Page |1

Diggable Communities Collaborative

Building Community Capacity within Priority Populations Reaching out to Ethno-cultural Groups

Page |2

The following report was written by Charity Burch-Fleming, Masters of Social Work Student from Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario). This report was written on behalf of the Diggable Communities Collaborative, through a process of tremendous collaboration with gardeners not only nation-wide, but internationally. Thank you to everyone who contributed. December, 2008

It is not enough to add new ways of working, if we do not remove old systems that reinforce the exclusionary practices nor surface the values that underlie them.

~ Gisle Yasmeen

Page |3

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 6 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................6 THE BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY GARDENS..................................................................................................7 CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................................................8 FRAMEWORK....................................................................................................................................... 10 BRONFENBRENNERS ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY...........................................................................10 HANCOCKS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL...........................................................................................11 MOFFAT & KOHLER THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AS A SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM.......................11 FRAMEWORKS SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................12 LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................................... 13 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................13 A WAY OF PRODUCING CULTURALLY RELEVANT FOOD...........................................................................13 MAINTAINING AND RESTORING CULTURAL IDENTITY .............................................................................13 A LINK TO THE PAST, A BRIDGE TO THE FUTURE......................................................................................14 A BUILT ENVIRONMENT WHICH SUSTAINS CULTURE................................................................................16 LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY...............................................................................................................16 THE CURRENT STUDY........................................................................................................................ 16 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................16 LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................................................17 PARTICIPANTS.............................................................................................................................................17 METHOD......................................................................................................................................................18 RATIONALE .................................................................................................................................................18 CONSENT......................................................................................................................................................18 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................19 BARRIERS......................................................................................................................................................19 ADDITIONAL BARRIERS ................................................................................................................................20 OVERCOMING BARRIERS..............................................................................................................................21 ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES/SUGGESTIONS.....................................................................................................22 RESOURCES SUGGESTED BY PARTICIPANTS.................................................................................................22

Page |4

FUTURE DIRECTIONS......................................................................................................................... 23 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................................23 INCREASE PROMOTION.................................................................................................................................23 TRANSLATE PROMOTION & COMMUNICATION MATERIALS........................................................................23 PROVIDE DIVERSITY TRAINING/BE CULTURALLY COMPETENT ..................................................................24 HOST EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................................24 COLLABORATE & BUILD PARTNERSHIPS......................................................................................................25 PROVIDE RESOURCES/SERVICES...................................................................................................................25 RECRUIT MEMBERS OF ETHNO-CULTURAL GROUPS TO LEADERSHIP POSITIONS........................................25 INCLUDE FOOD PREPARATION ACTIVITIES...................................................................................................25 MODIFY AND BUILD GARDEN ENVIRONMENTS WHICH REFLECT DIVERSITY..............................................25 CREATE THE COMMUNITY IN YOUR COMMUNITY GARDEN...................................................................26 RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY................................................................................................... 26 REPORT CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 27 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 27

Page |5

Executive Summary
The Diggable Communities Collaborative aims to strengthen existing community gardens and aid the initiation of new community gardens in Region of Waterloo. Specifically, the Diggable Communities Collaborative is in the process of developing an ethno-cultural outreach strategy, as there is currently a large immigrant population in Region of Waterloo, expected to rise to as high as 32.2 percent of the total population within the coming years (Mann Mandiema & Vandebelt, 2006). Considering research suggests immigrants in Region of Waterloo experience more food insecurity, as well as unemployment than Canada-born individuals (Region of Waterloo Public Health, 2004), community gardens can help to mitigate these risks. Community gardens, as portions of land where individuals can grow their own produce and flowers, have a host of benefits, such as: increased physical and mental health, increased conviviality (sense of community, increased social capital etc.), increased equity, and contributing to environmental sustainability (Region of Waterloo Public Health, 2005). Additionally, community gardens contribute to the acquisition of social capital (Glover, T.D, Parry, D. S. & Shinew, K. J., 2005), have the potential to reduce crime (McKay, 2001), and contribute to social justice (Hess & Winner, 2007). Community gardens contribute to an improved quality of life for participants (Dow, 2001). Furthermore, community gardens benefit immigrants by: being a means to producing culturally relevant food (Kerr, 2007; Dotter 1991; Kwik, 2008), maintaining and restoring cultural identity (Klindienst, 2006; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004; Dotter, 1991, Rishbeth, 2004), providing a link to the past and a bridge to the future (Rishbeth, 2004; Koc & Welsh, 2001; Kerr, 2007; Kwik, 2008), and by being a built environment with the potential to sustain culture (Moffatt & Kohler, 2008; Rishbeth, 2004; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004). The current study questioned community gardeners and community garden coordinators locally, nationally and internationally to determine some of the barriers of ethno-cultural participation in community gardening, as well as strategies employed to overcome barriers, and to reach out. Barriers of ethno-cultural participation in community gardens suggested by participants in this study included: language, cultural differences and inaccessibility (lack of transportation), among others. Suggestions to overcome barriers, and to successfully reach out to ethno-cultural groups included: effective outreach (general promotion, engaging members of different ethno-cultural groups to encourage word of mouth advertising, utilizing ethnic newspapers for promotion, and promoting community gardens at culturally specific programs/meetings), translation of promotion and communication materials, making food connections (having conversations about food, sharing recipes/produce), having culturally competent coordinators, and using partnerships, among others.

Page |6

Recommendations for successful outreach to ethno-cultural groups, coming forth from this study, include: increasing promotion, translating promotion and communication materials; provision of diversity training for community garden coordinators and the Community Garden Council members; holding events and activities which promote inter-cultural and inter-ethnic sharing and mingling (and which serve as a promotion tool), collaboration and partnership building with ethno-cultural groups, organizations, and agencies; provision of resources and services (garden resources, transportation, child care), recruitment of members of ethno-cultural groups to leadership positions; inclusion of and/or linkages to food preparation activities; and modification of community gardens as built environments to reflect greater diversity. This study presents ideas and suggestions for future directions, however these suggestions are meant simply to be a guide for further participatory action, when feasible. Further, caution must be taken in any quest to diversify projects, programs and environments, to avoid further entrenchment of oppressive systems, hierarchies and the perpetuation of stereotypes and discriminatory practices.

