Bringing the Good Food Purchasing 
Program to Buffalo 
An investigation of potential environmental  
stakeholder participation  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jessica Gilbert 
URP604  
Food Systems Planning 
Spring 2017 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Table of Contents 
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….....3 
Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………………...4 
Goals and Objectives………………………………………………………………………...5 
Western New York Environmental Alliance………………………………………………...5 
Good Food Purchasing Program…………………………………………………………......6 
Environmental Stakeholders…………………………………………………………….........8 
Environmental Values in Buffalo…………………………………………………….............8 
Environmental Opportunities and Challenges………………………………………………10 
Participation Willingness of Buffalo’s Environmental Stakeholders……………………….13 
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………..15 
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..16 
References…………………………………………………………………………………..17 
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………21 
Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………………24 
List of Tables  
Table 1: Five Core Values of the GFPP……………………………………………………..7 
Table 2: Buffalo’s Environmental Stakeholders: Possible Participants in the GFPP as 
Mentioned by Interviewees……………………………………………………………14 
List of Figures 
Figure 1: Cities with the GFPP……………………………………………………………....7 
Figure 2: Food Shifts Matter………………………………………………………………..11 
Figure 3: Water Footprint of Selected Foods……………………………………………….11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Executive Summary 
 Leveraging institutional purchasing power can be an effective way to support the local 
food economy, as well as an efficient approach to change procurement and production methods 
throughout supply chains. Recently food justice advocates have called for a more holistic 
approach to institutional food purchasing, one that connects multiple issue areas in the food 
system: environmental sustainability, health and nutrition, workforce conditions, local economic 
growth, and animal welfare. Recognizing the need for a more holistic approach for 
transformative work on food, national organizations, spear-headed by the Center for Good Food 
Purchasing and the Food Chain Workers Alliance, have united to use institutional purchasing 
power as a way to reform the food system. The program created, the Good Food Purchasing 
Program (GFPP), has now been adopted in three cities and is in progress in six others. 
 The objective of this report is to investigate the GFPP’s value of environmental 
sustainability, to assess if this value is compatible with those of Buffalo’s environmental 
stakeholders, and to consider if these local organizations would be supportive of bringing the 
GFPP to Buffalo. In doing so, this report examines the characteristics and goals of local 
environmental stakeholders, and compares them to the successes that the GFPP has experienced 
elsewhere. Of particular importance to Buffalo’s environmental stakeholders is climate justice, 
water quality, and regenerative economies. All of these values correspond with the GFPP’s 
socio-environmental accomplishments, such as decreased greenhouse gas emissions and water 
resulting from reduced animal product consumption, increased local purchasing, and improved 
working conditions. However, these victories were not achieved without overcoming numerous 
barriers, such as policy regulation, financial constraints, and logistical limits.  
 Yet despite these challenges, this assessment indicates that a majority of Buffalo’s 
environmental stakeholders including Partnership for the Public Good, Crossroads Collective, 
and the University at Buffalo would be willing to participate in the GFPP. However, in order to 
increase interest, this report recommends providing local environmental stakeholders with 
information concerning successes, challenges, and best practices, the environmental impacts of 
food currently used by the target institution, and the potential effects of the GFPP on the local 
environment and the food system in general. Finally, this report recommends adding a policy 
change component, so as to remove existing policy barriers and increase the willingness of other, 
policy-oriented environmental stakeholders to participate in the Program’s implementation.  
3 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Problem Statement: The Power of Procurement  
The current food system disproportionately serves corporate interests at the expense of 
other food system actors[1]. Recognizing the many issues that stem from the conventional food 
system, food justice advocates have developed multiple approaches and strategies to transform 
the food system to work for the disenfranchised. One popular strategy is leveraging the 
purchasing power of public institutions to support the local food economy. Specifically, food 
system stakeholders promote green purchasing, or the shift of spending “away from goods and 
services that cause environmental and social harm, and toward products that are more 
environmentally sound and socially just,” [2].  
Institutions provide an effective green purchasing platform as a result of the large-scale 
and multi-year contracts that they form with producers and distributors. Producers and 
distributors rely on the income generated from these contracts, giving institutions leverage to 
demand the type of goods or services that they wish to receive. As such, institutions have a much 
greater purchasing power than do individuals or households [3]. In addition, because institutions 
must purchase large amounts of goods and services, they are able to capitalize on economies of 
scale; therefore, they are able to keep prices low, despite the more expensive prices of “green” 
products [4]. However, ensuring that producers and distributors fully implement a contract’s 
green purchasing demands can be difficult for institutions due to a lack of supply chain 
transparency. In order to combat this, institutions need to ensure that all contracts include a 
system of accountability that mandates transparent reporting on the accomplishment of all goals 
and targets [5].   
 Using green purchasing to address the negative environmental impacts caused by the 
food system is particularly effective, especially as a method to fight climate change [6]. The food 
system contributes heavily to environmental degradation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 
and has been identified as one of the top-three contributors to climate change [7]. For example, it 
is estimated that conventional food production methods require ten calories of energy to produce 
one calorie of food [8]. However, food production methods are not the greatest contributor to 
food-related GHG emissions; instead, transportation, food packaging, and food waste are most 
responsible [9]. Targeting these issues through green purchasing demands forces those along the 
food supply chain to decrease transportation distance, packaging used, and waste produced. This, 
4 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
in turn, will go a long way towards reducing the negative environmental impacts of the food 
system, and mitigating climate change [10].  
 Finally, using green purchasing to decrease institutions’ detrimental environmental 
impacts and thus help to mitigate climate change is not only effective, it is also much cheaper 
than other mitigation efforts. For example, the cost for an institution to decrease food-related 
GHG emissions is much lower than the cost of transitioning off of fossil fuels by installing solar 
panels [11]. It is much easier for stakeholders to convince institutions to implement pro-
environmental policies if they do not entail spending increases; therefore, green purchasing is an 
extremely efficient approach [12].  
 
