An evaluation and comparison of the productivity and social value of community and home food gardens

Confirmation of candidature oral presentation by Georgia Pollard

Introduction

Urban agriculture (UA) is: any form and scale of food production within the urban and peri-urban boundaries of a town or city.

Past research has tended to focus on the social and health aspects of UA1, 2, 3, while being heavily slanted towards community gardens over home food gardens 4, 5, 6 .

Home food gardens remain difficult to study due to their dispersion, the variety of growing styles and methods, and their placement on private property 8, 9.

1. Bazzano et al. 2002; 2. Bellows et al. 2003; 3. Block et al. 2012; 4. Golden 2013; 5. Gray et al. 2014; 6. Kortright & Wakefield 2011; 7. Wise et al. 2014; 8. Conway & Brannen 2014; 9. Taylor & Lovell 2013.

Local Councils and the NRM Board are currently interested in UA for a number of reasons.

An extensive search for existing UA yield studies based on developed countries revealed the following:

C o m m u n i t y a n d M a r k e t G a r d e n S t u d i e s

Year published Author/s name/s Study

LocationNo. of gardens

Duration of data collection

Total area Time Costs Water Weight

of yieldEconomic value

2012 Gittleman, Jordan & Brelsford

New York, USA 67 2 Years   - - -    

2012 Rabin, Zinati & Nitzche

New Jersey, USA N/A Historical and

current data. N/A - - -   -

2010 Vitiello, Nairn, Grisso & Swistak

New Jersey, USA 48 1 summer season   - - -    

H o m e F o o d G a r d e n S t u d i e s

Year published Author/s name/s Study

LocationNo. of gardens

Duration of data collection

Total area Time Costs Water Weight

of yieldEconomic value

2014 Codyre, Fraser & Landman

Guelph, Canada 50 1 year       -    

2014 Zainuddin & Mercer

Melbourne, AUS 15 3 months   - - -   -

1985 Cleveland, Orum and Ferguson

Arizona, USA 2 3 years            

2011 Eliades Melbourne, AUS 1 4 years    -  - -   - 

2009 Doiron Maine, USA 1 1 year excluding winter    - Not all -    

Production Capacity Studies

Citizen ScienceCitizen science is defined by Louv et al. (2012) as, “public participation in organised research efforts”.

Suitability & Previous UseSuitable for large geographic areas, hard to access places and for combined social and ecological systems 10, 11, 12.

Gittleman et al. (2014) used a citizen science approach in their yield study on community gardens.

10. Cooper et al. 2007; 11. Louv et al. 2012; 12. Williams et al. 2014

How can we survey home food gardens?

The Social Values of UA

Elements of the social value of UA that require further exploration include:

Social capitalDefined by Martin et al in 2004 as, “a measure of trust, reciprocity

and social networks”.Social capital has been positively associated with decreased risk of

hunger22 and negatively associated with food insecurity23.

Food preservation

Is not commonly explored from a social science perspective and can be both an emotional and a practical process19. Is one way to handle

‘gluts’ of crops20, 21.

Food sharing / donation / distribution

Although found to be a low motivator for food gardeners in a few studies22, 23 in others excess food was purposely grown to share and

maintain social relationships6, 20.

13. Bastian & Coveney 2012; 14. Bendt et al. 2013; 15. Seyfang 2006; 16. Turner 2011; 17. DeLind 2002; 18. Alaimo et al. 2008; 1. Bazzano et al 2002; 3. Block et al. 2012; 19. Click & Ridberg 2010; 20. Vitiello et al. 2010; 21. Zainuddin & Mercer 2014; 22. Martin et al. 2004; 23. Walker et al 2007.

UA research has looked at how participation in UA can: Help people achieve greater food security and reconnect people

with their food systems13,14,15, 16. Assist mental and physical wellbeing16,17. Encourage positive dietary change18, 1. Be a useful tool for education of students and other community

groups14, 3.

Project Aim

To evaluate and compare the production capabilities and social value, of community and home food gardens.

Project Objectives

1. Collect Adelaide based, input and yield data for community and home food gardens (water usage measured using a tap water flow meter and yield measured with a spring balance).

2. Analyse different gardening practises used by participants according to their inputs and yield, for example conventional gardening, organic methods, permaculture, wicking beds etc.

3. Explore the motivations and perceived worth or value of food gardening in Adelaide.

4. Compare the inputs, yields, social capital and produce distribution of home and community style gardening.

Methods & Ethics

Recruitment

Deploy toolkits

Main synthesis

Individual reports

Thesis

1. PRE-SURVEY

3. GARDEN DATA COLLECTION

2. FOCUS GROUPS

4. POST-SURVEY

Assemble toolkits

Public reporting

Contribution to ObjectivesSummary of Relationship of Research Tools to Objectives

Objective Pre-surveyFocus

Groups

Quantitative

studyPost-survey

1A What are the inputs?      

1B Study yield vs. previous yield      

1C Adequate net value?      