Introduction
Background
The Diggable Communities Collaborative is a joint initiative between the Waterloo Region Community Gardens Council, Opportunities Waterloo Region, and

Page |7

Region of Waterloo Public Health. These organizations joined together with the aim of strengthening existing community gardens and initiating the start-up of new community gardens, in the Region of Waterloo. Although all partners came to join the Diggable Communities Collaborative for various reasons (love of gardening, eradication of poverty, and public health) all can appreciate the numerous benefits associated with community gardens.

The Benefits of Community Gardens

The benefits of community gardens cut across systems, improving quality of life not only for the individual, but the entire community (Dow, 2001). The following diagram (Region of Waterloo Public Health, 2005) succinctly summarizes some of the countless benefits of community gardens.
Figure 1: The Benefits of Community Gardens

December 2008

Additionally, community gardens have the potential to reduce crime (McKay, 2001). Within the Waterloo Region, a community garden initiated using the principles of CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) saw a 75.4% decrease in crime over a three year period (McKay, 2001). Additionally, one indicator of a healthy community is its level of social capital, which community gardens contribute to the acquisition of, by strengthening the ties between community members and therefore aiding to mobilize resources (Glover, T.D, Parry, D. S. & Shinew, K. J., 2005).

Page |8

Furthermore, community gardens have even been acclaimed as contributing to social justice. Besides the obvious benefits of improving food access to low income populations, Hess & Winner (2007), draw attention to the fact that community gardens aid communities in reclaiming control of their local economy, which can often be dominated by large corporations that reduce the economic and political sovereignty of a region (Hess D. & Winner, L., 2007, p.383). Hess & Winner (2007) also applaud community gardens in their success of enabling food education and acquisition to those who otherwise may not have access. With benefits as numerous as these, there can be many implications drawn concerning issues of access. Because community gardens have the abundant potential to strengthen the capacity of individuals and communities, and increase health, specific action must be undertaken to ensure all populations and groups can have access to community gardens, and therefore benefit from them. With this notion in mind, the current paper attempts to explore the relationships between community gardens and priority populations specifically, migrants to the Region of Waterloo.

Context
Region of Waterloo is a cultural and ethnic mosaic. The current immigrant population of Waterloo Region is 22 percent of its total population, or, approximately 100,000 people (Statistics Canada, 2003). Waterloo Region has the fifth highest, per capita, immigrant population in all of Canada (Statistics Canada, 2003). Future population trends predict a further increase in the immigrant population. The population of Region of Waterloo is expected to grow nearly 50 percent, to over 700,000 people, by 2029 (Schumilas, 2007). The immigrant population is also expected to grow from 21.4% to between 26.6 % and 32.2% of Region of Waterloos total population, by 2031 (Mann Mandiema & Vandebelt, 2006). This expected influx of migrants to Region of Waterloo demands attention be given to the needs of this population, as quality of life for all can be greatly influenced by such a large population. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that the health of immigrants in Canada tends to be better than the average Canada-born citizens when first arriving to Canada, however this health advantage declines with the increase of time spent in Canada (Hymen, 2001). In addition, immigrants are more likely to face food insecurity than nonimmigrants. Food insecurity, as defined by the Canadian Community Health Survey (2001), is as sometimes or often not having enough to eat, being worried about not having enough to eat, or not eating desired quality or variety of food, because of a lack of money. As can be shown by this chart below (Region of Waterloo Public Health, 2004) immigrants in Region of Waterloo experience food insecurity, especially related to worrying about not having enough to eat, and not eating the desired quality and variety of foods.
Figure 2: Food Insecurity Experienced by Immigrants and Non-immigrants in Waterloo Region

Page |9

25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

20.1% 15.7% 11.8% 8.3% 16.5% 10.3%

Immigrants Non-immigrants

Food insecurity Worried about Did not eat having enough to desired quality eat /variety
Source: Statistics Canada, CCHS, 2001 Prepared by: HDPE, Region of Waterloo Public Health Note: All of the estimates in this figure are based on a small number of individuals and/or responses and should be interpreted with caution.

There are many factors which may contribute to lack of food security for immigrants in the Waterloo Region. Language barriers, low income, unfamiliarity with North American food choices, and lack of social support may all contribute to food insecurity. Another influential factor is that of unemployment. In the year 2000, Waterloo Region had an unemployment rate for Canada-born males aged 25-54 of 3.5%, while the unemployment rate for immigrant males of the same age category was nearly 3 times as high (Mann Mandiema & Vandebelt, 2006). The unemployment rate for immigrant females was also nearly three times as high as that of their Canada-born counterparts, with female immigrants having a 32.5 percent rate of unemployment compared to the 11.1 percent unemployment rate for Canada-born females (Mann Mandiema & Vandebelt, 2006). Furthermore, immigrants of Waterloo Region are more likely to live with a level of income that falls beneath the low-income cut off line (Mann Mandiema & Vandebelt, 2006), thus, to be living in poverty. With the current large immigrant population in Region of Waterloo, along with the expected increase of this population over the next twenty years, action must be taken in consideration of the unique needs of this population. Since research shows that immigrants experience more food insecurity, are more likely to be unemployed, and more likely to live in poverty than Canada-born individuals, steps must be taken to address these issues and also to prevent further entrenchment of these problems. Moreover, prevention strategies must be employed to address the decrease of health research suggests accompanies migration to Canada. Specifically, issues of food access and food security must be addressed. Community gardens are one solution to mitigating some of these health risks.

