United States
Environmental Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic)
Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and
Development (ORD) partially funded and collaborated in the research described here. It has
been subjected to the Agency's review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Former Chesapeake Supply Brownfield Revitalization Rapid Health Impact
Assessment (HIA) was led by EPA staff and contractors with technical assistance from the City
of Dover, Downtown Dover Partnership, Kent County, State of Delaware, Delaware State
University, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The contents of this report are solely the
responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the EPA.
Suggested Citation:
U.S. EPA. 2018. Former Chesapeake Supply Brownfield Revitalization Rapid Health Impact
Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Region 3, and Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-

About the Health Impact Assessment (HIA)	7
Introduction	7
What is an HIA?	8
Proposed Study Site	9
Why Was an HIA Performed?	12
Who Performed This HIA?	13
What Methods Were Used in This HIA?	13
What Was the Scope of This HIA?	14
Main Findings and Recommendations ofthe HIA	15
Who Could Be Affected by the Proposed Project?	15
How Could the Proposed Project Affect Health in the Community?	17
What Can the Decision-Maker Do to Manage These Impacts?	19
Assessment ofthe Determinants of Health	19
Food Access	20
Review of Literature-Based Evidence	20
Existing Conditions	22
Predicted Health Impacts	25
Employment	27
Review of Literature-Based Evidence	27
Existing Conditions	28
Predicted Health Impacts	30
Brownfield and Downtown Revitalization	32
Review of Literature-Based Evidence	32
Existing Conditions	33
Predicted Health Impacts	34
Crime and Perceived Safety	36
Review of Literature-Based Evidence	36
Existing Conditions 	38
Predicted Health Impacts	40
Household and Community Economics	42
Review of Literature-Based Evidence	42
Existing Conditions	43

Predicted Health Impacts	45
Monitoring and Evaluation	47
Plan for Process Evaluation	47
Plan for Impact Evaluation	49
Plan for Outcome Evaluation	49
Conclusion	51
References	56
List of tables:
1.	Steps of the Health Impact Assessment process
2.	Demographic indicators of target site at 238 Railroad Ave., Dover, DE and surrounding areas
3.	Health impact characterization criteria
4.	List of characterized health impacts of the Dover Brownfield Revitalization Project HIA
5.	Impact characterization and management strategies for Food Access
6.	Average employment rates by sector for Dover and the United States, 2011-2015
7.	Impact characterization and management strategies for Employment
8.	Impact characterization and management strategies for Brownfield Revitalization
9.	Crime rates per 100,000 population in Dover, Delaware, and US
10.	Impact characterization and management strategies for Crime and Perceived Safety
11.	Impact characterization and management strategies for Household and Community Economics
12.	Evaluation of HIA goal achievement
13.	Proposed plan for monitoring health impacts post-decision
14.	Site-specific recommendations by health determinant
15.	General urban revitalization recommendations by health determinant
List of figures:
1.	Types of Health Impact Assessment
2.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply target site and surrounding brownfields
3.	Pathway Diagram used during scoping step to prioritize which determinants of health to include in the
4.	Map of the Former Chesapeake Supply target site, nearby grocery store locations, and market opportunity
5.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply target site and percent unemployment
6.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply target site and property crime index
7.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply target site and personal crime index
8.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply target site and median income

1.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply Site, Brownfield HIA: Target Site and Brownfields
2.	Map of the Former Chesapeake Supply Site, Brownfield HIA: Target Site and Grocery Store Access and
3.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply Site, Brownfield HIA: Target Site and Unemployment
4.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply Site, Brownfield HIA: Target Site and Property Crime Index
5.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply Site, Brownfield HIA: Target Site and Personal Crime Index
6.	Map of Former Chesapeake Supply Site, Brownfield HIA: Target Site and Median Income
7.	Information about the Aquaponics Business Plan User Guide
This rapid Health Impact Assessment (HIA) was made possible through the collaboration of US
EPA staff and contractors and over 10 agencies, departments, organizations, and advocacy
groups that participated in and contributed to this HIA. Thanks to US EPA Emeritus, Florence
Fulk, for her assistance with this process. The HIA Leadership Team is thankful to Kristeen
Gaffney, Florence Fulk, and Alexis Lan for their critical review of this report.

Dover HIA Team Members
Jim Waddington (Team Coordinator)
Director, Kent Economic Partnership
Kent County Economic Development
Dave Hugg
Director, Planning, Inspections and Community
City of Dover
Michael Petit de Mange, AICP
County Administrator
Kent County Levy Court
Sarah Keifer, AICP
Director, Department of Planning Services
Kent County Levy Court
Mike Casson, Ph.D.
Director, University Center for Economic
Development and International Trade (UCEDIT)
Department of Accounting and Finance
Delaware State University
Marikis Alvarez, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, Research
College of Agriculture and Related Sciences
Delaware State University
David Edgell, AICP
Principal Planner, Office of State Planning
State of Delaware
Kenny Bounds
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Delaware Department of Agriculture
Letitia N. Nichols
Business and Cooperative Program Director
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development
Delaware/Maryland Office
Jill Williams-Hall, M.P.A.
Planner IV - Brownfields Coordinator
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
James Brunswick
Community Ombudsman
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Tina Bradbury
Executive Director
Downtown Dover Partnership
Matthew Christensen, Ph.D.
Delaware Division of Public Health
Lisa Fitzgerald, J.D.
Business and Cooperative Specialist
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development
Delaware/Maryland Office
HIA Leadership Team, US EPA
Ann Carroll, MPH
Public Health Lead
Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization
Shannon Griffin, MS
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
LaRonda Koffi, MGA
Region 3 Superfund Communications Coordinator
Program Manager, EPA/DSU Partnership
Samantha Shattuck, MS
Public Health Specialist
Pegasus Technical Services
c/o Office of Research and Development
For details about this project, contact: LaRonda
Koffi, US EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic),
koffi.laronda@epa.gov; Shannon Griffin, US
EPA, Office of Research and Development
(ORD), griffin.shannon@epa.gov; or Ann
Carroll, US EPA, Office of Brownfields and Land
Revitalization (OBLR), carroll.ann@epa.gov.

The City of Dover, Delaware, and Kent County are interested in redeveloping a vacant and
formerly contaminated property, or brownfield, to stimulate economic revitalization and
increase food access in the Downtown Dover area. As a part of this effort, local and state
officials sought assistance from EPA with examining a cleaned brownfield site for food
production with a focus on aquaponics, a type of farming that grows fish and plants together in
an integrated system. A rapid Health Impact Assessment (HIA), an abbreviated form of HIA,
was piloted in partnership with EPA Region 3; EPA Office of Research and Development; EPA
Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization; City of Dover, Kent County, and Delaware State
governments; and Delaware State University. EPA staff guided the HIA process and utilized a
mixed methods approach, including qualitative and quantitative data, geographic information
system (GIS), and scientific literature review, to evaluate the potential health impacts of a
proposed food production project. The following HIA report documents the HIA analyses,
findings, and recommendations for the City of Dover to consider health in decisions around its
revitalization plans and outlines opportunities for further development and future

The City of Dover, Delaware, and Kent County
seek to redevelop a vacant and formerly
contaminated property, or brownfield, to spur
revitalization in the Downtown Dover area.
They will be working with the Downtown Dover
Partnership (DDP), a key partner in revitalization
efforts of Downtown Dover. Activities to reuse
properties and revitalize Downtown Dover
intend to advance economic development and
address community needs, including increasing
community access to fresh and affordable food,
local jobs, and employment opportunities,
accelerating brownfield and downtown revitalization, reducing crime, and improving household
and community economics. Given a desire to increase food access in this and other parts of the
City within Kent County's Food Innovation District, this project sought to examine a brownfield
site for economic development through food production; of particular interest is an integrated
fish and plant farming option known as aquaponics.
The EPA's Office of Brownfields and Land
Revitalization (OBLR), worked with EPA
Region 3 staff, community partners and
contractors in 2015-2016 to review and
explore developing an Aquaponics project
on brownfields in Delaware. The project
resulted in the development of EPA's
Aquaponics Business Plan User Guide and
accompanying worksheets (US EPA, 2016).
In response to that effort and continued
community interest, EPA's OBLR and EPA
Region 3 staff agreed to work with local and
state officials, community partners and
contractors and EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) to evaluate the
Aquaponics is a system of farming that combines
hydroponics (growing plants without soil using
nutrients in water) with aquaculture (growing and
harvesting fish and aquatic plants) (US EPA, 2016).
'	>

potential public health impacts of an aquaponics project on a brownfield site in Downtown
Dover through a Health Impact Assessment (HIA). The goal of an HIA is to provide decision-
makers and the public with a set of evidence-based recommendations intended to inform the
health-related issues associated with a given plan. The recommendations provide practical
solutions that seek to magnify positive health impacts and minimize the negative impacts. The
City of Dover is the main decision-maker regarding the proposed project considered in this HIA.
A Health Impact Assessment, or HIA, is "a systematic process that uses an array of data sources
and analytical methods and considers input from stakeholders to determine the potential
effects of a proposed policy, plan, program, or project on health of a population and the
distribution of those impacts within the population. HIA provides recommendations on
monitoring and managing those effects" (National Research Council, 2011).
Five core values are integral to Table 1: Steps of the Health Impact Assessment process
the HIA: democracy, equity,
sustainable	development,
ethical use of evidence, and a
comprehensive approach to
health (World Health
Organization, 1999). An HIA
typically consists of 6 steps:
screening; scoping; assessment;
recommendations; reporting;
and monitoring and evaluation
(Table 1). The depth and extent
of these steps is informed by
project needs and resource and
time limitations.
The three main types of HIAs,
rapid, intermediate, and
comprehensive, are based on the
amount of effort, complexity,
and duration (Ison, 2000; Figure 1). This project is a rapid HIA, or desk-based assessment, and is
primarily based on existing information and data. It provides a broad overview of potential
Determine whether an HIA is feasible,
timely, and useful to the decision-
making process.
Create a plan for conducting the HIA,
including identification of timeline,
participant roles, and potential health
risks and benefits.
Describe baseline health of affected
communities and assess the potential
health impacts of the decision.
Develop practical strategies for
promoting positive health impacts
and/or mitigating adverse health
Communicate progress and findings
to decision-makers, affected
communities, and other stakeholders.
Evaluate the HIA process and its
impacts on decision-making. Monitor
changes in health in affected

health impacts with limited data collection and stakeholder engagement; it is intended to
outline opportunities forfurther development and future assessment.
•	2 to 12 weeks
•	Broad overview of
potential health
impacts (little to no
data collection
and/or stakeholder
•	Applied when time
and resources are
•	12 weeks to 6
•	Involves collection
and analysis of
existing data with
limited stakeholder
•	Requires moderate
time and resources
•	6 months to i+year
•	Involves collection
and analysis of
existing data with
extensive stakeholder
•	Requires significant
time and resources
Figure l. Types of Health Impact Assessment
The City of Dover has identified the property at 238 Railroad Avenue as the target site for
potential revitalization and the focus of this rapid HIA; it is one of five brownfield properties in
the area where EPA grant funds were directed or targeted brownfield assessments have
occurred. This property is the location of the Former Chesapeake Supply (Delaware Dept. of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Project No. DE-1334) and includes two
tax parcels totaling 1.75 acres (DNREC, 2017a). It is currently owned by the Downtown Dover
Development Corporation. Figure 2 below uses a data layer from the "Cleanups in my
Community (CIMC)" web application (www.epa.gov/cleanups/cleanups-mv-communifr ) and
illustrates the location of the target brownfield site, the 0.5-mile and 1.0 mile radii around the
study site, and the five other brownfields that fall within the 0.5-mile radius.
As part of past assessment activities, the Former Chesapeake Supply site was recognized to
have fill materials and a range of previous uses, including fruit processor, basket manufacturer,
creamery, plumbing/heating supply warehouses and construction equipment sales facility
between 1910 and 2004 (DNREC, 2013). Groundwater at this target site has historically been
impacted by tetrachloroethene (TCE) and chromium above DNREC groundwater standards
(DNREC, 2013).

1.8 mi
Dover DE -5 mile 1 mite Radii
| 0.5 mite
11 mite
soiree: Esil. DgraGota. GeoEye Earmsat Geograprvcs.
CNESiAlfDUS OS, USOA. uses. AeroGRID. iGN. and me gis user
Mcroscfl j Est. AGS I EsR, Inftgroup | Esit. US Census 3 ureau. Integrate} as E=A
Figure 2. Map of Former Chesapeake Supply target site and surrounding brownfields (Source: ESRI). See
Appendix i for full page map.
Suspected chromium soil contamination under site buildings prompted DNREC to better
quantify potential exposure risks. Subsequent testing documented in the 2013 plan found no
soil contamination (DNREC, 2013). DNREC files from 2013 document remediation requirements
needed for a certificate of completion which include ground water monitoring for total and
dissolved chromium and total and dissolved hexavalent chromium for a period of two years and
the development and compliance with a Contaminated Materials Management Plan that
describes handling and disposal for all soil and groundwater at the site to protect worker health
and the environment (DNREC, 2013). The State of Delaware placed restrictions on land
disturbance at the site and land use restrictions to prevent exposure to groundwater
contamination, including prohibitions against the installation of groundwater wells or use of
groundwater at the site (DNREC, 2013). A second amended remedial plan, signed June 1, 2017,
updates earliersite documentation; documents demolition, remediation and development plan
changes; and highlights results indicating no soil contamination (DNREC, 2017a). Two years of
quarterly groundwater monitoring suggested TCE and chromium groundwater contamination
is generated from off-site sources (DNREC, 2017a). The final plan, however, restricts on-site
groundwater access without DNREC written permission

Former Chesapeake Supply Brownfield
After remediation (2014)	c	.. r . , ,,
J	* '	Source: Compliance Environmental[ inc.
This target area has a majority low-income, minority residential population, including 13% who
are children under the age of five years old, which is higher than the state average of 6% (US
Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2011-2015). Moreover, there are other
indicators, such as poverty, unemployment, environmental degradation, and a lack of access to
healthy foods which may suggest environmental justice concerns in the focus area. The City of
Dover and Kent County are working with federal, state, local, non-profit and university partners
to revitalize this part of Downtown Dover.

