometric view identifies the 4 main zones of the project: the farmer’s market, the community gardens, commercial farming areas, and livestock farming. In the plan, the reservoir and main biofiltration canal are also visible. (Source: Spackman, Mossop + Michaels) Figure 18 : Axonometric view of Viet Village Farm Figure 19 : Plan view of Viet Village Farm

PAGE 70

70 8.2.2 :: Viet Village Urban Farm: Elements and Their Associated Benefits Table 3 : The various program elements of Viet Village Farm and their associated benefits Element Production Benefit Environmental Benefit Social Benefit Economic Benefit Community gardens Commercial farming plots Orchard Livestock facility Wa ter collection and management system Reservoir Recycling/Composting Center Solar and wind power generation Market pavilions Play areas Sports fields 8.2.3 :: Findings from Case Study 1 T he list of program elements derived from this case study serves to provide elements suitable for the conversion of golf courses to multifunctional agricultural parks. While this farm’s size is small (25 acres) compared to the expansive acreage of most golf courses, this project strongly illustrates the capacity of coupling various agricultural production techniques (fields, livestock, etc.) with environmental uses (canals, water retention, solar and wind energy production) and recreational elements (sport’s fields). The various production elements listed here from this case study could be applied to the converted golf course s . With the extra acreage of the golf course, the elements listed here could be expanded upon and scaled up.

PAGE 71

71 8.3: Case Study 2Riverview Gardens Size: 76 acres Locat ion: Appleton, WI Date conceived: 2011 Designers: N/A 8.3.1 :: Description Not too long ago, Riverview Gardens, a community supported farm, was a golf course named Riverview Golf Course. Right in the middle of Appleton, WI, the Riverview Golf Course offer ed residents and visitors a close by and convenient game of golf for over 100 years. Suffering from declining numbers of users, the golf course was then sold for $2.6 million to the Community Outreach Temporary Services (COTS). The non profit organization was able to purchase the property through $1.6 million in donations and a $1 million loan through the Community First Credit Union. COTS, a group that provides temporary shelter and self sufficiency training to the homeless in Outagamie, Winnebago, and Cal umet counties, saw the site as an opportunity to provide job training and healthy food for those in need while creating a multiuse park for the community. The urban farm operation will feature yearround vegetable production in 40 of 20’ x 100’ greenhou ses, in ground vegetable gardens, an apiary, and an orchard along with providing for environmental and recreational/social areas in the form of prairie s , bike trails, an amphitheater , a community center, education building, garden office, and future retail space. Food will be sold at a discount to low income individuals and also through a CSA operation and farmer’s markets. Any food not dispersed to low income residents or to CSA members will be sold to local grocers and restaurants. The revenue will be use d to support Riverview Gardens, COTS, and 60 other housing and community organizations. It’s more than food though. The organization is providing job training in organic vegetable production, marketing, sales, and property management through the ServiceWor ks project. In addition, the Earn a Bike program donates bikes to volunteers after 15 hours of work. Along with service oriented programs, the farm is equipped with the ability to host a variety of events. The converted club house from the previous golf co urse was retrofitted to be able to serve as a venue for corporate, private, or non profit events. Again, like Viet Village Farm, Riverview Gardens, serves as a multifunctional landscape. The primary focus is agricultural production, yet the landscape as wh ole provides for social empowerment, education, socialization, and recreation.

PAGE 72

72 Figure 20: Plan view of Riverview Gardens Like Viet Village Urban Farm, Riverview Gardens is nestled beside residences on three sides and commercial development to the east. At the Northeast corner, the main entrance directly takes the visitor to the community center and educational center. A large prairie and system of walking and biking trails connects users to the amphitheater that takes center stage in the heart of the site. The trail system then leads users to the agricultural area. The hoop houses, orchards, and gardens comprise the agricultural zones. Interspersed among the production areas, the picnic pavilions and apiaries are nestled in the forested zones. (Source: Email with Kelly Nutty, assistant operator of Riverview Gardens)

PAGE 73

73 8.3.2: Riverview Gardens: Elements and Their Associated Benefits Table 4 : The various program elements of Riverview Gardens and thei r associated benefits Element Production Benefit Environmental Benefit Social Benefit Economic Benefit Gardens Apiary Orchard Aquaponics Prairie Picnic Pavilions Bike Trails Amphitheater Community center E ducational buildings 8.3.3 :: Findings from Case Study 2 This case study provides strong supporting information for this project as this selected project converted a golf course to into a park with agricultural elements. As an observation of the agricultural elements, this site used many greenhouses for plant production. Considering the larger scale of this project and desire to provide more food to a large community, intense agricultural systems like greenhouses/hoophouses can produce more crops with less risk. As compared to the previous case study of Viet Village Farm, this farm provides for areas of restored ecosystems as demonstrated by the farm’s space for prairies. Additionally, considering the larger space available on this property, the acreage allowed for hiking and biking trails. Lastly, as the golf course is surrounded by the community of Appleton, WI, the site is centrally located to a diverse mix of users. As such, the farm is designed to meet educational, social, and recreational needs. The farms owners provide educational and outreach programs to serve low income residents , and there is a large amphitheater to serve as a venue to reach all users. Overall, this case provided a mix of program elements that will strongly support the initiat ives of the multifunctional agricultural park.

PAGE 74

74 8.4 :: Case Study 3 Prairie Crossing Size: 100 acres Location: Greylake, IL Date conceived: 1986 Designers: William “Bill” Johnson, LA 8.4.1 :: Description The Prairie Crossing Community knew they wanted agriculture at the heart of their planned community development. Just north of Chicago, this masterplanned community contains 360 homes, 30 condominiums, a mixed use town center, school, and community center. The farm lies on the Western edge of the community and provides space for commu nity gardening and large scale production of food. Forty acres of the farm is leased to SandHill Organics, a farming operation owned by two families. The remaining acreage is operated by the Prairie Crossing Learning Farm an d the Prairie Crossing Farm Business Development Program. The farm was financed through a marketing program, and the homeowner’s association gives $10,000 per year to the farm in recognition for community wide benefits generated by the farm. The Learning farm has served the immediate residents of the community along with outside visitors. The farm provides fresh, organic produce as part of a CSA, consisting of many members of the planned community. The farm invites guests and users from the community as i t hosts seasonal events. In the winter, the farm hosts the Winter Film Screening and then in warmer months, visitors can check out the Good Food Festiv al and Conference, Organic Plant Sale, and Farm Open House. Besides serving as a place for events and celebrations, the farm offers a wide variety of training opportunities for upcoming professionals, job training for teenagers, and camps for kids. The Prairie Crossing Farm contains the Prairie Crossing Farm Business Development Center that provides training, land, material resources, and financing to help educate and enable a new generation of farmers. To reach Lake County teenagers and provide training, the farm operates the Prairie Farm Corps. The Corp’s curriculum covers cultivation, maintenance, marketing , sales, and cooking. Lastly, the farm provides a Summer Farm Camp and After school Farm Camp that provides agricultural education and outdoor activities for children. Additionally, the farm provides hiking and biking trails for exploration and recreation. Similar to the previous two case studies, the Prairie Crossing Farm provides access to healthy food while providing for social and recreational activities.

PAGE 75

75 Figure 21: Plan view graphic of Prairie Crossing Farm The farm and prairie surrounds the master planned community. In the top middle of the graphic, a community center provides the gateway to the learning/demonstration farm. (Source: Ranney et. Al, 2010, p. 9)

PAGE 76

76 While no detailed plan of the farming operation exists, the aerial view p rovides some contextual information of the location of the elements. Much of the farm is allocated for row crop and vegetable production with the remaining sections comprised of native prairie plants . A wetland collects agricultural run off and channels th e water to the lake at the center of the residential section. (Source: Google earth) Figure 22: Aerial view of Prairie Cros sing Farm 8.4.2 :: Prairie Crossing: Elements and Their Associated Benefits Table 5 : The various program elements of Prairie Crossing and their associated benefits Element Production Benefit Environmental Benefit Social Benefit Ec onomic Benefit Community Gardens Row crops Orchard Greenhouse/Hoophouse Hen house and poultry pasture Prairie Wetland Children’s Garden Community Center Hiking and Biking Trails

PAGE 77

77 8.4.3 :: Findings from Ca se Study 3 Urban farms of significant acreage are rare considering the constraints of the urban landscape. Therefore, when seeking a community based or “urban” farming system of 100 acres or more, the Prairie Crossing learning farm served as a valuable mod el for converting golf courses of possibly 100+ acres . The agricultural eleme nts of Prairie Crossing and the su pport elements (educational center, wetland, etc.) serve as a potential model of elements for the multifunctional agricultural park. While most o f the site is allocated to row crop and vegetable production, the site is multifunctional. A wetland running through the site and associated stormwater ponds capture excess nutrients from the farm and serves as an example of sustainable agricultural practices. In addition to agricultural production, the site provides an educational center for the farm’s business training center, youth development program, and the after school and summer programs. Lastly, the site hosts a wide variety of seasonal festivals a nd events. Such community engagement through the festivals and outreach programs would be essential components to the multifunctional agricultural park of the converted golf course. 8.5 :: Findings and Discussion from Case Studies The following case studi es serve to provide an overview of the types of agricultural production, environmental management, social, and recreational elements that make up large scale urban farms. While the specific program of proposed urban farms will depend on the mission and goals of the project, the available funding, the needs and desires of the community and social context, these elements have suited the three farms described in the case studies and could prove to be useful elements for other farms. The elements were found on farms of varying sizes: 28 acres, 76 acres, and 100 acres, and the case studies serve to provide a breath of options for farms of different scales. The following chart compiles all the elements of the farms and their associated benefits.

PAGE 78

78 8.6 :: Elements from Viet Village, Riverview Gardens, and Prairie Crossing Urban Farms Table 6 : The various program elements of all three case studies and their associated benefits Element Production Benefit Environmental Benefit Social Benefit Economic Benefit Community gardens Commercial farming plots Orchard Apiary Greenhouses/Hoophouses Aquaponics Livestock facility/Hen House Water collection and management system Reservoir Recycling/Co mposting Center Solar and wind power generation Restored ecosystem Community Center Education Building Market pavilions Play areas Children’s garden Sports fields Walking and Biking Trails P icnic pavilions

PAGE 79

79 Chapter 9 : Considerations for Siting Agricultural Elements 9.1 :: Identifying site conditions for urban agriculture Now that Question 1 identified golf courses as suitable sites for agricultural production and Question 2 identified various program elements of urban farming operations this chapter and the following serve to address Question 3, “ What environmental conditions must first be considered when siting agricultural production elements and secondly, what possibilities of retrofit and relationships among program elements can be envisioned by linking the opportunities of the golf course landscape with the identified program elements of the multifunctional farms?” This chapter addresses the first part of the question by highl ighting environmental conditions to consider when siting agricultural elements. The information gathered from the case studies provides a list of suitable elements for urban farms. Proposed urban farms may look to this collection of program elements as a possible bank of program elements, yet site conditions of the farm will determine the suitability of certain elements. Currently, site conditions and concerns to consider when designing urban farms are presented in April Phillips’s Designing Urban Agriculture (2014), Timothy Beatley’s Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities (2000), Jac Smit’s Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs, and Sustainable Cities (1996), yet no comprehensive guide exists to link site conditions determined by soils, topography, the pr esence of water bodies, and sunlight availability to certain agricultural production types. The following review presents the current literature’s recommendation for siting elements of urban agriculture and highlights how this project will assist designers of urban agriculture when link ing site conditions to a range of production elements. 9.2 :: Considerations and Recommendations based on Soil Conditions Both Phillips (2014) and Smit (1996) address the importance of assessing soil conditions before siting agricultural production techniques. Soil types lend themselves to varying degrees of fertility due to the composition of mineral components (sand, silt, and clay), organic matter and nutrients, microbial activity, pH, and quality of drainage. The combination of mineral components can greatly affect water retention and drainage. Medium or loamy textured soils with a balanced mixture of the three components have proven to be the most successful for agriculture (Parikh, 2012). Considering the sandy conditio ns of Florida soils and the subsequent qui ck drainage of water and leaching of nutrients, many Florida soils benefit from the addition of organic matter to increase the water retention and retain nutrients. Adding organic matter aids in establishing an ide al pH for crop production which usually ranges from 6.0 to 7.5 (Parikh, 2012). Therefore, when considering the suitability of the golf course landscape for agricultural production, a comprehensive soil test is recommended to assess the soil conditions and prescribe amendments. As mentioned previously, testing for the presence of heavy metals and toxic substance is strongly advised.

