phd proposal presentation
TRANSCRIPT
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?