This site is adjacent to a rail line
that is used mainly for the
transportation of goods. Next
door is a mechanic shop and
other industrial businesses.
Nearby is the Interfaith Mission
for Housing, a former brownfield,
which is a homeless shelter that
provides services including
"education opportunities, addiction counseling, employment training, mental health
resourcing, and safe and affordable housing placement" (GuideStar, 2018). Delaware State
News reported in November 2016 that the shelter had assisted 248 homeless men since opening
in 2008, and 179 of those, or 72%, acquired jobs before leaving the shelter (Gronau, 2016). Also
within downtown, there are banks, churches, municipal buildings, restaurants, shops and
discount shops in addition to several vacant businesses and homes.
The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) considers HIA as one of the many tools
to provide science-based resources and information for community-driven initiatives. This
rapid HIA, an abbreviated form of HIA, is informing the City of Dover, Kent County and State
of Delaware on development of a food production facility located on a former brownfield as
they move forward in their planning process. Health impacts of different revitalization choices
to support food production on brownfields in Dover could be associated with changes in:
-	Risk reduction from brownfield site cleanup for revitalization.
-	Employment prospects and job creation impacts for brownfield reuse and food
production construction and operation.
-	Public health and environmental impacts of a brownfield revitalization resulting in a
food production reuse choice.
-	Improved food access and local food market access.
-	Increased food production training, employment, and job creation.
Other outcomes not fully explored that may be included in future efforts are health impacts
associated with changes in traffic patterns, including foot traffic; impacts that result from
increased construction in the area; health impacts based on location and proximity to the rail
line; and other areas of community interest.
Environmental Justice (EJ) is defined by the EPA as "the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with
respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies"
(US EPA, 2017a).

Staff in EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic), EPA Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR),
and EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) in Cincinnati and their contractor, Pegasus
Technical Services, partnered to lead the HIA. These partners established the HIA Dover Project
Team, which was made of EPA staff and contractors, and representatives from the following
organizations: City of Dover (the primary decision-maker), Kent County, Delaware Office of
State Planning Coordination, Delaware State University Department of
Agriculture/Department of Finance and Accounting, Delaware Department of Agriculture,
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Delaware
Division of Public Health, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The HIA Project Team
conducted the rapid HIA with the assistance of other local organizations, such as the Downtown
Dover District Partnership and the National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research
Fund, Inc. (NCALL).
Following the Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessments, this HIA
followed the established, six-step process: 1. screening, 2. scoping, 3. assessment, 4.
recommendations, 5. reporting, and 6. monitoring and evaluation (Table 1; Bhatia, 2014).
Prior to the HIA process, EPA Region 3, through a Memorandum of Understanding with
Delaware State University and technical assistance provided by EPA's Office of Brownfields and
Land Revitalization, fostered a partnership with state, local and nonprofit organizations in and
around the City of Dover and Kent County. The partnership flourished beyond the scope of a
single project, which led to the exchange of ideas and the discussion of environmental tools that
would cultivate a practical learning experience for university students, as well as assist with
identifying issues that are important to the Dover community. This relationship was crucial in
motivating the subsequent HIA.
The first step, screening, began at an HIA training workshop hosted by ORD and EPA Region 3
for interested parties from Delaware State University, City of Dover, Kent County, and Delaware
State governments in June 2016. Consequently, it was determined that an HIA of the proposed
brownfield revitalization project could be feasible, timely, align stakeholder interest, and add
value to the decision-making process for the City of Dover. Thus, EPA ORD, EPA OBLR, and
EPA Region 3 staff collaborated to pilot a rapid HIA in July 2017.

This rapid HIA utilized:
¦S Pre-existing and publicly available data (e.g., brownfield site-specific information from
DNREC site data sources, food sales and access, employment and household income and
job creation from past brownfield revitalization activities in Delaware, US Census and
American Community Survey data, US Department of Justice crime data, reports, etc.).
¦S Standardized and rigorous analysis methods (geographic information systems (GIS)
support for mapping and visualizations).
¦S Review of empirical, science-based literature and other HIAs. Although scientific
literature is useful and informative, it may be limited in its generalizability and broad
applicability and therefore may not relate specifically to Dover.
¦S Expertise from local environmental, planning, agriculture, economic development,
public health professionals, researchers, and other stakeholders.
¦S Qualitative characterization of impacts using established HIA approaches (Pope et al.,
At the scoping step, this HIA evaluated how the proposed project would influence five
determinants of health (i.e., factors that affect health) selected by stakeholders to meet
community interest, including 1) accessibility to goods and services, specifically fresh and
affordable food; 2) job creation; 3) brownfield revitalization impacts on downtown economic
development, specifically business performance; 4) crime, including both personal and property
crime; and 5) household and community economics, specifically household income and
employment (Figure 3). In addition, the focus of the study area was established to include a one-
mile radius around the proposed project site (238 Railroad Ave, Dover, DE; Figure 2) in which
data were examined and the health impacts were appraised; particular attention was paid to the
demographics of the half-mile radius as this population has lower levels of income,
employment, and housing security compared to the one-mile radius (Table 2).
The community planned a focus on food production, which may include an aquaponics project,
a hydroponics facility, a combination of the two, or other viable food production options.
Although the type of food production facility at the proposed brownfield site is yet to be
determined, this HIAfrequently provides information specific to an aquaponic option due to the
growing interest in urban aquaponic farms as a sustainable method to provide a source of
healthy, fresh, and cost-effective protein and vegetables to the local community, while
providing job and educational opportunities for citizens.

Figure 3. Pathway diagram used at scoping step to prioritize which health determinants to include in the HI A.
According to the 2011-2015 US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year
Estimates, the City of Dover has a population of 37,144, while the one-mile radius surrounding
the proposed project site is home to 8,580 residents (Table 2). The City of Dover has 14,362
housing units, with 13.0% vacancy (US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2011 -
2015). See Table 2 below for more information.

Table 2. Demographic indicators of target site at 238 Railroad Ave., Dover, DE and surrounding areas
(US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2011 - 2015)
0.5-mile radius
around target
1.0-mile radius
around target
City of Dover
State of


Total population
Population density
Land area (sq mi)
% Minority3
Age: % under 5 yrs
Age: % under 18 yrs
Age: % over 64 yrs
% Low incomeb
% Educational
attainment (less than
high school graduated
% Renter-occupied
% Employedd
% Unemployedd
aPercent minority is a fraction of the total population, where minority is defined as all but "Not Hispanic or Latino
White Alone;" calculated from the US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2011 - 2015.
bPercent of individuals whose ratio of household income to poverty level in the prior 12 months was less than 2;
calculated from the US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2011 - 2015.
cPercent of individuals age 25 and over with less than high school degree; calculated from the US Census Bureau
American Community Survey, 2011 - 2015.
dEmployment status estimates based on population age 16 and over; calculated from the US Census Bureau
American Community Survey, 2011 - 2015.

The five health determinants included in the
HIA scope were 1) food access; 2) crime; 3)
household and community economics; 4) job
creation and 5) brownfield redevelopment
and urban revitalization (Figure 3). Once the
potential impacts were identified, the extent
of the effects was evaluated based on six
criteria: likelihood, direction, magnitude,
permanence, distribution, and strength of
evidence (Table 3).
Table 4 provides a summary of the potential
health impacts of the proposed project. It
should be noted that development of the
proposed food production business may
contribute further to urban revitalization if it
attracts future development in the area,
provides employment opportunities to local
community members, and helps to reduce
crime in the area so workers and customers
feel safe. Similarly, food access could increase
as a result of this development if efforts are
made to serve local needs and partner with
local organizations and experienced food
service providers. Community engagement
may build local support for a food production
reuse that meets local needs. Furthermore, a
public-private partnership may be most
effective in engaging the community and
maximizing positive impacts on food access,
joblessness, and poverty in the area, as well as
serving food access needs in and beyond the
target area.
Table 3: Health impact characterization criteria
Indicates whetherthe effect is harmful, beneficial,
Values include "benefit to health," "detract from
health," "no change," or "unsure/both benefit(s) and
Indicates the chance or probability that the effect will
Values include "highly likely," "possible," or "not likely"
Indicates the expected size of the effect
Values include "high" (if thousands of people affected),
"moderate" (if hundreds of people affected), or "low"
(if few to none are affected)
Delineates the spatial and/or socioeconomic
boundaries of various groups that are likely to bear
differential effects
Values include "all groups affected relatively equally"
or "disproportionate effects," with disproportionately
affected identified
Indicates the severity of the effect
Values include "severe" (fatal or disabling), "moderate"
(needs medical treatment or intervention to resolve),
or "minor" (does not need medical treatment or
intervention to resolve)
Indicates at what point of the proposed activity the
effect will occur, how long it will last, and how rapidly
the changes will occur
Values include "immediate" (effect occurs within 1
year) or "long-time" (effect takes 1 to several years);
"short-term" (duration of impact is limited) or "long-
lasting" (impact is expected to persist for an extended
period of time or be permanent)
Indicates the strength of the scientific evidence used to
verify or refute proposed health pathways and to
characterize the potential health impacts of the
Values include "strong," "limited," "lacking," or

Table 4: List of characterized health impacts of the Dover Brownfield Revitalization Project HIA
Food Access
Long lasting
including low
income and
food insecure
households and
those with
Long lasting
or employed,
but living below
the poverty line
& Urban
Long lasting
including those
living nearest
the target site
Long lasting
including the
disabled, and
Household and
Positive and
Long lasting
Including, but
not limited to,
such as those
with low food
access and
fewer job

The City of Dover is the main decision-maker in this HIA, and the recommendations target city
efforts to select and support a successful reuse of the site. The HIA Leadership Team identified
recommendations to maximize the potential positive health impacts and mitigate and/or avoid
the potential negative health impacts identified in the rapid assessment. The recommendations
support brownfield revitalization of this and other sites to introduce alternatives that can safely
reuse properties, improve food access options, expand employment and improve and
strengthen the local economy and household economies. Continued attention and support will
help stakeholder coordination and/or collaboration, and opportunities for advocacy. A
comprehensive list of both site-specific and more general urban revitalization recommendations
is provided in the conclusion section of this rapid HIA report (Tables 13 and 14).
The following pages summarize how the proposed project and brownfield revitalization for food
production could potentially affect the health of individuals in the community directly or
indirectly through changes in the five health determinants. Each pathway includes a review of
the literature-based evidence, description of existing conditions, an outline of the predicted
health impacts, and examples of management strategies. Recommendations for community
discussion can be found in Tables 13 and 14 at the end of the document.

