Você está na página 1de 19

Making the Case for Urban Agriculture as Green Infrastructure:

Measuring the Stormwater Capacity


Erik Facteau and Tyler Caruso Capstone Spring 2011 Research in Progress

Copyright Facteau & Caruso 2011

Abstract: The current information pertaining to urban agriculture as green infrastructure, neither quantifies nor substantiates the economic, social and environmental benefits. These benefits are often just touched upon or estimated, if mentioned at all. This reports scope is to contribute to the larger body of scientific knowledge of urban agriculture, making the case that it stands to play a crucial role in cities emerging green infrastructure plans. The science and studies for urban agriculture at this point are lagging behind the current enthusiasm and need. We aim to prove through the scope of our research, that these farms offer an effective and cost-efficient mechanism for stormwater management for New York City, while acknowledging that these farms are also providing multiple environmental, economic and social benefits. By performing replicable scientific studies we will be able to assert that the current models of cost-benefit analysis, which compares grey infrastructure with green infrastructure, are incomplete because they fail to factor in the multiple benefits that green infrastructure provides, monetize externalities or validate the longterm savings offered from reduced loads on wastewater treatment plants and grey infrastructure needs. Over the next year we will monitor the Brooklyn Grange, a rooftop farm in Long Island City, Queens and Added Value, a raised bed community farm in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Our research will determine how much stormwater both of our sites are able to detain and retain. We hope that this information will assist decision-makers and planners in properly evaluating all options for future stormwater management and city planning; proving that urban farming is a wise municipal investment.

Part I: Scope and Existing Conditions


Scope: Green infrastructure is a network of decentralized interventions that allow stormwater to infiltrate the ground, recharging the water table and decreasing run-off. In many cities, there is a growing trend to acknowledge and give credibility to green infrastructures monetary benefits for municipalities, however there still exists a limited ability to quantify green infrastructures multiple benefits. Due to these gaps in information and study, decision-makers for municipalities, such as is the case for NYC, when weighing stormwater infrastructure investments most often favor single-purpose grey infrastructure projects. By performing replicable scientific studies we will be able to assert that the current models of cost-benefit analysis, which compares grey infrastructure with green infrastructure, are incomplete because they fail to factor in the multiple benefits that green infrastructure provide or the long-term savings offered. With the industrialization of our food systems, most cities planned so that farms have become incompatible with urbanity. However, this was not always the case and municipalities are starting to realize that by supporting urban agriculture, we are creating productive landscapes that are multi-functional helping to attenuate environmental degradation. Urban agricultural offers answers to complex infrastructural challenges that we are facing in our cities. Additionally, we hope to prove that urban farms will provide a crucial tool for cities emerging green infrastructure plans . Urban farms have a vast unknown potential. The science and studies for urban agriculture at this point are lagging behind the current enthusiasm and need. We aim to prove through the scope of our research, that these farms offer an effective and cost-efficient mechanism for addressing the current environmental problems that New York City faces,

while providing multiple environmental, economic and social benefits. The current knowledge surrounding the feasibility of urban agriculture as green infrastructure neither quantifies nor substantiates the economic, social and environmental benefits; they are only mentioned in the abstract, if mentioned at all. This papers scope is to contribute to the larger body of scientific knowledge of urban agriculture as a feasible part of cities green infrastructure. The current knowledge is limited to estimates, there are no known studies for stormwater benefits, and no studies (to the best of our knowledge) have examined the potential role of urban agriculture as green infrastructure. This report aims to create a method for how to assign value to urban agriculture as a viable part of green infrastructure for cities. We hope this information will assist decision-makers and planners in properly evaluating all options for future stormwater management and city planning; showing that urban farming is a wise municipal investment. Without indepth intensive studies it is impossible and detrimental to move forward with policies and incentives that will shape the cities urban landscape. We, the authors of this report, are choosing to focus on stormwater management, as a measurable piece of the larger matrix of urban environmental issues, to add concrete scientific knowledge to start to understand the entire scope of benefits that urban farms stand to offer. However, we implore readers to bear in-mind that without placing our results into a whole systems framework that encompasses the multiple environmental, economic and socials benefits offered by urban farms- the true value of urban agriculture as green infrastructure will be misunderstood. Over the duration of a year, we will examine two urban farms within NYC to understand the varying conditions and benefits of raised beds versus rooftop farms. The vast majority of urban farms fall into these two categories: raised beds and rooftop farms. We have chosen to study an example of each, using the Brooklyn Grange in Queens (rooftop) and Added Value (raised beds) in Brooklyn. Besides the immediate environmental benefits that urban agriculture boasts, through the development of urban agriculture within cities we are reducing environmental impacts resulting from food transportation. Both Speaker Christine Quinn and Brooklyn Borough President Scott Stronger have identified urban agriculture as a potential provider of economic development opportunities. Correlations have been made between increasing access to fresh produce and decreasing the epidemic rates of obesity, diabetes and asthma among low-income populations (CDC 2000). Despite all of these potential advantages, there are challenges to establishing a sound case for the feasibility of urban agricultural on a large scale within urban centers. Skeptics argue that issues of scalability, site availability, overly-ambitious claims of energy efficiency and productivity (both in terms of food production and environmental benefit performance), and increased labor/maintenance costs make the implementation of urban agriculture an impractical solution. And without proper study it is impossible to dismiss potential roadblocks put forth by skeptics. In the US, the concept of greenroofs is just gaining traction as a viable form of green infrastructure. If rooftop agriculture and urban agriculture are to become an accepted part of green infrastructure, quantifiable data that document the ability to manage stormwater under the specific climatic conditions of a citys region must be conducted. Currently, the vast majority of information available is anecdotal, speculation, proprietary, or performed by green roofing companies, or the experiments were not performed in a replicated study. For instance, In The Value of GI: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits, the report states that empirical studies measuring stormwater retention performance for greenroofs (non-agricultural) show a 40-80% retention rate of annual precipitation. This report then goes on to imply that there is an increased potential to see higher retention rates through expanding the bed depth on a greenroof (for example from 4 to 8). Howeve r, there is no mention of any concrete studies that assert the validity of this claim and no mention as to the extent this increase in retention capacity would be (for example would this increase be an additional 5%, 20% or 40%?). In the future, scientific study results should be used to make decisions concerning the implementation of urban agriculture for stormwater management. Additionally studies should inform and help to develop design recommendations that will enhance stormwater management performativity for urban farms. New York Citys Existing Conditions: Urban water systems are under extreme stress, and in order to meet current and rising demands, will have to embrace significant changes in the near future. When planning for the adoption of urban agriculture as part of NYCs green infrastructure plan it is essential to understand that there are two necessary and complimentary methods for urban watershed planning and management. The first being, the adoption and practice of water-efficient applications and conservation through the encouragement of