PAGE 80

80 After determining the soil quality and assessing the risk, a wide range of agricultural production types could be sited. In a large, sunny area with suitable agricultural soils, row crops, vegetables, fruits may be grown directly in the soil or in raised beds depending on the scale and use of the site. Alternatively, poorly draining soils and/or extremely nutrient deficient soil s could become the site of other agricultural techniques such as agroforestry and apiaries or could serve an environmental or recreational use as a stormwater collection and treatment area, conservation area, trail system, or adventure playground. 9.3 :: Considerations and Recommendations based on Topography The site’s topographical conditions largely determine the ease of establishing agricultural production. Steep and unstable slopes prove difficult for the establishment of some forms of agriculture du e to the inaccessibility of large machinery, and therefore large areas of crop production usually take place on flat or gradually sloping land. Beatley (2000) recommends the establishment of forestry related activities and terrace agriculture on steep slop es. He notes the benefits of slope stabilization and erosion reduction as products of establishing those forms of agricultural production on steep slopes. Smit (1996) mentions the use of steep slopes for milk production, egg production, orchards, apiaries , and fish ponds in addition to agroforestry as potential agricultural uses for steep slopes. In line with Beatley’s observations, Smit acknowledges the capacity of a managed forest to stabilize slopes and secondly, provide sources of wood, crops, and anim als. 9.4 :: Considerations and Recommendations based on the presence of Water Bodies The presence of water bodies offers unique opportunities of agricultural production. Although urban water bodies accumulate stormwater runoff and pollutants, they are safe sites for agricultural production considering the use of aquatic plant and fish production as biological treatment and mitigation of contaminants (Smit, 1996). Smit finds that “fish and water vegetables can be raised in wastewater purified less completely than needed for direct human consumption. Furthermore, in many cases, the process of raising these crops purifies the wastewater to a cleaner state than some current sources of potable water.” (Smit 1996,109). Historically, wetlands have been used as a very successful form of agricultural production. The Aztecs established chinampas in the Valley of Mexico. Shallow lake beds were fenced off and then large stakes were placed to create a large rectangle, usually 15 ’x 300’ or 30’ x 300’ (Jorge, 2011). A network of strung together vines and sticks created a matrix to establish layers of The chinampas serve as a model of agricultural production in wetlands with the use of natural materials (Source: http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/images ans/ans_46_01_2.jpg) Figure 23 : Chinampas

PAGE 81

81 mud, lake substrate, and plant material that would reach the top of the water. Willow trees were planted along the edges of the rectangle to strengthen the sides, and cana ls were located between each chinampa to allow for access. Crossing over the Atlantic to Amiens, a town north of Paris , one can observe the hortillon n ages dating back to the medieval era. Like the chinampas, these were agricultural growing spaces e stabli shed from a reclaimed wetland (Smit, 1996). While these forms of agriculture are not commonly employed in present day, they serve to demonstrate the variability of the agricultural landscape and the diverse locations suitable for agricultural production. The multifunctional agricultural park might serve to attract visitors and educate t he public with these cultural, historic, and unique forms of productive spaces. In addition to serving an educational role, these spaces could provide growing space for t hose residents whose cultural heritage links to these landscapes, providing them with a culturally significant experience. Along with establishing intricate forms of infrastructure in a similar fashion to the chinampas and the hortillonages, Smit (1996) re commends the establishment of edible aquatic plants such as “water spinach, water cress, water chestnuts, lotus stems and various so called seaweeds” (Smit 1996, 109). Non edibles such as duckweed and water hyacinth could potentially be grown and harvested for use in compost or fuel or to serve as a means of water purification (Smit, 1996). Finally, the ponds can be used for the breeding and production of fish, pisciculture. In the small lakes and ponds of urban areas, fish production occurs in a controlled environment in ponds or in cages in rivers and lakes. Smit (1996) observed a Panamanian farmer who successfully raised tilapia, carp, shrimp, and native fish in a series of four quarter hectare ponds that were fed by pig and poultry waste. The hortillonnages of France serve as an additional method of agricultural production in wet conditions (Source: http://www.hortillonnages amiens.fr/media/images/cms/banniere hortillonnages barque.jpg) Fig ure 24 : Hortillonnages

PAGE 82

82 9.5 :: Co nsiderations and Recommendations based on Solar Conditions The amount of solar availability and orientation will largely dictate suitable crops. Phillips (2014) notes the solar orientation as the most critical factor to consider when siting agricultural p roduction. Plants that require sun to produce food usually require at least six hour s of full sun, and others that require partial sun need to be kept from direct sun exposure to avoid burning. Therefore, when siting agricultural production, the sun/shade diagrams would prove helpful when siting agricultural production. 9.6 :: Prescription Guide Upon considering the wide array of soil, topographical, hydrological, and solar conditions, it is clear certain agricultural elements will be more suitable than o thers for various landscapes. In order to provide designers with a guide of linking existing environmental conditions to various forms of agricultural production, a “prescription guide” was prepared to demonstrate how existing conditions can be determined and linked to agricultural uses. The guide recommends siting agricultural production techniques based upon responses to the existing conditions of soil, topography, and solar input. The presence of water bodies was not included since the available agricult ural options for this environment are limited to water based production types. This diagram serves to provide an example of a process to analyze a site for its soil, topographical, and solar conditions and secondly, the guide suggests agricultural elements suitable for those conditions. The agricultural elements were chosen based upon the agricultural elements from the three cases and agricultural elements mentioned in this review of Beatley, Phillips, and Smit’s work. The future matrix will link the golf course landscapes to the various agricultural, recreational/educational/social, and environment elements of the multifunctional park and discuss other concerns to consider along with the environmental conditions . For now, this guide solely serves to guide the siting of the agricultural elements.

PAGE 83

83 9.7 :: Summary This chapter served to provide an overview of the environmental systems and conditions of concern when siting agricultural uses. As discussed, the site’s soil conditions, topography, presence of water bodies, and solar conditions will greatly determine the agricultural, educational/recreational/social, and environmental elements of the multifunctional agricultural park. Various experts of urban agriculture (Beatley, Phillips, and Smit) provide valuable information for judging the conditions of the site and linking the site opportunities to forms of agricultural production. As presented by Beatley and Smit, areas of topographical change and water that are seemingly unproductive spaces fo r agriculture can serve as suitable locations for diverse forms of agriculture. Steep slopes could become space for egg production, forestry related activities, terraced agriculture , orchards, and/or aquaponics. Therefore, considering the mostly evenly slo ped and cleared conditions of the golf course combined with the water hazards, rough, and tree breaks, a great variation of agricultural elements could exist on the multifunctional farm. Figure 25 : The Prescription Guide The Prescription Guide provides a method of linking agricultural production techniques to suitable site conditions. When considering a golf course to multifunctional agricultural park conversion, this guide serves to suggest suitable agricultural program elements based upon the existing conditions of the golf course.

PAGE 84

84 Chapter 10: The Matrix, Discussion , and Illustrations 10.1 :: Intro duction to the Matrix, Discussion, and Illustrations Chapter 9 provided valuable suggestions for linking agricultural elements to various site conditions found on the future converted golf courses. This chapter intends to provide a detailed matrix to conne ct the program elements of the multifunctional agricultural park to the opportunities and the landscape types of the golf course identified in Chapter 7. The matrix includes the three types of program elements found on the urban farms: agricultural, recreational/social/educational, and environmental on the “y” axis and the seven common landscapes (greens and tees, fairways, the rough, water hazards, sand bunkers, the tree breaks, and the clubhouse/entrance) of the golf course on the “x” axis. The matrix was generated by taking into account information gathered from Conant’s thesis, the suggestions of Beatley, Phillips, and Smit and additional research. Following the matrix, a detailed discussion explains the reasoning behind the given level of suitability (s uitable, variable, or unsuitable) and provides images of the various program elements. Various relationships between the program elements and the landscape of the golf course will be identified. The images inside the discussion provide a sort of image board to imagine the diverse range of possibilities, but the relationships between program elements is not explained through the mix of images. (Note: The image sources for the images in the discussion are provided in Appendix B.) Following the discussion, three scenarios have been chosen to illustrate the possible siting of various elements and relationships among elements . Conceptual design illustrations of the clubhouse/entrance, water hazards, and tree breaks highlight interesting relationships identified in the discussion. The illustrations are meant to communicate the decision making process of linking program elements to various site conditions while layering multiple uses (agricultural, educational/recreational/social, and environmental) together. Consi dering the time restraints of this project, only three scenarios have been identified. The landscapes chosen to generate the illustrations have been taken from three golf courses in South Florida: Hollywood Beach Golf Course, Orangebrook Golf Course (Holly wood, FL), and the Pompano Beach Golf Course. The golf courses were chosen since their site conditions exhibit typical conditions of a clubhouse/entrance, water hazards, and tree breaks. Additionally, all three of the golf courses are municipally owned gol f courses and therefore relate to this project’s intention of communicating to those in public office of the possibility of converting their publicly owned golf courses to a new use.

PAGE 85

85 10.2 :: T he Matrix Figure 26 : The Matrix Golf Course Landscapes

PAGE 86

86 10.3 :: The Discussion 10.3.1 :: Landscape 1: Greens and Tees Summary of Suitable Element s Part A: Production Elements A1) Readily suitable Elements: Smal l and Large Scale Production, Greenhouses, Orchards, and Apiaries The cleared and very slightly sloped areas of the greens and tees provide a relatively readily convertible space for agricultural production. Their commonly found sizes of 4,500 to 6,000 square feet and slopes of one t o five percent are suitable for small scale production of raised Productive Environmental Social/Edu/Recreational Raised beds and vertical production Solar Energy Outdoor Classroom Row Crops Wind Energy Community Center Greenhouses Restored Ecosystem Market space Orchards Performance area Limited livestock (Chicken and Petting Zoo) Teaching gardens/Demonstrative areas Apiaries Children’s area Walking/Biking Trails Lawn Games Picnic Pavilions Raised beds can vary in height, dimensions, materials, and detailing. As seen here, thoughtfullydesigned raised beds can be productive and attractive. Note: Graphic found at http://bayofquintegolf.com/course/course layout but manipulated for demonstration Figure 28 : Greens and Tees on the golf course Figure 27 : Matrix Reference for the greens and te es Figure 29 : Raised Beds

PAGE 87

87 beds, green walls, and other forms of vertical agriculture. Raised beds, typically 3 4’ wide and 4 12’ in length, could be arranged in various ways as lon g as an access path of 1 4’ is included. In ground production of vegetables could take place in rows of 80 100 feet with widths of 3 4 feet, including a small path for access. Considering the 4,500 to 6,000 square foot area of the greens and tees, approxim ately 8 to 12 rows of 100’x4’ rows can fit within the usual space of the greens or tees. In addition to raised beds or in ground production of vegetables, vertical systems of growing crops are well suited to the flat and well draining conditions of the greens and tees. Depending on the location of the greens and tees, these systems may prove suitable if they are easy to access for maintenance. For example, a vertical herb garden (top left) located on a repurposed tee near the entrance could serve to attract guests and serve as an education al tool. Vertical growing systems range from trellis and string structures (top right) to hydroponic set ups (bottom). Alternative to raised bed or in ground production, greenhouse/hoop house production could be sited for the greens and tees. The greenhouses/hoop houses can be used for seed starting, the housing of sensitive plants, ornamental plant production, and/or indoor hydroponics or aquaponics. The area of the greens and tees is suitable for the sizes of green house and hoop houses. Considering the 100’x20’ greenhouses found at Riverview Gardens Urban Farm, the greens and tees could fit two very large structures, or if a smaller structure (20’x 50’) was chosen, four to six greenhouse Vertical growing systems can greatly vary in scale and design, but all efficiently use small spaces. Greenhouse production can provide space for a wide range of producti on techniques. Figure 30 : Vertical growing systems Figure 31 : Greenhouse example

PAGE 88

88 or hoop house structures could be built. The size of the greens and tees proves amenable to the siting of greenhouses and hoop houses. Additionally, the very gradual slope of these areas allows for adequate drainage while providing a seemingly flat landscape. Greens and tees could be readily transformed to the site of greenhouses considering their size, drainage capacity, and high degree of an even and relatively flat slope. Lastly, greens and tees that are the found in the interior or far edge of the golf course relative to the golf course entrance may best be sited for row crop or orchard production. Row crops and orchards require less attention than the smallerscale production of raised beds, green walls, and greenhouses and are better suited for large tracts of land. The greens a nd tees found in the deep interior or exterior edges of the golf courses can be integrated with surrounding productive systems on the converted fairways and roughs. For example, a grove of orange trees found on a converted fairway can be extended to the gr eens or tees. Secondly, the cleared and sunny areas of the interior or far away greens and tees could be suitable for an apiary. The existing cart paths or other pathways to the green and tees allow for quick access to the bees for regular maintenance or c ollection. It should be noted that apiaries should be placed at a reasonable distance from dense and highly used public areas. A2) Elements of Concern : In ground Hydro/Aquaponics and Livestock Production Considering the expected fastdraining conditions , the sub surface drainage network of the greens and tees, and their high degree of visibility, some forms of agricultural production are not suitable for these landscapes. In ground hydroponics or aquaponics would require immense earthwork and the additio n of a clay layer or a synthetic water retaining layer. Additionally, the high visibility of these spaces would not prove amenable for large scale livestock production. On the other hand, chicken coops and other structures requiring an even slope would pro ve suitable for the greens and tees. A petting zoo could prove suitable for the tees and greens near the entrance to provide an amenity. Chicken coops can be creatively designed and attract users. Figure 32 : Chicken coop