Limited access to fresh, healthy and
affordable food is a challenge facing many
communities which has health, economic
and even broader consequences at the
individual and community levels (LJSDA,
2009). Reduced food access and food
insecurity can have a permanent impact on
childhood development and can add to
individual and family stress.
Food security is defined by the US
Department of Agriculture as "access by all
people at all times to enough food for an
active, healthy life" (USDA, 2009), Access to
food, the quality of neighborhood food
environments, and affordability of food as a
contributor to disease and adverse health
outcomes is an area of growing research
with mixed results. Research has shown that
neighborhoods with lower incomes have
fewer chain supermarkets than those with
middle and higher incomes; this pattern
bears out when race and ethnicity is factored
in as well (Powell, et a I., 2007). When stores,
sell groceries, they often carry food of lower
vegetables and fruits.
* »M» 1009	r«OGMM
The Double Up Food Bucks Program (in
Michigan and now elsewhere) is an example of a
program that doubles the value of federal
nutrition (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program [SNAP] or food stamps) benefits when
used to purchase fruits and vegetables at
participating markets and grocery stores,
extending a low-income family's access to
healthy foods. Established in 2009 in Detroit, the
Double Up program has grown to more than 150
sites across Michigan and has served more than
300,000 low-income families and over 1,000
farmers (Fair Food Network, 2016). In 2016,
Double up Food Bucks expanded to 16 states
and included farmers' markets, farm stands,
community supported agriculture (CSAs),
grocery stores, and other retail locations (Fair
Food Network, 2016).
such as corner stores and convenience stores, do
nutritional value and rarely offer a range of fresh
Transportation can be a consideration when evaluating a community's access to healthy foods.
Supermarkets may require transportation to get there and without a sufficient public transport
system or access to personal vehicles, many community members may be unable to reach these
stores. Low income communities are disproportionately affected by limited numbers of
supermarkets and limited transportation options to travel to supermarkets, and are therefore
left with sparse healthy choices in the few stores that offer groceries in their neighborhoods.
Even when a community has transportation to supermarkets or nearby farmers' markets,

affordability may also be a deterrent to accessing healthy foods. Farmers' markets across the
country are implementing programs that enable the public to use government benefits and
receive supplemental food income at food retail and farmers' market through electronic benefits
transfer (EBT) and other program investment such as Double Up Food Bucks (USDA, 2017).
Aquaponics farming may be a sensible option for addressing food insecurity issues in
communities because fish are an important part of a healthy diet. According to the Harvard T.H.
Chan School of Public Health, fish are a great source of long-chain omega-3 fats as well as
vitamin D, selenium, and protein. Research has shown that eating fish can reduce the risk of
heart disease, stroke, depression, Alzheimer's disease, and other chronic conditions (Harvard
School of Public Health, 2018). Moreover, an urban aquaponics farm can be a sustainable
approach to providing communities with healthy, fresh, and cost-effective protein and
vegetables which does not rely on surrounding soil and/or groundwater; this is especially
valuable at brownfield sites where possible or perceived contamination may be of concern.
Other communities utilize community gardens to increase access to healthy foods, create an
environment for social cohesion and community building, and provide opportunities for the
public to engage in healthy, active behavior like gardening (CDC, 2010). In brownfield areas,
where use of soil or water resources for food production may be of concern, EPA and State
partners offer technical assistance and brownfield grant resources to encourage site testing,
ensure safe site selection and use of safe soil amendments. (US EPA, 2017b).
Another way to help build and strengthen a local food system is through the use of a food hub,
which is defined by the USDA as "a centrally located facility with a business management
structure facilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of
locally/regionally produced food products" (USDA, 2010). Food hubs can broaden access to
institutional and retail markets for small to mid-sized producers; they can also increase
consumer access to fresh and healthy foods, which can be particularly important in underserved
areas and food deserts (USDA, 2010). One example is La Montanita, which buys from over 700
local farmers and producers, and warehouses and processes over 1,100 local products that are
sold through the La Montanita retail co-op locations and other retail markets in New Mexico
(USDA, 2010). Another example is the Detroit Eastern Market, a food hub which offers
warehouse, storage, processing, marketing and retail functions to hundreds of producers,
allowing them participation in Michigan's largest market (USDA, 2010).

Limited access to healthy, fresh food can contribute to dietary diseases associated with obesity.
The CDC defines adult obesity as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30.0 or greater, while being
overweight for an adult is classified as a BMI of 25.0 or 29.9 (CDC, 2017). For children and young
adults ages 2-20, BMI-for-age is determined using an age- and sex-specific percentile for BMI
rather than the BMI categories used for adults (CDC, 2017). Poor dietary choices can contribute
to obesity and chronic disease, and are often a result of limited food access and few healthy food
choices in the built environment. Obesity is associated with Type 2 diabetes and other chronic
diseases like heart disease, stroke and cancer (National Research Council, 2010; CDC, 2017). The
built environment contributes to the development of these diseases when there are limited
choices and access to full service grocery stores, affordable healthy food, and safe places to
exercise (National Research Council, 2010; Salois, 2012). Some studies have found that
increasing access to healthy foods can decrease obesity rates; Powell et al. (2007) found that the
availability of large supermarkets was related to lower BMI, while higher BMI is related to the
presence of corner or convenience stores which may have limited fresh food offerings (National
Association of Counties, 2009; Franco, et al., 2008).
Access to healthy foods varies by location in Dover. For purposes of this project, conditions
within the half to one-mile radius of the former Chesapeake Supply site were evaluated. Based
on the Delaware Plan^Health initiative, there is one supermarket and one convenience store
(which does not sell fresh foods) in the half mile surrounding the target site (Figure 4). The Dover
Farmer's Market is also within a half mile on the Loockerman Plaza, but it operates weekly on
Wednesday during the summer and fall months only. Again, the market does not sell a large
amount of fresh fruits and vegetables, as it is more of a bazaar with food truck vendors. There
are several transit stops in this study area for those with no vehicle access to allow transport to
other grocers. There are also several areas where bicycle routes along major roads may put
cyclists at risk of traffic accidents or injuries, so alternative proposed bicycle routes on smaller
streets may increase mobility and access to residents if these are routes to local food stores or
farmers' markets.
Furthermore, there are few nearby sources for residents to purchase fish for food consumption,
making aquaponics an appealing food production alternative. In addition, many of the streams
near but outside of the study area are impaired and restricted forfinfish consumption due to the

presence of several contaminants (polychlorinated biphenyls [RGBs], dioxins and furans and
dieldrin) (DNREC, 2017b).
The Delaware Planz,.Health initiative produced a Retail Food Environment Index (RFEI) by zip
code. The RFEI ranks, by zip code, where healthy food access is most needed. The study area is
in the 75th percentile, which scores the area as having a high unhealthy-to~healthy food ratio.
Moreover, Figure 4 shows market opportunity for grocery stores by census block in the study
area. Market opportunity was calculated based on 2016 data using Esri's Leakage/Surplus Factor
indexing, where values range from -100 to + 100, with a value of o representing a balanced
market. The area immediately surrounding the Former Chesapeake Supply site indicates that
the grocery market demand greatly exceeds its supply and may highlight an opportunity for new
retailers to enterthe area.
February 14: 2018
j U3_Grocery_S5ores Block Group
j|? Former Chesapeake Supply property
Dover DE .5 mile 1 mile Radii
| 0.5 mile
I I 1 mile
Supply Greatly Exceeds Demand
—	Supply Exceeds Demand
—	Relatively Balanced Martoet
—	Demand Exceeds Supply
~ Demand Greatly Exceeds Supply
Source: Esil. ngi3GK*e, GeoEje, Eartnssar Geograpnfcs.
GNESMUDus ds, US da. usgs, Astogrid, IGN, ana me gis User
Est. wtoyocp
Figure 4. Map of the Former Chesapeake Supply target site, nearby grocery store locations, and market
opportunity (Source: Esri). See Appendix 2 for full page map.

The Kent County Garden Collaborative (KCGC) is a network of gardeners and community
members who installand maintain community gardens throughout Kent County. The KCGC has
expanded its partnership and efforts in community gardening. There are four within three miles
of the Former Chesapeake Supply site, one of which is located on the property adjacent to the
site. The Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing (684 Forest Street) previously had an active
community garden that was maintained and used by the shelter's residents; concerns about soil
conditions led to the closure of this garden
Childhood obesity rates are also high in Delaware. In 2015, adolescents from grades 9-12 were
found to be overweight and obese at rates of 15.8% each (compared to 16.0% overweight and
13.9% obese at national levels) (CDC, n.d.). In 2014, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
program participants aged 2-4 years had overweight and obesity rates of 17.2% and 16.2%,
respectively, which ranked Delaware 3rd among all states. (CDC, n.d.).
Information from the USDA Food Environments Atlas from 2012 suggests that 16.9% of the
^ j population of Kent County receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
v	^ (SNAP) benefits. In 2016, an estimated $346,384 was redeemed in benefits from
SNAP authorized stores within Kent County
(USDA, 2018).
Many of the residents within the study area
are considered low income and may be taking
advantage of SNAP. An additional program,
SNAP - Education (Ed), is designed to assist
people eligible for SNAP in leading healthier
lives by teaching about good nutrition,
efficient spending on healthier foods, and
having an active lifestyle. SNAP-Ed works
with community organizations to have a
greater impact; for example, one of the
program's partners is local schools.
A school eligible for SNAP-Ed must have 50%
of the students considered low-income or
receiving free or reduced lunches. The
Former Chesapeake Supply site is within the
Capital School District; this district includes
Making Connections:
Public-Private Initiatives
in Dover
There are several studies and public-private
initiatives in Delaware and Dover that seek to
address access to healthy foods in local schools as
well as national examples to inform practice.
Several organizations work in tandem and with local
schools to address healthy foods in schools. More
research and dialogue on this topic should be
considered; several resources are provided below:
•	https://www.nemours.Org/content/dam/n
•	https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit
•	http://deschoolnutrition.org/index.php7bv
•	http://www.actionforhealthvkids.org/in-
vour-state/delawa re/welcome

two eligible schools located less than a half
Booker T. Washington Elementary School
income (2016-2017) ar|d William Henry
Middle School (65 Carver Road) with
53.3% low-income (2016-2017).
Although these schools are eligible for
SNAP-Ed programming, the program is
not currently conducted at either
In addition to school lunch programs
and SNAP-Ed to support healthy food
availability in schools, the KCGC has a
network of gardens at local schools. For
example, Towne Point Elementary
School has a garden, which is grown,
maintained and distributed by students
as part of their curriculum. This allows
students to eat fresh food they have
grown and gives them skills in growing
food and food handling that they can
take back to their communities; all of
which can provide a new appreciation
for healthy foods.
ile from the proposed project site:
01 Forest Street) with 62.9% low- \ ^ ^
Brass City Harvest is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit urban
agricultural organization that makes fresh food
accessible to the population in Waterbury, CT. With the
support of several funders, Brass City has transformed
vacant, brownfield land into productive urban
agriculture space, constructed greenhouses, created
hydroponic (soil-less growing) lettuce and vine crop
programs, as well as aquaculture in Waterbury. The
mission of Brass City Harvest is "to encourage self-
sufficiency and healthy lifestyle choices for low-
income, at-risk populations through collaborative
partnerships, supportive services, and a sustainable
community food system." Brass City Harvest
accomplishes this by working with more than 12 local
farms and dairies to provide them with Connecticut
grown produce, beef, poultry, and dairy to satisfy the
needs of their patrons and clients. They also provide
outreach, healthy cooking and nutrition classes in
schools and senior centers and senior housing sites.
A brownfield revitalized for fresh food production targeted to local residents can increase
healthy food access to the Dover community, particularly if there is coordination and
collaboration with KCGC, local schools and state/county/city planning (Table 5). This site, as part
of a hub for fresh foods, could significantly improve food access to residents living within one-
mile of the site if designed and planned to meet that purpose. It might also contribute to hunger
prevention and food safety net services in and around the study area (Food Bank of Delaware,

It is highly likely that the proposed project will increase fresh food access to residents in the
study area as it will be an alternative or supplement to food bought at the local convenience
store. Further, the redevelopment of a brownfield site for food production could increase
residents' health and may help decrease community obesity and morbidity, thereby causing a
positive impact. In addition, the discussion around the brownfield conversion to food
production might support future campaigns around food access, choosing and cooking healthy
food, dietary disease prevention and disease management, and the importance of physical
activity for health.
Increased access to fresh food will directly affect a limited number of people in the immediate
community due to the low number of residents within the half-mile radius, but may have farther
reaching effects if targeting a broader underserved market area. The effects may increase as the
area is revitalized and more people move to the area and/or visit nearby businesses. The impact
on access to fresh food will be long-lasting and permanent if the site reuse succeeds and local
partners work to assist in its expansion and outreach. The increase in access to healthy foods will
benefit the entire population in the area, but susceptible sub-populations may benefit most.
These include minorities, low-income, and those most vulnerable to a lack of access to healthy
affordable food and increased risk for obesity; this includes both adult and child populations.
Affordability of healthy foods should be prioritized to ensure access to these populations. There
is strong evidence that supports the relationship between increased healthy food access and
reduced obesity, chronic disease, and morbidity associated with unhealthy eating habits.
Table 5. Impact characterization and management strategies for Food Access
Potential Impact Management Strategies
Highly likely
Establish a varied produce/fish selection to create appropriate nutritional
balance of foods.
Incorporate ease of access planning, such as green spaces, well-lit streets
and sidewalks for walkability to site.
Conduct appropriate outreach and advertising within the one-mile radius.
Establish plan of expansion for greater reach and impact.
Evaluate the feasibility of a "food hub" or similar system in Kent County to
appropriately link small food producers to a larger market forthe products
to be grown.
Long term
Strong business plan and apply the use of the Aquaponics Business Plan
User Guide for operating strategies (see Appendix 7).
Define customer and type of distribution, to manage food quality, safety
and understand actual community impact.
Create a workgroup with local partners and faculty from Delaware State
University to discuss and research how to introduce
hydroponics/aquaponics to the local market.
Strength of

Health and employment are interconnected, as employment provides an income to help fulfill
basics like food and housing, education, transportation, health insurance and other health-
promoting expenses (Kriegerand Higgins, 2002; Krieger, etal., 2011). Access to health insurance
and a stable income can also reduce the risk for chronic disease, communicable disease, and
poor mental health. Additionally, employment provides psychological and social benefits by
promoting a more stable lifestyle, fulfilling a desire to work, and reducing stress of financial
insecurity (Gilman, et al. 2003; Bhatia and Guzman, 2004; Keene and Geronimus, 2011).
Employment is the most common way for the public to collect an income to provide for their
necessities. Non-employment related income such as investments, properties, and Social
Services income account for a much lower percentage of overall income and represent vastly
different sectors of the population. Lack of access to employment, under-employment, or jobs
which do not pay a living wage (sufficient income to meet minimum standards given the local
cost of living) or provide sufficient benefits can contribute to stress, depression, malnourishment
or obesity, homelessness, and many other negative outcomes. The CDC reports that those living
nearer at or below the poverty level report greater percentages of adults with fair or poor health
(CDC, 2013).
Brownfield redevelopment and downtown revitalization present both direct and indirect
opportunities for job growth in Dover. The investment leveraged in a brownfield project can
provide opportunity throughout the city; and laws, policies and negotiated agreements tied to
such funding can include provisions for ensuring jobs for residents to multiply those impacts
(Bartik, 2009). Cumulative national brownfield reporting through 2016 to EPA suggests 8.5 jobs
were leveraged for each $100,000 in EPA brownfield assessment, revolving loan fund, and
cleanup grant funds (US EPA, 2017c).
Transportation, both public and private, may be limited in low income communities, and
brownfield revitalization planning (depending on the proposed reuse) can highlight
improvements needed for complete streets. Limited transportation services in areas can
directly impact the ability of these communities to obtain and maintain employment and
development prospects. By increasing the amount of job opportunities in a neighborhood, the
burden of transportation is reduced (Probst, et al., 2007).

