naheeno park community garden research project...

NaheenoParkCommunityGardenResearchProject

FINALREPORT

Preparedfor:SFUCommunityTrust130-8960UniversityHighStBurnaby,BCPreparedby:SarahBeerB.A.Master’sCandidateUrbanStudiesProgramHarbourCentre2100Vancouver,BC

I. BACKGROUNDINFORMATION

OneofthefirstcommunitygardensonBurnabyMountainandSFUCampuswasestablishedintheearly1970swithintheboundariesofNaheenoPark(SeeFigure1).NaheenoParkCommunityGarden(NPCG)islocatedonSimonFraserUniversitylandandhasatotalof94individualgardenplots(SeeFigure2).1Thegardenwasfoundedbystudentswhowerededicatedtocommunity-ledgrassrootsdevelopmentandcontinuestooperateasacommunitygarden.

Currently,theSFUCommunityAssociation(SFUCA)islicensedtooperate,manage,andmaintaintheNPCGsinceFebruary2016.InpartnershipwiththeSFUCA,theSFUCommunityTrust(theTrust)isassistingwiththecoordinationofgardenmaintenanceandadministrativedutiesassociatedwiththeNPCG(SeeFigure3:AdescriptionofhowSFUorganizationsassistwiththeoperationalmanagementoftheNPCG).

Figure1:LocationofNaheenoParkCommunityGarden

Figure2:MapofNaheenoParkCommunityGarden

1TheNaheenoParkCommunityGarden:LicenseAgreementstatesthat“SFUistheregisteredownerofthoselandslegallydescribedasParcelIdentifierNumber:025-571-117…”.

Inapproximatelythreeyears,theTrustwillnotbeabletocontinuetoprovideadministrativeandoperationalsupporttotheNPCG:theTrustwillbeclosingoperationsbytheyearof2021.Also,theLicenseAgreementbetweenSFU,SFUCA,SimonFraserSustainabilityAssociation,andSFUCommunityCorporationwillendintheyearof2019.Consideringtheseimpendingorganizationalchanges,andwithdirectionfromtheTruststaff,IdevelopedaresearchprojectonhowtheNPCGcurrentlyoperatesinordertoprovideinformationandrecommendationstoinformfuturedecisionspertainingtothecommunitygarden.

Figure3:NPCGOperationalStructure

II. RESEARCHOBJECTIVES

Thefollowingobjectivesguidedtheresearchproject:

Objective1-ToidentifypreferentialoptionspertainingtoappropriateleadershipandoperatingstructurefortheNPCG

Objective2-Toidentifythebenefits,challenges,priorities,andoperationalneedsidentifiedbycommunitygardenersandassociatedcommunityorganizations

Objective1wasdevelopedtoidentifyanappropriateorganizationtotakeontheoperationalresponsibilitiesoftheNPCG.Objective2wasincludedintheresearchwiththeunderstandingthatthereisagapinavailableinformationpertainingtothecurrentoperationalexperiencesofgardenersandSFUorganizations.TheoverarchinggoalofthisresearchprojectistocollectinformationandshowcaseresearchfindingsthatwillprovideabetterunderstandinghowtheSFUCommunityTrust,inpartnershipwithgardenersandconnectedentities,couldproceedwithplanningfutureoperationalchanges.

• SFUCommunityTrust- In-KindContributionofServices

•SFUFacilitiesServices- In-KindContributionofServices

•SFUCommunityAssociation•NaheenoPark

CommunityGardeners

GardenMaintenanceWasteManagement

CultivationHarvesting

Organization,Coordination&DecisionMaking

AdherancetotheLicenseAgreement

GeneralAdministration&FinancialManagement

WasteRemoval&WaterProvision

III. METHODOLOGY

TheNaheenoParkCommunityGardenResearchProjectwasimplementedduringthemonthofJuly2017andfinalizedbythemiddleofSeptember2017.Theresearchmethodologyconsistedofthefollowing:

• DocumentaryReview

Areviewofkeydocumentswasconductedpertainingtoproposals,SFUagreementsandpolicies,communitygardenresourcesinreferencetothemesofcommunitygardenmanagementandoperationalstructures.Thefollowingkeydocumentswerereviewed:

SFU,CityofBurnaby,andNPCGDocuments

1. NaheenoParkCommunityGardenGeneralInformation2. NaheenoParkCommunityGardenHandbook&Policies3. NaheenoParkCommunityGardenLicenseAgreement4. NaheenoParkCommunityGarden2017Budget5. NaheenoParkCommunityGarden:SiteRedevelopmentProposal20176. SustainableSFUGardenersSurvey&DialogueReport7. EmailsfromNaheenoParkGardenersduringtheyearof2015

CommunityGardenOperationalResources

8. TheBaragaHandbook:Bylaws,PoliciesandProceduresoftheBurnabyandRegionAllotmentGardensAssociation

9. BurnabyFoodFirst:LocalFoodSecurity10. CanYouDigIt:

a) DescriptionofGardenCommitteesb) BenefitsofCommunityGardensc) AYearinaCommunityGardend) Troubleshootinge) 10AwesomeTipsforInclusiveCommunityGardening

11. CityofSurrey:HollyParkCommunityGardenGuidelinesandAgreement12. CityofVancouver:InclusiveCommunityGardens

• Walkabouts

Onthreeoccasions,IwalkedthroughtheNPCGandobservedthegardentocompareandcontrastresearchfindingswithvisiblecharacteristicsofthegarden.