drought tolerant landscaping, rainwater harvesting and greywater systems, earthen works, composting toilets, and water-saving fixtures. The second is stormwater management, which controls the rainwater from storms where it falls. Stormwater management is important because it decreases soil erosion, prevents damage to vegetation, reduces street ooding, and Combined Sewer Outfall or CSO events. New York City has a combined sewer system (CSS), which during wet weather flows can easily become overwhelmed (this can occur with rainfalls accumulating just over 1/10). To gain a full understanding of NYCs stormwater problem, a bit of historical reflection is required. When NYC began constructing its first sewer system made up of storm drains and gutters in the mid 19 th Century to address flooding and ease transportation within the city- there was never an intention to have those pipes handle sewage. Historically people relied on dilution from nearby water bodies to handle and transport wastewater away from densely populated areas. However the field of bacteriology emerged from the work of such scientists as Louie Pasteur and Jon Snow and scientists quickly disproved the common understanding that dilution rendered wastewater harmless. The connection was made between wastewater discharges and the pollution of receiving waters leading to massive disease outbreaks (EPA 1994). This knowledge meant that NYC had to find a way to handle and treat its wastewater. The newly constructed sewer systems seemed the most appropriate method. The city combined its use of stormwater pipes and its sanitary waste- modeling after many European cities. This is method is still in place oday and is called a combined sewer system (CSS). However the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) were originally designed and sized to treat sanitary waste only, not a combination of sanitary wastewater and storm water runoff. This method of treatment is adequate during dry weather flow (DWF) periods, however during wet weather flow (WWF), the CSS can easily become overwhelmed by the quantity of material. Once the volume exceeds the handling capacity of the WWTP, there is an overflow of untreated stormwater combined with septic sewage, into nearby water bodies including the NY Harbor, Hudson and East Rivers. Over 2 billion gallons of wastewater/stormwater discharge are dumped from over 422 outfall points into the citys receiving waters each year. This system is still currently in place- and it wasnt until the mid 20th Century that a comprehensive understanding of the potential pollution that overflows present was understood. In 1965 Congress finally passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which admitted the need for regulation of CSO output (EPA 1994). Green infrastructure strategies could be an immensely important tool in being able to dramatically reduce, control, and treat stormwater runoff as close to the source as possible. Typology of Urban Farms: The current landscape of urban agriculture is made up of a constantly evolving and emerging matrix of urban forms. These farms are a response to a set of varying urban conditions. It is nearly impossible to classify a farm into a single type, most combine so many different programmatic elements and have such varying site conditions that each farm is unique and atypical. Some of those constraints and conditions are; available lot size and shape, stewardship, contaminated soil, available space and its relationship to shade/sun, wind tunnels, temporary access versus a more long-term agreement and the end goal, for example education versus food crop production. All of these factors affect the development of a farms design and layout. Typically in New York City we see rooftop farms, raised beds (beds place atop soil or an impervious surface such as asphalt), cultivated land or the use of containers. Each farm is dynamic and specific because the vegetation cover changes with each season, and each neighborhood has different demands for types of crops theyd like to consume. Additionally, certain farms may have a significantly higher operational budget than others, and their staff may be composed of a team of seasoned farmers, where as another site could be primarily made up of volunteers with little growing knowledge. Due to soil contamination issues, site availability and a preponderance of impervious surface conditions there are only a few farms out of the 40-plus urban farms that are cultivated land (to our knowledge they are: 1 Acre Farmyard run by Bk farms in Crown Heights, Added Values farm on Governors Island, Queens Country Farm, Gericke and Decker Farms on Staten Island and the John Bowne Agricultural High School). Rooftop farms such as Brooklyn Grange are a form of greenroofs that offer a solution to contaminated soil and high demand for land-use sites. The general definition of a greenroof is a rooftop that is partially or completely covered with a growing medium and vegetation that is planted above a waterproofing membrane or cover. Greenroofs are separated into several categories based on the depth of their growing media. Extensive green roofs have a growing media depth of two to six inches. Intensive green roofs feature growing media depth greater than six inches. Rooftop farms and greenroofs reduce a

buildings energy load through passive heating and cooling by creating an additional layer of insulation provided by the growing media, which in-turn lowers the carbon dioxide emissions from a decrease in demand for regional electricity generation. They also extend the life of a roof because the presence of plants and growing media reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the roo fs surface, decreasing roof surface temperatures and heat influx during warm-weather months (Gaffin et al 2005). In this report we will determine if rooftop farms have a greater capacity to retain and detain stormwater than traditional greenroofs (which are typically planted with sedum or other drought tolerant hardy non-food producing vegetation) due to an increase of growing medium and the use of more water intensive crops. The study of rooftop farms is an emerging field that should be regarded as a tool to aid in the development of design guidelines that focus on the long and short-term performativity of green infrastructure.