Depending on the size and scale of the project and the nature of the reuse, a brownfield
revitalization project may provide only a limited number of positions in the construction or
environmental cleanup activities. However, the subsequent reuse, depending on the type, will
likely require employees. As proposed, a new food production site will also require employees
based on the operation. If employees are hired locally, household economics can improve,
benefiting the community and tax base. Income taxes from these positions will be generated
and the community tax base may rise as downtown revitalization increases and more
employment becomes available for community members.
An increased tax base and increased foot traffic in an area can bring greater health by increasing
the potential for more businesses, employment, and economic growth. If fish or other produce
will be sold locally through farmer's markets, subscription through local community support
agriculture (CSA) or aquaculture cooperatives may also increase income.
In 2011, the EPA produced the Urban Farm Business Plan Handbook to support business
development in the startup and operation of an urban farm. Aquaponics is only one aspect of
this field, and subsequently, an Aquaponics Business Plan User Guide specifically for strategies
specific for an aquaponics farm was produced in 2016 through a partnership between EPA
Region 3, Delaware State University, Kent Economic Partnership, Kent Community Gardens
Collaborative and Delaware Division of Public Health.
Aquaculture is a growing part of the United States economy. The 2013 Census of Agriculture
showed a 26% increase in the industry from 2005to 2013, when the sale of aquaculture products
totaled $14 billion (USDA, 2014). However, Delaware was one of only two states not listed in the
agriculture census, either for a lack of reporting or record keeping.
The Bureau of Labor and Statistics indicates an average hourly wage of approximated $17 per
hour, but may range from $12 to $28 per hourforjobs in food manufacturing (US Dept. of Labor,
2018a). Individuals interested in pursuing a career in agriculture and food science may earn up
to $64,000 per year, but require a bachelor's degree (US Dept. of Labor, 2018b).
The area has a high unemployment rate, but even employed residents may fall under the
poverty line. According to the US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2011 - 2015, the
poverty rate in Dover is 20%, while the poverty rate within a half mile radius and one-mile radius
is 61% and 48%, respectively. The city's employment rate was estimated at 60%, compared to

the target area, 61% in the half-mile radius and 58% in the one-mile radius (US Census Bureau
American Community Survey, 2011 - 2015).
Educational attainment also influences an individual's access to employment, sufficient income,
health insurance, and other necessities. The US Census Bureau American Community Survey,
2011- 2015, reports that within the half-mile radius, 19% of the community lacked a high school
diploma, while in the one-mile radius, that number was 16%.
-' -
1 ¦' W "
W: ~
February 14. 2018
Dover Delaware 2016 Unemployment by Block Group
il? Former ChesapeaKo Supply property	0%-*-4%
H	>2.4%-4.4%
=	>4.4%-8.7%
—	>6.7% -10.3%
=	>10.3%-100%
Dover DE .5 mile 1 mile Radii
| 0.5 mile
I I 1 file
Esn, US Census Bureau, tifogroup
Source: Esrt, DlgsalGiooe, GeoEye. EarJwtar Geograpnlcs,
CNES'AiltMB DS. USDA. USGS, AeroGRiD, IGN, and me GfS User
Moroson | Esn. AGS | Esr, inDgroip | US EPA| B
Figure 5; Map of Former Chesapeake Supply target site arid percent unemployment (Source: Esri). See
Appendix 3 forfull page map.
American FactFinder, from the US Census Bureau, provides employment data by sector from
the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (Table 6). The largest employer in Delaware, and in
Dover, is the state government ranging over multiple sectors. Kent County and the Dover Air
Force Base are also significant employers in the city, as are BayHealth Medical Center, Delaware
State University, and Delaware Tech and Community College. The unemployment rate in Dover
in 2011-2015 was an average of 9%, while within the target area, the unemployment rate was
just 4% in the half-mile radius and 5% in the one-mile radius. (US Census Bureau American
Community Survey, 2011 - 2015).

Table 6. 201s Employment rates by sector for Dover (US Census Bureau American Community Survey,
2011 - 201s)
Civilian employed population 16 years and
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting,
and mining
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, utilities
Finance and insurance, and real estate and
rental and leasing
Professional, scientific, and management,
and administrative and waste management
Educational services, and health care and
social assistance
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation and food services
Other services, except public administration
Public administration
It is plausible that redeveloping this brownfield site into an aquaponics facility or other food
production will create job opportunities, but it is uncertain as to whetherthe local residents will
be hired for these positions (Table 7). The employment opportunities at this site, including in
construction, food processing, distribution, and retail, would have a positive impact on the
community and employment levels. The economic activity that may be spurred by the
revitalization of this site may lead to even more employment in the area.

The additional employment opportunities would affect a limited number of people given the
limited number of positions at the site, but as the aquaponics or associated food production
expands and economic activity grows in the area, there may be more employment
opportunities. The impact on employment would be long lasting, dependent on continued
successful operations and the site remaining in use.
The employment opportunities would benefit those without jobs or who are working in
positions under the poverty line if they are the ones hired for the positions. Requirements for
resident hiring and job training opportunities may be necessary to maximize this impact. There
is strong evidence that greater employment opportunities can improve the health of the
individuals and the community. Other downtown revitalization efforts and ongoing
maintenance of improved areas might also benefit the local labor force.
Table 7. Impact characterization and management strategies for Employment
Potential Impact Management Strategies
Explore with Interfaith Mission management the possibility of entry level
employment for Mission clients.
Incorporate employment opportunities for residents during maintenance
and construction. Develop and incorporate urban farming and green
infrastructure training for residents and community groups.
Provide a living wage to all employees.
Provide funding opportunities for local entrepreneurs (e.g. small business
grants, foundation matching, matching grants for job creation, etc.)
aimed at creating jobs.
Long lasting
Use green infrastructure to stimulate job creation through maintenance of
the site's greenspace.
or those
below the
poverty line
Target job training and hiring towards these community members.
Investigate community programs that could assist families experiencing
unemployment, such as job training, job search resources through the
libraries, connections to aid groups (such as churches or United Way),
local hiring initiatives, and even select types of financial assistance, such
as deferred property taxes for unemployed residents participating in a job
preparation program.
Strength of

Proximity to brownfields, known or suspected contaminated sites and structures, has been
shown to have a significant relationship with increased sickness and disease (Litt and Burke,
2002; Solitare and Greenberg, 2002). In addition, brownfield sites in a community can become
havens for criminal activity and centers of neighborhood neglect (Greenberg, et al., 1998).
However, brownfield redevelopment, which entails a remediation of the site to acceptable
health standards, can cause positive health impacts on the community by reducing the health
risks associated with the contamination and mitigating the overall negative impact of
brownfields on the community (Solitare and Greenberg, 2002).
Brownfields are of increasing interest as settings which, once cleaned and redeveloped, can
reduce environmental exposures to land and structural contaminants and hazards.
Revitalization of brownfields can also meet a range of community needs for economic
development, employment, access to services and environmental and public health
improvements. Research has examined brownfield redevelopment as an infill alternative to
conventional suburban or ex-urban sprawl development, thereby reducing the environmental
and public health impacts associated with air pollution and stormwater impacts from traffic,
vehicle miles travelled and impervious surfaces (Greenberg, et al., 2001; Nagengast, et al., 2011;
Mashayekh, et al., 2012). Some research has examined chronic disease and adverse health
outcomes in brownfield lands and developed areas in England (Litt and Burke, 2002; Bambra, et
al., 2014); however, limited attention has been directed at health impacts of brownfield
Redevelopment and conversion of brownfields to greenspace is an emerging trend. Greenspace
is widely defined as open public space with natural elements that can be used for recreation,
relief, or social interaction (Maas, et al., 2006; Comber, et al., 2008; Lee and Maheswaran, 2011).
Greenspace provides an opportunity to experience nature in a sea of buildings and concrete
structures (Wilson, 1984; Frumkin, 2001). DeSousa (2004, 2006) has estimated that up to 5% of
brownfields are being restored for green space reuse, while other researchers have highlighted
the opportunities and benefits of brownfield conversion to greenspace (Dorsey, 2003; Schilling
and Logan, 2008). Access to greenspace has the potential to lead to multiple positive health
outcomes, such as increased well-being, reduced fear and anxiety, increased cognitive
functioning, increased self-discipline, better impulse control, improved mental health, increased
stress relief, higher neighborhood satisfaction, increased social cohesion, increased physical

activity, lower BMI and reduced violence (Kuo, 2001; Bell, et al., 2008; Sugiyama, et al., 2008;
van den Berg, et al. 2010; Stigsdotter, et al. 2010; Maas, et al., 2009a). In addition, researchers
have identified benefits in improved social capital from community garden and greening efforts
(Jennings, et al, 2016; Alaimo, et al, 2016).
Access to greenspace and parks is increasingly seen as an equity issue due to reduced availability
in low income and racial and ethnic minority communities. The National Housing Federation
found that those in less affluent areas had only one-fifth the access to local parks than those in
more affluent areas (Wheeler, 2011). In addition to access, the quality of greenspace can also
influence the utilization of that space (Lee and Maheswaran, 2011); this is important since the
relationship between access to green space and health has been found to be stronger in children,
the elderly and those with lower incomes, most likely because they spend more time closer to
home and in their neighborhoods (Maas, et al., 2009b). It is imperative to consider this issue
because those who would stand to benefit the most from high access to greenspace are typically
those who also have the least access (Lachowycz and Jones, 2014). The conversion of
brownfields to green space may assist in addressing some of the disparities in park access if
located in areas where green space creation is an option.
In 2004, the Delaware Brownfields Development Program (BDP) was established within the Site
Investigation and Restoration Section (SIRS) of the Division of Waste and Hazardous Substances
at DNREC (Delaware Code Title 7 Chapter 91 subchapter II). The BDP supports the remediation
and revitalization of properties that are vacant, abandoned, or underutilized by providing
financial assistance and liability protections to eligible applicants. In addition, the Delaware
Brownfield Marketplace was created to provide online access to information on market-ready
brownfields. The benefits of the BDP to Delaware's economy have been significant; for
example, an economic impact study conducted by the University of Delaware Centerfor Applied
Demography & Survey Research (UD CADSR) indicated that every dollar spent by the BDP
generates a $17.50 return on the state's initial investment (Merriman-Nai and Sargent, 2013).
Statewide, nearly 700 jobs were created due to ensuing remediation and development activities
(Merriman-Nai and Sargent, 2013). Through 2008, the total assessed value of state-certified
brownfields in nearby New Castle County increased by more than $455 million (Merriman-Nai
and Sargent, 2013).
As of October 2017, 273 brownfields have been certified in Delaware; there are five brownfield
properties within the half-mile area surrounding the target location for the proposed project
described in this HIA (DNREC, 2017a). As indicated in the description of the proposed study site
above, the target property consists of two tax parcels, totaling approximately 1.75 acres. The

northwestern parcel is a vacant grassy lot; the other parcel had five commercial buildings, which
have been demolished. Although currently owned bythe Downtown Dover Development Corp.,
it is the site of the Former Chesapeake Supply Co. (DNREC, 2017a).
As mentioned previously, groundwater at the site has been impacted by tetrachloroethene
(TCE) and chromium above DNREC groundwater standards. Conversely, risk assessment
showed that the risk associated with vapor intrusion to indoor air from groundwater is below
DNREC standards. Recent groundwater monitoring concluded that chromium in groundwater
was due to an offsite source to the north or northwest of the target location and not due to onsite
soil contamination. However, it is not permissible to use water from wells onsite. (DNREC,
It is likely that the brownfield revitalization project could influence health in the community if
residents are accessing the vacant site for illegal or harmful activities (Table 8). Perceived risks
from the brownfield can be addressed through public engagement and communication with
community residents and neighbors. In addition to the environmental health risks of actual
exposures to contaminants and fears of potential exposures, brownfields may be associated
with crime or fear of crime and perceptions of personal safety that affect health of neighbors
and nearby residents.
The redevelopment of the FormerChesapeake Supply could havea positive impactand improve
health by reducing contaminant exposures and fears regarding contaminant exposures,
refocusing local business and residents to other health threats posed by vacant businesses or
structures, and placing greater attention on addressing poorly maintained residential or
commercial structures as well as public places. Renewed attention to the aesthetics of the
downtown area may increase upkeep and resident pride in their community.
While the total property acreage is 1.75 acres, only a small portion of the site has a frontage on
Main Street that is visible to the street, motorists, pedestrians and consumers. This may be
advantageous for certain operations but may only have a moderate impact on block aesthetics
or built environment improvements. However once redeveloped, the positive impacts of
revitalization from environmental improvements, reduction in fear and stigma, increased
aesthetic appeal and greater attention to the streetscape are expected to have long-lasting
Community residents near the property, which includes several disadvantaged community
members and households, are likely to reap the greatest benefits of an improved property and