• 1FocusGroupSessionwithCommunityGardeners

ApreliminaryonlinesurveywassenttotheemaillistofgardenerstodeterminetheavailabilityandwillingnessofgardenerstoattendafocusgroupsessionduringthemonthofAugust.Out95gardeners,thelargestnumberofgardenerswhowouldattendafocusgroupsessionwasonAugust23rd,2017.Intotal,5gardenersattendedthefocusgroupsession.

• Semi-StructuredInterviews

Seveninterviewswerecarriedoutwiththefollowingparticipants:

ElizabethStarr,SFUCampusPlanner-SFUFacilitiesServices/CampusPlanningJayHaynes,Grounds&Maintenance-SFUFacilitiesServices/CampusPlanningErinDaly,ExecutiveDirector-EmbarkSustainabilityPabloVimos,GardenCoordinador-EmbarkSustainabilityMichaelDenhamer,GardenCoordinator-CanYouDigItPansyHui,Manager,Communications&CommunityRelations-SFUCommunityTrustJacintSimon,DevelopmentManager-SFUCommunityTrust

• 1OnlineSurvey

Although,themajorityofgardenerswereunableornotwillingtoattendafocusgroupsession;almostallgardenerswerewillingtocompleteanonlinesurvey.Consideringthedetailedinformationreceivedfromtheothermethodsapplied,theonlinesurveywasdevelopedinordertoseekadditionalinformationandconsultthewidergardenmembership.Outofthe95gardenerswhoweresenttheNPCGOnlineSurvey,57gardeners(60%)respondedtothesurvey.

Theonlinesurveywasdesignedwithcloseendedquestions.Thismeantthatgardenershadtoselectthemostrelevantresponseprovidedwithinthesurveyandgardenerswerenotabletowritetheirownresponses.

ThefollowingindicatorswereappliedintheOnlineSurvey:

1. Gardener’slevelofsatisfactionwithNPCGoperations2. Areasofgardenoperationsthatgardenersareleastsatisfiedwith3. Thefirst,second,andthirdaspectthatgardenerswouldbegintochangeaboutthe

NPCG4. Imageswithcharacteristicsthatbestreflectgardeners’visionoftheNPCG5. NumberofgardenerswhothinkthattheNPCGneedsapaidGardenCoordinator,

comparedwiththenumberofgardenerswhoareopposed6. NumberofgardenerswhothinkthatSFUCommunityAssociation,FacilitiesServices,

Embark,ortheNPCGitselfshouldbetheorganizationalbodythattakesonNPCGoperations

7. NumberofgardenerswhothinkthattheNPCGshouldhavemultipurposegardenspaces,comparedwiththenumberofgardenerswhoareopposed

8. Numberofgardenerswhowouldliketoattendgardenworkparties,comparedwiththenumberofgardenerswhowouldnot

9. Numberofgardenerswhowouldliketorentasmallerplot(witharentalfeelessthanthecurrentgardenplotfee)thantheircurrentgardenplot

10. Numberofgardenerswillingtohavetheirgardenrentalfeesraisedupto$10,$25,$50,$100,andover$100inordertocoversomeofthecostsofimprovementstotheNPCG

IV. RESEARCHFINDINGS

NaheenoParkCommunityGardenBenefits

Focusgroupparticipantsidentifiedfivekeybenefitsandmotivationsforwhytheyparticipateinthecommunitygarden(SeeFigure4).Consideringdocumentsreviewed,thesearecommonbenefitsidentifiedbymanycommunitygardeners,aswellascommunitygardenadvocatesandmunicipalitiesinMetroVancouver.Itisimportanttonotethatthebenefitsofgardeninggobeyondgrowingfood.ThevalueoftheNPCGspacewererevealedinconversationsaboutwhyresidentsandSFUstudentscontinuetoparticipateinthecommunitygarden.

Figure4:BenefitsandmotivationsidentifiedbyNaheenoParkCommunityGardeners.

KeyOperationalChallenges

Inthefocusgroupsession,gardenersdescribeddiversechallengespertainingtoinsufficientfunding,gardendesign,animalsenteringthegarden,organizationalstructure,andgardenmaintenance.Manyofthechallengesthatgardenersacknowledgedwerealsodescribedbyinterviewees,surveyparticipants,andwithintheNaheenoParkSiteDevelopmentProposal.Inordertosummarizeresearchresults,Figure6revealskeyoperationalchallenges.