Goals and Objectives 
 The objective of this investigation is to assess the willingness of local environmental 
stakeholders to support the implementation of the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP) in 
Buffalo. Specifically, this report examines: 
1) The importance of the GFPP, its value of environmental sustainability, and the role of 
environmental stakeholders in the Program’s implementation 
2) Potential local benefits and challenges of the GFPP’s value of environmental 
sustainability  
3) Local environmental stakeholders’ potential participation in collaborative campaigns that 
target institutional purchasing power, particularly in the GFPP 
4) Recommendations for increasing local environmental stakeholders’ desire to implement 
the GFPP in Buffalo  
In assessing local environmental stakeholders’ potential participation, this investigation seeks to 
present the benefits of and barriers to successfully implementing the GFPP in Buffalo as a 
method of diminishing the negative environmental impacts of food production.  
 
The Western New York Environmental Alliance  
 The group working to bring the GFPP to Buffalo is the Western New York 
Environmental Alliance, which is “a coalition of independent organizations that collectively 
represents the environmental voice” for the Buffalo region [13]. Founded in 2009, it is now 
comprised of 103 members who share a mission “to mobilize change through collective action 
5 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
and collaboration, in order to ensure sustainable, thriving ecosystems and communities in 
Western New York.” In doing so, they work to ensure that environmental considerations 
represent a critical component in all local and regional planning decisions [14][15].  
 
The Good Food Purchasing Program 
 The GFPP was founded in 2012 and is coordinated by the Center for Good Food 
Purchasing and the Food Chain Workers Alliance. It seeks to transform the way public 
institutions purchase food by creating a transparent and equitable food system built on five core 
values: strengthening local economies, increasing the intake of nutritious food, improving 
workforce conditions, encouraging humane treatment of animals, and fostering environmental 
sustainability (Table 1) [16]. Through a metric-based, flexible framework, the GFPP helps 
institutions develop a baseline assessment for each of these five categories and then proceed 
through a process of setting goals, tracking progress, and celebrating success. Evaluations are 
based on third-party certifications that national experts have recognized as meaningful, such as 
Certified Organic or Fair Trade Certified [17]. Institutions are rated on a five-point scale for each 
of the five values. These points are then aggregated and institutions are then awarded a 
corresponding star rating, which ranges from one to five stars. Thus far, as shown in Figure 1, 
the GFPP has been adopted in three cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland), and there 
are active campaigns in six other cities (Austin, Chicago, Cincinnati, Madison, New York, and 
Twin Cities) [18].    
 The GFPP is implemented through partnerships formed between a multi-sector coalition, 
a local institution (usually the city school district), and political champions [19]. The multi-sector 
coalitions are composed of local stakeholders dedicated to at least one of the GFPP’s five core 
values, thereby ensuring that all five of the GFPP’s values are represented throughout the 
implementation and adoption processes. The partnerships formed help to garner community 
support, increase pressure on the institution, and maintain contract transparency and institutional 
accountability [20].  
 
 
 
 
 
6 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Table 1: Five Core Values of the GFPP [21] 
 
 
 
Figure 1: Cities with the GFPP [22] 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Environmental Stakeholders 
 Environmental stakeholders, one of the main groups involved in existing GFPP multi-
sector coalitions, comprise a large portion of active advocacy groups in Western New York. 
While the definition of environmental stakeholders may vary, the Western New York 
Environmental Alliance defines them as not-for-profit organizations and community groups, 
both established and emerging, with strong environmental interests. Environmental stakeholders 
in Buffalo seek to mobilize change through collective action and collaboration, in order to ensure 
sustainable, thriving ecosystems and communities by recognizing that the environment is directly 
and indirectly connected to economic growth, human health and well-being, and community 
(re)development [23]. This recognition makes environmental stakeholders critical partners for 
successful GFPP implementation. They regularly devise innovative solutions, such as 
community gardens [24] or sustainable low-income housing [25], that address the sustainability 
of a system: “economy, environment, empowerment,” [26], and which apply to the GFPP’s 
mission [27][28]. Therefore, environmental stakeholders in Buffalo serve not only to represent 
the GFPP’s value of environmental sustainability, but they also understand and appreciate the 
importance of the relationships between all five of the GFPP’s core values.  
 
Environmental Values in Buffalo 
Buffalo’s Environmental Goals  
Environmental stakeholders in Buffalo share two main characteristics. First, while no 
stakeholder’s goals are exactly the same, they all share a sense of purpose. In other words, each 
environmental stakeholder has a specific mission that they are pursuing, which is motivated by 
principle rather than by personal or financial gain [29]. Second, Buffalo’s environmental 
stakeholders share a willingness to partner and collaborate. They realize that the issues that they 
are trying to resolve are too large to be tackled without assistance, and that they are much more 
effective when working collectively [30]. Although there are numerous environmental issues that 
stakeholders are working to address in the Buffalo region, there are three main goals that unite 
them: [31] 
1) Climate Justice: viewing climate change as an issue that impacts both the environment 
and the people, meaning that mitigation efforts need to balance environmental and social 
justice considerations 
8 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
2) Water quality: understanding that water pollution poses negative consequences to the 
people as well as the environment, and therefore emphasis needs to be placed on the 
value of public access to water 
3) Regenerative economy: linking the environment and the economy such that the economy 
is in the service of the environment, rather than the environment being in the service of 
the economy 
 