PAGE 89

89 Part B: Environment, Energy, and Water Program Elements B1) Readily suitable Elements: Solar and Wind Production and a Restored Ecosystem The greens and tees can prove suitable sites for the production of energy and the location of a restored ecosystem. First, the cleared space and even slope of the greens and tees can be readily sited for solar and/or wind energy production. Solar panels have much potential considering the high solar availability due to the cleared conditions. Considering the average size of a solar panel at 77 by 39 inches, a large collection of solar panels could fit on the area prov ided on the tees and greens. The Westmill Solar Park (left) on the Oxfordshire/Wiltshire border of England operates a 30 acre solarenergy generating field of 20,000 polycrystalline PV panels that combine to generate 4.8GWhr/year. This amount of energy me ets the annual electricity needs of 1,400 homes in the area. Depending on the geographic location of the golf course, the investment in wind energy may prove more suitable. The even slopes and cleared space of the greens and tees would also prove su itable for the capture of wind energy by large wind turbines. Wind turbines suitable for the golf course landscape would range from the mini (2’ diameter) to the smallscale commercial (33 66’ diameter), yet if a large area in the golf course is available, larger turbines may be suitable. The wind turbine from GaiaWind shown to the left produces around 40,000 kilowatt hours of energy per year with payback time as little as five years (Gaia). If the urban farm wishes to make a demonstration of these forms of energy production as an educational tool or a center piece attraction, the solar panels and wind turbines may be best suited for the greens and tees closest to the entrance of the golf course. Alternatively, they can be placed in the interior or outlyin g edge of the golf course depending on the client’s preference. Secondly, these interior or outlying greens and tees may be suitable as part Westmill Solar Park in England prov ides an example of the scale of solar energy production on 30 acres. Gaia Wind Model 133 11kW demonstrates a potentially suitable size for community scale production. Figure 33 : Westmill Solar Park Figure 34 : Community scale wind turbine

PAGE 90

90 of a restored ecosystem. If a restored ecosystem requires a well draining space with similar characteristics of an upland, the greens and tees may prove suitable for conversion. Additionally, the greens and tees may be integrated with the restored ecosystems found in the converted interior fairways and tree breaks. B2) Elements of Concern: Reservoir, Stormwater Coll ection, Composting Space The well draining conditions of the greens and tees would not prove suitable for the creation of a reservoir or treatment wetland. Much construction would be required to alter the expected fast draining conditions and the lack of elevation variation of the greens and tees. Likewise, the landscape does not offer immediate opportunities for the collection of stormwater in a large pond, yet a bioswale could be constructed and connected to a large collection and treatment area in a dif ferent location on the golf course. Lastly, the high visibility of the greens and tees render them unsuitable for composting spaces. These spaces provide pivotal functions for the farm, yet can prove to be unsightly or smelly locations. Unless used as a s mallscale educational tool, the composting space is not suitable for the highly visible greens and tees. Part C: Educational, Social, and Recreational Program Elements C1) Suitable Elements: Educational Space, Market Space, Performance Area, Children’s area, Walking and Biking Trails, and Picnic Pavilions The even slopes, cleared space, and good drainage conditions of the tees and greens can prove valuable for the establishment of educational spaces, social events, and recreational venues. First, the evenly sloped, welldraining, and cleared land allows for the construction of structures such as an educational building, market space, stage, amphitheater, and pavilions. The size of the greens and tees proves suitable for both large and small structures . Additionally, the greens and tees closest to the entrance of the golf course provide the best locations for these public amenities as they offer high visibility and ease of access. After testing the soil quality for contamination, children’s play struct ures or an adventure playground would also prove suitable options for the highly visible and easily accessible tees and greens. Lastly, greens and tees are suitable sites for walking and biking trails. Trails could be placed on the outer edge of the greens and tees as to reduce sun exposure. Interior or outlying greens and tees sited with trails could connect other trails found in the converted tree breaks, roughs, and fairways. Outdoor classrooms enable groups to share thoughts. Figure 35 : Outdoor classroom

PAGE 91

91 C2) Elements of Concern: Sport fields Considering the limited space of the tees and greens, sport fields are expected to not be suitable for the greens and tees. The average size of the greens and tees, 4,500 to 6,000 square feet, would not prove suitable for many sports requiring larger areas. For example, soccer requires a play area of approximately 64,000 ft2, and a multipurpose court with tennis, basketball, and volleyball requires 9,600 ft2. The noncontiguous layout of the greens and tees does not prove suitable for large scale sports fields that are usually seen close togeth er and allied with other sports. On the other hand, the greens and tees could prove suitable for smallerscale sports like bocce ball and other lawn games. Bocce Ball Court could be readily sited for greens and tees and provide a fun game. Figure 36 : Bocce Ball

PAGE 92

92 10.3.2 :: Landscape 2: Fairways Figure 38: Fairways in the Golf Course Summary of Suitable Elements Productive Environmental Social/Edu/Recreational In ground Production Solar Energy Educational Buildings Row Crops Wind Energy Market space Greenhouses Composting Area Performance area Orc hards Restored Ecosystem Children’s Area Apiaries Stormwater Collection Sports Fields Livestock Production Walking/Biking Trails Picnic Pavilions Part A: Production Elements A1) Readily suitable Elements: Large Scale production, Greenhouses, Orchards, Apiaries, and Livestock Production Suitable production elements for the fairways share similar suitable elements for the greens and tees with some notable exceptions. First, the slopes of the fairways can vary and exceed the slopes of the tees and greens. Unlike the tees and greens, the fairways may be comprised of natural or existing contours and can vary from minor slopes to up to 10%. Secondly, unlike the small areas of the tees and greens, the fairways occupy large, elongated areas. The size of the fairways varies, yet a combined area of the fairway and rough occupies 1 3 acres on a par 3, 4 7 acres on a par 4, and 7 10 acres on a par 5. The large size and variability of the fairways presents immense opportunity for agricultural In ground vegetable production can serve as a demonstration garden or could be managed by a CSA for acres of production. Figure 37 : Matrix Reference for Fairways Figure 39 : In ground vegetable production

PAGE 93

93 production. The l arge swatches of cleared land with both direct and indirect solar exposure provide a suitable location for in ground and/or row crop production. Fairways closest to the entrance would serve as effective spaces for demonstration gardens or family owned plot s of in ground vegetables. In contrast, the size of the fairways could prove amenable for row crop production. Machinery can access and easily maneuver these large areas. The layout of the production area will depend on type of crop and desired yield, yet as an average, a row width of three feet is suitable for most row crops. Row crops can be suitable for landscapes with a range of slopes. Depending on the grading of the fairways, farming along the contours, referred to as contour farming ( Figure 40 ), grea tly aids in reducing erosion. When considering repurposing the fairways for row crop production, planning farm activities according to Best Management Practices (BMP) will ensure the conservation of water, energy, and soil. The use of vegetative buffers around row crops would be essential to capture nutrients before reaching water bodies . Considering the interplay of various elements on the golf course landscape, vegetative buffers serve to inhibit water quality impairments and delineate various uses. If slopes are gradual, the fairways may be suitable for the siting of greenhouses. Depending on the orientation and size of the greenhouses, a large number of greenhouses could be sited on the fairways. Considering the need to access the greenhouses on a regular basis, greenhouses should be placed relatively close to the entrance. If slopes are highly variable, row crops and greenhouses may not be suitable production elements, yet the site could prove a good location for orchards. As noted by Smit (1996), orchards may be suitable for sites with variable contouring. He also noted the suitability of egg production and apiaries in areas of steep slopes. The fairways that prove accessible yet not highly visible may be suitable for livestock production. The dive rse landscape features of the fairways such as variable contouring and some tree cover on the edges may prove a suitable location for animal production. Figure 40 : Best Management Practices (BMPs) BMPs such as contour farming and vegetative strips help realize the agricultural park’s mission to demonstrate sustainable agricultural practices.

PAGE 94

94 A2) Elements of Concern: Small scale Production and Inground Hydroponics/Aquaponics Smallscale production techniques such as raised beds, green walls, and other forms of vertical agriculture would not be suitable for the expansive scale of the fairways. These production techniques are typically designed in a very compact arrangement and require much m aintenance and attention. Therefore, the large areas of the fairways would not fit the scale or provide easy access for these production techniques. The fairways are equipped with a subsurface drainage network to prevent any pooling or flooding. As such, in ground aquaponics would not prove a suitable production element for a well draining landscape. Similar to the greens and tees, much earthwork would be required to construct an inground hydroponics or aquaponics system. Part B: Environment, Energy, a nd Water Program Elements B1) Readily suitable Elements: Solar and Wind Energy Production, Stormwater Collection, Composting Area, and a Restored Ecosystem The large cleared areas of the fairways would provide the space and solar access required for both solar and wind energy production. The slope variability found on the fairways and the geographic location of the site will determine the suitability for either solar or wind production. The fairways closest to the entrance may be best suited for energ y production as these systems require regular maintenance. If stormwater collection is desired, a section of the fairway could serve as a bioswale, but as explained in the next section, the good drainage of the fairways does not provide suitable conditions for a large reservoir. In addition to energy production and stormwater capture, a composting area would be suitable for the fairway landscape. The non highly visible yet accessible areas of the fairways would provide adequate space for composting while be ing located away from the majority of the users. On the other hand, the Composting systems range from a series of bins t o compost materials at various stages and smallerscaled tumblers. Figure 4 1 : Composting Systems

PAGE 95

95 composting space can be used as an educational tool and be sited on a visible portion of the fairway. Lastly, outlying fairways may be a strong candidate for ecosystem restoration. The cleared land could become a restored prairie or forest. If stormwater capture is a primary concern for the client, a section of the repurposed fairway could become a treatment wetland or bioswale and connect to another water feature or hazard in a system of staged water treatment. B2) Elements of Concern: Reservoir Considering the network of sub surface drainage and quick drainage of the fairways, the construction of a reservoir would not be suitable. Depending on the site conditions, the fairways cou ld provide a supporting role as a water distributor (i.e. canal), yet the landscape does not readily prove a suitable site for water distribution and storage. Part C: Educational, Social, and Recreational Program Elements C1) Readilysuitable Elements: Educational Space, Market Space, Performance Area, Children’s area, Walking and Biking Trails, Sports Fields, and Picnic Pavilions The gradual slopes, welldraining conditions, and large areas of the fairways offer space for a wide range of opportunities for educational, social, and recreational elements. The educational space may require a network of buildings and a large space that is not provided by the tees and greens, and the fairways could serve as a location for an educational hub. Likewise, a mark et space with large pavilions or permanent structures may necessitate large ac reage. As shown to the left, a permanent structure or movable tents (bottom) can help create a market environment. In addition, the space could become a space for a food truck ra lly (next page). Considering the park like setting of the converted golf course, a permanent structure would serve multiple purposes while attracting vendors and customers. A performance area such as a stage or amphitheater could seat a large number of guests by taking advantage of the large areas provided by the fairways. These three elements are best suited in the highly visible and/or easily accessible portions of the fairways. The size of the amphitheater will depend on the density of the area and t he client’s desires, yet a space, A market space serves an essential role for the agricultural park. Figure 42 : Market spaces

PAGE 96

96 Adventure playgrounds allow children to test limits and explore as they climb and hop over longs, travel through tunnels, swing and jump, and roll down hills. large or small, would serve to gather the community for performances, speeches, or holiday events. Children’s areas, such as adventure playgrounds, may be best suited for the fairways as the fairways provide large areas and an edge of trees that may make for an interesting play area. Walking and biking trails and picnic pavilions can be located in various areas throughout the fairways to create a connected network of trails and resting/communing spaces. Lastly, the fairways offer the unique opportunity of allocating space for sport fields. The large and contiguous stretches of cleared land are the only space on the golf course to allow for large and connected fields. An amphitheater or stage can add a focal element and become the space for fes tivals. Food truck rallies have been an exciting and new event to public spaces around the county. Figure 43 : Food truck rally Figure 44 : Stage Figure 45 : Adventure Playground

PAGE 97

97 10.3.3 :: Landscape 3: The Rough Figure 47: The Rough in the golf course Suitable elements for the rough Productive Environmental Social/Edu/Recreational Orchard Restored Ecosystem Walking/Biking Trails Apiary Stormwater Collection Picnic Pavilions Livestoc k Production Children’s Area Hydro/Aquaponics Part A: Production Elements A1) Readily suitable Elements: Orchard, Apiary, Livestock facility, and In ground Hydroponics/Aquaponics Considering the highly variable slopes of the rough and the uncertain amounts of solar exposure, the rough is best suited for production techniques that can tolerate highly sloping conditions and the possibility of less than six hours of solar exposure. The rough can be comprised of slopes greater than 10%. Smit (1996) recommends terrace agriculture, egg production, orchards, and apiaries as suitable options for steep slopes. Since the rough may contain steep or highly variable slopes, these forms of production are suitable as they do not Orchards can serve as a beautiful element of the park as they produce fragrant flowers and fruits. The public can enjoy strolling thr ough the avenues of trees and picking fruit. Figure 46 : Matrix reference for the rough Figure 48 : Fruit Production

PAGE 98

98 require a level sloping terrain. Orchards and apiaries are suitable for these wild areas and can adapt to the variability of the landscape. Apiaries perform the best in sunny areas and would be most suitable for areas away from areas of public interaction. A flyway should be crea ted to encourage the bees to fly above human height (See Appendix A for more detailed information on flyways in the section on apiaries) . Along with apiaries, the production of animals would be a readily suitable use of the rough. Animals, such as goats, w ith t heir voracious appetites would readily graze the grass of the rough and would serve as the park’s builtin lawn mowing service. Lastly, if the rough experiences poor drainage conditions and a high level of contour variability, the rough may be a suitable location for in ground hydro/aquaponics. The fish or plants selected to be grown would need to be selectively chosen for their suitability considering the amount of solar exposure available. Access to all these production techniques would need to be pr ovided by new paths as many times the rough is not readily connected to the rest of the landscape. A2) Elements of Concern: Small and Large Scale Production and Greenhouses The uneven slopes, uncertain drainage conditions, and variable solar exposure re nder the rough unsuitable for small and large scale production and greenhouses. The overall inaccessibility of the rough, the uneven slopes, and the lack of continuous solar exposure would make small scale production difficult. Large scale production and g reenhouses are challenged by the uneven slopes and variable solar exposure, yet clearing of the rough and grading of the contours could transform the rough into a suitable site for large scale production and greenhouses. Bee production and livestock grazing are excellent agricultural techniques for the rough. Figure 49 : Bee production and goats