2 Differences between gardening practises?

     

3A Motivations of Adelaide gardeners

     

3B Perceived benefits and value      

3C Challenges to ongoing involvement

   

4A Strengths and weaknesses

4B Social capital levels

4C Produce distribution

4D Estimates vs. actual inputs and yields

Phase 1: Pre-survey and Analysis

Questions will include: Motivations for and value of food gardening Estimates of time, money, water and yield Social capital Demographics

Will use a combination of purposive, snow-ball and self-selection. Estimate between 400 – 600 food gardeners taking the online survey.

Stratified sampling will be applied according to participant’s experience, average time spent or average money spent on their food gardens.

Six focus group sessions of six-twelve people in each, and no longer than 45 – 60 minutes.

Will use a topic guide to explore values, experiences, current satisfaction with ability to grow food, food preservation and food distribution activities.

Sessions audio recorded and will have notes taken.Source: Adapted from material in Green et al. (2007), Krueger & Casey (2002) and Richards and Morse (2012).

Immersion

• Accounts for research context• A combination of reading and listening

Coding

• Sorting and tagging data• Code meanings are refined and revisited• Broach topic coding can test initial ideas

Considering

• Linking codes to create coherent categories to look for underlying reasons

ID Themes

• Explaining the interpretation of issue tested• Determines the extent study is generalisable to other

situations

Phase 2: Focus Groups (FG) and Analysis

Will use a combination of self-selection and disproportionate stratified sampling according to whether participants are home food gardeners or community gardeners.

Year published Author/s name/s Study

LocationNo. of gardens

Duration of data collection

Total area Time Costs Water Weight

of yieldEconomic value

H om e   F o o d   G a r d e n   S t u d i e s

2014 Codyre, Fraser & Landman

Guelph, Canada 50 1 year

     -

   

2014 Zainuddin & Mercer

Melbourne, AUS 15 3 months

 - - -

 -

1985 Cleveland, Orum and Ferguson

Arizona, USA 2 3 years

           

C o m m u n i t y   a n d   M a r k e t   G a r d e n   S t u d i e s

2012 Gittleman, Jordan & Brelsford

New York, USA 67 2 Years   - - -    

2012 Rabin, Zinati & Nitzche

New Jersey, USA N/A Historical and

current data. N/A - - -   -

2010 Vitiello, Nairn, Grisso & Swistak

New Jersey, USA 48 1 summer season   - - -    

T h i s   P r o p o s e d   R e s e a r c h :   P h a s e   2

Includes both community and home food gardens. Will also collect secondary nutritional data and information on gardening practices.

Adelaide, AUS 160 18 months

Phase 3: Quantitative Data Collection

The Data Collection Toolkits A welcome and introduction to the study Toolkit instructions (complete with examples) Customised worksheets A clipboard with a pencil attached with string 1 Spring balance However many tap water flow meters they require Study contact information

Phase 3: Preparation

Phase 3: The Process

Participants nominate the length of time they are prepared to contribute, how many garden areas they wish to collect data for and how those areas are watered.

They are then posted a customised Data Collection Toolkit to assist them in collecting data on the time, water use, costs, yield and any food sharing or distribution.

Emailed reminders will be sent once a month, to encourage people to submit their data online.

Analysis and Dissemination of Results

Primary Data (collected by participants) Aggregate area under crop Seasonal or annual yield of each crop in kilograms Water use in kilolitres (or litres) Time spent on food garden related activities Food garden related expenses Information on gardening practises

Secondary Data (collected by research team) Seasonal or annual retail worth of yield in $AUS Calculate kilojoules of energy per crop and then as a total Calculate grams of protein per crop and then as a total

Two sources of data:Garden data: Water Expenses Time Weight of yields

individual crops and totals

Kilojoules of energy per crop and as a total

Grams of protein per crop and as a total

The retail worth of the yield

Assessed per square metre

Phase 4: Post-survey and Analysis

Completed by participants who engaged in a focus group and/or the quantitative study.

Includes a large portion of questions from pre-survey to allow for comparison with additional questions on whether the participants believe that their involvement has or has not impacted the way they grow food.

Is how we can attempt to identify the impact this research has on participants.

Item / Activity Individual Cost

No. of Items Total Cost

Water meter testing $167 Testing 3 kinds $500

IT development (webpage design and maintenance)

$5,000 1 $5,000

Printed paper surveys and postage $10 5 $50

Data collection toolkits for Phase 2.- printed instructions and worksheets ($2)- clipboard with pencil attached ($2.5 – $4)- spring balance ($7)- tap water meter ($20 – $30)

$32 - $43 (1 water meter)

$52 - $73 (2 water meters)

$72 - $103(3 water meters)

210 toolkits $8,400 - $11,551

Food for focus groups $60 6 sessions $360

NVivo analysis software - UniSA license

$120 3 years $360

Contingency $2,000 1 $2,000

Estimated total cost: $16,670 - $19,821

Total funding secured through the Discovery Circle: $20,000

Of the 210 participants:

- 65% (137 of them) may only require 1 water meter.

- 30% (63 of them) may require 2 water meters.

- 5% (10 of them) may require 3 water meters.

Budget

Timetable

Any Questions?