Interestingly,intheonlinesurvey,themajorityofgardeners(84%)expressedthattheyfeltsomelevelofsatisfactioninregardstohowtheNPCGcurrentlyoperates.Consideringthemanychallengesidentified,gardenersfeelgenerallysatisfiedwithoverallNPCGoperations(SeeFigure5).

Accordingtogardeners,‘GardenMaintenance’wastheleastsatisfactorydimensionofcurrentgardenoperations.However,whenaskedwhatwouldbethefirstaspectthatgardenerswouldchangeaboutNPCGoperations,gardenersdidnotspecifythattheywouldchangeaspectsofgardenmaintenance.Rather,‘improvementtothelandscapedesignofpathboundariestopromoteaccessibility,safety,andwalkability’wasthemostselectedoption.Subsequently,gardenerswouldchangethefollowing(indescendingorderaccordingtothemostselectedoption):

ENJOYMENTOFGARDENINGGrowingfresh,healthy,organic,andhomegrown

food.

ASPACEFORWELLBEING&

MENTALHEALTH.

CONNECTIONTO

COMMUNITY

INTERACTIONWITHNATURE

LEISURE&RECREATION

1. Improvementtothelandscapedesignofpathboundariestopromoteaccessibility,safety,andwalkability

2. Increasesunexposureofgardenplots3. Decreasethefrequencyofunusedandunmaintainedplots4. Improverainwaterdrainageandhydrologicalconditions5. Decreasethefrequencyofaccumulatedgardenmaterialsandwastewithinplots,along

pathways,andgardenareas

Thefirsttwoitems,alongwiththefourth,directlyspeaktoissuesofgardendesignandthethirdandfifthitemaddressissueofgardenmaintenanceandplotuse.

Figure5:Overall,howsatisfiedordissatisfiedareyouwithNaheenoParkCommunityGardenoperations?

Figure6:SummaryofKeyNPCGOperationalChallenges

TheVisionoftheNaheenoParkCommunityGarden

Theappearanceofthegardenwasoneofthemostdebatedtopicsinresearchfindings.Someindividualsandgroupsdiscussedhowtheywouldliketohavea“tidier”and“orderly”appearancetothegarden.Ontheotherhand,someintervieweesappreciatedthe“wild”orlessstructuredappearanceofthegarden.Ininterviews,peopleattributedalackofgardenmaintenancewiththedisorganizedoruntidyappearanceofthegarden.Thefollowingissueswerementioned:

• Diversegardeningpractices• Aneedforimprovedlandscapedesign• Lackofcommunityorganizationandparticipation

Insuffientfunding

•Lackoffinancialresourcestosupporttheprovisionofcollectivegardenservicesandresourcesandimprovedlandscapedesign.

GardenDesign•Shade:Areasofthegardenareshadedbysurroundingtreesandlacksufficientsunexposure(particularlytheSouthrow/Westside).•Pathways:Somepathwaysaretoonarrow.Somearenotmaintainedwhichaffectsmobilityandaccessibility•PlotSize:Largegroundlevelplotsarelessaccessibleforpeoplewithdisabilitiesandseniors.Largeplotsrequiremoretimecommitmentsandmaintenancethansmallplots.Currentplotssizesareinappropriateforpeoplewhoarestartingoutasgardenersorindividualswhodonowishtocommittocultivationandmaintenanceofalargeplot.•Slope:TheNPCGisonaslopedparceloflandwhichaffectssoildepthandhydrologicalcondtions.Akeyissuewhichcausesfloodinganddrainageissuesandaffectsgardeningproductivity.•PublicSpace:Multipurposegatheringspacesarenotincorporatedintodesignwhichnegatesthecommunityfromaccessingandbenefitingfromthespace.•LocationofWatertap/Hoses:Gardenerswithsouthernplotshavedifficultycarryinghosesfromtheotherendofthegarden.

Animals�Bearshaveenteredintothegardenandgardenersexpressconcernaboutsafety•Deerhavejumpedoverthefenceandconsumedgardenproduce

OrganizationalStructure•GardenCoordination:Lackoforganizedmeetings,workshops,andworkpartieswiththeparticipationofgardenersinordertofullymaintainandoperatethegardenwasakeythemeintheresearchfindings.•Governance:Lackofclarityandcommunicationintermsofrolesandresponsibilitiesofgardenersandconnectedcommunityorganizaitons.•Vision&Objectives:Thereisnoformaldocumentedvisionorobjective(s)ofthecommunitygarden.Notably,thereiscommunitydebateinregardstothefuturevisionofthecommunitygarden.

