What factors support and promote home-based food-growing in four neighbourhoods in SW Sheffield?

2009-05-05T13:08:00.000-03:00

“The real food world happens as much in the back garden as it does on the hundred acre fields of potatoes … Unless we harness the skills and resources of gardeners as a serious part of our national food supply and integrate it into our whole approach to life, then the entire business of feeding ourselves healthily and economically, as well as the social and mental health of the nation will suffer...”- Monty Don, 2008 Lady Eve Balfour Memorial Lecture, Soil Association

Graduate School of the Environment School of Computing and Technology
Centre for Alternative Technology, University of East London
Machynlleth, Docklands Campus
Powys 4-6 University Way
SY20 9AZ London
UK E16 2RD
tel: 01654 705981 tel: 020 8223 3000

Preface, Abstract, Acknowlegements

2009-05-05T13:07:00.000-03:00

Preface
The purpose of this thesis was to research home-based food-growing in four neighbourhoods in Sheffield utilizing primary research carried out by the author.
The chief areas of interest were:
• comparisons of the extent of food-growing in each neighbourhood based on education, income, and community involvement and activism,
• reasons for growing or not growing,
• level of concern regarding threats to food security from peak oil, climate change, and resulting instability brought on by rising prices,
• types of support needed for growing efforts,
• the potential for resiliency in the promotion and support of home-based food-growing,
• additional issues such as soil contamination, allotments, and related behaviours such as organic food consumption, exercise, health impacts and money saving efforts.
Context was established with literature review and primary research was conducted using a Grounded Theory model.
Abstract
Using social research methods, including questionnaire, interview, and observation, four neighbourhoods in SW Sheffield were assessed to determine what factors are most likely to promote and support home-based food-growing. 68 questionnaires and 29 interviews were analysed. Each household interviewed was assessed for growing potential by measuring land area available, land area in food cultivation, solar resource, and availability of tools.
The hypotheses that emerged was that the group of people studied who grow food do not generally do so because they are concerned about food supply or to save money. They grow food primarily because they enjoy gardening, find it therapeutic and they want the freshest produce. They would appreciate access to more land to grow on but very few are interested in an allotment due to lack of proximity and time to adequately utilise one. Those who grow the most food are likely to have a university degree and be aware of threats to food security from peak oil and climate change. The most highly valued source of advice and training across the group are family members and other gardeners. Having a high level of personal community involvement and living within a neighbourhood that is active not only in growing but also socially is a key factor in the likelihood and/or the desire to grow food. The most successful growers live near and interact with other successful growers. Those who do not grow list lack of land and time as the primary reason, but the chances of growing are higher in neighbourhoods with more community involvement regardless of other factors.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to all who advised me and/or served on my peer review panel; Richard Clare, Anne Marie Culhane, Alaster Douglas, Heather Hunt, Dave Oxford, Maughan Pierce, Vanessa Senger, Jerry Simon, and Stephen Watts. Thanks to my thesis tutor Alison Pooley whose valued fortnightly advice kept me on track, to my thesis supervisor Melissa Taylor whose early encouragement insured perseverance, and to Bryony Benfield for her professionalism and reliability during my tenure at CAT. Thanks to Helen Sharma for putting in a good word for me when it counted and to Joan Randle for heeding it. Thanks to Graeme for advice, morale support and good cheer. Thanks especially to my wife Jacqui for giving me the time and support to do this degree, for transcribing the interviews, for her unbiased editing and proofing skills, and for encouraging me in the garden.

2009-05-05T13:02:00.000-03:00

Title page
Preface and Abstract
Acknowledgments
Contents
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
List of Illustrations and Figures
Chapter 1 - Introduction, Literature Review and Context
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Transport
Food Security
Bio Diversity
Health
Contamination
Urban Agriculture and the Developed World
Chapter 2 - Methodology And Method
Methodology
Method
The Questionnaire
Questionnaire Analysis Procedure
The Interviews
Interview Analysis Procedure
Chapter 3 – Primary Research
Neighbourhood Tenancy
Community Activism, Social Activities, and Resources
Neighbourhood #1
Neighbourhood #2
Neighbourhood #3
Neighbourhood #4
Land Use in the Neighbourhood
The Best Growers
Education, Climate Change and Peak Oil
Confidence
Income
Why Do They Grow?
Who Buys Organic Food and Why?
Citizen Detail #1
Local Food
What Do They Need to Grow?
Composting
Time
Age and Growing
Citizen Detail #2
Allotments
Project Details #1
Project Details #2
Soil Testing and Contamination
Chapter 4 – Analysis of Method
Questionnaire
Interview
Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations
Education, Climate Change and Peak Oil
Ownership, Land, and Activism
Food Security
Food Choices and Health
Motivation to Grow Food
What do they need to grow more?
Training
Composting and Allotments
Resilience and Policy
Contamination
Summary - A Better Way
Further Research Suggested
Bibliography and References
Appendices
#1 Glossary
#2 Research Diary sample
#3 Intro letter, Questionnaire, and Interview Request Letter
#4 Questionnaire Analysis Sample “Income”
#5 Questionnaire Analysis Sample “By Neighbourhood”
#6 Sample from Questionnaire Data Sheet
#7 Categorisation of Interview Questions and Responses
#8 Sample from Interview Analysis Document
#9 From the Sheffield City Council Website
#10 Boston Globe Contamination Article
#11 Chemical Cocktails
#12 Resource Pamphlet

