2013 Community Garden Survey
Executive Summary
Purpo: Sustainable Food Edmonton’s Community Garden survey is an annual opportunity to gather data on community gardening in Edmonton and “take the pul” of the program to ensure it’s helping to meet the needs of communities embarking or maintaining a sustainable project in their neighbourhood. It also provides statistical evidence for funders, including the City of Edmonton, on the impact of the program and some of the needs rved by community gardens in neighbourhoods throughout the city.
牛奶过了保质期还能喝吗We conducted this year’s survey in the Fall of 2013 and was once again done in 2 parts: as a Garden Coordinators’ Survey providing a general summary of each garden a coordinator reprented (37 gardens) and a Gardeners’ Survey providing individual gardener’s perspectives (247 respondents).
The candor, enthusiasm, and data provided by coordinators and gardeners offer an excellent basis to d
etermine some of the needs of community gardens in Edmonton and will allow SFE to work on responding to the needs and challenges with our many partners, most importantly, the City of Edmonton.
We asked questions on the following:
What follows is a review of what the compiled data tells us about community gardens and gardeners. We have also included gardeners’ own words to provide anecdotal evidence to support the findings from the survey itlf. Finally, SFE has listed a ries of next steps to embark on over the next year that we believe will help in addressing some of the key issues facing community gardens today.
garden demographics
garden harvest & how it’s ud
garden resources
needed
garden learnings
& literacy
benefits of the
garden
6 strawberry patches
5 currants,
saskatoons, etc.
16 reported
fruit trees
9 raspberry bushes
0-‐18
袁姓起源19-‐64
65+
Figure 1.2 4 orchards &/or food forests
Figure 1.1
Garden Programming & Community
This year, we wanted to capture all the amazing programming going on in community gardens. The majority of gardens reported most of their activities being open to the entire community (the red in Fig. 1.3 indicates the % of “gardener only” activities). Over 90% of the 37 gardens reporting indicated that while some activities were “gardener only”, they made
康节efforts to have some events that were open the entire community. Over 50% of the activities offered by the gardens reporting are open to the community (the green in Fig. 1.3 illustrates this).
Other events cited were informal play groups; joint activities with nearby schools and/or daycares; youth and nior outreach; spring time Church dedications; and harvesting for specific community groups like YESS, the Food Bank, Mustard Seed, etc.
Almost every garden (over 90%) reported at least 2 community agencies or stakeholder groups that they partnered with in various ways whether it was in sharing their harvest with specific charities, schools where
students were participants in the garden, agencies involved with specific ethno cultural clients, nio
rs’ centres, and/or churches. The gardens have become a resource for the greater community as well as allowing
individual gardeners the opportunity to meet their neighbours and meet some of their food curity needs, too.
Garden Crops & Harvests
All 37 gardens surveyed indicated they grew food. The most popular crops were tomatoes and carrots (92% of gardens), followed cloly by beets, squash, herbs, berries, salad greens and potatoes/turnips (e Fig. 1.4).
In the “other” category (which almost 60% of gardens reported), items like kale, sun chokes, spinach, eggplant, various melons, pumpkins, swiss chard various peppers, brusl sprouts, garlic, and specific cultural edibles were indicated (for example, “Chine vegetables”).
This year, we also asked about yields – which crops provided the highest and the lowest yields. We had assumed that we would e a particular trend here but the respons had no discernable pattern. For some gardens, some of their root vegetables were their highest yielding (like carrots or b
eets) but tho same gardens reports poor potato crops. Others reported high yields of salad greens and herbs while other gardens struggled with tho. While there were
some clear examples – quinoa, okra, grapes, and cabbage - cited by a few gardens as crops that simply did not grow to a harvestable state, this was a small number (only 9 gardens reported a crop that would not grow).
Workshops/Prenta?ons
BBQs/Potlucks
九十年代经典老歌
Open H ous
Work B ees
Produce F undrairs
Perennial S eed E xchanges
Capital C ity /Street C lean-‐ups
Mentorship N ew G ardeners
Figure 1.3
1.4
Garden Pests
What garden wouldn’t be complete without a pest or two? We wanted to know what pests were causing the most challenges and found most gardens had a pest to report of one sort or another (over 75%). See
Fig. 1.5 for the most commonly cited pests. Overall, coordinators recognized pests are an inevitable part of gardening and tried to employ
虾子怎么去虾线creative solutions that focud on an environmentally friendly approach
– including home made mixes of soap and/or botanical sprays; ashes or
other deterrents among rows or lective plantings (avoiding crops that
are especially liked by certain pests); u of vinegar, garlic, hot pepper
sprays; and for potato beetles - either moratoriums on planting or manually picking them off. Despite their best efforts, ants, voles/mice, and aphids em to be formidable foes and we will be working with
Prerving the Harvest
Last year’s survey indicated that many gardeners wanted to learn more about prervation techniques and we made subsidized canning kits available to community gardens in the 2013 ason. For this survey, we asked garden coordinators about their level of interest in prervation workshops as a possible
resource and support SFE could offer. A majority indicated an interest in canning and pickling resources so that gardeners could consume some of their harvests throughout the colder months (e Fig. 1.6). As a result, we will be working with Alberta Health Services’ Collective Kitchen program to host affordable workshops in gardens that have indicated an interest in hosting and have a kitchen space available (in September of 2014).