PAGE 99

99 Part B: Environment, Ene rgy, and Water Program Elements B1) Readily suitable elements: Restored Ecosystem, Water Distribution, and Stormwater Collection The rough can provide environmental services as a restored ecosystem, water distribution system, and a recycling/composting area. The rough with its mixture of sun and shade conditions and intact grading from the existing, pre construction landscape could provide the right conditions for a restored ecosystem that relies on variable contouring and changing amounts of sun and sha de. Secondly, depending on the drainage conditions and contouring, the rough may prove highly suitable as a water distribution system. The rough could capture stormwater and channel water to a network of staged stormwater treatment ponds. As shown to the left, a bioswale could be incorporated to collect and treat stormwater coming onto the site or capture onsite stormwater. The bioswale would connect to ponds for further treatment and eventually connect to a reservoir. The bioswale serves the essential function of water purification through plant uptake and/or root adsorption of unwanted chemicals. B2) Elements of Concern: Composting Area and Solar and Wind Energy Generation The relative inaccessibility, the variable contouring, and uncertain drain age conditions of the rough would prove difficult for the establishment of a recycling or composting area, yet the suitability could vary by site specific conditions. Nearby roughs with relatively level contouring may prove suitable, but overall, the rough would prove a challenging landscape for a composting area. Additionally, considering the variable sun exposure and nearby presence of trees, the rough would be a difficult location for energy production. If placed away from the T his wildflower prairie in Suwannee County, FL provides a lovely setting for a pecan orchard. Bioswales create a beautiful and functional landscape. Figure 50 : Wildflower Meadow Figure 51 : Bioswale

PAGE 100

100 Trails placed i n the rough can lead visitors through diverse and attractive landscapes. Figure 52 : Trails trees, some wind turbines c ould be nestled into the rough, yet the overall inaccessibility of the rough could prove difficult for routine maintenance or repairs. Part C: Educational, Social, and Recreational Program Elements C1) Readilysuitable Elements: Children’s area, Walking and Biking Trails, and Picnic Pavilions The variable landscape of the rough could provide an interesting setting for an adventure playground, walking and hiking trails, and picnic pavilions. The adventure playground could take advantage of the uneven co ntouring and the loose parts provided by the wild landscape of the rough. Grading could be changed slightly to provide an interesting and engaging setting for children. Besides an adventure playground, the rough could provide contouring suitable for mounta in bike trails. On the other hand, if a paved path is desired, the grading could be evened to provide for an accessible and paved path. Lastly, the setting of the rough could provide users seeking a private outdoor party or picnic with a gathering space . C2) Elements of Concern: Educational buildings, Community Center, Market Space, and Sports Fields The un kept landscape, the inaccessibility, and the questionable grading and drainage could prove to be unsuitable conditions for the establishment of buildings . Therefore, educational buildings, a community center and market space are not readily suitable for the rough, yet if such program elements are desired, the rough could be graded and cleared to provide for those elements. For example, a large commu nity space at the entrance may require the construction of a few structures, and a nearby rough could become suitable for siting those structures if desired. As a side note, the rough could be suitable as an educational venue if classes or groups want to e xplore plants and animals found in the rough. Lastly, as sport fields require even contouring, constant solar exposure, and good drainage, they would not be suitable for the rough, yet as mentioned with the structures, re grading could create a suitable lo cation for sports fields.

PAGE 101

101 10.3.4 :: Landscape 4: Tree Breaks Figure 54: Tree breaks in the golf course Suitable elements for the Tree Breaks Productive Environmental Social/Edu/Recreational Apiary Restored Ecosystem Walking/Biking Trails Livestock Production Composting Area Picnic Pavilions Adventure Playground Part A: Production Elements A1) Readily suitable elements: Orchards, Apiary, and Livestock Production Tree breaks by their varying forms, densities, and plant characteristics will lend themselves to conversion to various forms of production elements. Tree breaks that are sparse and disconnected could become part of row crop production as selective clearing removes trees to clear space for crops. Additionally, an orchard could weave been the existing trees of the tree breaks with minimal to no clearing. Depending on the characteristics of the tree breaks and their location, the edge of a tree break may provide desirable cover for livestock production. The area between the rough and the tree break may prove a very suitable area for a wide range of livestock. Grazing animals, like cattle, would be allowed to graze among trees in a silvopasture production technique. Silvopasture references the management of trees for the production of sawlogs while providing forage and a comfortable environment for grazing animals. Lastly, if the tree break is dense and reflects a healthy and thriving ecosystem, the trees could be left alone, and an apiary could be placed at the ed ge for easy access. In silvopasture, the trees are harvested, can provide a less stressful environment for grazing animals, and create an attractive backdrop. Figure 53 : Matrix reference for tree breaks Figure 55 : Silvopasture

PAGE 102

102 A2) Elements of Concern: Large and Small Scale Production, Green Houses, and Inground Aquaponics/Hydroponics Considering the shade from the tree break canopy combined with the tight spaces available for growing crops and varia ble drainage and topographic conditions, large and small scale production and green houses would not prove immediately suitable production elements. As mentioned previously, the location, size, density, and tree characteristics will determine if clearing is desired to make away for the productive elements. As a general rule, the physical characteristics of the tree breaks would not prove immediately amenable for in ground production of fish or aquatic plants. Part B) Environment, Energy, and Water Program Elements B1) Readily suitable elements: Restored ecosystem and Composting Area Depending on the representative trees of the tree breaks and the overall quality of the habitat, a tree break may be an immediate and very suitable candidate for the site of ecosystem restoration. The mixture of dappled sun and shade provided by the trees could offer desirable conditions for the re establishment of native plants. If the trees are native to the area, they provide immense benefits for ecosystem restoration a s plant communities have evolved with certain species. Ecosystem restoration would be an extremely suitable option for a tree break that is close to the edge of the golf course and abuts a large tract of forested land. Increasing the coverage of native ec osystems can provide for increased ecosystem services including water capture and treatment, carbon sequestration, and habitat for wildlife. Complete ecosystem restoration can be costly and unproductive for small and unconnected patches of land, yet just c hoosing to clear the area of invasive plants can reduce the spread of species that out compete native plants. Alternatively, if the tree break is slightly dense, the space may be suitable for a composting space. The collection of food and landscape waste c ould be tucked back inside the edge of the tree break if the view and public access of this operation are undesirable. As a reminder, the collection of municipal food waste and recycling of nutrients is a major environmental benefit of localized food produ ction as the Invasive species greatly threaten the success of native ecosystems such as a pine rockland shown here. Figure 56 : Pine Rockland

PAGE 103

103 re use of waste for fertilizer results in a closed loop and resource conserving production and waste management sequence. B2) Elements of Concern: Solar and Wind Energy Production, Reservoir, or Stormwater Collection The shade of the tree breaks and the interference of the trees provides an unsuitable location for solar and wind energy production, yet if the quality of the tree break is poor, the area could be cleared to allow for siting of solar panels or wind turbines. The immediate conditions of the tree breaks do not provide suitable characteristics for a reservoir or stormwater capture . The soil conditions of the tree breaks should be investigated to assess their capacity for water retention. Part C) Educational, Social, and Recreational Program Elements C1) Readilysuitable Elements: Walking and Biking Trails, Picnic Pavilions, and Adventure Playground Shady conditions of the tree breaks combined with the interesting plants and natural features of the landscape present opport unities for educational and recreational use. Walking and biking trails could be laid to allow the user to explore the interior of the canopy and enjoy the cooler climate beneath the trees. Additionally, picnic pavilions could be placed in the interior or the edge of the tree breaks to provide interesting view s. Besides serving as a walking or picnicking area, the tree breaks could provide opportunities for use as an adventure or teaching playground. The natural elements of the tree breaks would provide chi ldren with loose parts to create forts or other structures. Nearby sand bunkers could be incorporated as well for adventure play. These opportunities and suitable relationships are visualized as an illustration in the next section. C2) Elements of Concern : Educational building, Community Center, Market Space, Performance Space, or Sport’s Fields The presence of trees, variably topography and drainage conditions do not readily render the tree breaks for immediate conversion to a space for physical structure s, yet depending on the quality of the tree break, the area may be selected for clearing to provide space for the mentioned uses. The tree breaks provide a comparatively cool microclimate for summer time picnics. Municipal scale composting requires large machinery and space. The tree break can hide the operation. Figure 57 : Municipal scale composting Figure 58 : Shade from Pine Trees

PAGE 104

104 10.3.5 :: Landscape 5: Sand Bunkers Figure 60: Sand bunkers in the golf course Suitable element s for the Sand Bunkers Productive Environmental Social/Edu/Recreational Large and small scale production Solar and Wind Energy Production Adventure Playground/Children’s Area Orchard/Apiary Restored Ecosystem Part A) Production Elements A1) Readi ly suitable elements: Small and large scale Production, Greenhouses, Orchard, and Apiaries Suitable agricultural elements for sand bunkers will greatly vary depending on the location of sand bunkers on the golf course. Bunkers inside fairways that lie clos e to the golf course entrance can be re graded to become a part of large or smallscale production or greenhouses. Simple re grading and sand removal can integrate the bunker into the surrounding agricultural production elements, and the existing well drai ning conditions lend the bunker to suitable use for agriculture. Alternatively, bunkers towards the edge of the golf course could become part of a surrounding orchard or serve as a location for an apiary. The cleared and welldraining conditions of the sand bunkers enable their re purposing for multiple uses. A2) Elements of Concern: In ground Hydroponics/Aquaponics and Livestock Production As two notable exceptions, conversion to in ground aquaponics and livestock production areas would necessitate major changes to the landscape type to prove suitable for these uses. As an obvious observation, the creation of ponds for aquaponics on pre existing sand bunkers would prove highly energy consumptive and costly as the quick draining soil conditions would not p rove amendable to water retention for in ground ponds. Considering the conversion to livestock production or a petting zoo, some forms of livestock production may prove suitable on converted sand bunkers, yet considering the threat of nutrient release into the water table via animal wastes traveling through the quick draining conditions of the sand bunkers, caution needs to be exercised when considering the conversion of sand bunkers to animal production areas. Figure 59 : Matrix reference for sand bunkers

PAGE 105

105 Part B: Environment, Energy, and Water Progr am Elements B1) Suitable elements: Solar and Wind Energy Production and Restored Ecosystem Similar to the productive elements, the suitable conversion elements for environmental, energy, and water uses will vary based on the sand bunker’s location within the golf course. As the bunkers provide a cleared area with good drainage, the location presents opportunities for solar and wind energy production. This would take place at the entrance of a golf course to ensure quick access for repairs or could become a part of a larger energy generating field at the edge or in the interior of the golf course. Additionally, the sand bunkers could become part of a restored ecosystem if the surrounding conditions provide notable opportunities for re introducing native spec ies. B2) Elements of Concern: Reservoir, Stormwater Collection, and Composting Area While the cleared land and well draining conditions of the sand bunkers offer opportunities for conversion for environmental uses, these same characteristics impeded the conversion of the sand bunkers into other uses including a reservoir, stormwater collection site, and composting areas. The welldraining conditions of the sand bunkers do not encourage uses as a stormwater collection or reservoir area. Additionally, the possible leakage of nutrient dense composting material into the quickly permeable soils of the sand bunkers threatens the health of the water table due to eutrophication of the ground water. Part C: Educational, Social, and Recreational Program Elements C1) Readilysuitable Elements: Adventure Playground/ Children’s Area The cleared conditions of the sand bunkers along with their unusual shapes and variable grading readily provides opportunities for conversion to an adventure play ground or children’s area. The area surrounding the sand bunker would be included to provide a larger play area and supervising zone for adults along with proper access via paths. Testing of the conditions of the sand for levels of harmful contaminants is first needed to access the safety of the landscape for use by children. C2) Elements of Concern: Educational Space, Market Space, Performance Area, Walking and Biking Trails, and Picnic Pavilions The size and shape of the sand bunkers does not immediately provide opportuniti es for conversion to the other public use amenities of a community center, educational building, market space, performance area, walking trails, sports fields, and picnic pavilions. Yet depending on the location of the sand bunker, the bunker could readily be re graded to become any of these uses. After testing the soil quality, a sand bunker could be a fun place for play. Figure 61 : Sand playground

PAGE 106

106 10.3.6 :: Landscape 6: Water Hazards Figure 63: Water Hazards in the golf course Suitable elements for the Water Hazards Productive Environmental Social/Edu/Recreational Aquaponics/ Hydroponics Reservoir Walking and Biking Trails Stormwater Treatment Picnic Pavilions Restored Ecosystem Part A) Production Elements A1) Readily suitable elements: In ground Hydroponics and Aquaponics The golf course water hazards such as ponds and streams vary greatly in size and origination. An existing water feature may have existed pre construction or was created for the golf course. Depending on the size and quality of the surrounding landscape, the ponds or streams may be amenable for in gr ound aquaponics. As discussed in more detail in previous sections, small urban ponds have been transformed into productive spaces and can produce a large amount of fish or plant material. This tilapia pond in Costa Rica consisted of three ponds, connected by runnels that brought water to lower level ponds. Figure 62 : Matrix reference for the water hazards Figure 64 : Tilapia pond