Theorized Benefits: Our research is an inquiry meant to decode a set of assumptions, and instead validate through replicable scientific study what we believe to be true- that urban agriculture as green infrastructure will offer cities a much needed solution to a host of interrelated problems. We can no longer afford to collapse problems down to a single issue or view them through a single lens, whether it be economic, environmental or social, we are only excluding ourselves from the full range of benefits that smart sustainable design could extend. Again we believe in the implementation and installation of green infrastructure but first we must be unafraid to measure and monitor performativity, so that we can achieve the best designs and inform future practices. Below is a list of potential environmental benefits that we propose green infrastructure will supply: Stormwater management: Reduces polluted runoff, decreases incidents of flooding, improves surface water quality, reduces grey infrastructure needs and decreases energy consumption associated with wastewater treatment - reducing the public cost of stormwater management infrastructure and recharges the groundwater table. Air quality: Vegetation uptakes air pollutants and filters particulate matter, while producing a cooling effect, which lessens smog formation by slowing the reaction rate of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. A secondary effect is through the reduction of energy use, green infrastructure decreases the amount of air pollution that results from electricity generation and usage. Climate Change: Absorbs and sequesters atmospheric carbon dioxide; decreases solar heat gain; mitigates urban heat island effects; stabilizes soil to prevent topsoil erosion; and provides wildlife habitat. Other benefits include decentralizing NYCs foodshed, resulting in a direct reduction of GHG emissions by eliminating some of harmful practices used by industrialized food system. Some examples of these practices are; the highly fossil fuel intensive and polluting production and application of fertilizers and pesticides, the use of heavy- farm equipment, wasteful watering practices and the transportation of food over vast distances. Environmental Justice: Urban agriculture offers a potential entry point to alleviate environmental justice problems, by working to increase food security, creating green jobs, beautifying blighted neighborhoods (most community gardens are where buildings were burning down in the 1980s), offering locally grown nutritious fresh produce and bringing communities together through stewardship, thus contributing to a sense of neighborhood pride and identity (however it is worth noting there is also a prevalent trend of urban agriculture becoming a gentrifying force- intentional or not- in communities of color). Farms also improve neighborhood aesthetics by creating additional spaces for recreation, which in turn increase property values. A secondary effect from increased air quality is better community health, such as lower asthma and obesity rates, and the creation of public educational opportunities.

Greenroof Tax Credit: This report makes an important advance by helping to inform the Resolution drafted by Speaker Quinns office to amend section 499-aaa of the New York State Real Property Tax Law to allow the green Roof Tax Abatement to extend to owners who produce live food-producing plants. The problem is that the current Greenroof Tax Abatement provides for a one-time tax abatement, but this does not allow for vegetable growing specifying that 80% of eligible rooftop space must be covered with live plants such as sedum or equally drought resistant or hardy plant species. NYC faces substantially degraded surface water body quality due to CSO events ( Please see Existing Conditions). The argument is that rooftop farms should not be eligible for the tax credit since they require irrigation and are therefore thought to be less effective at retaining/detaining stormwater than a greenroof planted with sedum or other drought resistant vegetative cover. However we, the authors of this report believe most food producing crops require irrigation irregardless of where they are grown and they provide a host of other benefits (see potential benefits), any environmental strain related to the use of water for irrigation is offset. Just the reduction of food-miles traveled for distribution and processing and the resulting reduction of GHG emissions and increased regional food security makes a compelling argument. While water conservation is of course an important part of any environmental agenda, one of the major reasons why NYC advocates for citizens to lower water usage is to relieve the load on our WWTPs which are close to capacity even during DWFs. After water is used once, regardless of its application, it is considered wastewater, and is required by law to be treated. This flow of septic waste as explained above when coupled with stormwater could result in an CSO event, which is the reason why water reduction is increasingly important to NYC, not due to a lack of potable water or current drought conditions (again we the authors of this report do not mean to imply that water conservation is not important just that there are many ways to reduce water usage through low flush toilets, water-efficient fixtures, replacement of lawns with drought tolerant landscape plants, implementation of greywater and collection or rainwater). Another important feature of a rooftop farm is that potential water used for crop irrigation should not be thought of as surface run-off that will have to be eventually treated by a WWTP. It has been studied that on a 4" sedum roof there is at least 50% retention rate and one could extrapolate that if you increase your growing medium to 8" which is the typical depth of a rooftop farm bed (which is to home to more water intensive food producing plants) we posture that it is feasible to see an increase in retention upwards 75% of water applied (if a drip irrigation system 1). Urban agriculture is already contributing to both energy and cost saving for the city, and the city should pay for these services by helping to establish more urban farms through tax incentives and credits. 17% of NYC's GHG emissions are related to our WWTPs and by reducing the amount of water sent to these plants during storms we're liable to see another reduction of GHG emissions. Finally most urban farms have an extensive composting program and by adding the finished compost product to their soil to increase nutrient levels, we suspect that over time will we find an increase in the field capacity of the soil (which is the ability of soil to retain water). Rooftop farms stand to increase the capability to retain and detain stormwater while decreasing a buildings energy load- thus reducing fossil fuels usage, mitigating UHI effect and reducing CSO events while increasing access to fresh local food. The exact figures for stormwater metrics are important to ascertain because without metrics the less upfront capital intensive projects will be employed- such as white roofs or blue roofs or even sedum greenroofs. If improperly framed, it could be argued that the albedo of white roofs outperform greenroofs and requires far less capital investment, making them a better investment. While it is true that the albedo of greenroofs isn't as successful as white roofs; the latent heat loss resulting from evapotranspiration, which is the method through which rooftop farms offer substantial cooling benefits to buildings, overall lead them to out-perform white roofs (Gaffin et al 2005). Additionally solar absorbance is lowered by more than 51% over conventional roof systems, for a total reduction in peak hour cooling load of ~6% (Saiz et al 2006). Greenroof systems protect the underlying roof membrane from UV and weather degradation, effectively extending the lifespan for a significant period of time. In our research we seek to define exactly what these benefits are making it clear that the rejection of rooftop farms from the greenroof tax credit will be a longterm mistake for the city.
1 Drip irrigation allows for a reduction in the overall water needed for irrigation, emitting small amounts of water over a longer period of time below the soils surface, which cuts down on the amount of evaporation from the sun.