P a g e | 10

Framework
Bronfenbrenners Ecological Systems Theory
Human development and behaviour is known to be the product of both nature and nurture, as well as the interaction of the individual and their environment. Understanding human behaviour, then requires examination of multi-person systems of interaction, not limited to a single setting and must take into account aspects of the environment beyond the immediate situation containing the subject (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Assessing an individual in this manner, by examining multi-person systems of interaction and the environment beyond the immediate situation, has come to be known as assessing an individual within their ecological systems. Urie Bronfenbrenner, the individual commended for bringing the Ecologial Systems theory forward, adapted this theory from the ecological and systems theories (hence the name). While ecological theory looks at the adaptive fit of organism and their environment, systems theory looks at how interconnected we are as people (Rothery, 2001). Ecological systems theory, then, allows the individual to be captured both within their environment, and as influenced by the interconnections of systems. This theory encourages a more holistic view of the individual, while also simultaneously considering and attending to individuals, families and whatever other systems might be important to the individuals needs (Rothery, 2001). Some of the systems which an individual can be found within include microsystem (family, school, church, peers, and health services) the mesosystem, the exosystem (social services, media, industry and politics) and the macrosystem (attitudes and ideologies of the culture). These systems have a profound influence on behaviour, yet these individual systems and the person are viewed as twodirectional in impact, and all systems are viewed as a dynamic combination which continually change and restructure the surrounding systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Figure 3: Ecological Systems (McLaren & Hawe, 2004)

P a g e | 11

Hancocks Human Development Model

Derived from an ecosystems framework, Hancock & Perkins (1985) proposed a new model, the 'Mandala of Health', which is an ecosystemic way of understanding health and healthy communities (Hancock, 1993, p.41). This model stresses the importance of the interaction between culture and the environment (Hancock, 1993). Hancocks Mandala of Health led to the later inception of Hancocks human development model. This model incorporates the determinants of health and is useful for understanding presenting problems within a community, making priorities for planning, and setting the direction for future action.
Figure 4: Hancocks Human Development Model

The model suggests the interrelationship between health (and more generally, social factors), environment and economy.(Hancock, 1993, p.43). The economy is seen as having to be environmentally sustainable, as well as socially sustainable (equity). Equity is important as people in a fair and just society will have an equal opportunity to achieve health and to maximize their own human potential (Hancock, 1993, p.43) and because evidence suggests that the health of a community is determined not only by its amount of wealth, but also its amount of equity (Hancock, 1993).

Moffat & Kohler The Built Environment as a SocioEcological System

Also using Brofenbrenners ecological systems theory to propose a new model, Moffatt & Kohler (2008) examine the built environment as a system which influences the development and behaviour of individuals. The built environment, as defined by Moffatt & Kohler (2008) is manmade surroundings that provide the setting for human activity, ranging from the large-scale civic surroundings to the personal places (Moffatt & Kohler, 2008, p. 249). Moffatt & Kohler go on to explain that the built environment can better be understood as a social-ecological system, as it does not exist outside of history, and is constantly changing in response to the constant change and evolution of social systems. The diagram below was produced to aid in the visualization of this concept.

P a g e | 12

Figure 5: Moffat & Kohler The Built Environment as a Socio-Ecological System

Frameworks Summary
These frameworks combined (ecological systems, Hancocks human development model, and Moffatts & Kohlers social-ecological model of the built environment) are used as the guiding frameworks for action in the current study. All these frameworks incorporate culture, demonstrate how culture influences individuals and the community, and help to conceptualize the interplay between the individual, the community, culture, and the built environment. Especially interesting is Hancocks observance of culture and equity being a determinant of a healthy community. Equally as interesting is how culture influences and is influenced by the built environment (Moffat & Kohler, 2008). These frameworks offer specific insights into how community gardens, as built environments within urban landscapes, can affect as well as be affected by culture. Considering how important culture, as an interacting system, is to human development and behaviour, and also to individual and community health, it cannot be an aspect ignored when considering the future development of community gardens. It is the hope and intent of this paper to further explore how, using these frameworks as a guide, community gardens can incorporate more members belonging to different ethnic and culture groups. It is also the hope of this paper that the relationship between ethno-cultural groups and community gardens, as systems interacting with and influencing one another, can be explored and built upon. If factors can be determined as to how to engage members of ethno-cultural groups within community gardens, this may lay the groundwork for further investigation of how culture and the built environment influence health and well-being, and contribute to a community rich in equity, with resources and good health accessible to all.

P a g e | 13

Literature Review
Introduction
Gardens have been existent for all time. In Canada, gardens have evolved for centuries, ranging from the railway gardens in the late 1800s, to moral gardens (early 1900s), to school gardens (1900-1913), to vacant lot gardens (1910-1920s), to war gardens (1914-1947), to current day open space, community gardens (Dow, 2006). Each of these eras has witnessed many migrants settle in Canada, but the literature is sparse in regards to specific ethnic and cultural groups experiences of gardening within Canada. Even sparser is literature specifically addressing ethnic and cultural groups participation in community gardens. What literature could be gathered, however, is presented within the following paragraphs, and is included to add to the current context for action.

A way of producing culturally relevant food

Food security, as previously mentioned, is the ability to have safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate food. Kerr (2007) found in her study of Hmong farmers in the United States, that culturally appropriate food was especially important in serving as comfort food when first migrating, and that foods traditional to the Hmong diet could be grown, although not found in grocery stores. Dotter (1991) also notes that part of the ability to maintain cultural heritage comes from growing plants that are essential to important food preparation, customs and rituals within ones culture. Further Diaz (2005) found that a substitution of traditional for non-traditional food resulted not only in a loss of knowledge on how to grow and prepare traditional food, but also in poor physical and mental health within the community. Additionally, Kwik (2008) also discovers in her study of Hmong-Canadians that a primary reason the key informants farmed, was to be able to grow and consume foods familiar to them.