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

2009-05-05T13:01:00.001-03:00

As – arsenic
Cd – cadmium
CLEA - Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment
Cr – chromium
CVD – Cardiovascular disease
DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
ESRC - Economic and Social Research Council
FCRN – Food Climate Research Network
Fe – iron
FeS – iron sulphide
GHG – green house gas
LEAF – Local Enterprise Around Food
Ni – nickel
NVQ – National Vocational Qualification
Pb – lead
RHS – Royal Horticultural Society
RWH – rainwater harvesting
SASE – self addressed stamped envelope
So2 – sulphur dioxide
UA – urban agriculture
UEL – University of East London
VAT – value added tax

List of Charts, Illustrations and Figures

2009-05-05T12:58:00.000-03:00

all charts and graphs are derived from my own data.

Photo - Sheffield back Garden
Chart #1 - Home Ownership
Chart #2 - Neighbourhood Comparison #1
Chart #3 - Neighbourhood Comparison #2
Chart #4 - How Many Grow What?
Chart #5 - How Many Grow How Much?
Chart #6 - Education of 14 Best Growers
Chart #7 - Mid or higher issues concerns
Chart #8 - Best Food Growers’ Food Choices
Chart #9 - Best Growers’ Income
Chart #10 - Confidence in Growing
Chart #11 - Money Saving Behaviours
Chart #12 - Income Distribution
Chart #13 - Income to Age
Chart #14 - Types of Food by Income
Chart #15 - Why They Grow
Chart #16 - Organic Perceptions
Chart #17 - How Many Buy How Much Organic?
Chart #18 - Local Food Purchased
Chart #19 - Why they do not grow
Chart #20 - Would Grow More If…
Chart #21 - Gardening Training
Chart #22 - Most valuable training resource
Chart #23 - Composters
Chart #24 - Free Compost delivered please
Chart #25 - Time Factors
Chart #26 - Fresh Cooking by Those in Need of More Time
Chart #27 - Meal Planning by Those in Need of More Time
Chart #28 - Types of Food Grown by Age
Chart #29 - Allotments
Chart #30 - Why No Allotments
Chart #31 - N1 and N4 comparison, allotment problems

Chapter 1 - Introduction, Literature Review and Context

2009-05-05T12:49:00.000-03:00

A poll commissioned by the RHS in 2004 found,

“80% of the British population has access to a garden … of the 20% that don’t, half of them wish that they did … of those that had a garden only 2/3’s actively looked after it in any way and of that 2/3’s, less than half grow anything edible at all … the complaint was, from those that didn’t, is that they didn’t have time … but nevertheless they had time to work incredibly long hours to earn money to buy food, a third of which would be thrown away.” (Don 2008)

According to that survey only 20% of the British population grow food of any type.
Within living memory most of our food was grown locally and prepared in the family kitchen. Nowadays we have become almost completely dependent upon food supply chains spanning continents and oceans, using vast amounts of cheap fossil fuels. Food security depends not on our neighbours or fellow citizens but upon a tottering system of global finance and fossil fuel extraction.

As we increase our reliance on energy imports, so food grown or manufactured in this country will, relying as it does on energy inputs, be inherently import dependent. … measures to reduce the dependence of the food sector on energy inputs will … also increase food security.” (Garnett 2008 p.38)

Energy
If we look at just one staple crop, wheat, fossil fuels are used to manufacture and transport the agricultural chemicals involved, to harvest the crop, to dry the crop, to move the crop to processing facilities, to mill the crop, and to deliver the product. Even as far back as 1975, by the time the crop had been processed into a marketable product, procured and consumed, 37.6% of the energy embodied in a loaf of white bread had been expended on fertilisers and transport. (Chapman 1975 p.23)

More recent British and Dutch studies found the total amount of energy required and equivalent GHG emitted by the typical household for food consumption was roughly equal to energy use for all other household needs including the family car, a luxury also implicated in food chain emissions. (Vale 2000 Kramer K.J. et al., 1999 pgs.23-24)

“Emissions of CO2 from car journeys in the UK to purchase food rose by 27% between 1992 and 2002. They total about the same as those from heavy goods vehicles transporting food from mainland Europe.” (Millstone and Lang 2008 p.63)

Additionally, we are eating more foods out of season. A vegetable grown in a heated greenhouse requires 57 times more energy to produce than a vegetable grown in an open field. (Kol, Bieiot and Wilting 1993 p.28) In a world coping with peak oil this energy expenditure will become not only unaffordable but also unsustainable.