Maintenance&GardenResources•GardeningPractices:Someplotsarenotsufficientlyweededorbecomeabandonedandunusued.Also,dumpingofgardenwasteininappropriatespacesofthegardenhasbeenanotherkeyissue.•SFUFacilitiesServicesMaintenance:Gardener'sexpressedthatwaterhasbeenturnedoffduringthegardenseason.Workorderrequestshavebeenslowlyprocessedandwasteremovalhasdelayed.

Inordertoprovidesomegeneralideaofhowgardenersenvisionthelandscapeoftheircommunitygarden,themostfeasiblemethodwastoaskgardenerstoselectimagesinresponsetothequestion:WhichofthefollowingimagesdemonstratescharacteristicsthatbestreflectyourvisionfortheNPCG?Gardenerswereabletorespondtothisquestionbyselectingimages;theycouldselectasmanyimagesastheysawfit.Theresultsofselectedimagesarelistedbelowindescendingorder:startingwiththemostselectedimage.62.26%ofgardenerssaidthatcharacteristicsofImageOnereflectedtheirvisionoftheNPCG.AsopposedtoImageSix,only3.77%ofgardenersselectedthisimage.InsomesectionsoftheNPCG,ImageFivereflectsthecurrentappearanceofthegarden.Notably,ImageFivewasoneoftheleastselectedimages:13.21%(7gardeners)selectedthisimage.ImageOneImageTwo

ImageThreeImageFour

ImageFiveImageSix

Thesefindingsmaysuggestthatmostgardenerspreferagroundlevelgardenwithdefinedandweededplots,pathways,andsufficientsunlight,amongothercharacteristicsidentifiableinImageOneandTwo.Furthermore,thereshouldbefurtheranalysisoftheseimagesandwhyexactlygardenerschoseImageOnecomparedto,forexample,ImageFiveandSix.

MultipurposeGatheringSpaces

Semi-structuredinterviewsanddocumentsdiscussedthecommunitybenefitsofpublicmultipurposegatheringspacesintegratedwithincommunitygardenlandscapes.However,inthecaseoftheNPCG,researchfindingssuggestedthatthereweredeliberationsastowhethermultipurposegatheringspacesshouldbeincludedinthegardendesign.Decidedly,surveyrespondents(71.70%)statedthattheydidnotbelievethatmultipurposegatheringspaceswereappropriateintheNPCGenvironment(SeeFigure7).

Figure7:Doyouthinkthatthecommunitygardenshouldhavemultipurposegatheringspacesforpublicuse?

Thequestionofhowrespondentsconceptualizeandunderstand“multipurposegatheringspace”wasnotdeterminedinthisresearchproject;thiscouldhaveaffectedresearchresults.Furtherquestionsarisefromthesefindingssuchas:howdogardenersdefineandunderstandmultipurposegardenerspace?Whydo38respondentsopposetheinclusionofmultipurposegatheringspacewithintheNPCG?Whyare15respondentsinfavourofincludingmultipurposegatheringspacewithintheNPCG?IfthegardenersandSFUorganizationsconsiderimprovinglandscapedesignanddevelopingavisionfortheNPCG,multipurposegatheringspacesopentothewiderpublicshouldbeaprioritizedtopicfordiscussion.

PlotSize&Design

Largegardenplotsrequiregardeningskills,timecommitment,andphysicalabilityinordertomaintain,cultivate,andharvestgardens.Documentson‘inclusivegardenspaces’

revealedthatsomecommunitymembers,suchasseniors,youth,children,andpeoplewithdisabilities,mayrequirealternativegardendesigns.Forexample,raisedgardenbedswithsmalldimensionsareeasierforpeoplewithbackissuesorwhorequirewheelchairs(AnexampleofraisedgardenbedisshowninAboveSection“TheVisionoftheNaheenoParkCommunityGarden”–SeeImage6).Smallraisedbedsdonotrequiregardenerstostandorbendoverbecausetheycansitinachairandreacharoundtheirplottocultivateandweedtheirgarden.

Theonlinesurveyconsultedgardenersregardingthepreferenceforasmallergardenplot:11outof53respondentssaidthattheywouldpreferasmallerplot.Thereasonsforwhythe11respondentswouldpreferasmallerplotareunknown.However,someaspectsofthelatterexplanationmaybeapplicable.

Notably,gardenersdidnotpreferImage6(characterizedbysmallraisedgardenbeds)andthemajorityofgardenerspreferredImage1(characterizedbygroundlevelbeds).IftheNPCGcontinuestosolelyofferlargegroundlevelplots(approximately8ft.x32),comparedtodiverseplotsizesandamultifunctionaldesigntomeetcommunitygardener’sneeds,thegardenwillexcludecertaingroupsofresidentsfromparticipatinginthegarden(i.e.seniors,peopleinwheelchairs,inexperiencedgardeners).Thequestionremains:howcantheNPCGensureamoreinclusiveandaccessiblespacefordiversecommunitygroupsofdifferentages,languages,abilities,andsocioeconomicbackgrounds?