Maintaining and restoring cultural identity

Gardening, like many activities one may undertake, is shaped by the culture of the individual participating in it. Being an activity that can also be performed with others, gardening allows for members of the same ethnic and cultural groups to participate in an activity applying preferred cultural and traditional techniques and having the ability to continue the use of skill sets specific to their culture. Gardening is one method an individual can utilize to keep their heritage alive, and maintain cultural identity (Klindienst, 2006; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004; Dotter, 1991, Rishbeth, 2004). In The Earth Knows My Name (Klindienst, 2006), one Native American man tells his story of restoring Native American tradition through gardening. This gardener, Clayton, tells how gardens became a way of preserving cultural identity (Klindienst, 2006). He gives an account of the importance of gardening not only to maintaining and preserving his cultural identity, but also of maintaining and restoring the sacred

P a g e | 14

relationship between the gardener and the land. When I talk to older gardeners or farmers I hear that the land speaks to them. And they speak to the land. Theyll describe what the land is telling them what should be planted there, what shouldnt be planted, if the land should be left alone they learn all those things just from walking around (Klindienst, 2006, p. 7). The garden, in this sense, has value which goes beyond food security and environmental sustainability; within it lays the guidance of generations past and direction for generations to come. The garden itself is a living entity whose wisdom cannot be written in books, whose voice can only be heard through interaction within it. Developing the skills to hear this voice requires the wisdom orally passed down through the generations (Klindienst, 2006). Clayton also describes how gardening became a way of resistance to cultural assimilation, as seeds were passed down from Elders and gardens during certain periods of time were the only space within which Native Americans could be free to practice their own traditions (Klindienst, 2006). In another study, specific to aboriginal people in Panama, Diaz (2005) also found that the ability to produce culturally appropriate and traditional food was essential to maintain cultural identity. Masanobu Fukuoka (1978) in his book The One Straw Revolution further draws attention to the necessity of maintaining food production practices to maintain ones cultural identity, and values. We cannot separate one aspect of life from another. When we change the way we grow our food, we change our food. And when we change or lose our food, we change society, we change our values. (Fukuoka, 1978, p.11). Further, Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny (2004), in their study of Latino gardeners in New York, also tell of how gardening gives gardeners a sense of culture, a sense of strength and that gardening is a way of affirmation of Latino culture.

A link to the past, a bridge to the future

Gardens have the ability to not only maintain and restore cultural identity, but serve as an important link between the past and the future. Gardens are a space which people influence and are influenced by, allowing members of various ethno-cultural groups to recreate a portion of their past or country of origin, while also being able to teach others about their heritage. Gardens have the opportunity to serve as a mediator between old and new lifestyles, and way of being. Thus, they can serve as an important bridge connecting the best of both worlds into a tangible environmental setting. As Rishbeth (2004, p. 314) notes, multi-cultural gardens highlight both foreign origins and a new home, legitimizing gardeners presence. Koc & Welsh (2001) also note that comfort foods (according to ones individual cultural preference) and food security are important in bridging cultural acclimatization that usually occurs. Gardens provide the opportunity for this bridging to occur.

P a g e | 15

Another incredible aspect of gardening is that it provides an opportunity for current and new generations to learn about their ancestors. Its [gardening] important for our cultural identity because it represents the way our ancestors and grandparents used to live (Rishbeth, 2004, p. 314). In a study conducted by Kerr (2008) of Hmong gardeners in Minnesota, key informants, when asked why they farmed, listed link to the past and teaching children about their culture as two of the top reasons for farming. In the same study (Kerr, 2008) many of the key informants shared that the garden was one setting that allowed them to be the role models they desired to be for their children. They expressed that in day to day life as American immigrants (sometimes unfamiliar with the English language and North American culture), teaching roles were often reversed with their children; yet participating as a family in gardening corrected this. In addition, Kwik (2008) studied the link between traditional food knowledge and health and well-being among Hmong gardeners in the Peel Region, Ontario, Canada. Traditional food knowledge, as defined by Kwik (2008, p. iv) is a cultural tradition of sharing food, recipes and cooking skills and techniques and passing down that collective wisdom through generations, and provides a concrete expression of personal identity as well as a sense of belonging to a larger community (Kwik, 2008, p.37) Traditional food knowledge, as Kwik (2008) advocates, nurtures a healthy community by: improving food security, improving individual and community capacity building, improving biocultural diversity, improving the capacity of food production within the community, providing opportunities to broaden the discourse on food security and sustainable agriculture, and aiding in the recognition of foods social and ecological value. Traditional food knowledge is also seen as contributing to immigrant cultural and physical health (Kwik, 2008). Criteria which Kwik (2008) found to contribute to healthy communities that respect traditional food knowledge include (a) a healthy participatory local food culture (b) learning of healthy food habits and traditions (c) community food security which focuses on the accessibility to culturally appropriate, safe and nutritious food and (d) community capacities for healthy lifestyles. Kwik (2008) goes on to say that a precursor to community food security is food sovereignty (the right an individual has to determine what food they consume, and how it is produced), that community capacities for healthy lifestyles include access to community gardens, and that environment is key to the transmission of traditional food knowledge. Kwik (2008) is a proponent of community gardens because, she notes, they have the ability to support biocultural diversity, can serve as a setting for the transmission of traditional food knowledge, and can lead to further activities which promote and support the transmission of traditional food knowledge (such as food preparation and consumption).