Such profligate energy use has implications far beyond food security.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As of 2007 the percentage breakdown of the approximately 18% of the UK GHG emissions attributable to food related activities is as follows;
5% - Fertilizer production
39% - Agriculture
6% - Transport from overseas
7% - UK transport
12% - Processing
5% - Packaging
5% - Retailing
8% - Catering
11% - Food preparation in the home
2% - Waste disposal
(Millstone and Lang 2008 p.63)

Refrigeration is not listed above but, as a necessary part of at least 5 of the above categories, is a major contributor,

“… the UK cold chain is responsible for something in the order of 15% of total food chain emissions.” (Garnett 2008 p.39)

Transport is involved in several of the above categories, not than just the two indicated, and is a significant contributor to emissions.

Transport
Between 1978 and 1999 the amount of food in transport in the UK increased by 16% while the miles traveled by food increased by 50%. (Paxton and Viljoen 2005 pgs.41-42) Research from September of 2008 published by the Food Climate Research Network indicates that air freighting of fruits and vegetables is particularly egregious,

“...while 1.5% of fruit and vegetables are carried by air, these foods account for 40% of all CO2 arising from fruit and vegetable transport.” (Garnett 2008 p.33)

If the UK switched to food produced entirely locally and organically it could reduce GHG emissions by 22% (Stanley 2002 p.25)

Additionally, as international transport increases due to globalisation, the infrastructure to support it helps to drive local enterprise out of business.

“The presence of new infrastructure makes it easier and cheaper to source from further afield and of course the cost of investment needs to be recouped. This fosters the continuation of, and increase in, long distance sourcing. By contrast, sources closer to home may be less economically attractive because labour costs are higher. … local enterprises go out of business, leaving no closer-to-home choice available.” (Garnett 2008 p.35)

This has negative impacts on local economic resilience.

Food Security
“Food security means that all people at all times should have physical and economic access to sufficient, affordable, safe and nutritious food necessary and appropriate for a healthy life, and the security of knowing that this access is sustainable in the future. … Addressing the problem may involve looking at income levels and the availability of refrigeration services, but also, Holben (2003, p161) argues, can be addressed at wider levels including participation in community gardens, learning about gardening, education on nutrition, food storage and preparation, and food safety education.” (Dowler et al. 2001 p.25)

The UK government acknowledges that many of its citizens have limited access to enough healthy food either due to low income or a paucity of retail establishments selling healthy options. (Tomkins 2006 p.27)

“And as new, urban lifestyles lead greater numbers of people to consume more fats and less fibre, more fast food and fewer home-cooked meals, … Urban and peri-urban agriculture can help improve food security in several ways: growing food at home or via a cooperative reduces the cost burden of acquiring food for the poor, puts more food within their reach, and reduces seasonal gaps in fresh produce.” (FAO 2005 p. 1)

The poor are not the only ones at risk. Even the more well off have become dependent upon supply chains spanning the globe for foods delivered out of season and none too fresh.

“Growing your own, it is argued, can protect a nation from the vagaries of economic and climatic conditions overseas. … is there a specific risk avoidance argument for shortening the supply chain?” (Garnett 2008 p.38)

While shortened supply chains can work to increase food security they can also decrease it, i.e., if a local populace is completely dependent upon food locally grown then it is at the mercy of climatic conditions and events. However, if it is totally reliant on foreign food it is at the mercy of problems anywhere along the supply chain. A position that reduces the risks inherent in both instances is called for. (Garnett 2008 p.38)

Bio Diversity
Industrial agriculture is reducing the bio diversity of our food supply through the loss of heirloom varieties of produce and seeds. In the US 97% of the original varieties of vegetables and fruit have been lost. Worldwide it is estimated that only 10% of the variety of crops that have been developed in the past are still being farmed. (Millstone and Lang 2008 pgs.38, 58) The UK has suffered as well,

“… over 12 years the average number of plant species in arable fields has fallen by 29%. Wildlife too is under threat and even cultivated crops are becoming more uniform. … There are … 2000 varieties of apple in the National Collection of the UK but today just nine dominate our commercial orchards.” (Raven et al. 1995 p.49)

The wider environment is also being degraded as we convert habitat to mono crop agriculture and pastureland worldwide. Ironically, where rural lands have been degraded by industrial agriculture, urban areas are sometimes havens for flora and fauna.

“… the urban environment is often already richer in flora and fauna than rural farm land; beehives in cities actually produce more honey than those in the country because cities are home to more trees and flowers than most parts of the modern countryside.”(National Federation of City Farms 1996 p.49)

Health
The UK suffers from over nutrition. 8% of men were considered obese in the 1980s, 22% were obese by 2005. For women, the number went from 9% to 24%. The situation is worse in the US. (Millstone and Lang 2008 pgs.26-29)

The developed world has undergone a nutrition transition characterized by,

“• a decline in the traditional staple foods … such as pulses and oilseeds
• an increase in intakes of fat, sugar, salt, and often animal foods
• an increase in alcohol consumption …
• an increase in the consumption of refined and processed foods
• an overall reduction in dietary diversity
Such changes in diet have an impact on health, leading to an increase in diet-related diseases, such as late-onset diabetes, some cancers and cardiovascular disease.” (Millstone and Lang 2008 p.82)

The nutritional quality of food marketed as “fresh” is declining due to the vagaries of the globalisation as well.