Current Studies/Projects in New York CityThere are currently several long-term projects that are looking at various aspects of urban agriculture within NYC. When determining the focus of our investigation it was critical to gain an understanding of these activities to not duplicate efforts and contribute a useful tool for practitioners. 1. Farming Concrete- is a volunteer, citizen science project to measure how much food is grown in New York Citys community gardens launched by cartographer Mara Gittleman and several community partners. Farming Concrete looks at the yield of a small raised bed, determines how many of gardens might actually be considered farms in the national agricultural census, and ensures that we pay homage to the hard work and dedication of community gardeners over the last several decades who have truly made the success of urban agriculture possible today (Farming Concrete 2010). For every community garden in NYC, this open source study intends to answer the following questions:
We at ___ Community Garden grew xx pounds of food in xx square feet, which is worth $ xx , served approximately xx people, and prevented approximately xx pounds of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. (Farming Concrete 2010)

2. Five Borough Farm - launched by Design Trust for Public Space in collaboration with Added Value, Thread Collective and two fellows; Nevin Cohen and Rupal Sanghvi. The project will survey and map NYCs existing urban agricultural activity and develop tools to help quantify the benefits of urban agriculture recommending policies to government. 3. Columbia Urban Design Lab- generating a report entitled, Urban Agriculture: Confirming Viable Scenarios for Production, due out summer 2011. The aim of this project is to determine potential production sites and establish which methods of alternative agriculture production would be most appropriate specifically for New York City. The feasibility study will establish the basic viability of urban food production techniques to assess whether urban food production can be practiced in an economical and resource efficient manner. This will result in an in-depth analysis of the energy, economic, environmental, educational, and health benefits of the various forms of production within the city. 4. Parks Department Five Borough Greenroof Experiment Station- On Randalls Island atop the Parks Departments Five Borough Administrative Building, in the spring of 2007 a 7,000 sq ft green roof system was installed. This pilot project, made up of 12 distinct systems, each one differing from the next in growing medium, plant type, or installation model, was designed for researching the productivity of the various systems. The idea was that after extensive monitoring the department will be able to best determine the optimum conditions for green roofs for NYC, however all plants being used in this study are non-food producing plants. 5. ConEd Demonstration Roof Studies- Two reports have been generated by Columbia Professor Stewart Gaffin and others: Stormwater Retention for a Modular Green Roof Using Energy Balance Data (not published yet- due April 2011) and A Temperature and Seasonal Energy Analysis of Green, White, and Black Roof.

Part II. Methods and Materials

Site Descriptions: At each farm site we were given an undisturbed designated research plot, approximatel y 3 by 3 feet in area. The average bed depth for both sites was 8 inches. We feel it is imperative to research not only urban farms on rooftops but also raised beds. Raised bed are one of the more common types of farms and

are often utilized in urban areas as a way to work around soil contamination due to a sites prior use. We believe raised bed farms and roof top farms can both provide essential stormwater management to urban landscapes and therefore both can benefit from research projects that provide scientific backing into their stormwater management capabilities.

A.) Added Value: 370 Van Brunt Street Brooklyn, NY 11231 An urban farm established in 2003 and located in Red Hook, Brooklyn. The farm is composed of two large raised bed areas that cover approximately 2.75 acres atop an enclosed vacant asphalt playground. The growing medium can be classified into three different soils types made primarily from compost from the NYC Compost Project, Zoo-doo, and from a private company. First plots dimensions: 160 x 185'4 x 165 x 182'8 Second plot dimensions: 205'9 x 123'9 x 169'9 x 12'10 x 36' x 118'10

B.) Brooklyn Grange: 37-18 Northern Blvd Queens, NY 11101 A rooftop farm established in 2009 located in Long Island City Queens. The farm sits on approximately one-acre or 40,000 sq ft of rooftop space and the growing beds cover approximately 25,000 sq ft. There is over 1.2 million lbs of soil and over 20,000 linear feet of green roofing material. Each bed is about 7.5 deep with 1 deep walkways. The growing medium used on the roof is called Rooflite and is manufactured by Skyland in Pennsylvania. There are 12 drains on the roof.

Field Methods:
When this research began, we first understood the process of assess ing a systems stormwater potential to be primarily deduced from a sites soil moisture content. We knew that a system has two ways that water moves through it: detention and retention. Detention being the short-term storage of stormwater or the amount of water that is capable of being stored in the soil during a rain event. Where as, retention is the permanent removal of stormwater, or the amount of water that is stored until it is lost through percolation or runoff or through evapotranspiration 2. When originally developing our research methods and approach we focused on determining the soil moisture holding capacity and the runoff rate. We saw that the amount of water being detained temporally allowed for a needed time delay until peak loads were reduced, making detention equally as important as the amount of stormwater being retained. This is because the stormwater being detained for a period of time would no longer contribute to the overtaxing load during wet weather flows on the CSS, which leads to CSOs events.

Part I. Methodology: Detention


Hydrology allows us an entry point for analyzing the planning of cities and the human modification of natural resources. We can then either avoid or amend environmental problems, which stem largely from the over-development of land and the under-planning and allocation of natural resources. Watershed planning and water management can no longer afford to focus only on the way water moves over and under a landmass but must incorporate the storage and movement of water within natural and man-made systems. Evapotranspiration (ET) is the sum of evaporation from a plants surface or directly from the soil, and from transpiration.
2

