Case Studies

ACSC case studies examine real community projects through a burden-based sustainability lens. We begin with household realities—energy, food, transportation, waste—and evaluate how local efforts change those burdens over time. Each case study uses our Community Sustainability Index (CSI) and Community Cost Accounting methods to track who pays, who benefits, and how value becomes worth inside the commons. These studies are not opinion pieces or marketing summaries—they are structured evaluations designed to reveal what is truly happening on the ground, why it matters, and what communities can learn from it.

Below is our ongoing series of ACSC case studies, beginning with an examination of the Growing High Point initiative

3. CSI Perspective: How Growing High Point Addresses Food Burden

The following CSI perspective describes directional effects inferred from program structure, access patterns, and observed conditions, not the results of a completed quantitative CSI scoring run.

Using ACSC’s Community Sustainability Index (CSI) lens, Growing High Point can be viewed primarily in the Food domain, with spillover into Transportation and Waste.

For households in 27260, GHP appears to shift key CSI components in the following ways:

Availability

• Before: Limited or no full-service grocery stores in walking distance; narrow produce options.

• After: Multiple urban farms, a Food Hub, Farm Share boxes, and Growdega truck stops bring a steady stream of fresh, local produce directly into underserved areas.

CSI interpretation: Food availability is likely improved through more consistent, neighborhood-level access to fresh items.

Accessibility

• Before: Residents often needed cars or long transit rides to reach decent groceries.

• After: Farms are located inside neighborhoods; Growdega parks directly in food-desert locations on a schedule; Farm Share pickup includes local sites.

CSI interpretation: Accessibility barriers appear reduced through shorter distances, predictable schedules, and simplified access.

Cost

• Before: Higher relative costs for healthy food; low-cost calories drove diet quality downward.

• After: Urban farms and Growdega offer fresh, affordable produce; CSA pricing is transparent and competitive, and some produce is donated or provided through free farm shares and senior deliveries.

CSI interpretation: Out-of-pocket cost pressure for fresh food may be reduced, particularly when avoided transportation costs are considered.

Acceptability

• Before: Food options often mismatched to cultural preferences; limited choice in what’s available.

• After: Farmers include immigrants and long-time residents who grow culturally familiar crops, with community members choosing from local, recognizable produce.

CSI interpretation: Acceptability appears improved through culturally relevant food options and greater household choice.

Taken together, Growing High Point demonstrates how an urban agriculture network can address multiple dimensions of food burden and potentially reduce variance between better-resourced and under-resourced neighborhoods, even prior to full quantitative evaluation.