Connecting Buffalo’s Environmental Goals to the GFPP 
 The three goals that unite Buffalo’s environmental stakeholders, climate justice, water 
quality, and a regenerative economy, emphasize the existence of socio-ecological connections. 
The same is true of the GFPP. Therefore, the GFPP does not introduce a new concept to 
Buffalo’s environmental stakeholders, but rather a new approach to the concept that they 
regularly address. As a result, Buffalo’s environmental stakeholders will not only be a benefit to 
the implementation of the GFPP, but the GFPP will also benefit these organizations by providing 
them with another leverage point to pursue their objectives [32]. For example, the GFPP 
promotes the purchasing of organic food, which is not grown with synthetic fertilizer containing 
elements such as phosphorus that pollute water ways through soil runoff. Thus, by supporting the 
GFPP, Buffalo’s environmental stakeholders will be simultaneously working towards their own 
goal of increasing the region’s water quality [33].  
 In addition to offering a new method to help accomplish their goals, the GFPP will 
provide Buffalo’s environmental stakeholders with another platform upon which to build the 
partnerships that are important to these organizations’ successes. First, partnerships help to 
decrease their operational costs; by combining their resources, they are able to work on issues in 
ways that they wouldn’t be able to do alone [34]. Partnerships also allow stakeholders to share 
risks. Knowing that they are not alone but rather that they have support from others, increases 
environmental stakeholders’ willingness to tackle issues that they would hesitate to address 
without knowing that others deem the issue to be important, as well [35].  
 
 
 
 
9 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Environmental Opportunities and Challenges  
GFPP Environmental Successes  
 The cities that have adopted the GFPP have generated significant reductions in food-
related environmental degradation and GHG emissions. Success in reducing negative 
environmental impacts on the food system is the result of many different pro-environmental 
contractual demands. The most successful environmental initiative has been a decrease in the 
purchase and consumption of animal products. Institutions participating in the GFPP are 
targeting animal products because they are the most resource-intensive foods in our diets. For 
example, it takes ten pounds of milk to make one pound of cheese. In order to produce the milk, 
animals (usually cows) must be raised, fed, housed, and sometimes transported, which cause 
significant harm to the environment and GHG emissions [36]. One of the most important 
resources used for animal products is water. Producing the cheese mentioned above requires 382 
gallons of water, while one pound of beef entails the use of 1590 gallons of water. However, fruit 
and vegetables need less than 50 gallons of water to grow one pound of produce (see Figure 2) 
[37].    
One of the first institutions to adopt the GFPP was the Oakland Unified School District 
(OUSD), in Oakland, California. Recognizing the large negative impact of animal products on 
the environment, OUSD has devoted a large portion of their GFPP efforts to promoting plant-
forward menus, which emphasize increased servings of fruits and vegetables, and decreased 
servings of animal products [38]. In addition to simply changing the ratio of food types served to 
their students, OUSD has created weekly days devoted to a specific menu goal. For example, 
each week they have Meatless Mondays (no meat served), Lean and Green Wednesdays 
(increased portions of plant foods), and California Thursdays (food sourced only from 
California). As illustrated in Figure 2, these initiatives have helped OUSD decrease animal 
product purchased by 30%, and subsequently decreased OUSD’s carbon footprint by 14%, 
reduced their water footprint by 6%, and has saved them $42,000 [39]. 
 The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has taken similar steps to improve 
environmental sustainability by decreasing the amount of animal products purchased. Meatless 
Mondays and other plant-forward menu initiatives have helped LAUSD reduce their annual meat 
spending by 75%, saving 19 million gallons of water [40]. In addition, LAUSD’s contracted 
producers have decreased pesticide use on crops or have transitioned completely to organic 
10 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
production, added full-time, living-wage jobs, and improved the working conditions of both 
national and immigrant employees [41].  
 
Figure 2: [42] 
  
 
 
Figure 3: [43] 
 
 
 
Environmental Challenges for the GFPP   
 A lot of environmental benefits can be realized through the successful implementation of 
the GFPP, including the reduction in water use, GHG emissions, synthetic pesticide and 
fungicide application, and water pollution from farm soil runoff [44]. However, institutions and 
their partners participating in the GFPP have to overcome many barriers in order to achieve these 
benefits. The primary hurdle is increasing the amount of sustainably-produced food purchased 
without exceeding the institution’s available budget. While it is true that institutions are able to 
11 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
purchase such food for a smaller cost than individuals or small businesses, that does not mean 
that food produced in an environmentally sustainable manner is cheaper than conventionally-
produced food [45]. Institutions generally have extremely constrained budgets and therefore they 
are unwilling, or even unable, to support any changes that increase spending. As a result, 
although institutions may want to support programs like the GFPP, they will not do so if the 
program necessitates budget increases [46].  
 In addition, institutions face logistical limits that may prevent them from adopting green 
purchasing. For example, the waste created by food packaging is responsible for a large portion 
of the negative environmental impacts generated by institutions; therefore, many GFPP 
institutions would like to buy food that comes with less packaging, like bulk foods or fresh, local 
foods [47]. However, bulk or fresh and local food require much more preparation and adequate 
storage once it reaches the institution, which requires specific facilities. If an institution does not 
already have those specific facilities, it is expensive not only to build them, but to train 
employees how to operate the facilities and how to prepare the new types of food [48]. Another 
logistical concern is preparing food that can be served to the institution’s consumers while 
adhering to institutional serving guidelines. Buffalo Public Schools, for example, do not have 
knives in their cafeterias, which means that all new menu additions must not need cutting [49].   
 Institutions must also ensure the implementation of the GFPP does not violate any policy 
regulations. School districts, in particular, are highly regulated by both the state and federal 
government. This means that even if a food change achieves all of the GFPP’s core values, such 
as a local organic fruit produced by well-treated labor, the institution cannot serve it if it violates 
the government’s purchasing regulations [50]. For example, there is a law in Buffalo that forces 
public institutions to form contracts with the lowest bidder, regardless of the bidder’s production 
practices or location. As a result, local public institutions are not allowed to give preference to 
local businesses or practices that adhere to the GFPP’s five core values if contracts with them 
would be more expensive [51]. Government food subsidies represent another policy that poses a 
particular problem for Buffalo Public Schools. The federal government provides schools with 
free meat, which means that schools only have to pay for the meat to be processed and packaged. 
This has two primary consequences: 1) the school district has to accept the meat allotted to them 
by the government, and is only free to choose the processor- which has to be the cheapest one in 
the area, and 2) getting free meat is much cheaper than paying for fruits and vegetables, even 
12 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
inexpensive ones [52]. As a result, it is much cheaper for Buffalo Public Schools to maintain 
their current meat consumption patterns than attempt to transition to the GFPP and plant-forward 
menus.  
Finally, institutions must not only purchase food that complies with government 
regulations, but they must purchase large quantities of food. This is especially difficult for 
institutions because the majority of producers who adhere to the GFPP’s five core values are 
small- to mid-sized producers, who do not produce the quantities needed [53]. Therefore, finding 
food that is within institutions’ set budgets, conforms to logistical constraints, abides by 
government regulations, and fulfills the required quantities is extremely difficult.  
 