FutureGardenCoordination&OrganizationalStructure

InterviewsandthefocusgroupsessionrevealedthatindividualswereinterestedinexploringwhetherornottheNPCGshouldcontractaparttimeGardenCoordinatorforthegardenseason.ThisquestionaroseinacknowledgementsthattheNPCGdoesnothavespecificpersonorgroupofpeoplewhodedicatetimetocommunitybuildingandparticipation,aswellasorganizationalandmaintenanceactivities.Operationaldocumentsdiscussedthatitisabestpracticetohaveatleastonevolunteerorpaidgardencoordinator(Seethe‘GardenCommittees’resourceontheCanYouDigItWebsite).Therefore,thesurveyaskedgardenersiftheythinkthattheNPCGneedsapaidGardenCoordinatorposition(SeeFigure8).Themajority(64.15%)ofonlinesurveyrespondentsstatedthattheydidnotdeemitnecessaryfortheNPCGtohaveapaidGardenCoordinator(SeeFigure8).Ifapaidgardencoordinatorpositionwasconsiderednecessary,thequestionremains:howwouldapaidgardencoordinatorpositionbefunded?

Operationaldocumentsrecommendworkpartiesandgardenmaintenancecommitteesasbestpracticesinordertoensureproperupkeepandoversightofgardenplotsandtheoverallgardenspace.Intermsofgardenersthemselvesmaintainingandcultivatingthegarden,respondentsweredividedintheirresponsesastowhethertheywouldliketoattendworkparties(SeeFigure9).54.72%saidtheywouldliketoattendaworkpartyand45.28%saidthattheywouldnotliketoattend.ThereasonsforwhygardenersdonotwanttoattendworkpartiesneedstobefurtherunderstoodinordertocreateappropriateopportunitiesforgardenerstomaintaintheNPCG.

Figure8:DoyouthinkthattheNaheenoParkCommunityGardenneedstohaveapaidGardenCoordinatorpositionduringthegardenseason?

Figure9:Wouldyouenjoytheopportunitytoattendscheduledgardenworkpartiesduringthegardenseason?

ConsideringtheSFUCommunityTrustendstheiroperationsinapproximately2021,SFUorganizationsinterviewedhavebeeninterestedinbeginningdiscussionsastowhichSFUorganizationshouldtakeontheoperationalresponsibilityoftheNPCG.Onlinesurveyresultsrevealedthat45.28%(24respondents)believedthattheNPCGitselfshouldbecomeresponsibleforoperations(SeeFigure10).

Figure10:WhentheSFUCommunityTrustendstheiroperationsinapproximately2021,whatorganizationalbodydoyouthinkshouldtakeontheoperationalresponsibilityoftheNaheenoParkCommunityGarden?

Thisparticularresearchfindingsuggeststhatthereisaperceptionthatcommunitygardenersshouldberesponsibleforfullgardenoperations(administration,financialmanagement,maintenance,gardencoordination,legalresponsibilitiesetc.).However,thesurveyresultisinconclusiveastowhethergardenersascollectivegroupfeelthattheywouldbewillingtotakeonthefullresponsibilityoftheNPCG.However,thisisapossibilitywhenconsideringoperationaldocumentsreviewedinthisresearchproject;manycommunitygardensareself-run,withoutapaidgardencoordinator,andastrongorganizedvolunteermembershipwithinMetroVancouver.

AnassessmentoftheNPCG2017Budget,interviews,andthefocusgrouprevealedthattherewasaconsiderableamountofexpensesthathavebeencoveredthroughin-kindcontributionsthroughtheTrustandFacilitiesServices(SeeTable1).Thefollowingchartisnotanexhaustive,norquantified,listofexpensesincurred.Yet,thelistvisualizeshowfinancialresponsibilityofinsurancecoverageandgeneraladministrativedutiesandfinancialmanagementofthegardenarecurrentlyhandledbytheTrust.Therefore,ifcommunitygardenersdecidedtoassumethefullresponsibilityoftheNPCG,furtherconsiderationneedstotakeintoaccountwhatorganizationalstructureandcapacityisnecessaryforgardenerstobeabletosuccessfullyassumethefullresponsibilityoftheNPCG.

NPCGBUDGETITEMS2017

ActualCostsCoveredbyPlotFees

SFUCommunityTrustIn-KindContribution

SFUFacilitiesServicesIn-KindContribution

Materials&Supplies PlotReplacementItems X ReplacementofGardenHoses X SoilDelivery X WaterProvision XInstallationofAboveGroundHose X OtherExpenses InsuranceCoverage X MaintenanceWorkRequestAdministration X XGarbage&CompostRemoval XGeneralAdministration&FinancialManagement(estimated125+hours)