There is growing evidence that fresh seasonal food has significant health benefits. Local seasonal foods are consumed closer to their peak of ripeness, which increases the intake of health promoting phyto-chemicals found in the color and aromatic qualities of ripe produce. (Leitzmann 2005 p.758)

“Diets high in fresh fruit and salad vegetables appear protective against cancer and CVD. It is important to take into account the seasonality of consumption in estimating and establishing significance of risk.” (Cox et al. 1999 p.55)

Produce that is both fresh and seasonal can be hard to find, unless you grow it yourself and doing so is a healthy thing to do, in and of itself. Gardening as therapy was recognised in Sheffield by Dr. William Buchan in the 1760s. He observed better health and fitness in gardeners.

“‘… the very smell of the earth and fresh herbs revive and cheer the spirits, whilst the perpetual prospect of something coming to maturity delights and entertains the mind’.” (Buchan 1760 p.143)
Currently in Sheffield, Richard Clare, a local organic gardener and permaculture teacher runs a well attended social and therapeutic horticulture course on a yearly basis through the Sheffield Organic Food Initiative. (Clare 2008 p.1)

Contamination
Research was done on Sheffield city topsoils in 2005.

“A model of soil variability … was applied to 569 measurements of metal concentrations … in the topsoils of Sheffield … Each of the 35 spatial outliers that occurred in gardens have concentrations exceeding their Soil Guideline Value for residential land use with plant uptake, highlighting a potentially significant exposure pathway. … coal and furnace waste at these sites suggests that their dispersal … represents a significant point contaminant process. … Cr and Ni showed a significant association with disturbed sites … in part due to their prevalence in areas of historical steel manufacture. … Pb concentrations in urban topsoil … were twice the value in the rural environment … highlighting a very substantial diffuse Pb load to urban soils.” (Rawlins et al. 2005 p.353)

Sheffield has centuries of mining activity and steel works that has impacted the soil quality both through direct dumping of waste and airborne deposition of contaminants.

According to Richard Clare, “In the ‘70s in Sheffield due to industrial pollution, there was a public health recommendation not to grow food anywhere in the city.” (Worthington 2008)

Complicating the situation is the difficulty in getting reliable recommendations from soil testing. While there are laboratories to get contamination testing done,

“There are no widely available reference materials for bioaccessibility testing validated against human or appropriate animal in-vivo studies. … For lead, comparing in vitro data with human in vivo data indicated that the in vitro methods used by most of the laboratories in England and Wales underestimate bioaccessibility. … This is clearly a matter of concern if such test results are used to make decisions within the risk management of land contamination. (Barnes et al. 2007 p.67)

Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires “… a science based risk assessment which takes account of toxicological information, and site specific … circumstances” to determine if significant possibility of significant harm (SPOSH) exists. The Act also “requires that local authorities identify contaminated land and ensure that significant risks are dealt with.” (Defra 2008 p.3) DEFRA published a software tool, the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA), to assist local authorities with this. The Act establishes to what degree remediation must occur primarily through a link to planning and development requirements.
The guidance provided by DEFRA is intended to assist local authorities, not the individual, with implementation of the Act. (Defra 2008 p.3) By leaving assessment of contamination primarily up to the planning process, are backyard gardens and existing allotment sites being overlooked? How does the homeowner or allotment holder gain access to CLEA tool for assessment of exposure on allotment sites? (COT 2008 p.1) My queries to the council to determine the extent of compliance have received no reply. See appendix #9 for details from the Sheffield City Council website regarding implementation of The Environmental Protection Act.

Research done by Dr. Rule, professor of biogeochemistry Loyola University, indicates that,

“Most soil contaminants will bind tightly to the soil particles and will move very slowly to the soil below.” (Rule 2008)

With the increasing interest in urban agriculture in Sheffield, are more of its’ citizens being exposed to existing, unmeasured, contamination of the soils?

“… vegetables, particularly leafy crops, grown in heavy metals contaminated soils have higher concentrations of heavy metals than those grown in uncontaminated soil. (Guttormsen et al. 1995; Dowdy and Larson 1995) A major pathway of soil contamination is through atmospheric deposition of heavy metals from point sources such as: metaliferous mining, smelting and industrial activities. … foliar uptake of atmospheric heavy metals emissions has also been identified as an important pathway of heavy metal contamination in vegetable crops. (Bassuk 1986; Salim et al. 1992)” (Kachenko and Singh 2004 p.1)

Given the lack of guidance for the individual citizen regarding the risks of food-growing in the city from soil contamination, as well as the evidence that there could very well be significant contamination, it seems prudent to apply the precautionary principle and assume that soils within Sheffield are guilty until proven innocent.

Urban Agriculture and the developed world

The food supply in Sheffield, like many western cities, is heavily dependent on cheap energy. With the onset of peak oil and the projected shifts in growing seasons and rainfall patterns due to climate change, the developed world could soon begin to resemble the developing world. Food security in urban areas will become more of an issue.