Participation Willingness of Buffalo’s Environmental Stakeholders 
 This study examined the willingness of three key environmental stakeholders in Buffalo 
to participate in GFPP implementation: Partnership for the Public Good (PPG), University at 
Buffalo (UB), and Food and Water Watch (FWW). PPG is a coalition of over 250 community 
groups and advocacy organizations working to improve the Buffalo/Niagara region [54]. Many 
of PPG’s members are environmental stakeholders, meaning that many of the initiatives that 
PPG tackles are environmentally-related [55]. UB is a public university that places a heavy 
emphasis on the importance of environmental and climate change research, while simultaneously 
trying to provide facilities that are increasingly environmentally sustainable [56]. The final key 
environmental stakeholder examined in this study was FWW, which employs policy advocacy 
and change to address environmental issues related to food and water [57]. These three 
environmental stakeholders represent prominent local environmental leaders with broad 
membership whose participation in the GFPP will be a positive signal to other groups in the area. 
 Generally the environmental stakeholders who participated in this study indicated 
willingness to participate in GFPP. For example, a key organizer within PPG stated that the 
GFPP is a program that PPG would be extremely interested in, adding that they are “a big fan,” 
and are ready to work on it [58]. In addition, this key organizer for PPG mentioned that the 
Crossroads Collective, an alliance of eight organizations including PPG that focuses on building 
a new community economy in Buffalo and on climate justice [59], would also be a willing 
supporter and possible partner of the GFPP [60]. A key organizer in the Office of Sustainability 
at UB indicated that they would support bringing the GFPP to Buffalo, as well. Referring to his 
13 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
definition of sustainability as “economy, environment, empowerment,” they surmised that the 
GFPP has a lot of potential for success because “any time you can bring the triple bottom line 
thing together, that’s usually where you get a lot more traction,” [61]. This key organizer further 
noted that such a program will bring partners’ price points down using economies of scale 
because working together to address multiple issues, as with the GFPP, allows the participating 
organizations to combine financial, time, and human resources [62]. The complete list of 
environmental stakeholders that this research found to be interested in implementing the GFPP in 
Buffalo can be found in Table 2.  
 
Table 2: 
 
 
 At the same time, there was also hesitation among some environmental stakeholders, 
such as FWW, from committing to participate in the GFPP in its current form. While FWW 
shares many of the same values as the GFPP, their methods for addressing issues are completely 
different. Rather than using market mechanisms to influence change, FWW’s mission is, “to 
defend our most vital resources from corporate control and abuse and ensure that government 
does its job by fulfilling its obligation to protect our health, safety, and environment,” [63]. 
Therefore, FWW does not participate in campaigns that employ institutional purchasing power, 
because these efforts do not address government policy. As one FWW key organizer stated, 
FWW believes that “government has an obligation to protect health and safety and if something 
is good, we should make government make corporations produce or use it rather than using 
14 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
incentive to influence them,” [64]. Therefore, unless a policy component is added to the GFPP 
efforts in Buffalo, FWW will not be willing to participate in the Program’s implementation.  
 
Recommendations 
 A review of the GFPP and its successful implementation in other cities indicates that 
many of the GFPP’s environmental values and goals are similar to those of Buffalo’s 
environmental stakeholders. As such, local key organizers have expressed positive views on 
bringing the GFPP to Buffalo, and indicated that a majority of Buffalo’s environmental 
stakeholders would be willing to participate in the Program’s implementation. In order to 
increase Buffalo’s environmental stakeholders’ willingness to participate in the GFPP, the 
following recommendations are proposed: 
• Provide potential stakeholders with information regarding the GFPP’s environmental 
successes in other cities, as well as details of best practices, to prove that the Program can 
achieve its goals 
• Build as large a coalition as possible so as to maximize buy-in, as long as all participating 
stakeholders fully support the mission (although not all stakeholders need to have the 
same level of involvement) 
• Create a clear and well-functioning campaign structure with an executive committee, in 
order to facilitate communication and decision making, and to ensure that each 
stakeholder has a designated role  
• Conduct life cycle assessments of the main foods consumed at the target institution so as 
to learn which foods cause the largest environmental impacts and should be served less 
frequently  
• Discuss the possibility of decreasing animal product consumption at the target institution, 
possibly by organizing weekly menu themes such as Meatless Mondays 
• Assess the possibility of creating a facility where local farmers can aggregate their 
produce so as to reach the quantity needed by the target institution  
• Consider if the GFPP in Buffalo should include a policy component so as to remove 
existing policy barriers, such as food subsidies and contract bidding regulations, and to 
increase the willingness of other, policy-oriented environmental stakeholders to 
participate in the Program’s implementation 
15 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Conclusions  
 This report investigates institutional purchasing power as used by the Good Food 
Purchasing Program. Specifically, the Program’s value of environmental sustainability and its 
environmental successes and challenges experienced in other cities are assessed to determine if 
such an approach might be applicable to Buffalo. Despite the difference in campaign methods, 
the GFPP’s values and goals are found to be similar to those of Buffalo’s environmental 
stakeholders. In addition, the GFPP’s environmental successes relate to issues of particular 
concern to Buffalo, such as water quality and the connections between the environment and 
social justice. Therefore, this analysis, including interviews with key local organizers, indicates 
that a majority of local environmental stakeholders would be willing to try and implement the 
GFPP in Buffalo.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
References: 
 
1. Who We Are (2016).   Retrieved from http://goodfoodcities.org/about/ 
 
2. Mastny, Lisa, Thomas Prugh, and Institute Worldwatch. 2003. Purchasing power: harnessing institutional 
procurement for people and the planet. Vol. 166. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute. 
 