Understanding the hydrological cycle is a necessary starting point since it explains the ways water traverses on, above, and below the surface of the earth. Water moves through the hydrological cycle by many different physical processes including evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, runoff and subsurface flow. As water moves through the hydrological cycle it changes between gas, liquid and solid states. Evaporation is the process of water changing from its liquid form to its vapor form, allowing it to move from a land or water mass back into the atmosphere. When water evaporates it absorbs energy and cools the environment. The amount of energy needed to transform water from liquid a state into vapor is called the latent heat of vaporization. The rate of evaporation is dependent on temperature, wind speed, and humidity. With higher wind speeds and temperature leading to greater evaporation rates while lower humidity values or less moisture in the air allowing for greater evaporation. When it rains most of the precipitation hits the ground in urban areas or runs down a plants surface onto the ground. There is a small percentage that is directly evaporated from a plants surface back into the atmosphere, called interception. Water once it hits the ground can either travel over the surface, known as overland flow, or, it can seep into the soil, a process referred to as infiltration. The soil holds the water in place through capillary forces. However when the soil moisture content increases to its saturation point the infiltrating water will displace the older soil water resulting in either lateral movement through the top soil as subsurface runoff, or, it can migrate into the groundwater zone. Once water reaches the groundwater zone it will either join surface water bodies or it will evaporate directly from the soil into the atmosphere or it will be taken up from roots and will evapotranspirate from the leaves of plants. Transpiration is the loss of water from plant leaves through stomata, which are tiny pore spaces in the leaf. The rate of transpiration depends on air temperature and solar radiation. Transpiration is a cooing process for plants and combats urban heat island effect. Once precipitation falls onto the ground and infiltrates into the soil it is often referred to as soil water, which is a term used to describe the water that is being held in the pore spaces between particles of soil. There are three main forces that act upon soil water; cohesion, adhesion and capillarity. Cohesion is the attraction of water molecules to other water molecules. Water's chemical description is H 2O. From the field of chemistry we know that opposite electrical charges attract, meaning water molecules tend to attract each other. An oxygen atom has a positive charge where the two hydrogen atoms are bonded to itself and there is a negative charge where there are no additional atoms bonded. Water molecules tend to attract each other, the side with the hydrogen atoms (positive charge) attracts the oxygen side (negative charge) of a different water molecule. Adhesion is the attraction of soil water to soil particles. Capillarity is a force that allows water to move against gravity. A capillary is a very thin tube in which a liquid can move against the force of gravity. The narrower the tube the higher the liquid rises due to the forces of adhesion and cohesion. Water takes on three basic forms when it enters into soil, which form depends on the existing moisture condition of the soil. Each type is controlled by a different force (mentioned above) and therefore will behave differently in the soil. Hygroscopic water is when water forms very thin microfilms around soil particles and is not available to the plant. The water is held so tightly by the soil that it cannot be removed by natural forces. Hygroscopic water is bound directly to soil particles by adhesive forces, it is not found in pore spaces. Capillary water is the water held by cohesive forces between soil particles. The binding pressure for capillary water is much lower than hygroscopic water. It is principal source of moisture for a plant's root. Plants extract this water through their roots until the soil capillary force (force holding water to the particle) is equal to the extractive force of the plant root. Once this equilibrium is reached, the plant can no long remove any further water from the plant-rooting zone, this is referred to as the wilting point. The amount of water held is a function of the pore size (cross-sectional diameter) and pore space (total volume of all pores). This means that the tension (which is measured in bars) will increase as the soil dries out. Gravity water is the free flowing water that is affected by gravitational force. Field capacity is the amount of water held in the soil after excess water has drained. The potential amount of water in a soil is determined by its texture, soils consisting mainly of clay-particles will have more pore space per unit/volume than sandy soils, which means that fine-grained soils have higher field capacities than coarse-grained soils.

Soil Moisture: Tensiometer A tensiometer is the most common field instrument used to measure the energy status, which can be thought of as the potential amount of water being held in the soil or growing medium. Once the potential is understood one is able to determine the point when the soil is completely saturated. This number will give us the field capacity of our soil, or the amount of water retained by the soil after it has been saturated. Additionally we will be able to observe how soil moisture content fluctuates after a saturation/rainfall event and during dry weather conditions. This measurement is important because it relates to the ability of plants to extract water from the soil. The water in soil is influenced by two major potentials, gravitational and capillary potential. Gravitational potential is always positive and deals with gravitational forces, while capillary or matrix potential relates to the forces with in the soil matrix. Within the soil matrix the negatively charged soil particle attracts the positive pole of water molecules creating strong adhesive forces. As the distance between the water molecules and the soil particle increases the adhesive forces begin to diminish. Water molecules will attract or cohere to each other, resulting in an inward pull toward the soil particle. This attraction creates a thick film of water surrounding the soil particle. The water molecules, held by the cohesive forces, on the outside of this film have the greatest potential to be moved, while the water molecules adhered directly to the soil particle have the least tendency to move and would require more energy to be extracted. Therefore the greater the saturation the easier it is for plants to extract water from the soil. Due to the energy needed or expended, matrix potential is considered a negative potential. Matrix potential is therefore a function of water content and measuring this value is a critical tool to evaluate soil moisture content in unsaturated soil.

Soil Infiltration: Cornell Sprinkler Infiltrometer Soil infiltrability or the ability of water to enter soil from the ground surface is an important soil quality indicator when considering water retention and detention capabilities. There are two forces that play a role in this ability: gravity and capillary action. Infiltration deals directly with the rate at which soil is able to absorb water. This rate is affected by soil characteristics, such as, the resistance water encounters when entering the soil, its storage capacity, and the transmission rate (the speed at which the water can move through the pore spaces in the soil column). For example, if a soil has a low infiltration rate it is most likely due to either having its surface seals clogged, having discontinuous pore space, or because its column is already saturated. The Cornell Sprinkler Infiltrometer is a field instrument that allows for the measurement of soil infiltration. Using the infiltrometer, rainfall can be simulated at a wide range of predetermined rates and through this simulation several hydrological properties can be assessed including: Time-to-runoff (TRO), sorptivity, and field-saturated infiltrability. Time-to-runoff (TRO) relates to the amount of time that passes before water begins to run over land rather than infiltrate into the soil. TRO is dependent on the rainfall rate as well as the initial soil water conditions. Runoff occurs earlier if the rainfall rate is higher and the soil is already holding moisture (Cornell). By taking into account the dryness and the pore structure of the soil, and the combined influences of capillary action and adhesive forces to soil solid surfaces, we are able to arrive at Sorptivity. In other words, Sorptivity describes early infiltration independent of rainfall rate or the measure of the capacity of soil to absorb or desorb liquid by capillary action. This value has been estimated through the work of Kutilek in his 1980 publication Constant Rainfall Infiltration. Sorptivity also takes into account for variable sprinkle rates, which are difficult to unavoidable under field conditions (Cornell). Sorptivity provides an integrated assessment of early infiltration, including the effect of surface water storage with rough soil surfaces (Cornell). Field-saturated infiltrability is the value that reflects the infiltration capacity of the soil after it reaches its saturation point. This value is based on data taken after the measurement period in order to record how quickly water is able to infiltrate saturated soil after a rainfall has ended (this period of time is referred to as the steady state of conditions) (Cornell). By utilizing both of these instruments, the Tensiometer and the Cornell Sprinkle Infiltrometer, we are able to record the detention capabilities of our sites. These instruments tell us how much water each

site is temporally detaining or delaying from entering the combined sewer system (CSO) for a period of time, thereby reducing both the volume and number of occurrences of CSO events.

Part II. Advanced Methodology: Retention


While the above methods offered us a replicable method of ascertaining the amount of water being detained, we were unable to determine the amount of water being retained. Through reaching out to other professionals and institutions, eventually we were connected to two professors at Rutgers University, Dr. Karina Schfer and Dr. Robert Miskewitz. These two professors walked us through what equipment was necessary to complete a water budget and helped us develop an advanced methodology that took into account the varying sites conditions that urban agriculture present.