X

Table1:NaheenoParkCommunityGardenActualExpenseList

PlotFeeIncreasesforGardenImprovementProjects

Akeyconcernexpressedbygardenersandinterviewparticipantswashowtocoverthecostsassociatedwithfutureupgradesandoperationalimprovementstothecommunitygarden.Onewaytocoverasmallportionofthesecostswouldbetoincreaseplotrentalfees(currentfeesareatanannualrateof$50/$25forSFUstudents).Theonlinesurveyaskedgardenersiftheywouldbewillingtocoverthecostsofimprovementsthroughanincreaseinplotrentalfees.Thesurveyresultsrevealedthat32.08%(17people)werewillingtohaveplotrentalfeesincreasebyanadditional$10/plot;following28.30%(15people)whowerenotwillingtopayanextrafeeallocatedtoimprovements(SeeFigure10).Therangeofresultssuggeststhatsomegardenerswouldbewillingtodonatetogardenimprovementprojectsbutafeeincreasewouldnotbefavourableoptionformanygardeners.

Figure10:Howmuchwouldyoubewillingtopayontopofcurrentfeesinordertocoversomeofthecostsforgardenimprovements?

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Consideringtheresultsoftheonlinesurvey,gardenersidentifiedthreekeypriorities:

1. Improvementtothelandscapedesignofpathboundariestopromoteaccessibility,safety,andwalkability’

2. Increasesunexposureofgardenplots3. Decreasethefrequencyofunusedandunmaintainedplots

LandscapingforCommunityGardenImprovements

Thefirsttwoprioritiesrelatespecificallytoimprovingaspectsoflandscapedesignandmaintenance.Theseactionitemswouldimply,forexample,wideningandlevelingpathways(Item#1)andtrimmingtreesthatbordertheNPCG(Item#2).If,forexample,pathways,plots,gardenslope,shading.andwatertapsandhoseplacementwereaspectsimprovedwithinthelandscapedesign,wouldtheseimprovementsalsoassistgardenerstomoreeasilymaintainandcultivateall94plots?Wouldoveralloperationsimproveifanappropriateandcreativelandscapedesigntookintoaccountgardener’sneedsandacommunityvisionoftheNPCG?Followupquestionsarenecessarypertainingtotheimplicationsandcostsinvolvedinaddressinggardendesign.

ItisevidentthatthereareahostofissuesandchallengesassociatedwithNPCGoperationsthatdirectlyrelatetothelandscapedesignandmaintenanceofthegarden.Also,carefulconsiderationofmultipurposegardenspacesandprovidinganinclusivegardendesignismuchneeded.Onefirststepcouldinvolveorganizinga‘DesignCommittee’comprisedofcommunitygardenersandrepresentativesfromSFUorganizations.TheCommitteecouldworkdirectlywithSFUFacilitiesServicesindevelopingalandscapedrawing.Inordertobeginthiswork,theCommitteeand/orgardenerswouldneedtodothefollowing:

1. SubmitanSFUFacilitiesServicesProjectInitiatingForm(PIF)stipulatingtheneedforalandscapedrawingandfortheintendedpurposeofimprovinggardendesign.Thisformwillendupina‘bluefolder’onaFacilitiesServicesProjectManager’sdeskforreview.

2. Ifthereisnopresentbudgetforthedevelopmentoflandscapedrawings,potentiallyFacilitiesServicesoralandscapearchitectcouldvolunteertheirservicestocarryoutaninformal‘napkin’drawing(aloosesketchofthegarden)oradetailedlandscapedrawing.ThisdesignphaseinvolvesaconsultationprocesswithgardenersandSFUorganizationsinordertoproduceadrawingthatreflectedtheneedsforimprovements,upgrades,andvisionoftheNPCG.

3. Afteronedrawingormultipledrawings(consideringdifferentdesignoptions)havebeendeveloped,apricingphasebeginsinwhichtheProjectManagercarriesoutacostestimatebasedonthedrawing(s).

4. TheProjectManagerwouldpresentthecostestimateandconsultwiththeCommitteeinregardstotheviabilityofobtainingfundstocoverthecostsofthenewgardendesign.

5. IfthegardenersandSFUorganizationswereinagreementwiththegardendesignandcostsproposed,afundraisingplanwouldneedtobedeveloped.

ThesearesomeoftheinitialstepstoconsiderifSFUorganizationsandcommunitygardenerswishtoimprovethelong-termviabilityofNPCGoperations.

Coordinating&OrganizingforCommunityGardenImprovements

Thethirdpriorityitem(decreasethefrequencyofunusedandunmaintainedplots)wasassociatedmoredirectlytogardenmaintenanceanduse;improvingthethirditemwouldmeandevelopinganappropriateoperationalstructurethatpermitsmaintenanceandoversightofplotusage.Intheonlinesurvey,themajorityofgardenersclearlystatedthattheydidnotwantapaidgardencoordinator.Also,resultsshowedthatmanygardenersbelievethattheNPCGshouldbetheorganizationalbodythattakesongardenoperations.Afullyself-runcommunitygardenisaviableoption;onethatisaprevalentoperationalmodelwithinthecontextofcommunitygardensinMetroVancouver.Documentsrevealedthatsuccessfulcommunitygardensheavilydependontheorganizationalskills,financialcontributions,andcommittedvolunteermembershipofgardenersthemselves.