3. Mastny, Lisa, Thomas Prugh, and Institute Worldwatch. 2003. Purchasing power: harnessing institutional 
procurement for people and the planet. Vol. 166. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute. 
 
4. Mastny, Lisa, Thomas Prugh, and Institute Worldwatch. 2003. Purchasing power: harnessing institutional 
procurement for people and the planet. Vol. 166. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute. 
 
5. Mastny, Lisa, Thomas Prugh, and Institute Worldwatch. 2003. Purchasing power: harnessing institutional 
procurement for people and the planet. Vol. 166. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute. 
 
6. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
7. Pullman, Madeleine, and Robin Wikoff. 2017. "Institutional sustainable purchasing priorities: Stakeholder 
perceptions vs environmental reality."  International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37 
(2):162-181. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0348. 
 
8. Raleigh, Michael. 2010. Urban Farming in Buffalo: Economic Development and Climate Change Strategy. 
Partnership for the Public Good  
 
9. Pullman, Madeleine, and Robin Wikoff. 2017. "Institutional sustainable purchasing priorities: Stakeholder 
perceptions vs environmental reality."  International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37 
(2):162-181. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0348. 
 
10. Pullman, Madeleine, and Robin Wikoff. 2017. "Institutional sustainable purchasing priorities: Stakeholder 
perceptions vs environmental reality."  International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37 
(2):162-181. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0348 
11. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
12. Pullman, Madeleine, and Robin Wikoff. 2017. "Institutional sustainable purchasing priorities: Stakeholder 
perceptions vs environmental reality."  International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37 
(2):162-181. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0348. 
 
13. 2015. "About the WNYEA." Western New York Environmental Alliance accessed April 4. 
http://www.growwny.org/wnyea/. 
 
14. 2015. "About the WNYEA." Western New York Environmental Alliance accessed April 4. 
http://www.growwny.org/wnyea/. 
 
15. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
16. 2016. "Who We Are ". Good Food Purchasing Program, accessed April 4. 
http://goodfoodcities.org/about/. 
 
17 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
17. 2016. "Who We Are ". Good Food Purchasing Program, accessed April 4. 
http://goodfoodcities.org/about/. 
 
18. 2016. "Who We Are ". Good Food Purchasing Program, accessed April 4. 
http://goodfoodcities.org/about/. 
 
19. 2016. "Who We Are ". Good Food Purchasing Program, accessed April 4. 
http://goodfoodcities.org/about/. 
 
20. 2016. "Who We Are ". Good Food Purchasing Program, accessed April 4. 
http://goodfoodcities.org/about/. 
 
21. Who We Are (2016).   Retrieved from http://goodfoodcities.org/about/ 
 
22. Who We Are (2016).   Retrieved from http://goodfoodcities.org/about/ 
 
23. 2015. "About the WNYEA." Western New York Environmental Alliance accessed April 4. 
http://www.growwny.org/wnyea/. 
 
24. "Grassroots Gardens WNY." Grassroots Gardens WNY accessed April 7. 
http://www.grassrootsgardens.org/. 
 
25. "About Us." PUSH Buffalo, accessed April 7. http://pushbuffalo.org/about-us. 
 
26. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
27. 2016. "Who We Are ". Good Food Purchasing Program, accessed April 4. 
http://goodfoodcities.org/about/. 
 
28. 2015. "About the WNYEA." Western New York Environmental Alliance accessed April 4. 
http://www.growwny.org/wnyea/. 
 
29. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
30. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
31. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
32. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
33. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
34. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
35. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
36. Wong, Kristine. 2017. "Less Meat, Better Food, Happier Kids: Oakland Unified Reinvents its School 
Lunch." Civil Eats. http://goodfoodcities.org/less-meat-better-food-happier-kids-oakland-
unified-reinvents-its-school-lunch/. 
 
18 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
37. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
38. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
39. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
40. Stephens, Alexis. 2016. "Tracking the Ripple Effects of LA's Good Food Purchasing Program." Policy 
Link. http://goodfoodcities.org/tracking-the-ripple-effects-of-las-good-food-purchasing-
program/. 
 
41. Stephens, Alexis. 2016. "Tracking the Ripple Effects of LA's Good Food Purchasing Program." Policy 
Link. http://goodfoodcities.org/tracking-the-ripple-effects-of-las-good-food-purchasing-
program/. 
 
42. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
43. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
44. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
45. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
46. Key organizer at Partnership for the Public Good, Personal Communications, April 28, 2017. 
 
47. Pullman, Madeleine, and Robin Wikoff. 2017. "Institutional sustainable purchasing priorities: Stakeholder 
perceptions vs environmental reality."  International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37 
(2):162-181. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2014-0348. 
 
48. Kari Hamerschlag, Julian Kraus-Polk. 2017. Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for 
Combatting Climate Change, A Pilot Study of Oakland Unified School District's Food Programs. Friends 
of the Earth. 
 
49. Key organizer at Partnership for the Public Good, Personal Communications, April 28, 2017. 
 
50. Key organizer at Partnership for the Public Good, Personal Communications, April 28, 2017. 
 
51. Moriarty, Kathleen. Localization in Buffalo. Partnership for the Public Good  
 
52. Key organizer at Partnership for the Public Good, Personal Communications, April 28, 2017. 
 
53. Key organizer at Partnership for the Public Good, Personal Communications, April 28, 2017. 
 
19 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
54. Good, Partnership for the Public. 2017. "About Us." Partnership for the Public Good, accessed April 4. 
https://ppgbuffalo.org/who-we-are/overview/. 
 