“In the ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme report (2001) the problem of food poverty in the UK ‘where 20 per cent of the population cannot afford healthy food especially where fuel and rent take priority’ is worthy of inclusion in a booklet about environmental justice.” (Sheriff 2005 p.35)

As fuel poverty increases, so too will food poverty.
Valuable lessons can be learned by the developed world about urban agriculture in the developing world. There are obvious similarities: land and labour are at a premium. Labour saving technologies to enhance intensification and verticalisation are called for. Land is likely to already be burdened with contamination and proximity to dense population makes use of agrochemicals especially dangerous. Preservation of the limited soil and water resources is of paramount concern.

“… we pay for our food three times: firstly at the shop, secondly through subsidies via our taxes and thirdly through the cost of clean up. In terms of water pollution, for example, UK water companies have had to spend £1 billion to filter pesticide residues out of drinking water (Lang and Heasman 2004, p224).” (Sheriff 2005 p.30)

Regulations will need to be drafted and enforced to ensure that urban agriculture doesn’t create additional health issues.

The differences between rural farming and urban agriculture (UA) mean that different approaches must be utilised when considering how best to plan for and implement strategies and policies to support UA. Urban populations are more heterogeneous than rural farming communities. Social networks are likely to play a more important role compared to technical knowledge. Food security is not the only issue; financial resilience can be enhanced as well. (RUAF 2001 p.76)

Just as on larger farms, income can be improved through the production and marketing of produce and value added products.

“One example of a successfully implemented strategy to enhance micro enterprise development in urban agriculture is the Brazilian initiative PROVE … a programme designed to promote and sustain small agricultural production, processing and trade involving several urban agricultural systems such as vegetable gardening, fruit production and livestock systems with low-income groups as the principal beneficiaries.” (RUAF 2001 p.56)

Policy makers and activists should plan for this type of development with policies dealing with access to land and credit, land tenure, market support, waste and hygiene, and training programmes. Production businesses foster processing business, as well as input and service delivery business. (RUAF 2001 p.52) Urban growers will have a better knowledge of the local markets and have less impacts and costs due to transportation than rural farmers. (RUAF 2001 p.46)

Chapter 2 - Methodology and Method

2009-05-05T12:45:00.000-03:00

Methodology
At the time I was deciding on a thesis topic, peak oil and climate change were becoming more widely accepted as threats to our food supply. The issues of food crisis, food miles, and the carbon footprint of food were prominent in the media. Allotments are thoroughly researched but I found very little investigation of home-based food-growing. The majority of the population has no access to an allotment for one reason or another. I believe that more and more people will turn to growing in their own home gardens as the economy worsens.

On my own I was unlikely to get enough data to be statistically significant, therefore qualitative social research was required rather than a more quantitative approach. Because of the small sample group, I expected no more than for the data to point out relevant trends and issues. I knew little about the topic at the outset and needed the flexibility to alter my approach as I learned. I thought it more useful to discover the reality on the ground rather than formulating a hypothesis in advance and attempting to prove it. As Grounded Theory is designed for just such a situation I settled on that approach, utilizing questionnaires as well as interviews for data gathering.

“A grounded theory study seeks to generate a theory which relates to the particular situation forming the focus of the study. This theory is ‘grounded’ in data obtained during the study, particularly in the actions, interactions and processes of the people involved.” (Robson 2002 p.190)

Based on study of Robson’s Real World Research I decided to form an informal peer review panel and keep a research diary. (Robson 2002 p.1) The first entry is March 7th 2008 and the final entry is October 28th 2008. Many of the entries mirror the updates I sent to Alison Pooley, my thesis supervisor, every two weeks. See appendix #2.

I also consulted Gilham’s Developing a Questionnaire and The Research Interview during the formative stages of my research design and decided to triangulate my data through questionnaires, interviews, and direct observation. (Gilham 2007, 2004)

“Data triangulation … to enhance the rigour of the research … involves the use of more than one method of data collection.” (Robson 2002 p.174)

The returned questionnaires would inform the design of the interviews. I rejected a sample questionnaire due to time constraints and instead planned follow-up telephone interviews if required.

While the SW side of Sheffield is home to affluent ethnically homogenous neighbourhoods it also contains both ethnically and financially diverse neighbourhoods. To ensure a level of diversity across and within the groups and thus increase the relevance of the research, I picked four very different sample neighbourhoods.

Initially, I hoped to not only learn about home growing but also to be instrumental in promoting and supporting growers in some way. Options for financing support was only available for one neighbourhood so I discarded this idea other than to provide a list of resources to all who returned the questionnaire and wished further contact. See appendix #12. I also rejected assessing yields from active growers, as it was not likely to give me data that would be comparable to other growers due to the heterogenous nature of the sample group. It would also be misleading in terms of food security or health of diet, as I would not be following the produce to table or doing a study on household diet.