PAGE 107

107 A2) Elements of Concern: Large and Small Scale Production, Gre enhouses, Livestock Production, Apiary, and Orchard The immediately suitable productive use of a golf course water hazard or pond is limited to inground hydroponics or aquaponics. The filling or construction required for large and small scale production, greenhouses, livestock production, an apiary, and an orchard would not prove energy conserving or cost effective. The ponds could serve important environmental uses, and filling of the wetland would not bring production benefits that would outweigh the env ironmentally produced benefits. Part B) Environment, Energy, and Water Program Elements B1) Readily suitable elements: Reservoir, Stormwater Collection, and Restored Ecosystem The existing water retaining capacity of the ponds provides immediate conve rsion opportunities to become a reservoir, components of a water distribution system, stormwater collection system, or a restored ecosystem. The current size and location of the pond may prove the proper size for a reservoir. Stormwater may be captured on site and flow to the reservoir for future use as irrigation. Alternatively, if the pond characteristics are not suitable for conversion to a large reservoir, the pond or swale could serve as a component of a stormwater capture (i.e bioswale) and link the s tormwater to the reservoir. In order to channel cleansed water for irrigation purposes, the pond could become a canal to serve as an artery to channel water from the reservoir to the areas of production. Along with capturing the on site stormwater and r eserving the water for future irrigation use, the ponds could be used to capture and treat any stormwater coming onto the site. The ponds could be re graded to connect to each other, and through a series of stages or physical structures (check dams), the ponds could capture and slow the flow of stormwater for water quality treatment by aquatic vegetation. The proper staged treatment of stormwater is illustrated in the next section. In addition to serving as a site for water collection and distribution, the ponds could serve a critical function in providing landscape features for a restored ecosystem. The wet conditions of the pond could provide the ideal conditions for restoring a wetland or semi At the North Carolina Museu m of Art, a 5 acre stormwater treatment area features a tiered network of terraced bioretention ponds. Figure 65 : Terraced bioretention

PAGE 108

108 inundated prairie and provide habitat for a wide range of ins ects, amphibians, and birds that selectively require niche habitats of wet or te mporarily wet conditions. B2) Elements of Concern: Wind and Solar Energy Production and Composting Area As an immediate observation, the wet conditions of the water hazards do not prove suitable for wind or solar energy production or a composting area. Part C: Educational, Social, and Recreational Program Elements C1) Readilysuitable elements: Walking and Biking Trails and Pavilions The unique edge of the water haza rds or wetlands can provide a visually attractive and engaging area for recreational uses. Trails for walking or biking could be provided along the edge to allow for view s of the ponds and access to the water’s edge. Additionally, a network of bridges or boardwalks could be constructed over the created wetland, reservoir, or canals. Secondly, a carefully considered wetland area could serve as an amenity for an adventure playground or teaching area to provide children and students will access to the water’s edge for play and learning activities. The area much be first analyzed for its degree of safety. Lastly, the ponds could serve as ideal locations for picnic pavilions as the microclimate around the water, surrounding diversity of vegetation, presence of wi ldlife, and pleasing views would provide a relaxing and enjoyable location for picnics or parties. C2) Elements of Concern: All constructed spaces and dry areas As an obvious note, the wet conditions of the water hazards do not provide suitable conditions for the construction of a community center, educational building, market space, performance space , or sports fields. Water fowl and wading birds depend on water based habitats for food and cover. Visitors learn about wetlands during a wetland festival in Clayton County, GA. Figure 66 : Wading bird Figure 67 : Broadwalk over wetland

PAGE 109

109 10.3.7 :: Landscape 7: The Entrance+ Clubhouse Suitable elements for the Entrance + Clubhouse Productive Environmental Social /Edu/Recreational Small scale production Solar Energy Educational Buildings Greenhouses Wind Energy Market space Aqua/Hydroponics Restored Ecosystem Children’s area Apiary Demonstration Stormwater Collection Performance area Petting Zoo Part A: Pro duction elements A1) Readily suitable elements: Small scale production, Greenhouses, and Inground aquaponics Upon arrival to the urban farm, the user immediately sees and engages with features at the entrance to the farm. The density of users around t he entrance and clubhouse taking part in classes, cooking in the outdoor kitchen, and going to the restaurant in the clubhouse provides opportunities for small scale production or “boutique” forms of agricultural production for demonstrative and teaching p urposes. The plaza or gathering space around the entrance, club house , and other supporting structures could be layered with forms of vertical agriculture with plants growing in a tiered structure or green wall. These structures would be placed closest to the structures for ease of access and attention getting. On the edge of the plaza space, raised beds or small in ground gardens could be placed to serve as a children’s teaching garden, a high school class’ project, or resident rented plots to provide addi tional fresh vegetables for the home. The raised beds could be managed by schools, residents, or hired staff. The raised beds serve to blur the line between the entrance and the productive areas beyond, creating a flowing aesthetic of productive plants. Mo ving to a highly productive scale of production, greenhouses could accompany the educational buildings or be placed together to create their own space. Some greenhouses All elements shown create an attractive, educational, and productive space. Figure 68 : Matrix reference for Entrance + Clubhouse Figure 69 : Various details of the small scale vegetable garden

PAGE 110

110 would prove successful at the entrance to serve as a teaching area and provide quick an d easy access to the entrance. Lastly, in ground aquaponics in an existing pond may prove suitable if the conditions prove amendable for fish or aquatic plant production. Again, this area could serve as a teaching element to demonstrate the wide diversity of production possibilities in an urban area. A2) Elements of Concern: Large Scale Production, Orchard, Livestock Production, and Apiaries The intimate scale of the clubhouse area and plaza does not provide the space for large scale agriculture or orchards. Also, the production of livestock or housing of bees would not prove immediately suitable due to safety concerns. On the other hand, a teaching or petting zoo may be suitable at the edge of the plaza if education concerning animals is an element of th e urban farm program. The same could be said of the apiaries. Carefully placed apiaries could serve as an educational tool as long as safety is considered. Part B: Environment, Energy, and Water Program Elements B1) Readily suitable elements: Solar a nd Wind Energy Production, Restored Ecosystem, and Reservoir The small scale of the entrance plaza could be used for a variety of environmental, energy, and water uses. Any cleared areas could serve as a demonstration area for solar or wind energy produ ction or the placement of a biodigestor, a structure to digest organic waste and capture methane. Besides energy production, the area around the plaza could become part of a restored ecosystem. A restored prairie, meadow, woodland, or other habitat would c reate a visually pleasing and attractive seating space for users. Additionally if the conditions exist, the reservoir could be placed near the entrance to provide a view of and access to water. The reservoir could become a centerpiece through the addition of hardscape and a vertical structure of rocks to create a fountain or waterfall, similar to the cascading waterfall found at Cascades Park in Tallahassee. The park is designed to flood and provide In family and education oriented farms in Britain, visitors are allowed to feed and pet a wide range of animals. Water rushes down the waterfall at Cascades Park. Figure 70 : Petting zoo Figure 71 : Cascades Park Waterfall

PAGE 111

111 stormwater treatment, and the waterfall brings the water n arrative to the users ’ attention. A significant financial investment is required, yet the amenity could serve as central focal point and attraction for users. B2) Elements of Concern: Composting Area The chosen environmental, water, and energy eleme nts of the park will greatly depend on the existing conditions and desired program, yet a large scale composting area would not prove suitable for most if not all conditions. The smell and unpleasant views would not encourage users to engage with the space . Alternatively, a strategically designed smallscale composting space could serve as an educational tool for demonstrating the proper techniques of composting to the community. The images previously provided in the beginning of the discussion illustrate v arious options. Part C) Educational, Social, and Recreational Program Elements C1) Suitable Elements: Educational Building, Community Center, Market Space, Performance Space, Children’s Area, Walking Trails, and Pavilions An outdoor kitchen (left) and fun spaces for children in the garden can provide engaging activities for a wide range of users. A restored e cosystem could provide the backdrop and setting for a mediation garden. Figure 72 : Meditation Garden Figure 74 : Outdoor Kitchen Figure 73 : Play structures i n garden

PAGE 112

112 The entrance and the clubhouse serve as the gateway to the park and can be activated by a diverse collection of educational, social, and recreational elements. The clubhouse could serve as an educational building and house rooms for various classes. The kitchen of the clubhouse co uld become a teaching kitchen and expanded to include an outdoor cooking/demonstration area to provide space for large audiences and users. Besides becoming a teaching area, the clubhouse could become a restaurant to showcase the locally grown food right from the farm. The conversion options just for the clubhouse are diverse, and the most suitable option will depend on the client’s desires, funding sources, and private public partnerships. Other structures could be built to serve as an educational building or community center. If the county’s extension office is interested in establishing an office, additional structures would be provided to fit their needs. To the edge of the plaza, a space for market activity could be provided. A permanent and co vered structure might prove the most suitable for weekly vendors looking to sell homemade and specialty products in possibly variable weather. Along with a market space, a performance area could be designed to provide for weekend shows, weeknight events and movie screenings, and cultural and holiday festivities. Lastly, a children’s play area dappled with picnic pavilions could be provided towards the entrance for adults looking for an easily accessible playground and a gathering space for birthday parties. All of the fore mentioned uses will greatly serve to activate the entrance and attract users to the site. These educational, social, and recreational elements combined with environmental and productive uses serve to program the area with fun activities wh ile communicating a care for the natural world and concern for our influence in it. The selection pool of suitable program elements is immense. As such, an illustration prescribing the suitable selection of elements with relation to the entrance is presented in the next section. The amphitheater at Cascades Park brings together a large crowd for events. An adventure playground with a water element can be fun for children. Figure 75 : Amphitheater Figure 76 : Play water feature with loose parts

PAGE 113

113 C2) Elements of Concern: Sports Fields and Walking and Biking Trails The intimate scale of the entrance plaza does not provide the adequate space for sports fields, yet quick access from the entrance to these amenities via a path is highly desired. On the same note, biking and walking trails would not prove suitable in an area with a high density of users, yet a trail head with attractive signage would bring users to the trail and provide easy access to the amenity. A meditation labyrinth with aromatic herbs can create a sensory and contemplative experience. Detailed sign age can serve to attract users and reinforce the sense of place. Figure 77 : Labyrinth with aromatic herbs Figure 78 : Trail Signage

PAGE 114

114 Note: See Appendix B for Image Sources 10.4 :: Discussion Summary While each of these landscapes offers unique characteristics that lend themselves more or less suitable for certain productive, environmental, or educational/social/rec reational uses, they do not exist alone, and their suitability for conversion will greatly depend on the surrounding landscape. For example, a long fairway may be suitable for row crop production, yet its proximity to the entrance may prove more suitable for a performance area with a large lawn or a market space with a pavilion. Likewise for all elements, their conversion will depend on the interaction with other elements and the client’s desires. While conversion opportunities depend on many factors, the p receding review provides a starting point for a client considering re purposing a golf course. By using the opportunities provided by the individual landscapes identified above, the client can save time, money, and energy converting the golf course . This review serves to provide a diverse mix of conversion options and is a guide for the creation of illustrations that will be created to supplement this discussion. 10. 5 :: Illustrations Illustrations of various areas of a multifunctional urban agricultu ral park are provided to visually demonstrate the opportunities mentioned in this review. Three commonly found situations, the entrance + clubhouse, tree breaks + fairways, and stormwater ponds, have been chosen to demonstrate suitable relationships to consider when retrofitting a golf course to a multifunctional agricultural park. First, a typical entrance + clubhouse was identified and served as a base to create a continuum of uses that illustrate s suitable program elements for selection with relation to the entrance and main gathering area. Secondly, a typical tree break + fairways situation was identified, and illustrations were generated to communicate suitable agricultural and recreational uses along the retrofitted, recreational tree break. Lastly, a series of stormwater ponds was ide ntified, and an illustration of the necessary staged trea tment of runoff was created to prescribe the proper collection and treatment of on site and off site runoff before re using collected water for irrigation purposes. All the illustrations serve to identify safe and suitable relationships among elements and provide public officials and park planners/designers with an “idea book” of suitable relationships and opportunities of conversion. The illustrations do not represen t site specific designs, but rather serve to identify generally suitable relationships that could be applied to any golf course to multifunctional park retrofit. Golf courses throughout Florida will provide samples of these three situations , and illustra tions demonstrating the conversion opportunities will be developed considering the recommendations provided in this review. The illustrations do not serve to provide the end all solution yet demonstrate the use of this review in selecting suitable agricult ural, recreational +educational, and environmental program elements in a multifunctional agricultural park.