P a g e | 16

A built environment which sustains culture

Gardens are also, as aforementioned by Moffatt & Kohler (2008), a socioecological system in and of their own, as built environments. Gardens, then, like most built environments, tend to reflect the values, priorities and culture of those that build them. As Rishbeth (2004, p.312) so eloquently describes, The built environment, as a witness to and embodiment of a society, invariably lags behind the more fleeting gauges of cultural norms such as publishing, product design and the music industry. The level of permanence imposes a responsibility to longevity. Urban design needs to reflect authentic cultural shifts. Places should reflect the diverse cultural heritage of people living in it.. As a socio-ecological system, gardens are able both to be influenced by, and to influence culture. This brings another unique use of gardens to the forefront, as gardens can be used as a tool of both cultural expression, and communication of cultural values, and also as a tool to influence and positively change the perception of different cultures. In a study of Latino Americans in New York, Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny (2004) were able to witness how some gardeners were able to make the space their own, acknowledging their experience of migration and their unique culture. These gardeners used their culture to influence the landscape by adding casitas (small wooden sheds that provide a focal point for the garden), artwork, statues and other symbolic forms of architecture to recreate a cultural setting they preferred. Community gardens are an opportunity for members of ethno-cultural groups to express their identity, and are community open spaces that can, and should, evolve to reflect re-creation and the reinterpretation of culture the transferred and the transforming(Rishbeth, 2004, 316 ). As Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny (2004) note, community gardens have the capacity, unlike many other built environments and shared landscapes, to be participatory landscapes, with unique designs, plants, art etc. that reflects the identities of its participants.

Literature Review Summary

Community gardens are especially beneficial to immigrants as a way of producing culturally relevant food, by aiding to maintain and restore cultural identity, by being a link to the past and a bridge to the future, and by being a built environment which sustains culture.

The Current Study

Introduction
Recognizing the numerous benefits of community gardens, as well as the twodirectional benefits of having a high level of ethno-cultural groups participation in

P a g e | 17

community gardens, the Diggable Communities Collaborative set forth to develop an ethno-cultural outreach strategy for participation in community gardens. To develop a strategy which will be responsive to the needs of ethno-cultural groups, as well as serve as a form of community garden ethno-cultural outreach best practices it was ascertained that research would have to be conducted to explore this issue.

Limitations
The challenges of conducting research on this topic were numerous. Unfortunately no baseline information exists on the current level of ethno-cultural participation within the 39 community gardens in the Region of Waterloo. Although there was a needs and assets assessment conducted in May, 2008, only half of community garden coordinators were able to participate, and of those half, only 10 were able to confirm that there were gardeners within their garden who belonged to nonCaucasian groups. Although meeting with these gardeners to receive their feedback would have been preferable, the current garden infrastructure is loosely organized, with lists of the gardeners unavailable to the Diggable Communities Collaborative. Even if these lists were available, however, translation costs for meeting with these gardeners, and time required to do so, was simply beyond the capacities and resources of the Collaborative at this time. The next preferable method of research would have been to hold focus groups with members of various ethno-cultural groups in the Region of Waterloo, or to develop surveys to distribute within these groups to receive feedback. Unfortunately, such a process, again requiring translators, meeting space, and funds for materials, promotion etc., would have required monetary and human resources not currently available to the Collaborative. Finally, time was also a limitation. As the chief conductor of this study was only available to the Collaborative for just over 12 weeks, time was a precious commodity. Despite these limitations, a plan was devised wherein information could be obtained from credible sources to aid in determining ethno-cultural outreach strategies for community gardening.

Participants
Community garden coordinators, and community gardeners locally, crossnationally and internationally were contacted. It was the hope that by contacting community garden coordinators and gardeners from various locations, with differing compositions of ethno-cultural groups, that similar themes or best practices for reaching out could be obtained, while at the same time, collecting specific information for particular ethno-cultural groups that might be more concentrated in differing geographic regions. Most participants were chosen from lists provided on community garden network websites, and through community garden organization websites. Although demographics were not obtained for these individuals, they were contacted for the valuable information they potentially could provide from their unique settings, histories, and gardens. It was the assumption that through their participation in

P a g e | 18

community gardening, along with the interaction they may or may not have had with differing ethno-cultural groups, any information they could provide would be beneficial and potentially aid in the Collaboratives outreach strategy. It was also noted that some of these contacts lived in very multi-cultural geographic areas, and most likely would be founts of knowledge regarding engagement strategies for ethno-cultural groups. In total, 35 community garden coordinators and gardeners participated and provided their feedback.

Method
Participants were contacted through email and by telephone. Participants were briefly introduced to the conductor of the study, as well as the Diggable Communities Collaborative, and the intent to gather information pertaining to ethno-cultural groups engagement in community gardening. The primary questions asked of participants were as follows: Do you have a high level of individuals from different ethno-cultural groups participating in your community garden? If so, what components of your community garden planning/implementation do you think were essential for ethno-cultural groups engagement? What other strategies have you employed to engage members of different ethno-cultural groups? What barriers to ethno-cultural groups participation in community gardening have you encountered (if any)? What have been some strategies/methods for overcoming these barriers? What have been some key insights or learning moments you have had during your participation in community garden projects with ethno-cultural groups?

Rationale
The rationale behind the format and language used for the questions asked of participants was three fold. Firstly, the questions were designed to be rather openended, so to generate as many ideas and feedback as a participant would be willing and wanting to share. Secondly, specifics about particular ethno-cultural groups and exact percentages of participation were avoided, so to not discourage participants from providing their feedback. Thirdly, the last question asked was incorporated to allow for insights and feedback that may not have been related to outreach or barriers, but that participants desired to share or include.

Consent
Participants were emailed and asked for permission to include their feedback in this report. They were informed that their name and contact information would be kept strictly confidential.

P a g e | 19

Results
Feedback from participants was imported into NVivo, which is a qualitative research computer program, and coded for themes. In response to the question, Do you have a high level of different ethno-cultural groups participating in your garden? 63 percent indicated yes, while 37 percent indicated no.
Figure 6: Do you have a high level of different ethno-cultural groups participating in your garden?