Method
My peer review panel consisted of a professional psychologist, several professional activists, the most prominent food grower in Sheffield, several activist amateur growers, and a doctoral student at Oxford. We discussed, separately and in groups, home-based food-growing and factors that might be involved in its promotion and support as well as social research technique. Advice regarding social research texts, questionnaire design, neighbourhoods of interest, and the activities of organisations and activists centered on food in the Sheffield area was gratefully received. I practised my interview technique, using a laptop and USB microphone, by recording and transcribing several of the individual discussions.
The Questionnaire
After careful consideration of the issues I believed to be most pertinent, I formulated a set of preliminary closed questions and began with the layout, keeping it brief and simple, avoiding jargon and technical terms or too great a reliance on opinion based responses. (Gilham 2007 p.26) I created a questionnaire divided into 6 sections, each with 3 to 6 questions; Demographics, Environmental/Resource Concerns, Household Practises, Gardening, Personal Health and Other Factors. The 5 Environmental/Resource Concerns questions are the only ones that are belief or opinion based. I used pre-selected scaled responses to facilitate analysis.

Each of the 136 questionnaires included a letter of introduction explaining my research as well as a SASE to ensure its return. I personally delivered 95% of them to households by knocking on doors. Except for 7 questionnaires delivered by friends I never left a questionnaire without talking to the resident. Expecting no better than 30% return, I was delighted to receive 50% back. See appendix #3.

Questionnaire Analysis Procedure
I intended to set up a spreadsheet for one question at a time beginning with income. All responses were sorted by income and neighbourhood. See appendix #4. Upon completion I realised that due to 9 recipients choosing not to answer the income question on the survey, the data on this spreadsheet was useless except for analyzing factors correlating to income alone. I therefore created spreadsheets that produced totals for each response in each neighbourhood but these proved too cumbersome for determining correlations between factors. See appendix #5.

At this point I considered using statistical analysis software. My supervisor, Alison Pooley procured some statistical software for me to try out. After spending two days sourcing a PC, reformatting it, and loading windows and the software, I discovered the activation key for the software that had been provided had expired and I was faced with trying to get another one from UEL. I had already lost time on this and I decided not to pursue it any further as I had little faith in getting it up and running expediently. Had I been familiar with this resource prior to starting on my questionnaire design I believe I could have made good use of it. Instead, I was left to hand count and correlate responses.

For example, I separated the surveys based on what food types each household grew. I would then go through each pile looking for high numbers of responses to other questions. I discovered, for instance, that all but 1 of the respondents growing all 4 food types have a first degree or higher educational qualification. I further subdivided the groups looking for well-educated growers who grow the most who also expressed a high degree of concern for climate change. I did this for every question. All these numbers were recorded on a data sheet that grew to 44 pages. See appendix #6. In compiling the thesis, I used the spreadsheets and data sheets to assemble charts.

The Interviews
Anyone returning a questionnaire and expressing a willingness to participate in further research was contacted again. See appendix #3. The majority of them agreed to be interviewed. Only 3 either later cancelled or did not show up. I compiled a set of questions that complemented the questionnaire and then customised each interview based on personal responses. For example, I did not ask interviewee 13 what prevented him from getting an allotment because he indicated he had an allotment. 29 interviews were completed. Most interviews occurred in the their homes where I also measured the gardens, assessed solar resource, and noted gardening infrastructure. Interviews were recorded and all interview responses were transcribed onto the question sheet produced for the interview.

Interview Analysis Procedure
I grouped the questions into categories. I then grouped relevant interview questions under the category. For example,
Category A. Involvement in community
How long have you lived in this neighbourhood?
How well do you know your neighbours? any that grow food?
Are you familiar with any neighbourhood community activism since you have lived here?
Would you participate in neighbourhood growing?
Would you be interested in gardening in someone else’s yard?
Would you allow others to grow food in your garden?

See appendix #7. Next, I copied the answers to each question from the text of the transcriptions into the analysis document being careful to label each response with the interview number and color code by neighbourhood. See appendix #8.

By picking key concepts mentioned in the responses and counting the number of times a respondent used language relating to that concept I found and charted trends.
For example, the level of community activism known about and/or participated in varied drastically from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. I established an index of community activism based on key words given in the interviews. I did the same for social activities. I listed key words and indicated the percentage of the interviewees in each neighbourhood who mentioned either a word or a concept that implied neighborhood social activities. For instance, when one individual mentioned a “new mums” group and another mentioned ”Sure Start” I put a 1 next to parents/kids in the list. Similarly, I put a 1 next to community whenever an individual used that word or mentioned an organisation that is about community building; I only indicated one tick per category per person. If no-one in N#1 ever mentioned a category that someone else in another neighbourhood did, then N#1 received a 0 for that category. I converted these numbers to percentages; if a neighbourhood had 2 mentions of a category out of 5 total interviews they received 40% for the category. Averaging the percentages, including all the percentages for unmentioned categories, delivered a number to be used for comparison. For instance, N#1 received a 19% score for community activism, which is the highest of all four neighbourhoods, while it scored 21% for social activities. N#4 scored 9% for community activism while it scored 22% for social activities. While these scores seem low, N#4 is actually the most socially active. A neighbourhood could only receive a 100% score if every person interviewed mentioned every category. So the numbers are only relevant as comparisons between neighbourhoods.