PAGE 115

115 10.5.1 :: The Entrance and t he Continuum of Uses As each entrance will have varying existing conditions, different needs, and program, a diagram of a “Continuum of Uses” communicates a suitable arrangement of elements without prescribing a determined layout with a specified program. Four zones surround the entrance and repurposed club house. Agricultural, recreational +education, and environ mental program elements are located in the four zones based upon their size, maintenance needs, density of users, and frequency of use. Figure 80 : Typical Clubhouse and Entrance to the Golf Course Figure 79 : The Continuum of Uses

PAGE 116

116 10.5.2 :: Tree Break + Fairways Relationship As identified in the discussion, a shady tree break offers immense rec reational value for picnicking, walking, and playing in an adventure playground. The surrounding fairways could be repurposed into a wide array of program elements, yet the chosen recreational and agricultural program elements sited for the repurposed fairways that surround the tree break must provide a safe environment and serve to enhance the recreational activities located inside the repurposed tree break. Safe and interactive agricultural elements include a “you pick” orchard or berry patch, a corn ma ze, greenhouses, a petting zoo, or livestock grazing area. Surrounding recreational amenities including play fields, adventure playgrounds, lawn game courts, and picnicking areas would serve to enhance the recreational amenities of the tree break. Figure 80 : Sample Tree Break + Fairways Figure 81 : Potential Uses and Conceptual Relationships for a Repurposed Tree Break + Fairways

PAGE 117

117 10.5.3 :: Proper Staged Treatment of Stormwater As polluted stormwater either enters the site or onsite run off created from agricultural production flows across the park, a system of stormwater treatment areas is needed to capture both of f and on site runoff and treat the water through a process of staged treatment. The graphic below first demonstrates the role of bioswales and retention areas to capture stormwater and direct it to the staged treatment areas. Then, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment stages employ a variety of techniques and technologies to cleanse the water. At the end, the cleansed water enters the reservoir where it remains until needed as an irrigation source. This system attempts to create a closed loop of resou rce use by recycling water. It could serve to recycle nutrients as well if the water treatment areas are planted with certain plant species that uptake nitrogen and phosphorus and could be harvested as composting material. Figure 82 : Typical existing stormwater ponds Figure 83 : Staged Stormwater Treatment

PAGE 118

118 Chapter 11: Concl usion 11.1 :: Overall Findings The purpose of this project was to assess the suitability of golf courses for conversion to multifunctional agricultural park and vision possibilities and opportunities. The th ree areas of investigation 1) the opportuniti es and constraints of the golf course landscape , 2) the suitable multifunctional program elements of urban farms, and lastly 3) the siting of program elements and their relationships on the repurposed golf course were all identified, and the findings serve to provide public officials, planners, and designers with an understanding of the conditions, opportunities, and options to consider wh en repurposing golf courses to multifunctional agricultural park s . After investigating the opportunities and constraints of the golf course landscape, it was d etermined that the golf course would provide safe growing conditions and variable landscape types for the production of various agricultural elements. The risk of exposure to contaminants was deemed to be low, and i f concerns of c ontamination do exist, a variety of mitigation techniques and/or above ground growing techniques provide a way remove or avoid contact with contaminants. The various landscapes of the golf course (greens, tees, fairways, the rough, tree breaks, water hazards, and the entrance + clubhouses) provide various opportunities for agricultural production through the land conditions and existing infrastructure available on the golf course. Once the golf course was deemed a safe and opportunistic lan dscape for agricultural elements, the case studies of urban farms provided a list of program elements. The program elements included a mix of productive, recreational/educational/social, and environmental program elements. The collection of the multifuncti onal p rogram elements from the case studies greatly aided in creating a palette of suitable program elements for the multifunctional agricultural park. Lastly, the matrix and discussion communicated the great diversity of repurposing options and the oppor tunities provided by the various landscapes of the golf course: greens and tees, fairways, the rough, water hazards, sand bunkers, and the entrance + clubhouse. The discussion served to clearly connect the opportunities of the diverse landscape types of the golf course with the identified program elements. As was determined, the golf course landscape could support a diverse mix of program elements that combine to create a multifunctional landscape of productive, educational/recreational/social, and environ mental uses. The three illustrations served to communicate possibilities and suitable relationships to consider when undergoing a golf course to multifunctional agricultural park retrofit. In the end, the project successfully addressed the three identifie d areas of concern. In addressing those three areas, this mission oriented and action based project fulfilled its purpose of producing applicable findings to set change in motion towards the creation of multifunctional agricultural parks from repurposed go lf courses.

PAGE 119

119 11:2 :: A Vision for the Future The goal of this project was to communicate a vision for the future. If publicly owned golf courses are considered too much of a financial burden or fail to serve the public at large, these large tracts of land become available for repurposing. As has been seen throughout the country, many times, the golf courses become the site of a mixed use, commercial, or residential development. Yet if the golf course lies in the hands of the public, the repurposed site shou ld still serve the public. The large acreage provided by the golf courses provides a clean slate for the development of a diversity of uses. Urban agriculture with its interest on the rise and the multitude of benefits offered could strongly support communities. The multifunctional agricultural park would provide benefits in a variety of ways to many different people. First, the park would greatly enhance the capacity of public owned lands to support a healthy lifestyle. The park would provide fresh and nutritious food for those in need and exercise. Secondly, educational and outreach programs could arise from the presence of the agricultural areas and serve to educate the public in a great variety of possible subjects and provide jobs. Thirdly , environment al/ecosystem service s of nutrient recycling (waste management), microclimate regulation, and stormwater management would all be provided by the park. Fourthly, with an abundance of food, the park is ripe for festivals, food truck rallies, markets, and allied events; all serve to provide the public with new recreational and social avenues. Fifthly, the park creates a landscape to educate and provide for the adventurous and creative play of children. Lastly, the diversity of the agricultural growing spaces co uld provide space for culturally significant crops and production techniques. Certainly other beneficial outcomes to the realms of sustainable development, community building, culture, democracy, health, and happiness can be envisioned along with the few m entioned above. 11.3 :: Directions for Future Research As this project primarily investigates the environmental suitability of the conversion of a golf course to a multifunctional agricultural park, the economic and social suitability of conversion is not addressed. As such, a cost estimation, phasing timeline, and maintenance agenda for this project would be extremely valuable when communicating to public officials considering re purposing their golf courses. The upfront investment, economic gain, density of users needed to support the golf course would all prove valuable information to assess the economic conditions for this project. As mentioned previously, grants and funding resources will need to be researched to raise funds for this project. Along with an economic analysis, a guidebook for analyzing the social factors influencing this project would greatly benefit those in public office with a method to identify possible golf courses for conversion, gauge community interests and needs, and elicit community feedback. Future research could investigate avenues of gauging community interest; other research could investigate a GIS methodology of identifying social factors influencing suitable golf courses for conversion. In order to enact such change of re trofitting golf course s to a multifunctional agricultural park s , more people need to be in place to make the change happen. Therefore,

PAGE 120

120 more research is needed to investigate the feasibility of creating “food” departments within municipalities, counties, an d other governmental agencies to support urban agricultural projects, markets, and allied support services. These food departments could serve an invaluable role in supporting the development of the envisioned multifunctional agricultural park. This proje ct assumed the conversion of the entire golf course to a multifunctional agricultural park and did not consider the possibility of retaining the game of golf. As an alternative, the site could continue to allow golf by downsizing the number of holes. Desig n research could investigate the suitability of combining golf and the multifunctional agricultural park on the same site. Lastly, this project’s focus was to assess the suitability of the golf course landscape for conversion to a multifunctional park and connect the opportunities of the golf course to the new program elements. As such, future research could investigate detailed relationships between the agricultural, recreational/educational/social, and environmental elements and create innovative designs of agricultural areas that provide a new recreational use or serve as a new educational tool.

PAGE 121

121 Bibliography Abel, Jennifer, et al. (1999). “Extension’s Role with Farmers’ Markets: Working with Farmers, Consumers, and Communities,” Journal of Extension 37 (5). Available on line at http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a4.html AGI. Critical Needs for the Twenty First Century . Alexandria, VA: American Geosciences Institute, 2012. Print. Ala imo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R.A., Kruger, D.J. (2008). Fruit and vegetable intake among urban community gardeners. Journal of Nutritional Education and Behavior , 40, 94– 101. Barrett, James. (2003). Golf Course Irrigation: Environmental Design and Management Practices . Wiley Beatley, T. (2000). Green urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington, D.C: Island Press.Bhatt, V., Farah, L.M. (2009). Designing edible landscapes . Open House Int. 2009, 34, 5– 7. Bieby, T., Rozaimah, S., Abdullah, S., Basri, H ., Idris, M., Anuar, N., and Mukhlisin, M. (2011). A Review on Heavy Metals (As, Pb, and Hg) Uptake by Plants through Phytoreme diation. International Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 2011, Article ID 939161, 1 31 Bohn, K., Viljoen, A. (2005). More sp ace with less space: An urban design strategy. In CPULS: Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes — Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities; Viljoen, A., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 11 – 16. Bramwell, L.; Pless Mulloli, T.; Hartley, P. Health risk assessment of urban agriculture sites using vegetable uptake and bioaccessibility date — An overview of 28 sites with a combined area of 48 hectares. Epidemiology 2008, 19 (Suppl), S150. Brown, K. and Carter, A. (2003). Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe. Community Food Security Coalition. http://co mmunitywealth.org/sites/clone.community wealth.org/files/downloads/report brown carter.pdf Bryan, S., A. Barkhurst, and R. Monson. (2011). Some South Florida cities spend big on municipal golf courses to lure players: Critics question whether fairways wi ll ever turn a profit. The SunSentinel . August 27th, 2011. Chen, M., Daroub, SH., Snyder, GH., Cisar, JL., Cai, Y. (2003). Use and fate of arsenic herbicide in Florida golf courses . ASA/CSSA/SSSA Annual Meetings Abstracts; Denver, CO. 2003. CDROM, S 11 ch en952427 Oral.pdf City of Berkeley, California. City of Berkeley General Plan. Available on line at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/planning/landuse/plans/generalPlan/gppdfs.html City of Burlington, Vermont. City of Burlington Municipal Development Plan. Avai lable on line at http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/planning/mdp/07comfacserv.pdf City of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. [n.d.] Prince Albert Food Charter . Available on line at http://www.votenga.ca/Common%20Pages/BackgrounderTextFiles/princealbertcharter.pdf CNU. (2008). Canons of Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism: A Companion to the Charter of New Urbanism. 2008. Web. . Conant, B. ( 2013). Bankrupt golf courses: An historical analysis and strategies for repurposing. University of Georgia Master’s of Landscape Architecture thesis. (Under the direction of Ron Sawhill).

PAGE 122

122 Cosgrove, Sean. (2000). Food Secure City — Submission to the Toronto O fficial Plan. Toronto, ON: Toronto Food Policy Council. Cosier, S. (2013). Run its course. Audubon, 115(5). 22 24. CPC (Central Park Conservancy). (n.d). Accessed at http://www.centralparknyc.org/things to see and do/attractions/reservoir.html Cranz, G. (1997). Urban Parks of the Past and Future in Parks as Community Places : Boston. Urban Parks Institute annual conference. Available at http://www.pps.org/reference/ futureparks/ Cross, P., G. Delneky, and T. Lothrop. (2000). Worth its Weight in Oranges. Water Environment & Technology . 12, 1, 2630. Curran, W. (2001). Persistence of Herbicides in Soil (Agronomy Fact Sheet 36). Pennsylvania State University Extension: A g Communications and Marketing. P. 13 Dale, A. (2012) Introduction in Urban Sustainability: Reconnecting Space and Place , University of Toronto Press p. 3 10 Daly, Kyle. (2010). Country club conversion aims to create gardens, jobs. The Post Cresent . Daugs tad, K., Ronningen, K., and B. Skar. (2006). Agriculture as an upholder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value judgements: a Norwegian perspective in international contexts. Journal of Rural Studies , 22, 6781. De La Salle, Janine M., and Holl and, M. (2010). A g ricultural Urbanism: Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agriculture Systems in 21st Century Cities . Ed. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Sheffield, VT: Chicago, 111.: Green Frigate Books; Distributed by Independent Publishers Group Deelstra, T. and Girardet, H. (2000) ‘Urban agriculture and sustainable cities’ in Bakker, N., Dubelling, M., Grundel, S., Sabel Koschella, U. and de Zeeuw, H., Growing Cities, Growing Food , p. 4365 Deelstra, T., Boyd, D., van den Biggelaar, M. (2004). Multifunctional land use — An opportunity for promoting urban agriculture in Europe. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 4, 33– 35. De Groot, R. (2006). Function analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multifunctional landscapes. L andscape and Urban Planning, 75, 175– 186. De Zeeuw, H., Van Veenhuizen, R., Dubbeling, M. (2011). The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Science, 149, 153163. Drescher, Axel. 2000. Urban and Periurban Agriculture and Urban Planning. University of Freiburg, Germany. Duany, A and DPZ. (2011). T heory and Practice of Agrarian Urbanism. The Prince Foundation for the Built Environment. Dubbeling, M. & De Zeeuw, H. (2007). Multi stakeholder poli cy formulation and action planning for sustainable urban agriculture development . RUAF Working Paper No. 1. Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF Foundation. Available online at: http://www.ruaf.org/taxonomy/term/45/0?page=1 East, A.J., Dawes, L.A. (2009). Homeg ardening as a panacea: A case study of South Tarawa. Asia Pac. View , 50, 338 – 352. Editorial Board. (2014). As golf declines, cities struggle to stay the course. The Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/250699701.html