Evapotranspiration: Lysimeter As part of our investigations into the stormwater retention and detention capabilities of our two sites we will be constructing small scale weighing lysimeters. A lysimeter is a device used to measure the amount of actual evapotranspiration (ET), which is released by vegetated land areas, usually crops or trees. By recording the amount of precipitation that an area receives and the amount lost through the soil, the amount of water lost to evapotranspiration can be calculated. The key to an accurate measurement of ET using a lysimeter is being able to measure the changes in soil moisture storage. Another way to conceptualize this experiment is to think of a lysimeter as a way of recording a sites total water budget. We are able to quantify all the inputs, or the ways water enters a system, and note all the outputs, or ways that water leaves a system. By measuring the amount of precipitation an area receives (input) and the amount lost through soil (output), the amount of water that is lost through ET (output) can be calculated. ET is much harder to directly measure in the field but using this method allows us to infer how much water is being evapotranspired. The use of lysimeters to measure ET is a widely accepted method. Traditionally, farmers and agricultural scientists have utilized lysimeters to gain a greater understanding about the irrigation needs of their farms. Through the use of lysimeters, farmers can understand the amount of water their crops actually use. This information is a powerful tool that informs best practices for irrigation, revealing to farmers if they are over or under watering their crops. This helps farmers achieve a greater understanding on what their farms ideal growing conditions are. More recently, lysimeter measuring systems are being adapted and employed to measure the ET rates on green roofs. With the recent introduction of green roof systems into urban environments there has been a need for scientific data to legitimize their use. Institutions such as Michigan State and Penn State have conducted experiments using lysimeters to measure ET and runoff rates in order to better quantify the performitivity of green roofs. Initial results of these studies have shown significant stormwater management capabilities on these extensive green roof systems, retaining 50-95% of incoming rainfall (EPA 2009 and VanWoert et al. 2005). These results clearly show the improved stormwater retention capabilities of green roofs versus traditional rooftops where little to no retention is happening. Additionally, the detained water that eventually enters the CSS, reduces the number and volume of CSO events by delaying peak flow to WWTPs. As more research is conducted and data is compiled, green roof systems ability to manage stormwater will become more widely known and accepted. We propose to use the weighing lysimeter measurement technique to begin to quantify and measure the stormwater retention and detention capabilities of urban agriculture. We can calculate ET values by monitoring the weight difference before and after rain events, while also recording precipitation amounts occurring in the field and water runoff in the soil. We will also measure the amount of water that is being added to our lysimeter setup from the irrigation system for the crops. The equation associated with this measurement is called a mass balance equation and will be used to interpret our data ( for equation please see Appendix B figure 5).

When developing our lysimeter setup it is important that we replicate the field conditions found at our research sites so that our measuring is as accurate as possible. In order to have our research set up be consistent with field conditions we will; use soil from each farm, build the test beds/boxes to contain roughly the same soil depth (approximatel y 8), incorporate the lysimeter to be located at the actual farm to replicate climatic conditions, irrigate the boxes at the same rate as the rest of the respective farm, line the box with green roof lining at Brooklyn Grange and use a root barrier on Added Value to stimulate similar ground conditions, and minimize the height difference between the farm and the raised lysimeter setup. We will run the experiment for a year; this duration allows us to measure the evapotranspiration/retention capabilities of our sites annually. It is important to see how ET values fluctuate as seasons change. We expect to see the highest ET values during the summer months when temperatures are the hottest and plants are transpiring, and conversely we expect to see our ET values drop during the winter as the temperature decreases and there is diminished plant life. There we hypothesize that our farms stormwater management performativity will be the greatest during summer months when ET rates are the highest. Once our data collection is complete, we can ascertain what the stormwater retention rate is annually, and then compare the summer to the winter months. Another important factor when studying rooftop farms is the vegetative cover. Unlike traditional greenroofs planted with sedum or with another drought tolerant plant, where one type of vegetation is planted throughout the study area, the vegetation varies across our research sites depending on each farms annual crop plan. This directly affects our ability to record a consistent ET rate, since the same test plot will have a different ET value depending on what crop is planted. Crops have varying water needs and therefore they have different ET rates. Once weve completed our fieldwork in our test plots, we will extrapolate the annual ET measurements over the entire farms footprint. We hope to add, through our research and methodology, valuable insight and data into the field of urban agricultures stormwater management capability.

Energy Balance: Bowen Ratio Another research method to measure ET rates on our sites is through the use of an Energy Balance Bowen Ratio System (EBBR). Within a hydrological system there are various forms of energy that drive water transport. By measuring the different energy fluxes within this system we can begin to deduce ET values and rates on our sites. An accessible way to understand what an energy balance or budget entails, which is similar to the water budget we used for our lysimeter setup, is to identify a systems total or net energy (input). Once the sum of all incoming energy is determined, all the outputs can be subtracted; which includes the energy required to heat the air (output) and the energy required to evaporate water (output). This gives us an energy budget equation. The energy used to heat the air is a subtraction because it is moving away from the surface and into the atmosphere. The same is true for the energy required to evaporate water except this energy is transferred without a change in temperature. This is known as latent heat. The Bowen ratio is the comparison of energy fluxes from one medium to another by sensible and latent heating respectively. In other words it is the ratio of available energy for sensible heating to available energy for latent heating (See equation in Appendix). Latent heat refers to the movement of energy by water during a change in state, for example through the melting of ice or by the boiling of water. As mentioned earlier, latent heat of vaporization is the input of energy required by a change of state from liquid to vapor at constant temperature. During vaporization (or evaporation in our case) of water heat is absorbed or lost without a change in temperature while in comparison the process of condensation (gas to liquid state) heat is released. The result of heat being absorbed through evaporation and released through condensation is the movement of heat from the surface level into the atmosphere. We understand latent heat loss as the amount of energy associated with the net loss of moisture due to evaporation of a given space or study area. Sensible heating is caused by conduction and convection. Conduction is the transfer of thermal energy between matter (particle to particle) due to a change in temperature. When the atmosphere is at a higher temperature than the soil boundary layer heat will be conducted from the atmosphere into the soil medium. Conversely, when the temperature of the soil surface or boundary layer is warmer than the atmosphere, heat will be conducted into the air. Convection on the other hand is the flow of heat stemming from the actual movement of matter. More generally it is the transfer of heat energy in a gas or liquid state

through the movement of currents. For example, heat that has been conducted into the atmosphere can be moved higher into the atmosphere through convection. The Bowen ratio is effective way to determine a systems energy balance. When little moisture is available the Bowen Ratio will be greater while when it is very humid or there is a lot of moisture available the ratio value will be less than one. When there is no incoming solar radiation (for example at night), the amount of sensible heat energy becomes minimal or potentially can become negative (through the loss of heat energy). Latent heat is not as dependent on incoming solar radiation; therefore the Bowen Ratio will be very small or even negative. We plan to carry out an EBBR system to measure the stormwater retention of Brooklyn Grange. Our setup and equipment allow us to log continuous data for at least one year. We expect to find very similar results to our lysimeter setup. These two studies will serve as comparative techniques. Currently, due to financial constraints we are unable to run the EBBR system at Added Value, but we plan on fundraising so we can carry out this experiment in the future.

