PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS IN ANCHORAGE

Transcription

1 PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS IN ANCHORAGE Presentation at the Alaska Food Policy Council Conference February 27 th, 2016

2 Overview I. Community Gardens in Anchorage II. Making the Case for Community Gardens III. Community Garden Strategic Plan Study IV. Case Study: The Gardens at Bragraw V. Community Action for New Gardens

3 MOA Parks and Recreation manages 11,000 acres of parkland

4 McPhee Gardens MOA Parks and Recreation manages 4 Community Gardens Fairview Gardens C Street Gardens Gardens at Bragaw

5 Muni Community Garden Program MOA Parks and Recreation Community Gardens in Anchorage McPhee Gardens (50 plots) C Street Gardens (73 plots) Fairview Gardens (16 plots) Gardens at Bragaw (44 plots)

6 Muni Community Garden Program Season: April-September User Fee: $25 Typical plot size: 10 X20 or 15 X15 1 plot per adult

7 Muni Community Garden Program Early registration for returning gardeners 75-80% renewed plots year-to-year Waitlist: people every year

8 Who s gardening and where?

9 Community Gardeners

10 C Street Gardens

11 Fairview Gardens

12 McPhee Gardens

13 Gardens at Bragaw

14 Community Partners Cook Inlet Housing Authority manages the Loussac Place Gardens 83 plots Average plot size 4 X4

15 Community Partners Catholic Social Services manages the Fresh International Gardens at McPhee Park 8,000 sq. ft.

16 Why are community gardens important?

17 Income: Areas where median household income is less than $50,000

18 Housing: Areas where half of homes are multi-family housing

19 Housing: Areas where approximately 50% of homes are owner occupied

20 Food Access: Areas where more than 33% of the population live more than 1 mile from a grocery store

21 Challenges Limited staff resources Shrinking budgets Long-term program sustainability

22 Opportunities Community support Supportive Administration Motivated partners Acres of available parkland

23 What makes a community garden grow?

24 Checklist Available Land Access to Water Sunlight Fencing Maintenance and Management Rules and Regulations Education Soil Parking

25 COMMUNITY GARDEN STRATEGIC PLAN STUDY SOWING SEEDS AND HARVESTING COMMUNITY: INCREASING FOOD SECURITY IN ANCHORAGE BY EXPANDING COMMUNITY GARDENS

26 Project Purpose Understand the needs and opportunities for expanding community gardens within the city and the role these gardens can play in improving citizen s quality of life by expanding the community s capacity to increase food security and to improve access to healthy local foods throughout the greater Anchorage area.

27 Methods: Developing a Community-Based, Collaborative Needs Assessment 1) Case Study Research 2) Online Survey 3) Food Summit Workshop 4) Interviews with Key Informants

28 What We Found: Case Studies Other programs face similar struggles and successes Cities create partnerships to overcome the challenges Partners and volunteers help with garden management and expansion but require oversight and coordination Cities that have more internal resources tend to have greater institutional capacity Community buy-in can increase local ownership resulting in improved aesthetics, safety and participation City/Town Berckeley, CA Boulder, CO Fairbanks, AK Portland, OR Vancouver, WA Montgomery County, MD New York City, NY # of Community Education Programs Gardens Youth Adult Nutrit. PH. Unkn 34 Schools Dem. Intern No Muni FPC NGO Youth Adult Nutrit. Muni FPC NGO PH. Unkn Youth Adult Nutrit. Muni FPC NGO PH. No No No Youth Adult Nutrit. Muni FPC NGO PH. Youth Adult Nutrit. PH. Youth Adult Nutrit. PH. No Youth Adult Nutrit. PH. Muni FPC NGO Muni FPC NGO Muni FPC NGO Abbriviation Key Nutrit. PH. - Nutritional Programs and Public Health Mrkt/Comm Share- Market and Community Share Muni- Municipality Support WL- Waitlist FPC- Food Policy Council Unkn-Unkown NGO- Non-Profit Organization Dem. - Demographic Diversity Schools Dem. Intern No Schools Dem. Intern No No No Schools Dem. Intern Unkn Affiliation >600 Schools Dem. Intern No Outreach Dem. Div. Dem. Div. Dem. Div. Dem. Div. Dem. Div. Dem. Div. Unkn Dem. Div. Schools Dem. Intern Unkn Unkn Unkn No No Unkn Schools Dem. Intern No No No Unkn No Unk No Low- Income Low- Income Low- Income Low- Income Low- Income Low- Income Low- Income Personal Mrkt/Comm use only Share WL Fee Personal Mrkt/Comm use only Share WL Fee Personal Mrkt/Comm use only Share WL Fee Personal Mrkt/Comm use only Share WL Fee Personal Mrkt/Comm use only Share WL Fee Mixed yes Personal Mrkt/Comm use only Share WL Fee Food Use Unkn Wait List Mix yes Cost Personal Mrkt/Comm use only Share WL Fee No

29 What We Found: Online Survey Survey: April 15, 2015 and August 31, Total Responses More than 400 respondents identified themselves as either gardeners or those interested in gardening

30 What We Found: Online Survey Primary reasons survey respondents consider the community gardening program important

31 What We Found: Online Survey Barriers to community gardening participation

32 Approximately half of respondents consider themselves to be knowledgeable of gardening practices Gardening education programs of interest to survey respondents 280 respondents said they were interested in gardening education programs

33 What We Learned: Online Survey Additional educational topics of interest

34 What We Learned: Online Survey Benefits of community gardens ranked by survey respondent interests

35 What We Learned: Online Survey Approximately 10% of respondents thought the price should be reduced Most participants feel the current fee to rent a community garden plot is fair 5% thought the price should be increased I would be willing to pay more, but I think that they should be more affordable so people with low incomes can grow their own food".