There were a variety of different ethno-cultural groups referred to as participating, including, but not limited to, people within the following ethno-cultural groups: Italian, Hmong, Meskhetian Turkish, Latino/Latina American, African-American, Indian-Fijian, South Pacific Islands, Filippino, Japanese-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, Vietnamese-Canadian, Khmer, Anglo-Australian, Irish, German, Greek, Polish, Croatian, Sri-Lankan, Russian and Middle-Eastern.

Barriers
The feedback provided in response to the question What barriers to ethnocultural groups participation in community gardening have you encountered (if any)? were broad and enlightening, as participants mentioned many different barriers they had encountered. Some responses were repeated, as the following chart represents.

Figure 7: Barriers to Ethno-cultural Groups Participation

P a g e | 20

Language, as the above indicates, was a barrier repeated often in the feedback provided. Cultural differences is also a theme which emerged, yet encompassed a variety of responses. Some such responses included differences in: Gardening styles Understanding/exposure to the concept of community gardening Acceptable topics of conversation Tolerance levels in regards to songs and terminology in relation to God Cultural values associated with gardening traditionally Hmong males and females do not share the same garden plot, as well, in some cultures gardening is seen as a low status task Exposure to different ethno-cultural groups, level of diversity knowledge/awareness Approach to the task of gardening survival activity seen as necessary to learn and participate in, a cultural activity seen as necessary to sustain traditions, a labour intensive, goal oriented task, and as a leisure activity Gardening task interests (i.e. composting, watering, weeding, etc.) Garden design, and/or arrangement of plots Socializing mixing with other ethno-cultural groups or not

Additional barriers
Additional barriers that were mentioned include: Need of childcare Lack of sustained interest A majority of gardeners being Anglo-Saxon, thus leading to a monocultural community garden Adjusting to different soils Not having enough time to fully participate Garden politics Garden plot waiting lists

P a g e | 21

Determining community needs for space Finding translators Communication email is not effective for seniors and individuals lacking access to a computer and the internet Income Ill health Physical ability Ignorance to the experience of different ethno-cultural groups Separation in the garden because of ethno-cultural differences

Overcoming Barriers
Feedback for suggestions and strategies for overcoming barriers, that could be categorized are displayed in the chart below.
Figure 8: Strategies/Suggestions for Overcoming Barriers

Making food connections included doing such things as having conversations about food, sharing recipes and sharing produce. Effective outreach was composed of the following categories, with percentages representing percent of those who indicated effective outreach as a component of having a high level of ethno-cultural groups participating:
Figure 9: Outreach Strategies Used/Suggested

P a g e | 22

Additional Strategies/Suggestions
Additional strategies and suggestions that were proposed for overcoming barriers and having a high level of ethno-cultural groups participating in community gardening include: Speaking to gardeners in person, and following up to ensure needs are being met Provide transportation Participatory action go to the source, show up at functions, involve the group in decision making Involve youth and children Engagement, through: guided conversations about certain food topics, garden testimonials, associated memories and feelings, group formations around preferred vegetables, preparation, preservation etc., coordinate activities and events (like open days, garden tours, bbqs, work days etc) which may attract different gardeners and keep them interested, Having compassion, consideration & respect for others Provision of materials and resources, including tools, water, seeds etc. Holding meetings in the gardens so things can be demonstrated, and objects/plants can be pointed at for cross-cultural understanding Promote the feeling of everyone being welcome Having certain plants which are available to the entire community for harvest Have different plot designs Have some plots allocated for those who cannot garden consistently, but manage the plot for them so they can enjoy the harvest as well Grow universally enjoyed, as well as culturally-specific plants Post a diagram with plots and gardeners names on it to promote getting to know one another

Resources Suggested by Participants

There were also some resources passed on by participants and suggested by participants to review. The following were such suggestions: The brief novel, "Seed Folks" by Paul Fleischman Chillis & Roses Inspiring multi-ethnic involvement at community gardens and farms, authored and sold by the Federation of City Farms & Community Gardens, (sold for 10 , from www.farmgarden.org.uk)

P a g e | 23

Future Directions
The results from the feedback have many implications, and provide a foundation which the Diggable Communities Collaborative can use to move forward with in their ethno-cultural outreach efforts. Firstly, the results are exciting because they can be used to fuel further research in this area, and feedback can be utilized to compose further research and evaluation surveys. Secondly, the results begin to paint a portrait of some of the challenges faced when trying to engage members of different ethnocultural groups, but, more importantly, of some of the methods to overcome these challenges. Moreover, from the feedback received, strategies can be employed to reach out to different ethno-cultural groups. Derived from the results, as well as the literature, specific recommendations have been made to engage ethno-cultural groups in community gardens. Promotion tools may also have to go beyond posters and event fliers, and may have to take the form of presentations, meetings with outreach workers and program coordinators, and attendance at meetings open to the public.

Recommendations
Increase Promotion As the results indicated, promotion was an important aspect of engaging members of any group, especially ethno-cultural groups. General promotion, including advertising community gardens in local newspapers, free community newsletters, via posters in community centers, grocery stores etc, as well as through encouraging gardeners to advertise community gardens through word of mouth, has the potential to increase ethno-cultural groups participation. Also, promotion to culturally-specific programs, ESL schools, through immigrant settlement programs, through ethno-cultural media sources, at international churches, ethno-cultural grocery stores/markets and by attending ethno-cultural group meetings, is necessary. Promotion will not only serve to increase participation in community gardens, but will also educate individuals on the concept of community gardening, thus further increasing likelihood of participation. Translate Promotion & Communication Materials Translation was repeatedly mentioned by participants as an effective and necessary step in reaching out to ethno-cultural groups. Some of the suggestions made, as translation can be quite costly, were to translate single important words, and/or attempt to partner with ESL schools and have them provide free translation services, if possible. If partnerships cannot be made, however, translation of materials is well worth the cost, as translation ensures community gardens are accessible to all, and therefore allows for all groups to benefit. Other suggestions made to overcome language barriers included communicating by utilizing pictures, holding meetings in the garden, so plants and objects can be pointed at, and involving youth and children who may be able to translate for their parents and/or grandparents.