employment prospects. The benefits can be multiplied with the establishment of local
incentives or protections that encourage local hiring, meet identified community needs and
contribute to building local capacity for neighborhood revitalization. An important safe guard
to ensure that community residents and neighbors are not displaced by revitalization is to pass
local policies or ordinances that minimize displacement.
There is a body of research that has generated sufficient documentation of the opportunities
and the benefits of brownfield revitalization on property values and reduced risk of
environmental exposures and employment (Haninger and Timmins, 2012; Sullivan, 2017). The
return of tax foreclosed or vacant properties to the tax rolls can have local impacts as a stronger
tax base and growth in local revenue allows communities to afford local services which can range
from early childhood vaccinations to disaster preparedness depending on level of locally
supported services.
Table 8. Impact characterization and management strategies for Brownfield Revitalization
Potential Impact Management Strategies
Inform and educate residents and local businesses about the site history,
cleanup, land use restrictions and proposed reuse plans. Outline ways
exposure risk reduction is incorporated into revitalization plans as part of
a public meeting, site tour and other outreach methods to ensure
residents are aware past hazards are addressed.
Invite community organizations, residents and students to identify
potential brownfields to advance food innovation district efforts.
Work with local students, researchers and leaders to track local resident,
business and developer perceptions on impacts of brownfield
revitalization. Document target area resident and worker food access
status and invite local organizations and researchers to commit to HIA
updates, evaluation or track project progress and food access trends.
Consider constituting a community advisory council to advance
brownfield identification for other food production ventures.
Work with community partners and local leaders to review and participate
in visioning or design charrettes to identify site design and other
downtown revitalization improvements valued by residents. Solicit local
artists and organizations in other beautification efforts.
Long lasting
Continue design charrette and other visioning efforts to address other
vacant or abandoned parcels or identified brownfields. Solicit local artists
and organizations in other beautification efforts and area schools in
design competitions for design that meets community needs.
to benefit most
Consider constituting a community advisory council to help educate
residents and community service about brownfields and advance
brownfield identification for other food production or community
Strength of
Expand work with local universities, students, researchers and leaders to
track brownfield revitalization impacts and state and county approaches
that can include brownfield revitalization in longerterm strategies.

Being a victim of crime can have a range of effects on victims' physical health, employment and
education prospects, and emotional wellbeing. In addition, crime can have long-term impacts
on individuals and a community; the experience can be a lasting trauma for the neighborhood
and the subsequent reputation may negatively affect development. Crime and stress from crime
in the neighborhood has been linked to increased risk of mental health disorders and worsened
severity of depression in adults (Ross, 2000; Kim, 2008). Moreover, adolescents can be especially
affected by crime in their community; this experience has been tied to mental illness that can
carry into adulthood (Aneshensel and Sucoff, 1996). Furthermore, research has found that stress
caused by crime or even perception of crime in a neighborhood can cause chronic health
problems, such as hypertension, cardiovasculardisease, and immune dysfunction in its residents
(Latkin and Curry, 2003; McEwen, 2008; Glaser and Kiecolt-Glasier 2005).
Perception of crime and safety can affect the public's general health and well-being because
they may be less willing or able to participate in physical activity like exercise, play, or active
transportation options (Yang, et al. 2012). These impacts may not be equally felt by every
member of the community, however; individual factors, such as age, gender, and socio-
economic status, effect the level of perceived safety and therefore the impacts that crime may
have on these community members (Bracy, et al., 2014; Latkin, et al., 2009). It is also important
to note that being the victim of crime makes an individual more likely to be affected by perceived
safety/security and crime. Likewise, community cohesion can be impacted by crime and
perceived safety, as the less active the community is in public, the less interaction may occur
between individuals, families, and members of neighboring communities (Snelgrove, et al.,
Vacant or blighted properties can be a significant issue associated with brownfield sites.
Abandoned homes, vacant lands, and neglected natural elements in urban environments are
vulnerable to crime (Garvin, et al., 2013). Studies have demonstrated that the presence of
vacant homes has been associated with higher levels of crime and illegal activity, such as
prostitution, drug sales, and drug use by adolescents (Cohen, et al., 2000; Furr-Holden, et al.,
2011; Spelman, 1993). Securing abandoned buildings appears to be a highly cost-effective crime
control tactic for distressed neighborhoods (Spelman, 1993). Greening of vacant lots, reduction
in blight, and routine landscaping of brownfield sites may also prevent opportunities for crime
(Branas, et al., 2011).

Brownfield revitalization can help to
reduce the potential for crime in an area
and may help alleviate the perception of
crime or danger in an area. Crime
Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) provides many great
examples of how to construct green
spaces, streetscapes, and other
development that can enhance the
pedestrian environment and limit
opportunities for crime (Carter, et al.,
2003). Furthermore, CPTED can increase
the opportunity for "eyes on the street"
from residents, businesses, and
consumers to maximize visibility of
private and public space; this increases
risk of detection of criminal and other
undesirable activities, but also fosters
positive social interaction among users
of the space (Jacobs, 1961). Reduced
crime can improve health by reversing
these limitations on time spent outside.
As the rate of crime and the perception of
risk are reduced, the public will be more
willing to recreate and socialize outside
(Snelgrove, et al., 2004).
Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (City of Portland, 2015)
Surveillance - Design and maintenance can support
the observation of space around people on the site
and limit hiding places for crime to occur. This can
include the use of appropriate lighting, see-through
fencing and landscaping, and the placement of
windows, doors, and walkways.
Territorial Reinforcement - Designating space for
public, private, and semi-private areas help the
public know and participate in an area's intended
use, which can discourage the perception that crime
can occur without notice or consequences. This can
include displaying security system signage at access
points, placing amenities, such as seating or
refreshments, in common areas to attract larger
numbers of desired users, and scheduling activities
at common areas to increase proper use of space.
Access Control - Limiting the opportunity for
crime by controlling access to public and
private space. This can be achieved by creating
an entry way or highly visible gate which all
users of a property must enter; posting signage
and use of window and door locks can limit
unwanted access into private space or
unmonitored areas, as well.


According to the 2014 Uniform Crime Reporting Program from the US Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dover has elevated violent and property crime rates compared
to state and national averages (Table 9).
Table 9. Crime rates per 100,000 population in Dover, Delaware, and US (US DO J, 2014).
Crime rate (per 100,000
City of Dover
Delaware State
US National
Much of the crime that takes place in Dover is property crime, including burglary, motor vehicle
theft, and larceny-theft; the chance of becoming victim of a property crime is as much as one in
18 in Dover according to NeighborhoodScout (2017). Figure 6, below, shows the 2017 national
property crime index created by Esri by census block, where an index value of 100 representing
the national average, and an index value of 120 implies that property crime is 20 percent higher
than the national average. The chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime, which includes
murder, rape, robbery, and assault, is as much as one in 124 in Dover, according to realty statistic
website NeighborhoodScout's analysis of FBI data (NeighborhoodScout, 2017). Figure 7, below,
shows the Esri 2017 national personal crime index by census block, using the same index as
Figure 6, on property crime.

February 14, 2018
2017 USA Property Crime by Block Group
Former Chesapeake Supply property
Dover DE .5 mite 1 mile Radii
| 0.5 mile
No Data
0 - 50 (Half of Average)
51-100 (Below Average)
101 - 200 (Above Average)
201 - 400 (More than 2X Average)
— 401 and up (More than 4X Average)
Figure 6: Former Chesapeake Supply target site and property crime index (Source: Esri). See Appendix 4 for
full page map.
The Dover Strategic Plan states that police calls related to narcotics, domestic violence,
trespassing and assault have decreased since 2002 (Dover Community Partnership, 2009).
Recent efforts have been made to address gang violence in Dover in response to a string of
shooting incidents in in Spring 2017. Fifty-five people were arrested, 28 of them arrested on gang
related charges after a seven-week investigation (Parra and Smith, 2017).
As discussed previously, where crime and perceived safety issues are present the presence of
abandoned properties and blight in a neighborhood may contribute to the existing problems.
The Downtown Dover Development area has a disproportionate number of vacant and
neglected buildings and lots, with 15.5% of housing units vacant (City of Dover, 2014). In
addition, the Downtown Dover Development area has the highest concentration of violent
crimes, property crimes, and drug crimes in the city (City of Dover, 2014), Renting and low-
income households are also correlated to higher crime rates; in the Downtown Development
District, 84.4% of households are rentals and only 15.5% are owner-occupied (City of Dover,
2014). This is compared to a citywide homeownership rate of 55.1% (City of Dover, 2014).

February 14, 2018
2017 USA Personal Crime by Block Group
W Former Chesapeake Supply property
Dover DE .5 mile 1 mile Radii
| 0.5 mite
11 mile
No Data
0-50 (Half a# Average)
51-100 (Below Average)
101 - 200 (Above Average)
201 - 400 (More than 2X Average)
401 and up (More than 4X Average)
Figure 7: Former Chesapeake Supply target site and personal crime index (Source: Esri). See Appendix § for
full page map.
Implementing brownfield revitalization can contribute to other activities to reduce crime, but a
single redevelopment project may not be sufficient to address issues in the area. This site, as
part of a trend of downtown revitalization, can help shift the area towards greater economic
stability and less crime (Table 10).
It is plausible that the proposed project will reduce crime in the area, as it may increase the foot
and vehicle traffic in the area; increase employment, the economic and community value of the
area; and increase interest in the area through real estate and business development. This is
particularly true for property crime after implementation of revitalization projects, such as
installation of green spaces. Further, the revitalization of a brownfield site reduces blight and a
space for crime to occur, causing a positive impact because it reduces the risk of injury, stress
from a lack of perceived safety, and helps reduce the challenges to outdoor recreation and

Less crime and increased perceived safety will affect a limited number of community residents
due to the lower residential population in the l-mile area surrounding the proposed project site.
However, reduced crime and increased safety may improve the local business environment and
willingness of businesses or investors to locate in the target area, bringing other benefits. The
effect may increase as the area is revitalized and more people move to the area or visit nearby
businesses. The impact on crime will be long lasting unless the site is not maintained. If it is
maintained, occupied, and surveilled, it may contribute to a shifting pattern of greater economic
redevelopment in the area. The reduction in crime will benefit the population most vulnerable
to crime, such as the elderly, young women, children, and the physically disabled. There is
limited evidence that supports the relationship between brownfield redevelopment and crime
reduction. However, many brownfield communities have noted anecdotal information about
brownfield revitalization reducing crime which EPA is further pursuing.
Table 10. Impact characterization and management strategies for Crime and Perceived Safety
Potential Impact Management Strategies
Increase street lighting along the proposed project site and install
sufficient lighting on the site. Utilize the CPTED (Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design) elements in the Green Street Project
design. Create security measures in the buildings, including surveillance,
that may limit crime at the location.
Consider other community crime prevention measures such as
community policing and community organization willingness to
participate in crime prevention efforts.
Monitor crime and forge community partnerships with law enforcement
to ensure crime does not extend to other areas that result in greater
community impact (such as movement of criminal activity to parks or
By using increasing lighting along the proposed site, on the street, this
project can contribute to overall reduced crime in the area.
Long lasting
Maintain the site and ensure it is occupied and surveilled.
Strength of