OneofthestrengthsoftheNPCGisitslargemembershipwhichcouldbedispersedinadecentralizedorganizationalstructure.Forexample,amaintenancecommittee,administrationcommittee,financecommitteeetc.couldbedeveloped.GardenerswouldneedtorefertotheBCCouncilofGardenClubsinordertobecomeaRegisteredSociety.Notably,therearespecificrequirementsofaRegisteredSocietysuchasorganizinganAGMandaccessingLiabilityInsurance.Formoreinformation,refertoCommunityGardenOperationalResourcesinSectionIIIofthisreport.IfgardenersthemselveswishtopursuetakingonthemanagementoftheNPCG,theywouldneedtoseekapprovalfromSFU.Forexample,theLicenseAgreementindicatesthattheNPCGislocatedonSFUownedlandandthereforedecisionspertainingtothedirectionofgardenmanagementandlandscapedesignwouldhavetobeapprovedbySFU.

Alternatively,theNPCGcouldcontinuetooperatethroughaseparateSFUorganizationthatholdsresponsibilityoftheLicenseAgreement.WhateverfutureorganizationalstructurethattheNPCGtakeson,gardenerswillremainaccountableforgardenmaintenanceandplotusage.Itisrecommendedthatgardenersconsiderworkpartiesorgardencommitteesaswaystomaintainandoperatethegarden.

TheresearchfindingsshowedthatSFUorganizationshavetakenondifferentrolesandresponsibilitiesoftheNPCG.Itishighlyrecommendedthatallgardenersareawareofthein-kindcontributionsbeingmadeonbehalfofSFUorganizationsinordertoassistwithgardenmaintenance,administration,financialmanagement,andserviceprovision.Gardenersshouldcontemplatebuildingtheirorganizationalcapacityandstructureinordertoimprovegardencoordination,participation,communications,andmaintenanceinpartnershipwithSFUorganizations.Clearlydefinedandcommunicatedrolesandresponsibilitiesofallentitiesinvolvedwouldimproveinter-organizationalcoordinationoftheNPCG.

Insum,thereisno“onesizefitsall”modelforsuccessfulcommunitygardenoperations.Multiplevisioningworkshopsessionsarerecommendedinordertofacilitatedialoguewithcommunitygardenersinregardstohowtheywishtooperatebeyond2019/20.ItisrecommendedthattheTrust,SFUFacilitiesServicesaswellastheSFUCommunityAssociation

attendmeetingswithgardenerstodiscussinterestsandconcernspertainingtothefutureoftheNPCG.

ThisresearchprojectwasintendedtoserveaspreliminarygroundworkforfuturedialogueonNPCGimprovementsanddevelopment.Researchfindingsrevealedthatgardenmaintenance,design,andcoordinationarethemainoperationalissuesoftheNPCG.Inconclusion,thesethreeissuesneedtoberesolvedinordertoimprovethefunctionalityofthegarden.Movingforward,communityconsultationshouldoccurwithgardenersandSFUorganizationsinordertoaddressthemanychallengesoutlinedinthisreport.Significantly,theresearchprojectidentifiedmanyaspectsthatwouldpromoteamoreappropriate,dynamic,andlongtermNaheenoParkCommunityGarden.

ADDENDUMS

FocusGroupQuestions

1. Whatarethemainreasonsyouparticipateinthecommunitygarden?

2. Whatarethecurrentoperationalissuesandchallengesfacedbycommunitygardeners?

3. Whatrecommendationsdoyouhavetoaddressthiscategoryofissues?

Addendum1:FocusGroupQuestions

OnlineSurveyQuestions

1. Forthepurposeofthissurvey,"GardenOperations"areunderstoodtoinvolveadministrative,leadership,coordination,andmaintenanceduties,aswellascommunitygardeningpracticesandgardendesign.Overall,howsatisfiedordissatisfiedareyouwithNaheenoParkCommunityGardenoperations?

2. Whichofthefollowingareasofgardenoperationsareyouleastsatisfiedwith?

3. IfyouweretochangeTHREEaspectsofthegarden,whatwouldbetheFIRSTaspectthatyouwouldchange?

4. WhichofthefollowingimagesdemonstratescharacteristicsthatbestreflectyourvisionfortheNaheenoParkCommunityGarden?Youcanchoosemorethanoneimage.

5. DoyouthinkthattheNaheenoParkCommunityGardenneedstohaveapaidGarden

Coordinatorpositionduringthegardenseason?

6. WhentheSFUCommunityTrustendstheiroperationsinapproximately2020,whatorganizationalbodydoyouthinkshouldtakeontheoperationalresponsibilityoftheNaheenoParkCommunityGarden?