P a g e | 24

Provide Diversity Training/Be Culturally Competent Having culturally competent community garden coordinators was one theme which emerged from the feedback, in regards to overcoming barriers and being able to effectively reach ethno-cultural groups. Providing training for community garden coordinators, as well as Community Garden Council members, would best achieve cultural competency, ethno-cultural diversity awareness, aid in the generation of feelings of respect and compassion for others, and help to build an inclusive and welcoming environment. Additionally, it was mentioned that religious observances are important to be aware of, and ethno-cultural traditions/associations made with gardening. In regards to religiosity, events should be planned to avoid religious holidays, days of celebration, and times of fasting/prayer. Also, it is beneficial to be aware of the value and view the task of gardening holds within different cultures, and gardening traditions within different ethno-cultural groups. For example, it was mentioned that Hmong males and females do not traditionally share land to garden in, and some ethno-cultural groups do not engage in activities engaging both males and females. Furthermore, some ethnocultural groups view gardening as low status work, therefore are less inclined to participate in community gardens. Host Events and Activities Hosting activities and events was also a dominant theme which emerged from the feedback. As some ethno-cultural groups respond better to activities than more formalized meetings, this may also be an effective way of communicating within the garden. Also, having events with specific multi-cultural themes, and advertising them through the appropriate ethno-cultural avenues, would definitely increase opportunities to reach out to different ethno-cultural groups. Having these events in the garden makes the garden a friendly environment, which demonstrates an atmosphere welcoming to all groups. Further, in Chillis and Roses (Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, 2007), a resource a participant passed on, it suggests the garden be used as a place for meetings and workshops to be held by the general public. This raises the profile of the garden (Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, 2007, p. 5), seen as an effective method for reaching out to different groups of people. Another theme which emerged in relation to events and activities was to encourage and host activities centered on food, a commonality different ethno-cultural groups can naturally gravitate to. Some specific strategies and suggestions included recipe sharing, produce sharing and discussions about food, garden memories, and other enjoyable food topics. The main objective of hosting events and activities is to encourage socializing, inter-mingling, and sharing. Through the process of getting to know your neighbours,

P a g e | 25

stereotypes can be dissolved, friendships can form, and a true sense of community can be shared. Collaborate & Build Partnerships Building partnerships was also a suggestion/strategy mentioned by participants. Partnerships are fundamental to the success of any organization, agency or group, and can lead to greater group sustainability. Building partnerships with language schools, cultural organizations, community centers and religious meeting centers is one way which community gardens can be promoted, and collaboration with these groups can lead to more efficient strategies in overcoming barriers that may arise. Provide Resources/Services Provision of resources and services is also a way of encouraging participation in community gardening. As individuals in any group may encounter financial hardships, to make community gardening accessible to all, provision of resources and services would lead to greater participation. Resources and services suggested by participants to provide included land, water, seeds, tools, transportation and childcare. Also, there was a suggestion that plots be maintained for low income gardeners who may not have the time to steadily maintain their garden plot, but who could certainly benefit from the harvest of fresh fruits and vegetables. Recruit Members of Ethno-cultural Groups to Leadership Positions Leadership should reflect the composition of the population. Rishbeth (2004) found in community gardens composed of varying ethno-cultural group members, that leadership was predominantly Anglo-Saxon. Members from different ethno-cultural groups within the community should be recruited to be community garden coordinators, or members of the Community Garden Council. Include Food Preparation Activities As mentioned in the literature review, preparation of food is an important component for the transmission of traditional food knowledge (Kwik, 2008). The Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (2007) highlights the effectiveness of a program hosted by the Womens Environmental Network which brings people together for a day of activities around food, and following different recipes to cook lunch. The Network hosts different groups each time, but always using fresh produce. The program is called Culture Kitchen, and includes various workshops after lunch, and has activities which can be joined any time along the way. Locally, there may be an opportunity to partner with the Peer Health Program, and nutrition workers, to encourage cross-culture learning of different recipes and ways to grow, prepare and preserve food. All such opportunities should be explored. Modify and Build Garden Environments which Reflect Diversity Community gardens, as outlined in the literature, are a built environment. As such, they have the opportunity to influence and be influenced by culture and ethnicity.

P a g e | 26

Community gardens thus have the opportunity to incorporate art, special design features and plants which celebrate diversity. Participants of this study suggested allowing different garden and plot designs may increase participation and engagement of ethno-cultural groups. Receiving feedback prior to designing the garden, or obtaining feedback on how to modify an existing community garden, to be more reflective of different ethno-cultural groups, is essential to design success. Participation is key, as one of this studys participants emphasized, Regardless of which group you want to participate in your garden, the important thing is to go to that group, ask them about gardening, listen to what their ideas are and then build your idea of the garden together. It's not going to be effective community building if you take your already planned garden to a group that hasn't participated in the planning and offer them to join you at that final point. Some still may join, some may not, but more importantly, you'll have missed an opportunity to build real community. Community gardens, as the name suggests, should include the entire community, and reflect the communitys ideas of what a community garden should be.

Create the Community in Your Community Garden

Creating community within your community garden can be as easy as smiling at others, lending a helping hand and promoting a welcoming atmosphere within which everyone can garden. One suggestion made by a participant of this study was to have a diagram posted of the garden, with gardeners names beside their plot. This encourages gardeners to get to know one another. Activities will also naturally bring people together, but sometimes a first step needs to be taken to bridge gaps and to ensure everyone feels comfortable attending activities. Also, lists of languages spoken can be posted to simply show that diversity is appreciated and honoured. Another idea is to have multi-cultural activities and events, which especially promote and embrace diversity, or adding a column to the garden newsletter that features a recipe or story from a different country or culture each time the newsletter is published. It is often the simple, seemingly unnoticed and small steps that can make the biggest differences.