Chapter 3 – Primary Research

2009-05-05T12:42:00.000-03:00

Neighbourhood Tenancy
Chart #1 shows the breakdown between tenants and owner-occupiers. Within the sample of 29 interviews in the four neighbourhoods the average neighbourhood tenancy was 11 years with a median of 5 years, a max of 61 years, and a min of 1 year or less. Of the 8 tenants, 1 believes gardening would not be acceptable to the landlord, 5 are active growers, 63%, 3 of whom are aware of or involved in activism. Of the 21 owner-occupiers, 17 are growing, 81%, 14 are aware of or involved in activism.

Community Activism, Social Activities and Resources chart #2

2009-05-05T12:40:00.001-03:00

Chart #2 shows a comparison of various factors across the neighbourhoods. The parameter total sq m indicates the overall size of the home garden while sq m in food indicates how much of it is planted in food crops. Solar res for solar resource, is a subjective rough estimate, done with compass in hand, based on a comparison of all properties’ shading and aspect.

I established an index of community activism and social activities based on key words given in the interviews. The most commonly cited issue across all four neighbourhoods was parking, though absent in neighborhood #1’s responses, the only neighborhood that had any activism relating to transport, with organised bike rides and walks. Organisation, with the highest level of responses, was indicative of any mention of an issue involving some degree of organisation such as meetings, petitions, leaflets, networks or forums.

Neighbourhood #1
Chosen for of its reputation for being activist, the neighborhood organisation is largely centered on sustainability issues. A resident professional activist has been organising this neighborhood on issues ranging from micro generation to food. All 5 households interviewed, some who have been in the neighborhood only a short time, knew their neighbors and knew neighbors who grow food. 11 of the 13 households that returned a questionnaire grew food, the second highest percentage among all 4 neighborhoods surveyed. As interviewee #2 put it,
“Around this area there are a lot of people with allotments and decent sized gardens they can grow in. I would say that three quarters are already growing a reasonable amount of food.”
Every household surveyed except 1 had some experience with allotments and 4 had their own allotment. This neighborhood along with N#4 had more residents expressing a greater need for more time than for a bigger garden in order to grow more food. It should be noted however that both neighborhoods had the largest back gardens and the best solar resource. This neighborhood had an average garden size of 110.4m2 but with only 5 interviews, one at 376m2 and one at 0, by removing those two, the more realistic average is 58.6m2. An average 8.1m2 is in food cultivation. With every single house having a southern or SW aspect, the average solar resource is 8.3 on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best. One household, a rental, has only south facing windows and no land available. Every house except that one has tools available. 2 of the 5 practise vermiculture, 3 of the 5 practise composting and RWH.
Even within this very active neighborhood, only 2 were willing to own up to influencing their neighbors to grow food. 3 of the 5 stated that they had been influenced in some way by having neighbors who grow food.

Neighbourhood #2
Chosen as a null group, the residents in N#2 have a remarkably low level of involvement in any neighborhood activism. With a mixed length of tenure and no consistent level of interaction, very few residents know more than their immediate neighbours. The only issue mentioned was a council parking scheme. Interviewee #10 said that the parents of the neighborhood are known to be quite militant about their children’s education but no one claimed to have been involved in any sort of collective activity pertaining to this issue, indeed this situation was described as “anarchy”. Interviewee #29 described being an activist as an “unreachable ideal”. The neighborhood was also described as insular. Interviewee #9 said she had put up a screen to reduce her exposure, prior to which she used to chat over the fence with her neighbors. Several attributed the low levels of neighbourly interactions to high student population and the transient nature of the area. In fact, all 3 students interviewed in this neighborhood are at least aware of activism in the area and 2 are the most involved of all those interviewed here. These two also know their neighbors better than the non-students in the neighborhood. This is also the case in N#3.

Of the 9 households interviewed, 7 own their own home. This neighborhood has the second smallest gardens and solar resource with 29m2 average garden size and 3.6m2 average area under food cultivation. This is misleading as so few grow food and one has 19m2 under food cultivation. If that number is zeroed the average drops to 1.5m2, which makes this neighborhood the worst for food-growing based on area in cultivation. The average solar resource is 6.5 out of 10. One house has no southern exposure for the garden, only south facing windows. Every house except that one has tools available. 3 of the 9 interviewed practise vermiculture, composting and/ or RWH, but not the same 3 for each. Not surprisingly, this neighborhood has the second lowest level of food-growing with 61% of residents surveyed. Of the 18 households that returned a questionnaire, 11 are growing food but only 5 of the interviewees said they knew any neighbors who grow food.

72% of surveyed households have university training which would suggest an understanding of the challenges facing the UK relating to energy and climate and thus the food supply, yet there seems to be a complete disengagement with the issues at a neighborhood level. They do not appear to be at all interested in working together to improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. There are individuals growing food here, even a composting specialist, but because the neighbors cannot be bothered to get to know each other, that resource and potential for common knowledge and effort is being wasted. Not surprisingly, only one of the food growers interviewed here said they had had any influence on their neighbors, accomplished in the form of gifting plants, pots, compost and advice. Conversely, 4 of the 5 interviewees who do grow stated that seeing their neighbors growing did influence them to grow. Chart #3 shows a comparison between the total number of households surveyed, how many are growing, garden size and solar resource.