Communications & Signage
External Communication: Garden signage that identifies a community garden, its purpo, and contact information, can help deter theft and allows communities to get engaged with the project. Thanks to our garden signage program this year, we saw an increa in the number of gardens with some kind of signage (65% over last year’s 50%) and more attempts by
gardens to find long term and personalized signage. Internal Communication: How do coordinators communicate with their gardeners? The vast majority ems to prefer a mix of in person and email although social media is beginning to catch on with some gardens as well (e Fig. 1.7)
Expansion/Restoration
This year’s survey included a question about garden needs for expansion, restoration and renovation. 21 Coordinators (57%) described their garden’s needs in this area particularly with the age of some gardens, the shifting demographics (i.e. more raid beds to address mobility issues), and increasing demand for plots in their community (long or consistent wait lists year after year). Of tho looking at a significant expansion or restoration, 15 of the 21 gardens planned to (or were looking to) apply for an SFE Garden Grant in conjunction with raising the necessary funds through fe
es, other grants, donations from local business, church funds, and/or sweat equity.
Freezing 16 43% Canning 23 62% Dehydrating 17 46% Pickling 23 62% Fermenting 3 8%
slugs,&5&
rabbits,&4&
aphids,&4&wasps,&3&
potato&beetle,&9&
mildew,&4&
mice/rodents/voles,&6&ringworm,&1&
worms,&5&root&maggot,&6&
flea&beetles,&1&
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.7
Community Gardener’s Survey Summary
This ction summarizes the results of the [individual] Community Gardeners’ Survey. 247 gardeners responded to this year’s annual survey.
Benefits of Community Gardening
Of the 247 gardeners that responded to this survey, most cited multiple benefits to belonging to a community garden (e Fig. 2.1). Within the “Other” category, many gardeners gave their own benefits. Amongst the most popular benefits cited:
Gardener Demographics
Edmonton’s neighbourhoods are diver and vibrant and it should come as no surpri that its community gardens reflect this diversity. Of the 247 gardeners that responded, 74% were born in Canada, 26% identified a country other than Canada as their birthplace (26 different countries), while 4% identified as Aboriginal.
淮安动物园Approximately 74% of female gardeners vs. 26% of male respondents, however, most gardeners indicated that there was more than one person who tended their plot (an average of 2/individual plot) including children, part-ners, relatives, and/or friends which may mean that there may be a more gender balanced level in gardens. In terms of age, the majority of respondents were in the 19-64-age range (77%), while 21% were in the 65+ range and 4+ were in the 18 & under age range.
While most gardeners reported they work individual plots (62%), and 22% indicated working a communal plot, 15% reported they had both individual plots and also worked communal plots in their community garden, too.
Accessibility: 44% of gardeners indicated they lived within 5 blocks of their community garden;
• 23% responded they lived between 5-10 blocks from their community garden; • 33% responded they lived more than 10 blocks from their community garden.
The 247 gardeners that responded came from a variety of experience with community gardening:
What benefits do you e in belonging to a community garden? Respon
% Respon
# meeting new people
87% 214 connecting with the land/nature 87% 215 access to local produce 83% 205 exerci/stress relief拔萝卜的故事
80% 198 supplement your grocery bill 64% 158 other
网络游戏大型31%
77
ROMANIA
CHINA
PHILIPPINES
MEXICO U. STATES U. KINGDOM
NIGERIA FIJI HOLLAND
UGANDA
CROATIA
PALESTINE
VIETNAM SWITZERLAND TURKEY
GERMANY KENYA
HONG KONG
VENEZUELA
UKRAINE NEPAL INDIA JAMAICA CONGO POLAND Education, learning, knowledge sharing
Access to fresh, organic, or quality produce
Beautifying my community produce Community building/ giving to my community
FRANCE
1st Year 30% 2nd Year 26% 3+ Years 44%
Figure 2.1