II. Laboratory Methods:


Soil Moisture Content: The soil moisture content is the amount of water contained in soil. By recording the mass of our soil cores then weighing them again at their dry weight we can figure out the soil moisture percentage (Please see Appendix B-1). By calculating the soil moisture percentage of saturated soil samples we can begin to understand the volume of water capable of being held by the soil on our sites. A comparison of figures from Added Value compared to the Brooklyn Grange will let us compare the different growing mediums (compost at Added Value versus Rooflite at Brooklyn Grange) water storage capacity. We suspected that Added Value would have a greater soil moisture content because it has consists of more organic matter than the engineered Rooflite blend used on the Brooklyn Grange. Field Capacity: Field capacity is a practical measure of a soils water holding capacity. This is not a constant value since it is influence by many different field conditions. In order to determine our soils field capacity we saturated the soil column, covered our test plot to prevent evaporation, and monitored the change in soil moisture until the rate of change leveled out and was almost undetectable. Porosity: The porosity of soil is the amount of void space within the soil column. By measuring the porosity of soil you can obtain the volume of water per unit volume of soil. From there you can obtain your soil water content at saturation and its bulk density. Once you have your bulk density value total porosity can be calculated, which then can be used to calculate your percent of saturation in other samples. Determining porosity will give us an idea of the detention capabilities of our sites. Organic Matter Content: We heated the soil in a very high temperature oven so that any moisture was evaporated and any non-organic matter was burnt off, leaving only the organic matter. When we take this value and extrapolate over the total area of our sites, will are able to arrive at the approximate amount of carbon that is bring stored and contained within our test areas.

Data Analysis:
I. Experiment Results and Calculations: a.) Data Analysis: Preliminary Results Soil Moisture Content (Percentage) BG= BK Grange BG1 (Field) BG2 (Saturated) BG3 (Field) BG4 (Saturated) AV1 (Field): Rain Event AV2 (Saturated) AV= Added Value 17.1% 27.4% 21.6% 31.7% 42.8% 45.6%

b.) Graphs- TBD c.) Calculation Techniques- TBD

II. Feasible of Urban Agriculture on a City-Wide Scale: There are currently over 40 urban farms in NYC that are already contributing to the citys green infrastructure and once we have figures we can generate an informed estimate as to what environmental benefits these farms are contributing to the city (Tyler Caruso/thread collective). There are over 500 community gardens that make up over 93 acres of land and 81.1% grow food ( farming concrete). Additionally we will take our results for stormwater metrics and extrapolate benefits to show the environmental benefits that could be experience if urban agriculture was scaled up significantly to cover all under-utilized or vacant land.
Table 1.1:

Working estimates for Available Land in the Five Boroughs of NYC


(Ackerman 2011)

Location/Type of Available Land


Public vacant Private vacant Unused / underused open space (primarily parkland)

Acres
2,563 4,222 628
(this is only land categorized as such, there is likely much more underutilized parkland)

NYCHA open space Rooftops over 10,000 s.f., built 1900-1975, in Manufacturing & Commercial districts
(excluding noxious / heavy industrial uses)

approx. 975 acres 3,581 60

Greenstreets
Note- Figures do not include easements.

III. Benefit Valuation for Reduced Stormwater Runoff In the above sections of this report we have outlined the various research methods and laboratory procedures used to scientifically quantify the benefit of urban agriculture, in terms of gallons of stormwater removed from the sewer system. Upon completion of research observations over the next year, we will take our results a few steps further and deduce two forms of monetary savings for municipalities. We will calculate the monetary savings for each individual research site, then we can using the same equation determine the total savings from current agricultural sites in NYC, revealing what urban farming is already doing for the city. Finally we will be able to illustrate, using the Urban D esign Labs Urban Agricultural Feasible Study (please refer to Table 1.1), what the total savings for NYC could be if urban agriculture was implemented on a city-wide scale. a.) Reduced Water Treatment Needs: [runoff reduced (gal)] * [avoided cost per gallon ($/gal)] = avoided stormwater treatment costs ($) (CNT 2010) b.)Reduced Grey Infrastructure Needs: [conventional cost of structure ($/sf)] * [total area of structure (sf)] = total expenditure for conventional approach ($) or [total expenditure for conventional approach ($)] * [% retained] = avoided cost savings ($) (CNT 2010)

Discussion:
I.) Interpreting results for our two sites: a.) Quantify benefits- explain how many gallons of stormwater are diverted from the combined sewer system b.) How much money is saved from diverting xx gallons of stormwater from being treated in WWTP? c.) Are there large differences in the results between the two case studies? II.) Comparison of our two sites ability to retain stormwater compared to another non -food producing green infrastructure site or technology currently in use.