PAGE 123

123 EPA (U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency and U.S. Agency for International Development). (1992). Guidelines for Water Reuse. Report EPA/625/R92/004. Cincinnati: EPA, Technology Transfer. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2007) . Profitabili ty and sustainability of urban and peri urban agriculture. Agricultural management, marketing and finance occasional paper. Accessed from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1471e/a1471e00.pdf FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). (2007). Best Management Practices for the Enhancement of Environmental Quality on Florida Golf Courses , 1 122. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). (2011). 2010 Reuse Inventor y . Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Accessed July 29. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/docs/inventory/2010_reuse report.pdf Feenstra, G. (2002). Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values, 19, 2, 99106. Ferris, J., Norman, C., Sempik, J. (2001). People, land and sustainability: Community gardens and the social Fishel, F. (2014). Activated charcoal for pesticide inactivation. UF IFAS extension publication PI 164, 13. dimension of sustainable development. Social Policy Administration, 35, 559– 568. Flechas, J. (2014) Coral gables to replace greens on Granada Golf Course. Miami Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/14/3994736/coral gables to replacegreens.html Genesis. (n.d). Ca scades Park. Accessed at http://www.genesisgroup.com/projects/484.php Germano, S. (2014). A Game of Golf? Not for Many Millennials. The Wall Street Journal . Available at: http://online.wsj.com/articles/a game of golf not for many millennials 1406159228 Gim my, A., B. Johnson, and Appraisal Institute. (2003). Analysis and Valuation of Golf Courses and Country Clubs . Appraisal Institute. Hall, Emma. [n.d.] “Manifestations of Community Based Agriculture in the Urban Landscape: A Canadian Compendium and Four Winnipeg Case Studies.” Available online at http://www.cityfarmer.org/winnipeg.html; accessed 13 December 2014. Hannan, M. (2012). “ 5 Key Trends in Parks and Public Health” . In Parks and Recreation: The official publication of the national recreation and park association . Accessed at http://www.parksandrecreation.org/2012/November/5Key Trendsin Parks and PublicHealth/ Harden, Blaine. "Here Are the New Courses. Now Where Are the Golfers?" New York Times 22 July 2001: 1. U.S. History in Context. Web. 3 July 2 014. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/22/us/here are the new coursesnow where are the golfers.html?src=pm&pagewanted=2&pagewanted=print Hare, M. G. (2009, Mar 02). Gunpowder falls golf course conversion planned: Officials see land as prime spot for regional park. McClatchy Tribune Business News Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/464950967?accountid=10920 Harnik, P. (2011) Fairways Under Fire: Are littleuse public golf courses worth the space? . The Trust for Public Land, 1 4. Harper, J. (20 10). The trouble with golf: It’s going broke, and leaving behind, big tempting green spaces. The Biscayne Times, 1 10. http://www.biscaynetimes.com/index.php?id=830%3Athe trouble with golf&option=com_content&catid=46%3Afeatures

PAGE 124

124 Heilig, G. Multifunctionalit y of landscape and ecosystem services with respect to rural development. In Sustainable Development of Multifunctional Landscapes ; Helming, K., Wiggering, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2003. Holmer, R.J., Drescher, A.W. (2005). Allotment gardens of Cagayan de Oro: Their contribution to food security and urban environmental management. In Urban and Peri Urban Developments — Structures, Processes and Solutions ; Knie, C., Ed.; Southeast Asian German Summer School Program: Cologne, Germany, pp. 149 – 155. Ho ugh, M. (2004). Cities and Natural Process: A Basis for Sustainability , 2nd ed., Routledge: New York, NY, USA House, G. (2009). Retrofitting suburban landscapes with sustainable agroecosystems. In Sustainable Agroecosystem Management ; Bohlen, P.J.; House, G., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 283– 296. Howard, E. (1902). Garden cities of to morrow . Haiti Trust Hueber, D., and E. Worzala. (2010).”Code Blue” for U.S Golf Courses Real Estate Development: “Code Green” for Sustainable Golf Course Redevel opment. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1 37. Ingram, M., Hoke, L., and Meyer, J. (2013). The declining economic viability of municipal golf courses. Public and Municipal Finance. Volume 2, Issue 1, 4655. Jorge, M et al. (2011). Mathematical accuracy of Aztec land surveys assessed from records in the Codex Vergara. PNAS: University of Michigan. Jorgensen, A. (2011). Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 353355. Keates, N (2012). Fore Sale; Luxury golf communities have hit a rough patch. The Wall Street Journal . Koont, S. (2009). The urban agriculture of Havana. Monetary Review , 60, 44– 63. Krauss, G. D., and L. Page. 1997. "Wastewater, Sludge, and Food Crops." Biocycle 38:74– 82. La Page, W. (2007). Parks for Life: Moving the Goal Posts, Changing the Rules, and Expanding the Field. Venture Publishing: State College Pennsylvania. Lautenschlager, L., Smith, C. (2007). Beliefs, knowledge, and values held by inner city youth about gardening, n utrition, and cooking. Agriculture and Human Values , 24, 245– 258. Lee, S H., Choi, K I., Osako, M., Dong, J. I. (2007). Evaluation of environmental burdens caused by changes of food waste management systems in Seoul, Korea, Science of the Total Environment , 387, 4253. Leeuwen, E., Nijkamp, P., and Noronha Vaz, T. (2010). The Multifunctional use of Urban Greenspace. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , 8.12, 20 Lewis, J. and Wright, A. (2014). Reclaimed Water Use for Edible Crop Production in Florida . Soil and Water Science Department, UF/IFAS Extension Document SL360, 1 4. Accessed at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss561 Lovell. (2010). Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability, 2, 24992522. Lyson, T. A. (1999). From production to development: moving toward a civic agriculture in the United States .Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, August 48, Chicago, Illinois.

PAGE 125

125 Magesan, G. N., J. C. Williamson, G. W. Yeates, and A. R. H. Lloyd Jones. (2000). "Wastewater C:N Ratio Effects on Soil Hydraulic Conductivity and Potential Mechanisms for Recovery." Bioresource Technology 71:21 – 27. Max, S. (2014). “Investors are buying troubled golf courses and giving th em a makeover”. New York Times . http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/investors are buying troubledgolf courses andgivingthemmakeovers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=edit_th_20140708&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid= 67861049&_r=0 McBride, M.B. (2013). Arsenic and Lea d Uptake by Vegetable Crops Grown on Historically Contaminated Orchard Soils. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, Volume 2013, 18. McLaughlin, L. (2008). Inner city farms. Time Magazine, 24 July 2008 Midmore, D.J., Jansen, H.G.P. (2003). Supplying veg etables to Asian cities: Is there a case for peri urban production? Food Policy , 28, 13– 27. Moore, R. (2014). Nature Play & Learning Places. Creating and managing places where children engage with nature. Raleigh, NC: Natural Learning Initiative and Reston , VA: National Wildlife Federation Morgan, K. T., T. A. Wheaton, L. R. Parsons, and W. S. Castle. (2008). Effects of Reclaimed Municipal Waste Water on Horticultural Characteristics, Fruit Quality, and Soil and Leaf Mineral Concentration of Citrus. HortSci ence 43:459– 464. Motsenbocker, C.E. (2009). Urban agriculture: The role of horticulture in the city. Hortscience, 44, 995– 996. Mougeot, L. (1999): Urban agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks, and Policy Challenges . Paper presented to the International Workshop "Growing Cities, Growing Food", October 11 15 1999, Havana, Cuba. Mougeot, Luc J. (2006). G rowing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Nesheim, O., Fishel, F., and Mossler, M. (2014). Toxicity of Pesticides . UF IFAS Extension publication PI 30, 16. Neustrom, E.K., Motsenbocker, C.E. (2009). Urban youth: Effects of a summer agriculture, cooking, and nutrition program. Hortscience, 44, 1047. Nasr, J., Rod, M., and Kuhns, J. (2010). Scaling Up Urban Agriculture in Toronto: Building the Infrastructure. Toronto: Metcalf Foundation. NGF (National Golf Foundation). (2012). State of the Golf Industry . Jupiter, FL: 2012. Print NGF (National Golf Foundation). (1997). Tr ends in the Golf Industry , 1986 1996. Jupiter, FL : National Golf Foundation. Print. NPR. (2011) . “ Finding new uses for troubled golf courses ” . http://www.npr.org/2011/05/30/136788050/findingnewuses for troubled golf courses in florida N RC (National Rese arch Council). ( 1996) . Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nugent, Rachel. (1999). “Is Urban Agriculture Sustainable in Hartford, CT?” in Contested Countryside: The North American Rural Urban F ringe, eds. O. Furuseth and M. Lapping, 207 230. Avebury, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Odum, H. T . (1983). Systems Ecology: An Introduction. Wiley Interscience, New York.

PAGE 126

126 Parikh, S. J. & James, B. R. (2012) Soil: The Foundation of Agriculture. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):2 Parmer, S.M., Salisbury Glennon, J., Shannon, D., Struempler, B. (2009). School gardens: An experiential learning approach for a nutrition education program to increase fruit and vegetable knowledge, preference, and consumption among second grade students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , 41, 212– 217. Parsons, L.R., and T.A. Wheaton. (1992). Reclaimed Water A Viable Source of Irrigation Water for Citrus . Proceedings Plant Stress in Tropical Environments. Parsons, L.R., T.A. Wheaton, W.S. Castle, K.T. Morgan, J.M.S. Scholberg, D.L. Rockwood, G.H. Snyder, J.L. Jackson. (1999). Water Conserv II Annual Report 199899. University of Florida, Citrus Research and Education Center. 1999, 18. Payne, L., Orsega Smith, L., Godbey, G., and Mark Roy. (1998). Local Parks and the Health of Older Adults: Results of an Exploratory Study. Parks & Recreation 33(10): 64. Pearson, C. J. (2007). Regenerative, semi closed systems: A priority for twenty first century agriculture. Bioscience , 5 7, 5, 409418. Pearson, L. (2010). Sustainable urban agriculture: stocktake and opportunities. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability . 8 (1 and 2) p. 719 Phillips, A. (2014). Designing Urban Agriculture: A Complete guide to the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and management of edible landscapes. Wiley. Hoboken, NJ. Porto, A., Meglar, G., Kasemodel, M., and Nitschke, M. (2011). Biodegradation of Pesticides in P esticides in the Modern World. Pesticides Use and Management , Ch. 20, 407439. In Tech: Europe and China (Available at http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs wm/21996.pdf) Pothukuchi, K. and J. L. Kaufman. (1999). Placing the Food System on the Urban Agenda: The Role of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning, Agriculture and Human Values , 16, 2, 213224. Pothukuchi, K., Kaufman, J.L. (2000). The food system — A stranger to the planning field. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 113– 124. Pothukuchi, K. (2004). Community food assessment — A first step in planning fo r community food security. Journal of Planning, Education, and Research, 23, 356– 377. Reid, D. (2009). Community gardens and food security. Open House International , 34, 91– 95. Roberts, Elizabeth. (2011). Proposal to convert golf course to cemetery goes to the state for approval. The SunSentinel. Accessed from http://articles.sun sentinel.com/201104 15/news/fl dff park 041420110415_1_cemetery proposal golf courses state approval Sendor, J. (2010). Golf course to become organic farm. The Register Herald. West Virginia. Retrieved from: http://www.register herald.com/local/x104124035/Golf course to become organic farm/print Shellhorn, N.A., Macfadyen, S., Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Williams, D.G.; Zalucki, M.P. (2008). Managing ecosystem services in broadacre lands capes: What are the appropriate spatial scales? Aust. J. Exp., 48, 1549– 1559. Shinew, K.J., Glover, T.D., Parry, D.C. (2004). Leisure spaces as potential sites for interracial interaction: Community gardens in urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 336 – 355. SJWMD (St. John’s Water Management District). (2013). Reclaimed Water: Alternative water source stretches freshwater supplies, reduces pollution. Accessed at http://floridaswater.com/waterconservation/reclaimed.html

PAGE 127

127 Smardon, R.C. (1988). Perceptio n and aesthetics of the urban environment — Review of the role of vegetation. Landscape Urban Plan., 15, 85– 106. Smit, J., Ratta, A., and Nasr, J. (1996). U rban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities . United Nations Development Programme, New York. Smith, M. (1982). Retention of bacteria, viruses and heavy metals on crops irrigated with reclaimed water . Department of N ational Development and EnergyAustralian Water Resources Counci l. Australian Govt. Pub. Service Somerset, S., Bossard, A. (2009). Var iations in prevalence and conduct of school food gardens in tropical and subtropical regions of north eastern Australia. Public Health Nutrition, 12, 1485– 1493. Swancar, Amy. 1996. “Water quality, pesticide occurrence, and effects of irrigation with reclai med water at golf courses in florida” U.S Geological survey Water Resources Investigations Report 954250 (Accessed at http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/environment/water/AssessingChemical Hazards on Golf Courses/) Tobenkin, D. (2012). Off Course. Chicago: Appraisal Institute , 1 8. Toze, S. (2006). Reuse of Effluent Water: Benefits and Risks. Agricultural Water Management 80:147– 159. Unruh, J. (2008). University of Florida’s Pest Control Guide for Turfgrass Managers . IFAS Extension Urban and Regional Planning Department (URPL) University of Wisconsin – Madison. (1997). Fertile Ground: Planning for the Madison/Dane County Food System. 1 23. Van Ginkel, H. (2008). Urban future. Nature, 456(n1s), 32 33. Van Leeuwen, E., Nijkamp, P., de Noronha Vaz, T. (2 010). The multifunctional use of urban greenspace. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , 8(1), 2025. Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health: Community gardening in SouthEast Toronto. Health Promotion International , 22, 92– 101. Walker, C (2004) Beyond Recreation: A broader view of urban parks . The Urban Institute. Walker, M. (2009). C an arsenic in soil and water contaminate homegrown vegetables? . University of Nebraska Cooperative E xtension. Fact Sheet 09 09 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development , chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland. Oxford: Oxford University Press Weigeldt, N. (2010). Chickens in the City in Urban Sustainability: Reconnecting Space and Place. University of Toronto Press p. 149 170 Wiegand, G. (1999) Preliminary Report: Environmental Quality Monitoring for Pesticides and Arsenic at Five Municipal Golf Courses in Miami Dade County ; Florida. 1999. WHO (World Health Organization). (1989). Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Technical Report Series 778. Geneva, Switzerland. Wilson, G.A. (2007). Multifunctional Agriculture— A Transitio n Theory Perspectiv e; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK.