55. Key organizer at Partnership for the Public Good, Personal Communications, April 28, 2017. 
 
56. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
57. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
58. Key organizer at Partnership for the Public Good, Personal Communications, April 28, 2017. 
 
59. Buffalo, Open. 2017. "Crossroads Collective ". Open Buffalo, accessed April 4. 
https://openbuffalo.org/issues/issue:crossroads-collective/. 
 
60. Key organizer at Partnership for the Public Good, Personal Communications, April 28, 2017. 
 
61. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
62. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
63. Key organizer at the University at Buffalo, Personal Communications, May 3, 2017. 
 
64. Key organizer at Food and Water Watch, Personal Communications, April 26, 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Appendix A 
Email Sent to Potential Interviewees 
Dear _____, 
My name is Jessica Gilbert, and I am a Geography Ph.D. student at the University at 
Buffalo. I am currently doing a research project focusing on the potential of bringing the Good 
Food Purchasing Program (GFPP) to Buffalo. The GFPP is a program co-run by the Center for 
Good Food Purchasing and the Food Chain Workers Alliance that seeks to transform the way 
public institutions purchase food by creating a transparent and equitable food system built on 
five core values: strengthening local economies, increasing the intake of nutritious food, 
improving workforce conditions, encouraging humane treatment of animals, and fostering 
environmental sustainability. The GFPP is the first procurement model in the country to support 
these food system values in equal measure and provides a flexible framework in developing a 
values-based supply chain that works in tandem with existing efforts to expand good food in the 
region. Specifically, I am trying to understand the potential interests, benefits, and deterrents that 
the GFPP in Buffalo could pose to local environmentally-focused organizations and 
stakeholders. 
  Because your organization is such an important leader in addressing local environmental 
issues, I would like to gather your input regarding the GFPP and the environmental opportunities 
and challenges that the program could bring to Buffalo. In addition, it would be valuable to learn 
if and how your organization integrates food system considerations into your environmental 
programming, as well as if you see this program’s environmental values and goals aligning with 
those of your organization. Would you be willing to let me call and interview you about these 
topics? This would only take about 30-45 minutes of your time, and your views would benefit 
this research immensely. 
  Thank you so much for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you! 
All the best, 
Jessica Gilbert  
 
 
 
 
21 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Interview Questionnaire 
1) Can you tell me a little about yourself, your role here at [insert organization name] and 
your involvement in food work in the City of Buffalo/Erie County?  
2) How does your organization integrate food system considerations into the environmental 
programming that they do?  
a. Probing questions  
b. Do they know what a food system is? 
3) How important are food system considerations in the work that the [organization] does? 
4) Can you share examples of projects undertaken by [insert name of organization] where 
food system impacts and benefits were considered? 
5) What is your organization’s involvement with institutional food purchasing? 
a. Do they know what institutional purchasing is? 
6) What are some environmental impacts of institutional purchasing programs – either 
directly or tangentially? 
Probes: 
a. Carbon footprint 
b. Waste 
c. Sustainable practices 
d. Clean air; clean water 
e. Etc [add more appropriate probes] 
7) Before I contacted you, had you heard of the Good Food Purchasing Program? 
a. What is your understanding of this program? (Would you like me to explain more 
about it?) 
8) Do you consider any of the GFPP’s values, particularly that of environmental 
sustainability as overlapping with the values of your organization?  
a. Which ones? 
b. How do they define environmental sustainability? 
9) Are there any values that your organization has that you do not believe are included in the 
GFPP?  
a. Which ones?  
b. Are these values important, and should they be included? 
22 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
10) What do you think some of the environmental opportunities might be with this type of 
institutional food purchasing program?  
a. In general, and in relation to organizations like yours? 
11) What do you see as some of the environmental challenges that this type of program might 
present? 
a. In general, and in relation to organizations like yours? 
12) Do you see GFPP as potentially benefiting organizations like yours? 
a. As being detrimental?  
13) How motivated would [organization name] be to sign onto the GFFP coalition? 
14) What resources would be useful to [name organization] to: 
a. Get a better sense of the GFPP? 
b. Learn more about the level of engagement that organizations like yours might 
have in this program? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Appendix B:  
Buffalo’s Coalitions (referenced in this report): Partners and Members  
 