36 What We Learned: Online Survey People engaged in the community gardening program are somewhat to extremely satisfied with the program. Demand well exceeds supply There is reason to believe the waitlist does not accurately reflect demand. The majority of respondents interested but not currently participating express less satisfaction with lack of plot availability, inconvenient locations and difficulty registering.

37 What We Learned: Key Informant Interviews Hmong and Refugee Communities Current supply of garden plots does not meet their demand Language barriers The majority of gardeners are from the Mountain View, Muldoon and Spenard neighborhoods.

38 What We Learned: Key Informant Interviews Most gardeners feel the current rental fees of $25-$35 is fair, a raise in price could present a hardship to Hmong gardeners, most of which are older and on a fixedincome. Gardeners are concerned about vandalism and safety. New garden locations should take this into account and consider adequate lighting, good visibility, accessibility to the bus system and walking paths. Members of the Hmong community have found success in the gardens and don t likely feel a need to participate in gardening education programs. It is also difficult to share educational resources with the Hmong community because most information is exchanged through word of mouth. Seed exchanges and social gatherings have been successful avenues for working with and getting to know members of these groups better. For underrepresented groups such as these, the in-person system for renting a plot does not seem to be a burden. Many of these individuals have limited access to the internet and/or do not speak English and would struggle with an online signup only available in English. Retaining in-person registration as a mechanism for garden plot rental is important to ensure accessibility to all those that are interested.

39 The Big Picture: What Does it Mean The demand for the gardens exceed the supply and there is broad interest from diverse stakeholder groups and audiences in expanding the city s community gardening system and the existing demand for community gardens may be greatly underestimated. Expanding the gardening system raises many social justice issues including making gardens available and accessible to those who need it most, and making outreach and education materials available in formats and languages that will reach the intended audiences. While increasing rental plot fees may work for most gardeners, there is concern that an increase in fees would limit the participation of lower-income individuals who may need food from the garden the most. Developing a sliding fee scale and/or a scholarship program and creating opportunities for individuals to donate extra money towards to program could help alleviate this problem. The majority of study participants agree more garden locations are needed but there is a large discrepancy as to where these new sites should be located. Regardless of where new gardens are installed, that new site locations should consider safety/vandalism issues, site convenience and accessibility (including close proximity to bus routes and access to trail systems), and infrastructure (such as water, fences and potentially including locks on the gates).

40 The Big Picture: What Does it Mean In order to expand the community gardening program, all facets of the study point to a need to further develop partnerships. The MOA can pull from partnership models described in the case study section of this report. It may also be a good idea to create a long-term partnership with UAA and APU. Given the current demand and interest, a new community garden is likely to attract gardeners no matter where it is placed but the MOA should consider location based on community needs. Questions that should be addressed include who needs gardens the most and how can new gardens be made accessible to people in need? As the community garden program expands, it is essential to revise and update the MOA website, rules and regulations to better meet user needs. A handbook seems essential. While many survey respondents reported being marginally interested in formal education programs, many of these same respondents acknowledged they only have little to some gardening experience. This result implies that more educational programming is needed in order for community gardeners to maximize their gardening potential but drawing gardeners into educational programming may be difficult. There is a need to diversify the funding and resources used to support the gardens. The rental fees collected do not cover the costs to run the program. Finding funding partners, organizations to donate materials, and leveraging resources to minimize overhead and oversight costs are critical.

41 THE GARDENS AT BRAGAW: TRANSFORMING UNDERUTILIZED LAND FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS

42 ACLT: The Gardens at Bragaw

43 ACLT: The Gardens at Bragaw

44 ACLT: The Gardens at Bragaw

45 ACLT: The Gardens at Bragaw

46 ACLT: The Gardens at Bragaw

47 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was generously funded through a University of Alaska (UAA) Office of Research INNOVATE Award and a UAA Center for Community Engagement and Learning Min -Grant. We are indebted to our project participants that shared their time and knowledge with us regarding Anchorage s community gardening needs and opportunities. We are grateful to the staff at the Anchorage Community Land Trust for sharing their experiences implementing and running the Gardens at Bragaw. We would also like to thank the Municipality of Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department for partnering with us on this project especially Steve Rafuse. Lastly, thank you to the UAA Department of Geography and Environmental Studies for providing internal support and Lindsey Shelley for assisting with editing and design.