PAGE 128

128 Wilson, G.A. (2008) From ‘weak‘ to ‘strong‘ multifunctionality: Conceptualising farm level multifunctional transitional pathways. J. Rural Stud. 24, 367– 383. York, D., Parsons, L., and Walker Coleman, L. (2011) . Agricultural Reuse: Using Reclaimed Water to Irrigate Edible Crops in Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (Assessed at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/docs/Crops.pdf) Zezza, A., Tascottiu, L. (2008). Does Urban Agriculture Enhance Dietary Diversity? Empirical Evidence from a Sample of Developing Countries , FAO RIGA [available at www.fao.org/es/ESA/riga/pubs_en.htm].

PAGE 129

129 Appendix A: Approximate sizes and Recommendations for Program Elements Raised beds1 Width and Length: 3’ wide for children and 4’ wide for adults; the length can vary but many times the beds are restricted to 12’ due to the excessive cost of lumber beyond that length. Path between beds are necessary for access; 1’ is needed while 4’ makes room for wheelbarrows and wheelchairs Depth: The height will vary, but plants need at least 10” of growing depth. Greenhouses1 Location: Greenhouses can be attached to buildings or freestanding structures. Size: Greenhouse size will vary based on the desi red amount of production and use of the greenhouse. Greenhouses range from small sizes of 8 by 12’ to large scale production greenhouses of Prairie Crossing (Case Study #2) with dimensions of 100’ by 20’. Row Crops3, 4 Suggested crops: Row crops in Florid a according to IFAS include: corn, cotton, peanut, rice, small grains, sorghum and millet, sugarcane, and tobacco. Width: The row width will depend on the farmer’s cropping system, machinery available, light interception, water and energy conservation mea sures, and yield response. Orchard5 Size: Orchards will greatly vary in size based on desired yield, selected crop, and space available. Species: IFAS provides an extensive list of fruiting shrubs and trees for the tropical, subtropical, and temperate cli mates of Florida. In ground aquaponics6 Size: The production of fish or plants in ponds, referred to as green pond agriculture, can take place in various sizes, yet the size of pond is greatly influenced by its surrounding area and watershed. According to the University of Arkansas Extension Office, 5 30 acres of watershed is needed per 1 acre of pond size. It is recommended that soils contain at least 20% clay to retain water. When considering the depth of a pond, a deep pond over greater than 12’ does no t increase the productivity of the pond. If an edge of aquatic and aquatic emergent plants is desired, it is recommended to allow for depths of less than three feet deep.

PAGE 130

130 Apiaries7 ,8 Number of hives: The number of hives in an apiary will vary based on n ectar availability since too many bees in an area without nectar sources will struggle to survive. Safety consideration: UF IFAS recommends that bees placed within a close proximity (~25’) to a public area are supplied with a flyway barrier. The barrier s urrounds the hive and consists of 6’ of a solid wall, fence, and/or dense vegetation to encourage bees to fly at a height of at least 6’ to avoid human/bee interactions. Additionally, it is recommended to place apiaries in some to full sun and provide the bees with water. Economic value: Bees can increase crops yield by up to 60% as seen with watermelons and greatly contribute to increased harvests or a wide range of crops. The net incomes average $5,880 per colony. Livestock9 Suggestions: Considering the rearing of animals, a popular option is the keeping of chickens. It has become a popular backyard activity and does not require extensive area or infrastructure. Chickens require housing which needs to provide at least three square feet of floor space per bird. Reservoir10 Size and Economic Return: Recent research of the economic viability of an on farm reservoir revealed evidence supporting the sound financial investment of on farm reservoirs. Researchers found an 800 m2 or approximately 8,611 ft2 farm increased crop yield with a 14.8% rate of return with a 592 ft2 pond. The pond was approximately 13% of the farm area and through a simulated study revealed the optimum size for the highest benefitcost ratio. Solar Power11 Size : Solar panels for commercial applications are usually 77x39 inches in size. Energy output: The energy output ranges from 195 to 247 watts DC. W ind power12 Size: Wind turbine sizes vary greatly in size and can reach diameters of 328 feet in large commercial projects. Considering the scale of the golf course, turbines with diameters ranging from micro size (2 4’), mini (4 10’), household (10 33’), or even small commercial (33 66’) would be suitable for the golf course landscape. Energy output: Anywhere from a few watts to 10 20 kW of power is expected to be produced. The department of Energy provides wind resource maps to illustrate the wind potential capacity for an area. See http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=fl for a map of Florida’s wind potential. As expected, the highest wind potential is founded closest to the coast.

PAGE 131

131 Composting13,14 Types: Composting at the commercial scale can take place as open/windrowing or in vessel composting. In the first type, the compost is piled to about 3 feet and left to decompose. If faster decomposition is desired, the second type, the in vessel system uses a container to store the organic matter and mechanically mix the materials. Size: Smallscale composting projects are usually comprised of 3 bins to house materialto add, partially composed material, and fully or nearly decomposed material. These small systems are common to smallscale agricultural production s or demonstration gardens. They require a space of approximately 10 feet by 4 feet. Recreation15 ,16,17 Dimensions for Multiuse Court: The National Recreation and Park Planning Association recommends a 120’ by 80’ area (9,840 ft2) for a multiple recreati on court for basketball, volleyball, and tennis. Dimensions for Soccer Fields: For soccer 195’ to 225’ by 330’ to 360’ with a 10’ foot clearance on all sides is required. Dimensions for Basketball courts 1) High school: 84’ by 50’ 2) Collegiate: 94’ by 5 0’ Dimensions for a Volleyball Court: 30’ by 60’ Dimensions of a Tennis Court: 36’ by 78’ Amphitheater size: The size of the amphitheater will depend on the number of estimated guests. As an example, the West Riverfront Park in Nashville is still in the co nstruction phase but will feature an amphitheater for approximately 6,500 people. The amphitheater and related facilities will total 49,000 ft2. The stage is 55’ deep, and 100’ wide, and the structure of amphitheater is 36,000 ft2 on two floors. As recomme nded by Time Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture , small amphitheaters could have 5’ wide aisles and a platform that is around 18” off the ground and is a minimum of 125 ft2 in size. Dimensions for Playgrounds 1) Tot lots: 2400 5000 ft2 2) Complex p laygrounds: 2.5 10 acres 3) Adventure playgrounds: A boundary screening is recommended. Safety measures: protective surfacing, fall zones, equipment spacing (12’), guardrails on elevated surfaces, routine maintenance, and supervision Equestrian Facilities Recommendations 1) 2 acres of pasture per horse 2) Treatment hall dimensions: 17’x12’; Rental/Boarding stalls: 12’x12’x14’ Interpretative Trail Recommendations 1) The paths should be at least 7’ wide. 2) The max grade is 8% and the footing should be firm.

PAGE 132

132 Exercise Trail Recommendations 1) Trails should be at least 1 mile in length and arranged in a figure 8 configuration to allow for a variation of run length and shorter runs. The minimum width for trails is 4’ . 2) Trails with exercise equipment should pl ace equipment 150 200 yards apart. Sources 1. http://extension.uga.edu/publications/files/pdf/C%201027 4_1.PDF 2. http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/greenhou/building.htm# Types of Greenhouses 3. http://solutionsforyourlife.ufl.edu/agriculture/crops/row_crops/ 4. http://agron www.agron.iastate.edu/Courses/agron212/Readings/7.%20Corn%20 %20Row%20Width.pdf 5. http://trec.ifas.ufl.edu/fruitscapes/generalinfo.shtml 6. https://www.extension.org/mediawiki/files/9/9f/FarmPondManagementforRecreationalFishing.pdf 7. http://edi s.ifas.ufl.edu/aa137 8. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe273 9. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an239 10. P anigrahi, B., Panda, S., Mal, B. (2007). Rainwater conservation and recycling by optimal size on farm reservoir. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 50 (4), 459474. 11. http://brightstarsolar.net/2014/02/common sizes of solar panels/ 12. Gipe, P. (2010). Wind energy basics: a guide to home and community scale wind energy systems. Chelsea Green Publishing . 13. http://www.sswm.info/content/co composting large scale 14. http://web.extension.illinois.edu/homecompost/building.cfm 15. http://www.prm.nau.edu/prm423/recreation_standards.htm 16. http://www.nashville.gov/News Media/News Article/ID/3397/Fact SheetWest Riverfront Park and Amphitheater.aspx 17. Harris, C. W. , Dines, N. T., & Brown, K. D. (1998). Time saver standards for landscape architecture: Design and construction data. New York: McGraw Hill.

PAGE 133

133 Appendix B: Image Sources for Chapter 10 Figure 27: http://mnkyimages.com/wp content/uploads/2012/03/raised bed vegetable garden layout.jpg and http:/ /mnkyimages.com/wp content/uploads/2012/03/starting a raised bed vegetablegarden.jpg Figure 28: https://www.pinterest.com/melissapeterson/living wall/ , http://www.amazon.com/VerticalOrganic VegetableScraper Gardening/dp/B00309R8WQ and http://www.originalgreen.org/blog/ocean and farm to table at.html Figure 29: http://www.extension.org/pages/18366/introduction to season extension in organic vegetable production systems#.VOJA5_nF_X4 Figure 30: http://howtobuildachickencoopmanual.com/wp content/uploads/2013/10/great looking coop.jpg Figure 31: http://www.westmillsolar.coop/gallery.asp Figure 32: http://www.renewreuse recycle.com/showarticle.pl?id=2062 Figure 33: http://stlwildones.org/september 2012 meeting minutes/outdoor classroom at forest park 2/ Figure 34. http://he avenlygreens.imidev.com/wp content/gallery/bocce ball/bocce court2.jpg Figure 37: http://www.extension.org/pages /18366/introduction to season extension in organic vegetable production systems#.VOJA5_nF_X4 Figure 38: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation/practic es/contourfarm.aspx And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_strip Figure 39: http://www.recycleworks. co.uk/classic quadruple wooden compost bin pr 16408.html , https://vitalandwell.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ang demos composting.jpg , and http://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com/composter_how to_main.html Figure 40: http://www.mountpleasantrecreation.com/mtpleasant farmers market and http://www.yelp.com/biz/park slopes down to earth farmers marketbrooklyn Figure 41: http://burgerbeast.com/wp content/uploads/2013/02/FoodTrucksAtArtsPArk_Day.jpg Figure 42: http://www.insideflorida.com /images/events/bluegrass_festival_pavilion_920_medium.jpg Figure 43: http://creativitytheories.wikispaces.com/Creativity+Theories Figure 44: http://www.ellbogensee.de/Ger/News.htm Figure 47: http://www.oponayfarms.com/downloads/images/peach orchard.jpg and http://southernhillfarms.com/wp content/uploads/2014/03/more triplets.jpg Figure 48: http://beefriendlyapiary.com/ and http://www.theredheadriter.com/2011/11/goats have wettongues on grave/ Figure 49: http://facesoftr ansportation.org/peoples choice 2013voting now open/virginiaparnellfloridadot/ Figure 50: http://www.cleanwateriowa.org/residential practices.aspx Figure 51: http://www.nigeldunnett.info/ Raingardens/page26/ Figure 53: http://nac.unl.edu/silvopasture.htm Figure 54: http://www.sswm.info/content/co composting large scale Figure 55: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/South_Florida_rocklands_on_Everglades_Natio nal_Park_Long_Pine_Key_Nature_Trail.jpg Figure 56: http://images.fineartamerica.com/images medium large 5/picnic in the pines cricket hackmann.j pg Figure 59: http://worlds children.blogspot.com/2012/05/playscape chronicles of frode svane.html Figure 62: Personal collection Figure 63: http://www.artifexed.com/Initiatives/NCMAPondProject/tabid/223/Default.aspx

PAGE 134

134 Figure 64: http:/ /www.envirotechecinc.com/Pond Management Stormwater Management Figure 65: http://www.ccwa.us/news/Annual Wetlands Watershed Festival Being Heldon October 1st Figure 67: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making a difference/Change Agent/2012/0822/An urban gardeningpr oject greens Johannesburgrooftops Figure 68: http://www.godstonefarm.co.uk/explore/animals/feeding sessions Figure 69: http://www.howdididoit.com/home garden/grow a meditation garden/ Figure 70: http://www.thephotographerswife.com/2014/page/38/ Figure 71: http://backtoorganic.com/yummy playdough cookies/ Figure 72: https://evergreencanada.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/dsc078241.jpg Figure 73 : http://www.thephotographerswife.com/2014/page/38/ Figure 74: http://twotykesonahike.blogspot.com/ Figure 75: http://www.gjfreepress.com/news/13701288 113/lavender labyrinth dance mountain Figure 76: http://www.southwoodcorp.com/thread_trai l