Partnership for ¡Buen Vivir! Gallery for Contemporary Art King Center Charter School 
the Public Good 2-1-1 WNY Lakeview on the Park and Family Homes 
ACCESS of WNY Lancaster-Depew FCU 
Adults Loving Intentionally LaSalle Development, LLC 
Affordable Housing Clinic, UB Law School Latin American Cultural Association (El Buen 
African Cultural Renaissance Program Amigo) 
Allentown Association, Inc. Leadership Buffalo 
Amalgamated Transit Union 1342 Learning Disabilities Association of WNY 
Artfarms Buffalo Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo 
Arts Services Initiative of WNY Legal Services for the Elderly, Disabled or 
Back to Basics Ministries Disadvantaged of WNY, Inc. 
Bak USA LegalShield/IDShield 
BCAT Liberty Partnerships 
Belmont Housing Resources for WNY Lipsitz & Ponterio 
Boys and Girls Clubs of Buffalo Literacy New York Buffalo-Niagara 
BreadHive Worker Cooperative Little Portion Friary 
Breast Cancer Network of WNY, Inc. Maritime Charter School, Ships Ahoy Sailing 
Buffalo Adjunct Movement School 
Buffalo and Erie County Botanical Gardens Martha Mitchell Community Center 
Buffalo Architecture Foundation Massachusetts Avenue Project 
Buffalo Arts Studio Masten Block Club Coalition 
Buffalo Cannabis Movement Matt Urban H.O.P.E. Center 
Buffalo City Mission McCullagh Coffee 
Buffalo Federation of Neighborhood Centers Metro CDC Delavan Grider Community 
Buffalo First! Center 
Buffalo Green Power Morlock Foundation Inc. 
Buffalo Heritage Carousel Mothers of Those in Crisis 
Buffalo Human Rights Center Mulberry Street and Friends Block Club 
Buffalo Niagara RiverKeeper National Lawyers Guild (Buffalo Chapter) 
Buffalo Olmstead Park Conservancy Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church 
Buffalo Parent Teacher Organzation Neighborhood Health Center 
Buffalo Peacemakers Neighborhood Preservation Coalition of NYS 
Buffalo Prenatal Perinatal Network Neighbors and Friends Fight for Justice at 
Buffalo Recycling Alliance 1001 East Delavan 
Buffalo ReformED Net Positive Inc. (The Foundry) 
Buffalo ReUse Network of Religious Communities 
Buffalo String Works New York Sustainable Agriculture Working 
Buffalo Tenant Advocacy Group Group 
Buffalo Urban League Nickel City Housing Cooperative 
Buffalo West Side Environmental Defense Fund No Labels Clothing Cooperative 
Burchfield Penney Art Center None Like You, We Care Outreach 
Burmese Community Services, Inc. Northeast Kidney Foundation 
Burmese Community Support Center Olmstead Center for Sight & 2-1-1 WNY 
Campaign for Alternatives to Isolated Confinement, Open Buffalo 
WNY Chapter Orchard Community Initiative (OCI) 
Canadiana Preservation Society P2 Collaborative of WNY 
Canopy of Neighbors Peace of the City Ministries 
Catholic Charities of Buffalo Peaceprints of WNY 
CCNY, Inc. Presbytery of Western New York 
Center for Employment Opportunities Preservation Buffalo Niagara 
Center for Reinventing Government Pride Center of Western New York 
Center for Self Advocacy Prisoners are People Too 
Center for Sustainable Communities and Civic Project Slumlord 
Engagement, Daemen College Public Accountability Initiative 
Center for Urban Studies, SUNY Buffalo PUSH Buffalo 
CEPA Gallery Rental Registry Task Force 
Respiratory and Environmental Consultants 
24 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Church of the Nativity UCC - Community Restore Our Community Coalition, Inc 
Outreach Committee ReUse Action 
Citizen Action Rosetta Ward Foundation 
Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County Say Yes Buffalo 
Citizens for a 21st Century Park on the Outer Sierra Club Niagara Group 
Harbor Signity Financial 
Citizens for Regional Transit Sisters of Social Service 
Citybration Social Justice Committee - St. Joseph's 
Civil Service Employees Association Local 003 University Parish 
Clean Air Coalition Squeaky Wheel 
Coalition for Economic Justice Stop the Violence Coalition 
Coalition of Positively Charged People Subversive Theater Collective 
Columbus Park Association Sugar City 
Communications Workers of America, District 1, SUNY ATTAIN Lab @ Niagara Falls 
AFL-CIO Housing Authority 
Communications Workers of America, Local 1168 SUNY Buffalo State Center for Excellence in 
Communications Workers of America, Mercy Urban and Rural Education 
United 1133 Sustainable Earth Solutions 
Community Action Organization of Erie County T Batchelor Geriatric Advisory Group 
Community Economic Development Clinic, UB Tapestry Charter School 
Law School Teaching and Restoring Youth (TRY) 
Community Foundation of Buffalo Teens In Progress 
Community Health Worker Network of Buffalo The Belle Center 
Contractor Training Coalition, Inc. The Parent Network of WNY 
Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Erie The Service Collaborative of WNY 
County The Writer's Den 
Cornell University ILR School - Buffalo Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National 
Creating Assets, Savings & Hope (CASH) Historic Site 
Creighton, Johnsen & Giroux Thrive Media Group 
Curtis Urban Farm Foundation True Bethel Baptist Church 
Dance Days of Buffalo UB Humanities Institute 
Disability Education and Advocacy Network UB Institute for Research and Education on 
(DEAN) Women and Gender 
District Parent Coordinating Council UB SSW Immigrant and Refugee Research 
Dopeness Project Institute 
DTW Landscaping & Snow Removal Ujima Company, Inc. 
ECBA Volunteer Lawyers Project United Auto Workers - WNY CAP Council 
Educators for a Better Buffalo Region 9 
El Museo United Partners for Public Education 
Elmwood Avenue Festival of the Arts United Steel Workers District 4 
Emerging Leaders in the Arts Buffalo (ELAB) United Way of Buffalo & Erie County 
Erie County Prisoners' Rights Coalition Unity Fellowship Church 
Erie County Reentry Taskforce Univera Healthcare 
Erie County Restorative Justice Coalition University District Community Development 
Erie County Youth Bureau Association 
Fargo Estate Neighborhood Association Upstate New York Transplant Services 
Fargo House/Assembly House 150 Urban Community Corporation 
FedGreen Urban Roots Community Garden Cooperative, 
First Presbyterian Church Inc. 
FLARE (Filmore-Leroy Area Residents, Inc.) Utica Heights Block Club 
Food Bank of WNY Vision Niagara 
For Our Daughters Inc. VOCAL-NY 
Friends of the Night People VOICE Buffalo 
Fruit Belt United, Inc. WASH Project 
Fruit Belt/McCarley Gardens Housing Task Force Wellness Institute of Greater Buffalo and 
FruitBelt Coalition, Inc. Western New York 
Gerard Place Housing Development Fund West Side Community Collaborative 
Company, Inc. West Side Community Services 
Global Justice Ecology Project West Side Neighborhood Housing Services 
GO Bike Buffalo Western New York Area Labor Federation 
Goodwill Industries of WNY Western New York Apollo Alliance 
Grassroots Gardens Western New York Coalition for the Homeless 
25 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Greater Buffalo Cultural Alliance Western New York Council on Occupational 
Greater Eastside Fields of Dreams Block Safety and Health 
Association Western New York Independent Living 
Greater Royal Worship Center Western New York Land Conservancy 
Greater Works Christian Fellowship Western New York Law Center 
Green Gold Development Corporation Western New York Peace Center 
Groundwork Buffalo Western New York Peer Networking Group 
Habitat for Humanity - Buffalo Western New York Sustainable Energy 
Hallwalls Contemporary Art Center Association 
Harvest House Western New York Veterans Housing 
Heal Thy Biz Online Coalition Inc. 
Heart of the City Neighborhoods, Inc. Western New York Women's Foundation 
Helping Empower At-Risk Teens (HEART Westminster Economic Development 
Foundation) Initiative (WEDI) 
Helping Families and Children of America Inc Westminster's Adult Ministry 
Hispanic Heritage Council of WNY, Inc. Westminster's Partnering Ministry 
Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. White Bicycle 
Homeless Alliance of Western New York Women Against Violence Everywhere 
Houghton College Buffalo (W.A.V.E.) 
Housing Opportunities Made Equal (H.O.M.E.) Women, Children, and Social Justice Clinic, 
Imani S&L Virtual Services, LLC UB Law School 
Independent Health Foundation Workforce Development Institute - Western 
International Institute of Buffalo Region 
IRAQI American Society Working Families Party - WNY Chapter 
It Takes a Village Action Organization WUFO Mix 1080 AM 
Jericho Road Community Health Center Young Audiences of Western New York 
Jewish Family Services Young Citizens for ECC 
John R. Oishei Foundation YWCA of WNY 
Journey's End Refugee Services, Inc. 
Junior League of Buffalo 
Jurisdiction Wide Resident Council (BMHA) 
Just Buffalo Literary Center 
Crossroads African Heritage Food Co-op Public Accountability Initiative 
Collective  Coalition for Economic Justice PUSH Buffalo 
Open Buffalo Ujima Company 
Massachusetts Avenue Project  WASH Project 
Partnership for the Public Good 
Western New AWARE (Association for Wild Animal League of Women Voters of Chautauqua 
York Rehabilitation and Education) County 
Environmental Adirondack Mountain Club Niagara Frontier Little Lake George, Inc. Chapter Lt. Col. Matt Urban Human Services Center of 
Alliance  Alliance for the Great Lakes WNY 
Alpha Kappa Chi Massachusetts Avenue Project 
Beyond Waste WNY Nature Ed-Ventures 
Buffalo Audubon Society NY-GEO (New York Geothermal Energy 
Buffalo CarShare Organization) 
Buffalo First New York State Outdoor Education 
Buffalo Institute of Urban Ecology, Inc. Association 
Buffalo Local Initiatives Support Corp. New York Sustainable Agriculture Working 
Buffalo Museum of Science Group 
Buffalo Niagara RIVERKEEPER Niagara County Community College 
Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy Horticulture Program 
Buffalo Ornithological Society Niagara Gateway Columbus Park Association 
Buffalo Recycling Alliance Niagara Share 
Buffalo ReUSE Niagara University: ReNU Niagara 
Buffalo Urban Outdoor Education Foundation Nickel City Housing Cooperative 
Buffalo’s Young Preservationists Nurse Rise ~ Nurses for Safe Water 
Center for Environmental Initiatives Partnership for the Public Good 
Chautauqua Citizens Respond to Climate Crisis Penn Dixie Paleontological & Outdoor 
Chautauqua Watershed Conservancy Education Center 
Citizens Campaign for the Environment Pfeiffer Nature Center 
Citizen’s Environmental Coalition POWR Protecting Our Water Rights 
26 
 
