ACSC case studies examine real community efforts through a Community Cost Analysis (CCA) lens. They are designed to make household-level costs, exposures, and tradeoffs visible before judgments about success or failure are made.

Each case study begins with household realities—food, energy, transportation, and waste—and traces how policies, programs, or infrastructure shape those burdens over time. The focus is not on intent, branding, or stated goals, but on how systems actually interface with households and where costs are absorbed, avoided, or displaced.

These studies are diagnostic, not promotional. They do not presume positive impact, nor do they serve as endorsements. Evaluation occurs only where evidence is available and is clearly distinguished from description or inference.

Together, the case studies form a growing body of practical examples that communities can use to understand:

how burden moves through local systems
where interventions reduce or shift costs
what conditions support household recoverability

Growing High Point

A Community Cost Analysis Case Study

1. Context & Scope

High Point, North Carolina has experienced long-standing challenges related to food access, transportation dependence, and household cost pressure, particularly in neighborhoods without nearby full-service grocery options. Many households face compounding burdens: the cost of food itself, the time and expense of travel, and limited choice in what foods are realistically available.

Growing High Point (GHP) operates within this context as a local urban agriculture and food distribution network. Its activities include neighborhood-based farms, a food hub, mobile food distribution, farm share programs, and targeted deliveries.

This case study examines how Growing High Point interfaces with household food burden, not whether the program “works” in an abstract or promotional sense.

2. Sustainability Snapshot (Baseline Conditions)

The sustainability snapshot for this case reflects neighborhoods where:

food access is limited by distance and transportation dependence
travel time and cost amplify food burden
household tolerance for error (spoilage, missed trips) is low

These baseline conditions frame the analysis but do not constitute an evaluation of outcomes.

3. Cost-Center Interface Analysis

Food

Growing High Point alters food system flows by shortening the distance between production and household access. Food is produced and distributed within neighborhoods through:

urban farm sites
scheduled mobile markets
local farm share pickup points
direct delivery to select populations

These interfaces increase the visibility and consistency of food access within underserved areas.

Transportation

By shifting food access closer to households, GHP reduces reliance on private vehicles and long transit trips. Local and scheduled access points substitute for dispersed retail travel, potentially reducing time and fuel exposure.

Waste

Local production and distribution may influence packaging use and food loss patterns, though no direct measurements are included in this case.

Energy

No direct energy impacts are observed in this case, though indirect effects may occur through reduced transportation energy use.

4. Pillar Evaluation (Descriptive)

Social Sustainability

Observed conditions suggest improvements in availability, accessibility, and acceptability of food resources through predictable schedules, reduced travel demands, and culturally familiar food offerings.

Economic Sustainability

Transparent pricing structures, farm shares, donations, and avoided transportation costs indicate potential reductions in household cost exposure, though magnitude and durability are not measured.

Environmental Sustainability

Localized production and distribution may reduce transport-related emissions and packaging impacts, but no environmental indicators are quantified in this case.

5. Assessment & Direction (Preliminary)

Based on observed system interfaces, Growing High Point appears to mediate household food burden primarily through changes in proximity, delivery mode, and choice rather than through price intervention alone.

Spillover effects are most likely in transportation, with potential secondary effects in waste. Whether these interface changes translate into sustained household recoverability depends on scale, consistency, participation, and broader economic conditions.

This case does not establish magnitude or long-term outcomes and does not substitute for a scored or measured evaluation.

6. Commons Implications

This case illustrates how localized food systems can function as burden-mediating commons infrastructure, particularly in communities where transportation and access constraints amplify food costs.

It also highlights the importance of distinguishing system interface change from verified impact. While Growing High Point reshapes how food reaches households, long-term sustainability offer depends on whether these changes persist and scale without shifting burden elsewhere.

7. Notes on Use

This case study is descriptive and diagnostic. It is intended to illustrate how Community Cost Analysis can be applied to understand household interfaces and potential burden pathways. Quantitative scoring and index-based evaluation would require additional data and analysis beyond the scope of this case.

Case Studies