7. Doyouthinkthatthecommunitygardenshouldhavemultipurposegatheringspacesfor

publicuse?

8. Wouldyouenjoytheopportunitytoattendscheduledgardenworkpartiesduringthegardenseason?

9. Ifyouhadtheoptiontorentasmallergardenplot(witharentalfeelessthanthecurrent

gardenplotfee),wouldyouprefertorentasmallergardenplotthanyourcurrentgardenplot?

10. Currentgardenrentalfeesareallocatedat$50($25forSFUStudents).Inthecasethatthere

wasaneedtocovercostsforimprovementstothecommunitygarden,oneoptionistoincreasegardenrentalfeestocoversomeofthesecosts.Inthiscase,howmuchwouldyoubewillingtopayontopofcurrentfeesinordertocoversomeofthecostsforgardenimprovements?

Addendum2:OnlineSurveyQuestions

WORKSCITEDBaragaGarden.(2015).TheBaragaHandbook:Bylaws,PoliciesandProceduresoftheBurnabyandRegionAllotmentGardensAssociation.Retrievedfromhttp://baraga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The-BARAGA-HANDBOOK-2015-Rev-5.4.1.pdf

BurnabyFoodFirst.(2016).LocalFoodSecurity.Retrievedfromhttp://burnabyfoodfirst.blogspot.ca/2016/03/local-food-security-report-released.html

CanYouDigIt.(2017).DescriptionofGardenCommittees.Retrievedfromwww.cydi.ca/resources

CanYouDigIt.(2017).BenefitsofCommunityGardens.Retrievedfromwww.cydi.ca/resources

CanYouDigIt.(2017).AYearinaCommunityGarden.Retrievedfromwww.cydi.ca/resources

CanYouDigIt.(2017).Troubleshooting.Retrievedfromwww.cydi.ca/resources

CanYouDigIt.(2017).10AwesomeTipsforInclusiveCommunityGardening.Retrievedfromwww.cydi.ca/resources

CityofSurrey:HollyParkCommunityGardenGuidelinesandAgreement.Retrievedfromhttp://www.surrey.ca/culture-recreation/7108.aspx

CityofVancouver:InclusiveCommunityGardens.Retrievedfromhttp://vancouver.ca/people-programs/building-community.aspx

GoogleImages.(2017).Pictureof‘ImageOne’.Retrievedfromhttps://www.google.ca/search?q=community+gardens&rlz=1C1EJFA_enCA676CA676&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUi4Hlp8bWAhVly1QKHdjhBRgQ_AUICigB&biw=1508&bih=740#imgrc=5mocc5Vzr9rBsM:

GoogleImages.(2017).Pictureof‘ImageTwo’.Retrievedfromhttps://www.google.ca/search?q=community+gardens&rlz=1C1EJFA_enCA676CA676&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUi4Hlp8bWAhVly1QKHdjhBRgQ_AUICigB&biw=1508&bih=740#imgrc=5mocc5Vzr9rBsM:

GoogleImages.(2017).Pictureof‘ImageThree’.Retrievedfromhttps://www.google.ca/search?q=community+gardens&rlz=1C1EJFA_enCA676CA676&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUi4Hlp8bWAhVly1QKHdjhBRgQ_AUICigB&biw=1508&bih=740#imgrc=5mocc5Vzr9rBsM:

GoogleImages.(2017).Pictureof‘ImageFour’.Retrievedfromhttps://www.google.ca/search?q=community+gardens&rlz=1C1EJFA_enCA676CA676&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUi4Hlp8bWAhVly1QKHdjhBRgQ_AUICigB&biw=1508&bih=740#imgrc=Dy3E9F4cfSbp4M:

GoogleImages.(2017).Pictureof‘ImageFive’.Retrievedfromhttps://www.google.ca/search?q=community+gardens&rlz=1C1EJFA_enCA676CA676&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUi4Hlp8bWAhVly1QKHdjhBRgQ_AUICigB&biw=1508&bih=740#imgrc=jOoi3GJWYp2v_M:

GoogleImages.(2017).Pictureof‘ImageSix’.Retrievedfromhttps://www.google.ca/search?q=community+gardens&rlz=1C1EJFA_enCA676CA676&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUi4Hlp8bWAhVly1QKHdjhBRgQ_AUICigB&biw=1508&bih=740#imgrc=HJetGqI3hkqU8M

SFU.(2017).NaheenoParkCommunityGardenGeneralInformation.

SFU.(2017).NaheenoParkCommunityGardenHandbook&Policies.

SFU.(2016).NaheenoParkCommunityGardenLicenseAgreement.

SFUCommunityTrust.(2017).NaheenoParkCommunityGarden2017Budget.

SFU.SustainableSFUGardenersSurvey&DialogueReport.

Vimos,P.(2017).NaheenoParkCommunityGarden:SiteRedevelopmentProposal2017