Works Cited:
Ackerman, Kubi et al 2011. Urban Agriculture: Confirming Viable Scenarios for Production Urban Design Lab, Columbia University, New York. Center for Disease Control (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Washington, DC: 1991-2000. Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) 2010. The Value of GI: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits Chicago. Cornell University College of Agricultural and Life Sciences: Department of Crop and Soil Science. Field Procedures and Data Analysis for the Cornell Sprinkle Infiltrometer - http://soilhealth.cals.cornell.edu/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1994. Combined-sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy, Federal Register, 59 (75). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009. Green Roofs for Stormwater Runoff Control www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09026/600r09026.pdf Gaffin et al, 2005. "A Temperature and Seasonal Energy Analysis of Green, White, and Black Roofs." Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York. available online at: http://www.coned.com/newsroom/news/pr20100503.asp Gaffin et al, 2010. "Stormwater Retention Analysis for a Modular Green Roof System" Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York. yet to be published Gittleman, Mara. Farming Concrete- http://farmingconcrete.org/ Kutilek, M. 1980. Constant rainfall infiltration. J. Hydrol. 45:289-303. Saiz, Susana, Kennedy, Christopher, Bass, Brad and Kim Pressnail. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Standard and Green Roofs Environ. Sci. Technol., 2006, 40 (13), pp 43124316 VanWoert, N.D, D.B. Rowe, J.A. Andresen, C.L. Rugh, R.T. Fernandez, and L. Xiao. 2005. Green roof stormwater retention: Effects of roof surface, slope, and media depth. J. Environ. Quality 34(3):10361044.

Appendix A: Field and Operating Techniques:


1. Soil Sampling Methods: 1.) A soil core was inserted into the soil until the core is filled to the 8-inch mark, trying to avoid compaction. 2.) A spade was used to excavate a small area around core sample site, aiding in removal of the core without loss of growing matter 3.) The core was skimmed and the sample was brought to our lab to be weighed 2. Tensiometer Procedure: 1.) Create a core in the soil by using an auger 2.) Insert the tensiometer snug into the soil and tamp at the surface to seal the instrument from air contact and prevent surface water from running down the tube. 3.) Wait 2-3 hours until the correct soil water potential value is recorded 4.) Observe and Record changes in water potential/soil moisture.

3. Determining Field Capacity: 1.) Saturate soil within our confined research area 2.) Wait till tensiometer reading reaches 0 bars 3.) Carry out soil core 4. Cornell Rain Simulator Infiltrometer Procedure: 1.) Measure the height of the water level in the sprinkler vessel ( H1) 2.) Remove the small stopper from the air-entry tube, while simultaneously starting a stopwatch. Monitor the outflow tube to determine whether water is being discharged into the beaker. During this period, it is advised to slightly rotate the sprinkler every minute or so (more often when the sprinkler is suspended) to prevent raindrops impacting the soil surface in the same location. 3.) When water starts flowing out of the tube, record the time ( TRO, time to runoff in minutes). The runoff water should now be flowing into the beaker. 4.) After three (or so) minutes, pour the water from the beaker into the graduated cylinder. This should be done while not spilling water that continues to come from the outflow tube (e.g., by quickly replacing the full beaker with another empty one, or temporarily blocking the outflow tube). 5.) Measure the runoff volume (Vt) in the graduated cylinder (in ml). Record both Vt and the time at which water was collected. 6.) Repeat steps 4 and 5 for as long as desired (generally up to one hour), or until the water level in the vessel has reached the bottom of the air-entry tube. Do not continue beyond this point as the sprinkle rate will gradually decrease. In most cases, steady-state conditions will have occurred within an hour. It may take longer with extremely dry soils and those that have shrinkage cracks that close very gradually during extended wetting. 7.) At the end of the measurement period, determine the water level in the vessel ( H2) and the time at which it is taken (Tf).

Appendix B: Laboratory Methods


1. Determining Soil Moisture Content: Weigh individual soil dishes and record mass before adding soil Place soil from cores into soil dishes and weigh Place soil samples in oven at 45C for 24 hrs Remove from oven and place in desiccation chamber for cooling Weigh soil samples and record dry mass Determine soil moisture content by subtracting the dry mass from the core mass Determine soil moisture percentage by dividing moisture content by core mass and multiplying by 100. P= (W-D)/W x100 P= Soil Moisture Content W= Mass of original core (g) D= Mass of dry weight (g) 2. Calculating Porosity: Collect a saturated soil sample Determine the soil moisture content Determine Bulk Density= (mass of dry soil)/(core volume) Particle Density: Compost is <2.2-2.4 Porosity = (bulk density)/(particle density)

3. Calculating Field Capacity: Saturate soil Sample soil every 4 hours and determine moisture content Once soil moisture content levels off you have your field capacity 4. Organic Matter Measurement: Using a high temperature oven at 105C place a weighed sample of soil to dry for approximately 9-12 hours Remove sample from the oven and place in a desiccation chamber to prevent the sample from absorbing moisture from the air Once the sample has thoroughly dried, reweighed it and record figures. Repeat 4-5 times and make sure to evenly distribute sample sites from varying locations when sampling. 5. Lysimeter: Mass Balance Equation ET= P + I D S ET= Evapotranspiration P= Precipitation I= Irrigation D= excess water drainage S= Increase or decrease in storage of soil moisture

6. Bowen Ratio: Energy Balance Equation Bowen Ratio = H/LE = Bowen Ratio H= Sensible Heat LE= Latent Heat Energy Balance Equation Rn= LE+ H + S or Rn + S

+H+E=0

Rn= Net Radiation E= Latent Heat Flux H= Sensible Heat (Conduction + Convection) S= Soil Heat Flux

Appendix C: Data Analysis


1. Cornell Rain Simulator Infiltrometer Controls: Area of the ring= 457.30 Experiment run for 3 minutes Simulated rainfall rate (r, constant throughout the experiment) is determined by: r = [H1 - H2] / Tf Runoff rates (rot , cm/min) rot = Vt / (457.30*t) Infiltration rates (it)- difference between the rainfall rate and runoff rate: it =r-rot Estimation of Sorptivity: S = (2TRO)0.5 * r

2.) Porosity V= Vp + Vs Vp= Vg + Vc Porosity= Vp/V Field Capacity or Specific Retention= Vc/V V= Total Volume Vs= Volume of Solids Vp= Volume of Pores Vc= Volume of Capillary Water and Absorbed Water Vg= Volume of Air and/or Gravity Water (Pore Volume minus Capillary Water) Mass water content (m) m = [ (wet soil weight dry soil weight) / dry soil weight ] * 100 Volumetric water content (v)- can be expressed in any units such as cm cm-3 or percent v = [ (wet soil weight dry soil weight) / (water density * volume of so il) ] * 100 v = (volume of water / bulk volume of soil) * 100 Note: If bulk density (Db) and m are known, v can be calculated using this equation. v =m *(Db /Dw)

Você também pode gostar