As discussed above, household economics are greatly affected by employment, which provides
an income to meet necessities. Households which are already cost burdened by their housing
costs (spending more than 30% of their income on housing) may still have difficulty affording
their basics like food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare (US HUD, 2011). Financial
insecurity, caused by a lack of sufficient income can jeopardize a household's ability to live in
safe and stable housing, thereby pushing households to substandard housing conditions or even
homelessness. Homelessness, or displacement, can lead to a series of health outcomes, both
physical and psychological (Gilman, et al.,2003; Bhatia and Guzman,2004; Keene and
Research shows that low income and lower education can have permanent impacts on an
individual's health. Adler and Newman (2002) found that individuals in lower socioeconomic
status experience higher incidence rates of low birth weight, cardiovascular disease,
hypertension, arthritis, respiratory illness, diabetes, and cancer.
As downtown revitalization continues, property values may eventually begin to increase
(California Association for Local Economic Development, 2017). It is important to acknowledge
the eventual risk of displacement if the local economy continues to improve. This project may
threaten the existing community members' housing security, as well as local small businesses
and community organizations, who all may face displacement as rents increase in residential
and commercial properties. Policies or other actions to protect tenants, low income home-
owners, small business and community organizations can minimize this threat. This serious
concern may also be tempered with increased job opportunities and other supports. With just
15% of the households in the area being owner-occupied, only a limited number of households
would directly benefit from the increase in property values.
As household economics improve as a result of greater access to employment through
revitalization and redevelopment, the community will experience a greater economic stimulus
that will provide a positive feedback loop of greatereconomic growth (Andersen and Hall, 2014).
Gentrification can be a part of all urban development projects, and is defined by the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention as "the transformation of neighborhoods from low value to high
value" (CDC, 2009). Policies and ordinances can be used to prevent displacement and some
research suggests that the relationship between improved environmental conditions and

gentrification and displacement may be weaker than previously thought (Eckerd, 2011). An
increased cost of living can improve the standard of living for some residents and increase home
values for homeowners, but many low-income renters may be priced out of the area as the cost
of living increases.
At the time of publication of Downtown Development District Application (City of Dover, 2014),
there was a high level of poverty, homelessness, and low-income population in the Downtown
Development District, which includes the target area. The census block groups that make up the
Downtown Development District had a rate of 55.7% of households that are low to moderate
income. This rate is compared to the City of Dover's census block groups, which
\ I y show that 44.4% of households were low to moderate income. The rates from
the 2011-2015 American Community
Survey follow this trend: the city's rate
of low to moderate income (under
$50,000 annual income and benefits)
was estimated at 53.3%, while the half-
mile radius and one-mile radius around
the target site were reported at 66%
and 59%, respectively (US Census
Bureau American Community Survey,
2011 - 2015). These high rates
demonstrate an economically
depressed area, even further
pronounced by the rate of those making
less than $15,000 a year, at 30% and
24% forthe half-mile and one-mile radii
around the target site, respectively.
Figure 8 shows the median household
income in 2016 by census block; the
half-mile radius has a much lower
median income ($0 to $35,383) than
even the one-mile radius (less than
$35,383 to $45,505), which is lower still
than the surrounding areas (greater
than $45,505). The low unemployment
rate in the area (4-5%) suggests that the
The cleanup of the former Quality Foundry in
Clarksburg, West Virginia, created 10 jobs while the
Oliverio's Pepper Plant managed to leverage property
investment up to 3 million dollars allowing for 30
retained and new employment opportunities
throughout the expansion. The former Quality
Foundry gave Oliverio's the opportunity to strengthen
their 40-yearlong legacy to provide to local customers
and schools expertise in food processing and
entrepreneurship. It has thrived in its West Virginia
roots, leading the U.S. Small Business Administration
to recognize Oliverio's Italian Style Peppers as one of
the state's best businesses in 2011.

population should be considered working poor; their jobs do not provide a sufficient income to
support themselves and theirfamilies.
The study area falls under several revitalization plans, including the Dover Development District
and Restoring Central Dover Plan, The Downtown Dover Partnership leads in its commitment
to development in the downtown area and is comprised of Main Street Dover, Downtown Dover
Development Corporation, and Greater Dover Organization and.
The business and industry base of the city ranges from manufacturing facilities operated by
General Mills (now Kraft Heinz), Playtex Corporation, and Proctor & Gamble to public
institutions like the Dover Air Force Base, Delaware State University, and state and city
government buildings.
February 13, 2018
Former Chesapeake Supply property - Points Block Group
SO - S35.363
IE >535.383 - 545.505
= >545,505-557.810
= >557.810 - 579,884
= > 579.894 - 5200.001
~|l? Override 1
Dover DE -5 mite 1 mile Buffers

Esfl, US Census Bureau, irfcgroup
soiree: Esfl. agnasGiow. GeoE>e, Earmsar Geograoftcs.
CWES/AIBUS OS, USOA. U5GS, AeroGRlO, I6N. ana me GIS User
McroscC I Esfl, AGS i Esn. mftgrcap | US EPA | a
Figure 8. Map of Former Chesapeake Supply target site arid median income (Source: Esri). See Appendix 6
for full page map.

The Downtown Development District is home to an estimated 1,989 people, according to the
2010 Decennial Census. Of the 873 total households, 15.3% were vacant, and of the 739 total
occupied units, 84.4% were renter-occupied (2010 Decennial Census, SF-i, total of all Census
blocks in proposed Downtown Development District Application [City of Dover, 2014]).
The US Census Bureau cites the per capita income in the past 12 months in the city of Dover (in
2015 dollars, from 2011-2015) at $21/75°/ while the half-mile and one-mile radii were estimated
at $20,104 and $22/343 (US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2011-2015). The local
economy includes accommodation and food service, retail, health care and social assistance,
and manufacturing; as of 2012, 3,281 businesses were present in Dover (US Census Bureau
American Community Survey, 2011 - 2015).
It is plausible that redeveloping this brownfield site, as part of a revitalization effort for the
downtown area, can affectthe economics in the community, if the site brings injobs, businesses,
and increased foot traffic to the area while reducing crime and blight. Further, the redeveloped
site may increase the economic value of the area and increase interest in the area by real estate
and business developers. With efforts to mitigate displacement, the overall impact would be
positive, as these improved conditions would positively impact both household and community
economics. By improving the economics in the area in ways that benefit community residents
through expanded employment and local affordable services, the community could experience
reduced food insecurity, job insecurity, and crime—all of which contribute to poor health.
The improved economics caused by the site would affect a moderate number of people as only
so many people can get jobs from the food production site and revitalization of one brownfield
site will not be able to completely shift the economic trend of the area. The economic impacts
of redeveloping this site would begin with construction and continue as long as the site was
being utilized and/or the positive economic trend continued in the area; thus, it is anticipated
that the impacts could be long-lasting. The economic improvement caused by the site
revitalization would help properties owners, residents and those employed in the area who are
most economically at risk; however, the potential for future displacement should not be
discounted. There is sufficient evidence that brownfield revitalization can positively impact
health through improved economic conditions.

Table 11. Impact characterization and management strategies for Household and Community
Potential Impact Management Strategies
To maximize the potential forthis site to improve individual and
community economics, the city should ensure an economically viable
business is developed and an adept operator is selected for operation. The
city should considerthe community economics in developing this site by
addressing access, equity, and stability.
Positive and
The positive impacts can be heightened by encouraging engagement
between the business and the community, in employment, and public
facing programming training like educational tours and opportunities.
Potential negative impacts such as displacement as a result of an
increased cost of living by encouraging local hiring and supporting the
development of other local businesses and considering anti-displacement
The magnitude of the economic impact may be increased by ensuring the
success of this business and using its development as an opportunity to
spurfurtherdevelopment inthe area, including in infrastructure,
transportation, and other business development.
Long lasting
The city should have a plan in place for selecting a business that has a high
chance of long term success as well as a plan for if the first business fails,
what the city will do to establish a second business in its place, orto take
overthe site or support a community led initiative.
at risk
Currently unemployed orthose living underthe poverty line will benefit
from the site development if they are hired and have access to the food
produced there. They may also be most at risk for displacement if the
neighborhood develops and raises the cost of living.
Strength of

Monitoring and evaluation are the final steps in an HIA; they include an evaluation of the HIA
process itself (i.e., process evaluation) and recommendations for how to evaluate the impact of
the HIA on the project and its decision-making process (i.e., impact evaluation) and the impact
of the project implementation on health (i.e., outcome evaluation).
The HIA process was evaluated by the project team under the follow categories: goal
achievement, successes, challenges, and lessons learned. Process evaluation asks if the HIA was
carried out according to the plan of action and applicable standards (National Research Council,
2011). Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessment (Bhatia, 2011)
provides a framework by which to evaluate an HIA, with standards set for each step of the HIA.
After drafting the HIA report, the HIA Team members determined if the goals set out for this
HIA were met. Table 11 lists the goals, with documentation supporting whether the goal was
This rapid HIA was successful in several ways. One success identified was bringing together the
city and other stakeholders to discuss brownfield revitalization in the context of improving
health in the area. Dave Hugg, one of the leaders of the Dover HIA Team, explained that the city
has been working on housing and crime issues, but that without adequate access to healthy
foods, these households were still struggling; the rapid HIA provided a setting which made cross-
disciplinary discussions possible. This HIA also identified site-specific recommendations for
improved health, opportunities from linking program and policy goals (i.e. food innovation
district supporting school food assistance), as well as recommendations for general urban
revitalization. Furthermore, this project also expanded the effort to illustrate how health can be
incorporated into future urban revitalization projects.

Table 12. Evaluation ofHIA goal achievement
HIA Goal
Develop a rapid HIA that
promotes the consideration
of health in the brownfield
revitalization project for
Dover, Delaware
The HIA assessed the potential direct and indirect health
impacts of the proposal develop a food production facility
on a remediated brownfield site in downtown Dover.
Impacts on food access, employment, brownfield
redevelopment, crime, and individual and community
economics were assessed at the request of the City of
Dover and their partners.
Bring evidence-based
information to help inform
the City of Dover's decision to
pursue a food production
project, such as an
aquaponics facility, on a
remediated brownfield site.
The recommendations included in the HIA are based on
evidence found in scientific literature and other urban
revitalization projects.
Raise awareness of HIA as a
decision-support tool that
considers direct and indirect
consequences, both benefits
and harms, before a decision
is made.
Through the HIA Process, EPA raised awareness of HIA as
a decision support tool with the city of Dover, the State of
Delaware, EPA Region 3, the Office of Brownfields and
Land Revitalization, and the public. Both potential positive
and negative health impacts of the proposal were
Demonstrate the use of HIA
on a brownfield
revitalization project.
This rapid HIA serves as a model for future application of
HIA on brownfield revitalization projects.
One important challenge identified in this HIA was a lack of specificity in the project design and
decision point. The City of Dover did not yet have a concrete project proposal for the HIA to
evaluate; therefore, this assessment served to more broadly explore the health impacts
associated with revitalization of a brownfield for food production.
The nature of a rapid HIA, with limited time and resources dedicated to this project was also a
challenge. This effort would have benefitted from more research and community engagement
to identify more specifically the health impacts and the priorities of the nearby community
members, both of which would have improved the eventual recommendations. Data gaps and
uncertainty in the literature could have been mitigated with more time, but they also represent
opportunities for future considerations of health impacts in the development of the business

The lessons learned in this rapid HIA include a greater understanding of the health impacts of
brownfield revitalization and the potential for future application of HIA on these types of
Impact evaluation seeks to understand the impact of the HIA on the decision, the decision-
making process, or other factors outside the specific decision being considered (National
Research Council, 2011). The following questions could be used to determine whether the HIA
influenced future brownfield revitalization decisions and decision-making processes in Dover:
•	Did the City of Dover adopt and implement the recommendations of the HIA in the
development of a business plan for the brownfield site? If not, was there rationale
provided for why the recommendation(s) were not adopted?
•	Does the City of Dover credit the HIA with informing their decision-ma king process (e.g.,
discussion of HIA findings in decision-making) or influencing the decision-making
process regarding health considerations?
These questions could be answered with a short survey or interview of a City of Dover
representative afterthe decision has been implemented. If the City does not create and execute
a business plan forthe site, then they should provide an explanation to the public explaining why
this was the final decision and whether the HIA was useful in making this decision.
This HIA can identify potential indicators that may suggest a trend towards improved health in
the neighboring community, but it is important to recognize that many factors influence
individual and community health. Given that this is a rapid HIA and the project being evaluated
has not yet been developed, the relationship between health outcomes in the community (i.e.
adult and childhood obesity) and the proposed project is especially tenuous and difficult to
Outcome evaluation focuses on the changes in health status or health indicators resulting from
implementation of the proposal (National Research Council, 2011).
Below is a limited list of potential indicators, data sources, and partners that can be used to
monitorthe plan's impact on the health determinants identified in the HIA. These indicators are
often proximate, as actual health outcomes from the decision may be difficult to monitor as
changes in health related to a specific decision point or project. Also, both individual and
population health are determined by a wide variety of factors, many of which are not related to
the decision implementation.