Jessica Gilbert URP 604 Assignment 2 
Citizens for Regional Transit PUSH Buffalo 
Clean Air Coalition of WNY Residents for Responsible Government 
Clean Production Action Re-Tree WNY 
Coalition for Economic Justice Roger Tory Peterson Institute of Natural 
Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes History 
Community Action Organization of Erie County, Sail Buffalo 
Inc. Sierra Club, Niagara Group 
Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo SOLE of Buffalo 
Community Power for Health and Justice SUNY Fredonia Campus Climate Challenge 
Concerned Residents of Portland, NY + People SUNY Fredonia Sustainability Committee 
Like Us (Crop Plus) The Elmwood Avenue Festival of the Arts 
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Chautauqua The Food Bank of WNY 
County The Great Lakes Experience 
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Niagara County The Learning Sustainability Campaign 
Daemen College Center for Sustainable The Nature Conservancy of Central & WNY 
Communities and Civic Engagement The Paleontological Research Institution & its 
Design to Live Sustainably Museum of the Earth 
Engineers for a Sustainable World – University at The Service Collaborative of WNY 
Buffalo Chapter The Worker Institute at Cornell 
Environmental Justice Action Group of WNY Tobacco-Free Erie-Niagara 
Environmental Network Tonawanda Creek Watershed Committee 
Family Environmental Health Resources U.S. Green Building Council – New York 
Field & Fork Network Upstate Chapter 
Fillmore Corridor Neighborhood Coalition UB Sustainability 
Friends of Reinstein Nature Preserve, Inc. University Heights Collaborative 
Friends of Times Beach Nature Preserve Wellness Institute of Greater Buffalo 
Food Bank of WNY WNY Apollo Alliance 
Forest Lawn WNY Land Conservancy 
Global Justice Ecology Project WNY Peace Center 
Grassroots Gardens of Buffalo WNY Sustainable Energy Association 
Green Buffalo Runner (WNYSEA) 
Green Gold Development Corp. Wild Kritters of Niagara County 
Green Options Buffalo Wild Spirit Education 
GreenWorks Buffalo Niagara Wind Action Group 
Groundwork Buffalo WNY Drilling Defense 
Hawk Creek Wildlife Center, Inc. WNY Earth Day Committee 
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities Buffalo Workforce Development Institute Western 
Jamestown Audubon Society, Inc. Region 
Keep Western New York Beautiful World on Your Plate 
Keep Westwood Green 21st Century Park on the Outer Harbor Inc. 
League of Women Voters of Buffalo Niagara 
(LWVBN) 
 
 
27