Recommendations Summary
Recommendations for future action include: increased promotion, translation of communication and promotion materials, provision of diversity training, holding events and activities, collaborating and building partnerships, provision of resources and services, recruiting members of ethno-cultural groups to leadership positions, the inclusion of food preparation activities, and planning/modifying the built environment to reflect diversity. It is to be noted, however, that these recommendations are not meant to be an exhaustive list. This study is meant to be the building block, or foundation (if

P a g e | 27

you will) of future research and outreach. It is to be stressed that individuals from differing ethno-cultural groups must themselves be part of the planning and implementation process, if outreach is to be successful.

Report Conclusion
Community gardens can serve as tremendous catalysts to increased community and individual health and well-being. Specifically, community gardens offer unique opportunities to ethno-cultural groups, to: grow culturally appropriate food, maintain and restore cultural identities, be a link to the past and a bridge to the future, and as a built environment which sustains culture. Community gardens are terrific; they provide an opportunity to build bridges, make connections and are powerful tools towards healthier communities. Considering the benefits of engaging differing ethno-cultural groups to participate in community gardening, as well as the many benefits of community gardens for these groups, recommendations have been made on how to do so. Recommendations included: increasing promotion, translating promotion and communication materials; provision of diversity training for community garden coordinators and the Community Garden Council members; holding events and activities which promote inter-cultural and inter-ethnic sharing and mingling (and which serve as a promotion tool), collaboration and partnership building with ethno-cultural groups, organizations, and agencies; provision of resources and services (garden resources, transportation, child care); recruitment of members of ethno-cultural groups to leadership positions; inclusion of and/or linkages to food preparation activities; and modification of community gardens as built environments to reflect greater diversity. Care must be taken, however, as community gardens also can become a tool through which the status quo is maintained, cultural diversity suppressed, and stereotypes further entrenched. As a built environment, with leadership, community gardens have the risk of being a method through which hierarchies and oppressive systems are re-created and discrimination is perpetuated. Thus, although there is tremendous value in developing ethno-cultural outreach strategies for participation in community gardens, caution must be exercised to ensure these risks are avoided.

References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Basic Concepts. In U. Bronfenbrenner, The ecology of human development. (p.3-15). Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.

P a g e | 28

Diaz, E. C. (2005). Food sovereignty and traditional knowledge. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Social Policy and Development . United Nations: Panama City. Dow, C. (2006). Benefits and Barriers to Implementing and Managing Well Rooted Community Gardens in Waterloo Region, Ontario . (Masters Dissertation, Queens University, 2006). Retrieved September, 2008 from: http://homepage.mac.com/cityfarmer/CHERYLFINAL.pdf . Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (2007). Chillies and roses: Inspiring multi-ethnic involvement at community gardens and farms. Glover, T.D, Parry, D. S. & Shinew, K. J., (2005). Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research May 17 20, 2005. Canadian Association for Leisure Studies. Retrieved October, 2008, from: http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr11/CCLR11-46.pdf Hancock, T. (1993). Health, human development and the community ecosystem: three ecological models. Health Promotion International, 8 (1), 41-47. Hess, D. & Winner, L. (2007). Enhancing Justice and Sustainability at the Local Level: Affordable Policies for Urban Governments. Local Environment, 12 (4), 379-395 Kerr, L. M. (2007). Resisting Agricultural Assimilation: The Political Ecology of Hmong Growers in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region . (Honors Project, Macalester College, 2007). Retrieved October, 2008 from: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1009&context=geography_honors Klindienst, P. (2006). The Earth Knows My Name: Food, Culture and Sustainability in the Gardens of Ethnic America. Boston: Beacon Press. Koc, M. & Welsh, J. (2002). Food, identity and immigrant experience. Canadian Diversity,1. Kwik (2008). Traditional Food Knowledge: Renewing Culture and Restoring Health . (Masters Dissertation, University of Waterloo, 2008). Retrieved October, 2008 from: http://hdl.handle.net/10012/4052 Mann Mandiema, J. & Vandebelt, D. (2006). A Profile of Immigrants in Waterloo Region. Waterloo, Canada: Region of Waterloo Public Health. Mazereeuw, B. (2005). Urban Agriculture Report. Waterloo, Canada: Region of Waterloo Public Health. Retrieved October 23rd, 2008 from: http://chd.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/health.nsf/166d88b4f3b1c85256e5a0057f5e7/5 4ED787F44ACA44C852571410056AEB0/$file/UA_Feasibility.pdf?openelement Masanobu Fukuoka (1978). The One Straw Revolution an Introduction to Natural Farming. Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Press.

P a g e | 29

Moffatt, S. & Kohler, N. (2008). Conceptualizing the built environment as socialecological system. Building Research and Information, 36 (3), p. 248 268. Region of Waterloo Public Health (2004). Building Healthy and Supportive Communities A Profile of Immigrants in Waterloo Region. Waterloo, Canada: Region of Waterloo. Region of Waterloo Public Health (2005). Healthy Growth: The Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture. Healthy Growth Newsletter, September, 2005. Waterloo, Canada: Region of Waterloo. Rishbeth, C. (2004). Ethno-cultural Representation in the Urban Landscape. Journal of Urban Design, 9 (3), 311-333. Rothery, M. (2001). Ecological systems theory. In Lehman, P. & Coady, N. (eds.) Theoretical perspectives for direct social work practice: A generalis-eclectic approach. New York: Springer Publishing Company, p. 65-82. Saldivar-Tanaka, L. & Krasny, M. E (2004). Culturing community development, neighbourhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21, p. 399-412. Schumilas, T. (2007). Healthy Growth: Health and the Built Environment In Waterloo Region. Waterloo: Region of Waterloo Public Health