Table 13. Proposed plan for monitoring health impacts post-decision
Potential Indicators
Potential Data
Potential Partners
Food Access
•	Increased position in the
Retail Food Environment
•	Food production at the site
with distribution plan to
local community
•	Delaware
•	Site operators
•	Kent County
•	Delaware Office of State
Planning Coordination
•	Delaware Health and
Social Services
•	Delaware State
•	Delaware Department of
•	Delaware Department of
•	U.S. Department of
• Increased employment at
the site, including
employment from local zip
•	Site operators
•	Job Corps
•	Kent County
•	Downtown District
•	Site operators
Redevelopment and
•	Increased economic activity
in the neighborhood as
seen by an increase in the
number of businesses ortax
•	Future grants leveraged for
further brownfield
remediation and
•	Increased public and private
investment in the area.
•	Downtown Dover
•	U.S, Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Brownfields
•	U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Region 3
•	Kent County
•	Downtown Dover
•	Delaware Office of State
Planning Coordination
•	Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
•	U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Region 3
• Rates of violent and non-
violent crime
•	Dover Police
Department records
•	Kent County Sheriff's
•	Local Hospitals
•	Dover Police Department
•	Kent County Sheriff's
•	Delaware State
Household and
•	Households living below
federal poverty level
•	Annual household income
•	Monthly housing costs
(renter and homeowner)
•	Number of cost-burdened
•	Mean and median
residential property values
•	Location affordability index
•	U.S. Census
Community Survey
•	HUD location
affordability index
(http://www. location
•	Delaware State
Housing Authority
•	Dover Downtown
•	Delaware Office of State
Planning Coordination
•	Delaware State Housing

The goals of this rapid HIA were to explore the use of health impact assessment on a brownfield
project to inform revitalization choices and to determine if the redevelopment of a brownfield
property into a food production operation could have positive impacts on the health of the Dover
community, through increased food access, employment, urban revitalization, and household
and community economics. Furthermore, the HIA sought to compile information from a range
of sources to provide evidence-based recommendations to decision-makers which can inform
planning and maximize those positive health impacts and mitigate and/or avoid negative health
impacts associated with implementation of the project. With limited details on the specific
project or development proposals to provide operational details for impact assessment, some
impact areas require further development. Additionally, integration of this project into other
city, county, regional and state programs and innovative efforts focused on improving food
access, strengthening local food production, and expanding job training and employment
services will help maximize the potential health and economic benefits envisioned during this
Two tables below list site-specific recommendations and general urban revitalization
recommendations developed with stakeholders as part of the HIA process; these
recommendations are presented in no particular order (Table 14 and 15). Site specific
recommendations inform the design of the site, including selection of the business operator,
business plan design, and physical construction of the site. General revitalization
recommendations inform the future planning of urban revitalization in the area that can magnify
the impact of this site and promote future brownfield redevelopment and urban revitalization.
In addition to the impacts discussed, there are two overarching themes included in the
recommendations: 1) involving and keeping the community engaged in the planning,
implementation, and monitoring of this brownfield revitalization project; and 2) working with
and expanding support for community advocacy groups in addressing the community's needs
and advancing equity in revitalization.
It can be noted that the scope of this rapid HIA was limited in its ability to capture all the potential
health impacts that could result from the installation of a food production operation at the
target site. However, this HIA is meant to serve as proof-of-concept to evaluate the health
impacts of a brownfield revitalization project and a model for other rapid HIAs. Moving forward,
intermediate and comprehensive HIAs can be utilized on this and other brownfield revitalization
projects, which would incorporate more extensive stakeholder engagement efforts, additional
data collection, market analyses and more quantitative and qualitative analyses of potential
health impacts.

Although HIAs are often used to address a specific decision point, sometimes analyzing a series
of alternatives, this HI A was more of an exploratory exercise in that there are many details about
the potential project that were not finalized before the HIA began. For example, the operator of
the site was not identified, though prospects range from a governmental organization, for-profit
business, community organization, or a combination that links with nearby training and
academic organizations. Additionally, the size and scope of the operation had not been fully
characterized. Thus, the ability of the HIA to identify both short term and longer lasting impacts
to community health is limited.
Although brief, the results of this assessment suggest that the revitalization project may be
effective at meeting market needs and providing food to community members and more finely-
honed proposals will assist in achieving those goals. Once the project is more fully formed, there
are opportunities to further assess the potential impacts of the site and develop more detailed
recommendations for how to maximize the positive health impacts and minimize any potential
negative health impacts that result from this and future brownfield revitalization projects. Rapid
HIAs may serve as an entry point to further HIA efforts, as might be the case in this project.
Table 14. Site-specific recommendations by health determinant
1. Food Access
A. Establish a varied produce/fish selection for community nutritional needs
and maintain interest of residents (and potentially local
1. Food Access
B. Conduct creative and aggressive outreach and advertising within the one-
mile radius (and potentially beyond for local restaurants and schools).
1. Food Access
C. Conduct further research on the success of aquaponic operations.
1. Food Access
D. Decide on the business model for the site. For instance, will the project be a
commercial, revenue-generating aquaponic or hydroponic facility, or for
community use (non-profit or quasi)?
1. Food Access
E. Evaluate the feasibility of a "food hub" or similar system in Kent County to
appropriately link small food producers to a larger market for the products
to be grown.
1. Food Access
F. Refer to the Aquaponics Business Plan User Guide for operating strategies;
additionally, consider human resource requirements, financial and non-
financial resources, and adherence to recommended food safety practices
to increase the sustainability of the project.
1. Food Access
G. Define the customer and type of distribution. Will the site be for residents
only or will the site be for businesses?
1. Food Access
H. Document the impacts of reuse of the site for food production on local food
access, attitude and behavior change and improved nutritional status.
1. Food Access
1. Collect baseline information on population food access, participation in
nutrition assistance programs, consumption and dietary disease
prevalence may need to be collected or existing information examined.

l. Food Access
J. Collaborate with Delaware State University on technical expertise
pertaining to urban gardening, farming and aquaculture/aquaponics.
1. Food Access
K. Create a workgroup with local partners and faculty from Delaware State
University to discuss and research how to introduce
hydroponics/aquaponics to the local market.
2. Employment
A. Incorporate employment opportunities for residents during maintenance
and construction.
2. Employment
B. Develop and incorporate urban farming and green infrastructure training
for residents and community groups.
2. Employment
C. Include a processing component within a detailed business plan that would
increase the number of jobs for the project.
2. Employment
D. Use green infrastructure to stimulate job creation through maintenance of
the site's greenspace.
2. Employment
E. Consider creative waysto engage with Interfaith Mission, including
volunteer opportunities in exchange for food or part-time work for those
who may not be in a position to take on full time job.
2. Employment
F. Include Delaware State University faculty and staff in training opportunities
on aquaponics and hydroponics.
2. Employment
G. Engage with local community members to determine culturally appropriate
training and employment opportunities on topics such as language used in
training and the hoursthe site is in operation, both in production and
potentially open as a site for the purchase of produce.
2. Employment
H. Require the business operatorsto utilize the Aquaponics Business Plan,
Aquaponic Business Plan Worksheet, and the Urban Farm Business Plan
Handbook, as appropriate, in the development or demonstration of their
business plan. In terms of employment, pay particular attention to their
community engagement and hiring plan.
3. Brownfield and
A. Focus future meetings on educating residents, workers and business
owners on brownfields and revitalization opportunities. Solicit community,
student or governmental interest and technical assistance in further site
investigation to allay fears and respond to risk perceptions and planning for
future brownfield revitalization efforts to support food innovation district
diversity and expansion.
3. Brownfield and
B. Consider outreach efforts, including a site tour and public meeting to review
existing site documentation and results as part of a public meeting to
facilitate future site and reuse planning.
3. Brownfield and
C. Establish a community advisory council as a conduit for communication and
longer-term engagement with community organizations and interested
stakeholders seeking to revitalize brownfields and explore options for
further food innovation district innovative efforts.
3. Brownfield and
D. Examine the potential role of universities and institutions as large-scale
purveyors and markets for food and as partners in changing community
attitudes on food and increasing local food markets.
3. Brownfield and
E. Conduct charrettesto explore the future redevelopment of this entire area
to consider how a food production facility on this site might fit in with a
larger revitalization plan. Visioning, design charrettes and creative


engagement efforts can provide a forum for diverse involvement and
community participation in revitalization planning and design.
3- Brownfield and
F. Consider including the other four identified Brownfields in the area for an
area-wide approach to revitalization. For example, the target site could be
best used for food production, while other sites may be better located for
4. Crime
A. Increase street lighting along the proposed project site and install sufficient
lighting on the site.
4. Crime
B. Utilize the CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design)
elements in the Green Street Project design.
4. Crime
C. Create security measures in the buildings, including surveillance and
fencing, to discourage vagrancy and illicit activities on the site.
5. Household and
A. The City, in selecting the businessto run the site, should require they utilize
the Aquaponics Business Plan, Aquaponic Business Plan Worksheet, and
the Urban Farm Business Plan Handbook, in the development or
demonstration of their business plan.
5. Household and
B. Follow the recommendations in the employment section that support local
training and hiring programs for the nearby community, during
construction, operation, and maintenance of the site and business.
5. Household and
C. Evaluate which grants may support the development of a business at this
site and support the business developer in their application process for the
5. Household and
D. Consider prioritizing local potential business owners in selecting the site
5. Household and
E. Advocate for the use of business revenue to support social services or
activities at the site, including educational programming for children and
the community on healthy eating and gardening. The city should consider
matching funding for such activities.
5. Household and
F. Consider alternative models of food distribution, such as a Community
Shared Agriculture (CSA) program, which would reduce costs to residents
and assist local farmers with production issues.
5. Household and
G. Foster partnerships between this site and other nearby businesses and
community organizations asthis can promote the sustainability of the
program and increase the leveraging of this site development into future
economic development in the area.

Table 15. General urban revitalization recommendations by health determinant
1. Food Access
A. Incorporate ease of access planning, such as green spaces, well-lit streets
and sidewalks, ramps and wheelchair accessible areasfor walkability and
access to site.
1. Food Access
B. Include outreach efforts and partnerships with local organizations, food
tourism and gardening networks with similar healthy food access goals, as
well as plan for expansion with other nearby revitalizations projects.
1. Food Access
C. Work with Delaware State University to establish SNAP-Ed at the nearby
schools, and institute outreach programs in the community through the
university's Extension Program.
1. Food Access
D. Engage local students to assist in neighborhood research on the food
environment and with outreach and information collection among peers
and family members.
2. Employment
A. Provide funding opportunities for local entrepreneurs (e.g. small business
grants, foundation matching, matching grantsfor job creation, etc.) aimed
at creating jobs.
3. Brownfield and
A. Work with DNREC to clarify the specific conditions of the site, use
restrictions and review how the proposed food reuse and similar food
production uses at a former brownfield will not pose a health risk to
workers, residents and neighbors or consumers.
3. Brownfield and
B. Inform residents about past hazards, ongoing land use controls and how
proposed reuse does not pose risks. Future public meetings also can
engage residents in identifying other potential brownfields as well as sites
now serving or planned for gardens or food production.
3. Brownfield and
C. Collect information baseline information on population food access,
participation in nutrition assistance programs, consumption and dietary
disease prevalence may need to be collected or existing information
examined. Local students may be able to assist in neighborhood research
on the food environment and assist with outreach and information
collection among peers and family members.
4. Crime
A. Consider other community crime prevention measures such as community
policing and community organization willingness to participate in crime
prevention efforts.
4. Crime
B. Evaluate the success of juvenile justice programs how community projects,
such as after school food/education programs, can addressjuvenile crime.
4. Crime
C. Partner with local law enforcement and community organizations
interested in crime prevention to map and track revitalization impacts on
4. Crime
D. Track crime and forge community partnerships with law enforcement to
ensure crime does not extend to other areas that result in greater
community impact (such as movement of criminal activity to parks or
5. Household and
A. Monitor the increasing housing costs and cost of living in the region and
research and develop strategies to mitigate displacement because of
growing economic development in the region.

5- Household and
B. Evaluate the active and public transportation access to the site and consider
improving access by creating/rehabilitating sidewalks and bike paths and
bus routes.
Adler, N. E., & Newman, K. (2002). Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies.
Health affairs, 21(2), 60-76.
Alaimo, K., Beavers, A. W., Crawford, C., Snyder, E. H., & Litt, J. S. (2016). Amplifying health
through community gardens: A framework for advancing multicomponent, behaviorally based
neighborhood interventions. Current environmental health reports, 3(3), 302-312.
Andersen, M., & Hall, M. L. (2014). Protected bike lanes mean business: How 21st century
transportation networks help new urban economies boom. Retrieved from
http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/123e6305136c85cf56_0tm6vjeu0.pdf, accessed January 26, 2018.
Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental
health. Journal of health and social behavior, 293-310.
Bambra, C., Robertson, S., Kasim, A., Smith, J., Cairns-Nagi, J. M., Copeland, A.,... & Johnson,
K. (2014). Healthy land? An examination of the area-level association between brownfield land
and morbidity and mortality in England. Environment and planning A, 46(2), 433-454.
Bartik, T. J. (2009). The revitalization of older industrial cities: A review essay of retooling for
growth. Growth and Change, 40(1), 1-29.
Bell, J. F., Wilson, J. S., & Liu, G. C. (2008). Neighborhood greenness and 2-year changes in
body mass index of children and youth. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(6), 547-
Bhatia, R., & Guzman, C. (2004). The case for housing impacts assessment: The human health
and social impacts of inadequate housing and their consideration in CEQA policy and practice.
San Francisco Department of Public Health. Occupational and Environmental Health Section.
Program on Health, Equity, and Sustainability.
Bhatia, R. (2011). Health impact assessment: a guide for practice. Oakland, CA: Human Impact

Bracy, N. L., Millstein, R. A., Carlson, J. A., Conway, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E.,... & King,
A. C. (2014). Is the relationship between the built environment and physical activity moderated
by perceptions of crime and safety? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 11(1), 24.
Branas, C. C., Cheney, R. A., MacDonald, J. M., Tarn, V. W., Jackson, T. D., & Ten Have, T. R.
(2011). A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space.
American journal of epidemiology, 174(11), 1296-1306.
California Association for Local Economic Development. (2017). The Value of Economic
Development. Retrieved from https://caled.org/value-economic-development/, accessed May
3, 2018.
Carter, S. P., Carter, S. L., & Dannenberg, A. L. (2003). Zoning out crime and improving
community health in Sarasota, Florida:"crime prevention through environmental design".
American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1442-1445.
CDC. (2009). Health Effects of Gentrification. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm, accessed February 20,
CDC. (2010). Community Gardens. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/healthyfood/community.htm, accessed April 4,
CDC. (2013). CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report - US, 2013. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 62, Suppl 3.
CDC. (n.d.). National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of
Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. Data, Trend and Maps [online]. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.qov/nccdphp/dnpao/data-trends-maps/index.html. accessed May 3,
CDC. (2017). Overweight and obesity. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html,
accessed February 7, 2018.
City of Dover. (2014). Delaware Downtown Development District Program, Application for
Designation as a District. Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination.
City of Portland. (2015). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Retrieved from
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/320548, accessed February 7, 2018.

Cohen, D., Spear, S., Scribner, R., Kissinger, P., Mason, K., & Wildgen, J. (2000)." Broken
windows" and the risk of gonorrhea. American journal of public health, 90(2), 230.
Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., & Green, E. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to
determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 86(1), 103-114.
County Health Rankings. (2015). National Data and documentation: 2010-2016. Retrieved from
documentation/national-data-documentation-2010-2016, accessed May 3, 2018.
Delaware Health and Social Services. (2016). Delaware Primary Care Health Needs Assessment
2015. Retrieved from www.dhss.delaware.gov/dph/hsm/files/depchealthneedsassessment2015.pdf,
accessed May 3, 2018.De Sousa, C. A. (2004). The greening of brownfields in American cities.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(4), 579-600.
De Sousa, C. A. (2006). Unearthing the benefits of brownfield to green space projects: An
examination of project use and quality of life impacts. Local Environment, 11(5), 577-600.
DNREC. (2013). Amended Proposed Plan of Remedial Action for Former Chesapeake Supply,
Dover, DE. DNREC Project DE-1334. Retrieved from
f, accessed February 6, 2018.
DNREC. (2017a). Second Amended Proposed Plan of Remedial Action for Former Chesapeake
Supply, Dover, DE. DNREC Project DE-1334. Retrieved from
posed°/62oPlan.pdf, accessed January 25, 2018.
DNREC. (2017b). Fish Consumption Advisories. Delaware Fishing Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.eregulations.com/delaware/fishing/fish-consumption-advisories/, accessed
January 26, 2018.
Dorsey, J. W. (2003). Brownfields and greenfields: the intersection of sustainable development
and environmental stewardship. Environmental Practice, 5(1), 69-76.
Dover Community Partnership. (2009). The Dover Community Partnership Revitalization Plan.
Dover, Delaware: Dover Community Partnership.
Fair Food Network. (2016). Double Up Food Bucks. Retrieved from
https://fairfoodnetwork.org/projects/double-up-food-bucks/, accessed February 7, 2018.

Florida Department of Health, (n.d.). Child Care Food Program. Retrieved from:
prog ram/index.html, accessed January 25, 2018.
Food Bank of Delaware, (n.d.). Hunger in Delaware. Retrieved from
https://www.fbd.org/hunger-in-delaware/, accessed February 7, 2018.
Franco, M., Roux, A. V. D., Glass, T. A., Caballero, B., & Brancati, F. L. (2008). Neighborhood
characteristics and availability of healthy foods in Baltimore. American journal of preventive
medicine, 35(6), 561-567.
Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. American
journal of preventive medicine, 20(3), 234-240.
Furr-Holden, C. D. M., Lee, M. H., Milam, A. J., Johnson, R. M., Lee, K. S., & lalongo, N. S.
(2011). The growth of neighborhood disorder and marijuana use among urban adolescents: a
case for policy and environmental interventions. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 72(3),
Garvin, E., Branas, C., Keddem, S., Sellman, J., & Cannuscio, C. (2013). More than just an
eyesore: local insights and solutions on vacant land and urban health. Journal of Urban Health,
90(3), 412-426.
Gilman, S. E., Kawachi, I., Fitzmaurice, G. M., & Buka, S. L. (2003). Socio-economic status,
family disruption and residential stability in childhood: relation to onset, recurrence and
remission of major depression. Psychological medicine, 33(8), 1341-1355.
Glaser, R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2005). Stress-induced immune dysfunction: implications for
health. Nature Reviews Immunology, 5(3), 243-251.
Greenberg, M., Lee, C., & Powers, C. (1998). Public health and brownfields: reviving the past to
protect the future. American Journal of Public Health, 88(12), 1759-1760.
Greenberg, M., Lowrie, K., Mayer, H., Miller, K. T., & Solitare, L. (2001). Brownfield
redevelopment as a smart growth option in the United States. The Environmentalist, 21(2),
Gronau, I. (2016). Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing serves up hope for Thanksgiving,
Delaware State News. Retreived from https://delawarestatenews.net/news/dover-interfaith-
mission-housing-serves-hope-thanksgiving/, accessed January 31, 2018.
GuideStar. (2018). Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing. Retrieved from
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/41-2280212, accessed January 31, 2018.

Haninger, K., Ma, L., & Timmins, C. (2012). Estimating the impacts of brownfield remediation
on housing property values.
Harvard School of Public Health. (2018). The Nutrition Source. Fish: Friend or Foe? Retrieved
from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/, accessed May 3, 2018.
Ison, E. (2000). Resource for health impact assessment. NHS Executive, London.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Jennings, V., Larson, L., & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability through urban green space:
cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 13(2), 196.
Keene, D. E., & Geronimus, A. T. (2011). "Weathering" HOPE VI: The importance of evaluating
the population health impact of public housing demolition and displacement. Journal of Urban
Health, 88(3), 417-435.
Kim, D. (2008). Blues from the neighborhood? Neighborhood characteristics and depression.
Epidemiologic reviews, 30(1), 101-117.
Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. L. (2002). Housing and health: time again for public health action.
American journal of public health, 92(5), 758-768.
Krieger, J. W., Takaro, T. K., & Rabkin, J. C. (2011). Breathing easier in Seattle: addressing
asthma disparities through healthier housing. In Healthcare Disparities at the Crossroads with
Healthcare Reform (pp. 359-383). Springer, Boston, MA.
Kuo, F. E. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city.
Environment and behavior, 33(1), 5-34.
Lachowycz, K., & Jones, A. P. (2014). Does walking explain associations between access to
greenspace and lower mortality? Social Science & Medicine, 107, 9-17.
Latkin, C. A., & Curry, A. D. (2003). Stressful neighborhoods and depression: a prospective
study of the impact of neighborhood disorder. Journal of health and social behavior, 34-44.
Latkin, C. A., German, D., Hua, W., & Curry, A. D. (2009). Individual-level influences on
perceptions of neighborhood disorder: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Community
Psychology, 37(1), 122-133.
Lee, A. C., & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the
evidence. Journal of public health, 33(2), 212-222.

Litt, J. S., & Burke, T. A. (2002). Uncovering the historic environmental hazards of urban
brownfields. Journal of Urban Health, 79(4), 464-481.
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., De Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green
space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology & Community
Health, 60(7), 587-592.
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., & Groenewegen, P. P.
(2009a). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of Epidemiology &
Community Health, 63(12), 967-973.
Maas, J., Van Dillen, S. M., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009b). Social contacts as a
possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health & place,
15(2), 586-595.
Mashayekh, Y., Hendrickson, C., & Matthews, H. S. (2012). Role of brownfield developments in
reducing household vehicle travel. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 138(3), 206-
McEwen, B. S. (2008). Central effects of stress hormones in health and disease: Understanding
the protective and damaging effects of stress and stress mediators. European journal of
pharmacology, 583(2), 174-185.
Merriman-Nai, S., & Sargent, D. (2013). Beyond Natural and Economic Impacts: A Model for
Social Impact Assessment of Brownfields Development Programs and a Case Study of
Northeast Wilmington, Delaware.
Nagengast, A., Hendrickson, C., & Lange, D. (2011). Commuting from US brownfield and
greenfield residential development neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 137(3), 298-304.
National Association of Counties. (2009). Food Access Solutions to Create Healthy Counties.
accessed January 24, 2018.
National Research Council. (2010). Local government actions to prevent childhood obesity.
National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Improving health in the United States: the role of health
impact assessment. National Academies Press.
NeighborhoodScout. (2017). Dover, DE crime rates, Retrieved from
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/de/dover/crime, accessed January 26, 2018.

Parra, E. & Smith, J. (2017). 55 Gang arrest spark hope in Dover. DelawareOnline, The News
Journal. Retrieved from https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/02/55-
arrested-following-weeks-long-gang-investigation-dover/824596001/, accessed February 7,
Pope, S., J. Rhodus, F. Fulk, B. Mintz, & S. O'Shea. (2016). The Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
Resource and Tool Compilation: A Comprehensive Toolkit for New and Experienced HIA
Practitioners in the U.S. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-
Powell, L. M., Slater, S., Mirtcheva, D., Bao, Y., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2007). Food store
availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Preventive medicine, 44(3),
Probst, J. C., Laditka, S. B., Wang, J. Y., & Johnson, A. O. (2007). Effects of residence and race
on burden of travel for care: cross sectional analysis of the 2001 US National Household Travel
Survey. BMC Health Services Research, 7(1), 40.
Ross, C. E. (2000). Neighborhood disadvantage and adult depression. Journal of health and
social behavior, 177-187.
Salois, M. J. (2012). Obesity and diabetes, the built environment, and the local'food economy
in the United States, 2007. Economics & Human Biology, 10(1), 35-42.
Schilling, J., & Logan, J. (2008). Greening the rust belt: A green infrastructure model for right
sizing America's shrinking cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 451-466.
Snelgrove, A. G., Michael, J. H., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2004). Urban greening and
criminal behavior: A geographic information system perspective. HortTechnology, 14(1), 48-
Solitare, L., & Greenberg, M. (2002). Is the US Environmental Protection Agency brownfields
assessment pilot program environmentallyjust? Environmental Health Perspectives, iio(Suppl
2), 249.
Spelman, W. (1993). Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime? Journal of Criminal Justice,
21(5), 48i-495-
Stigsdotter, U. K., Ekholm, O., Schipperijn, J., Toftager, M., Kamper-Jorgensen, F., & Randrup,
T. B. (2010). Health promoting outdoor environments-Associations between green space, and
health, health-related quality of life and stress based on a Danish national representative
survey. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 38(4), 411-417.

Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Owen, N. (2008). Associations of neighbourhood
greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social
interaction explain the relationships? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62(5).
Sullivan, K. A. (2017). Brownfields Remediation: Impact on Local Residential Property Tax
Revenue. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 19(03), 1750013.
US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2011-2015.
USDA. (2009). Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food
Deserts and Their Consequences. Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Available from http://www.ers.ysda.qov/Pyblications/AP/APoi6/APoi6.pclf.)
USDA. (2010). Getting to Scale with Regional Food Hubs. Retrieved from
https://www.ysda.gov/meclia/bloq/2010/12/14/gettinq-scale-reqional-foocl-hybs. accessed
April 11, 2018.
USDA. (2014). USDA Releases 2013 Census of Aquaculture Results. Retrieved from USDA
Census of Agriculture: https://www.agcensus.usda.g0v/Newsr00m/2014/09_29_2014.php,
accessed February 7, 2018.
USDA. (2017). What is electronics benefit transfer? Retrieved from
https://www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/general-electronic-benefit-transfer-ebt-information, accessed
January 26, 2018
USDA. (2018). Food Environment Atlas. Retrieved from https://www.ers.ysda.gov/foodatlas/.
accessed April 6, 2018.
US Department of Labor. (2018a). Food Manufacturing NAICS 311. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag311.htm, accessed March 15, 2018.
US Department of Labor. (2018b). Occupational Outlook Handbook: Agricultural and Food
Scientists. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-
science/agricultural-and-food-scientists.htm, accessed March 15, 2018.
US DOJ. (2014) Uniform Crime Reporting Program from the US Department of Justice Federal
Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/, accessed January 26,
US EPA. (2015). Proctor Creek's Boone Boulevard Green Street Project Health Impact
Assessment. EPA/600/R-14/400. Retrieved from
accessed January 26, 2018.

US EPA. (2016). Aquaponics Business Plan User Guide. Retrieved from
09/documents/i_aquaponics_business_plan_guide_5o8_o8in6.pdf/ accessed February 6,
US EPA. (2017a). Environmental Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice, accessed January 29, 2018.
US EPA. (2017b). Brownfields and Community Supported Agriculture. Retrieved from
accessed February 7, 2018.
US EPA. (2017c). Overivew of the Brownfields Program. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-brownfields-program, accessed February 7, 2018.
US HUD. (2011). Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from
https://www.huduser.g0v/Publicati0ns/pdf/HUD-506_W0rstCase2011_rep0rtv3.pdf, accessed
January 26, 2018.
Van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a
buffer between stressful life events and health. Social science & medicine, 70(8), 1203-1210.
Wheeler, N. (2011). Greener neighborhoods: A good practice guide to managing green space.
National Housing Federation. Retrieved from
neighbourhoods-weblinks-2110.pdf, accessed January 26, 2018.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia Harvard university press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
World Health Organization. (1999). Health impact assessment: main concepts and suggested
approach: a Gothenburg consensus paper. Brussels: European Centre for Health Policy, WHO
Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved from
http://www.impactsante.ch/pdf/HIA_Gothenburg_consensus_paper_1999, accessed February
5, 2018.
Yang, W., Spears, K., Zhang, F., Lee, W., & Himler, H. L. (2012). Evaluation of personal and
built environment attributes to physical activity: a multilevel analysis on multiple population-
based data sources. Journal of obesity, 2012.