Chart #3 Neighbourhood comparisons #2

2009-05-05T12:32:00.001-03:00

Neighbourhood #3
With Asians, Turks, Britons, Africans, Chinese, students, seniors, families, and singles, N#3 was chosen for its diversity. It is also the least well off neighborhood in the cohort. 53% of those answering the income question on the survey are in the 20k or under group, whereas only 8% are in that bracket in N#4, 27% in N#1, and 47% in N#2. In spite of this, 73% of the surveyed households have a resident qualified up to at least first degree. Being a lower income area with significant amounts of council housing, there are several funded organisations with offices in the area addressing community issues. These organisations serve to unite the neighborhood and give the residents a forum. As a result, there are high levels of responses to queries regarding community activism.
The tenants and students are among the most active here. When asked about the primary reasons to grow, interviewee #22, a tenant, recent graduate and community activist responded, “To be self sufficient, to have some kind of support in this impending food crisis. To know we have something sustainable for a long period of time. Not just for me, but for whoever has the allotment next or who lives in this house next.” Interviewee #14, a tenant and student, spoke of the ethical considerations of growing and is spearheading a neighbourhood gardening group. Another tenant has now started a community garden for his housing estate. In fact every tenant in N#3 that I interviewed expressed some sort of involvement or interest in community issues.
This neighborhood has the smallest gardens, averaging 26.5m2 with 2.2m2 in food production, and the worst average solar resource at 5.3 out of 10. Only 2 of the 8 houses interviewed have any southerly exposure. As in N#2, only 5 know a neighbour who grows at least 1 type of food while 13 of 23 surveyed are actually growing food. Every household interviewed except 2 has tools available.
This neighborhood is anything but insular; it hosts several street festivals a year and there are often people on the street. Several of those interviewed expressed the opinion that the neighborhood is very active and aware, including politically. Every single individual I interviewed in this neighborhood stated that they have been or are active in the community. All 4 of those interviewees who grow or have grown stated that they have noticed an influence attributable to food-growing, whether theirs or not. 5 of the interviewees state that they have noticed and been influenced in some way by neighbours’ food-growing.
Neighbourhood #4
This neighborhood is active, highly organised and the wealthiest one I researched. Of the 12 who answered the income question, 10 are in the 31k or higher brackets with 6 in the 71k or higher bracket. Everyone knows their neighbors. They have the largest gardens, averaging 174m2 with an average of 18m2 in food cultivation. 5 of the 7 households interviewed have southerly exposure. The solar resource is slightly behind N#1’s at an average 7.6 out of 10. Every house interviewed has tools available. 3 practise vermiculture, 5 practise RWH, 6 practise composting.
While having 37% more garden space compared to N#1 the growers in this neighbourhood have on average 56% more area planted in food. However, only 1 surveyed in this neighbourhood has and is active on an allotment while in N#1, 4 are working an allotment, 3 of them are working more than one. There is another striking difference between these 2 neighbourhoods. Both are very community orientated and active but in very different ways. N#1 is committed to community activism while N#4, though not disengaged from community activism, is more involved in social gatherings like Christmas parties, jam making, open garden days, mums’ support groups, and coffee mornings. They are highly organised around growing food.
They have banded together to purchase a shredder and have 3 other tool and resource sharing schemes. When one elder gardener fell ill, a neighbouring couple stepped in to keep his garden in veggies.
While they all grow food, only 4 of the 7 interviewees in this neighbourhood stated that they had either been asked for advice or influenced others in the neighbourhood to grow food. Interviewee #19 said he does not participate in the neighbourhood social gatherings. The other 3 do participate, or have done, and may underestimate the influence potential of simply being another food grower in a neighbourhood of food growers. Interviewee #27 said, “We are British; we don’t talk to our neighbours”, I assume in jest, as there is every indication in the rest of her interview that she does. Only 2 of the 7 said neighbours who grow food had influenced them.

Land Use in the Neighbourhoods Charts #4 and #5

2009-05-05T12:28:00.000-03:00

Chart #4 shows the breakdown of what is being grown amongst all households surveyed while Chart #5 shows how many grow how many food types amongst all households surveyed.
Of those who do not grow much if at all, regardless of educational level, most believe they do not have enough land available to them to make it worthwhile. Of the 10 with a first degree and midrange or higher concern for climate change who do not grow any food, 7 feel they need a bigger garden. 4 of the 5 who only grow 1 food type would grow more if they had a bigger garden. Of the 8 with A level or lower who do not grow, 7 would grow more with more land. 2 of the 3 who only grow 1 food item would grow more with more land.
A UK study done in 1942 investigated food-growing in home gardens and found that while only using 14% of the available garden for food, yields were as high as the best farmland. Yields averaged 7.1 tonnes per acre while agricultural land only averaged 6.3 tonnes per acre at that time. (Tomkins 2006 p.45) In my research I did not look at yields but I did measure the amount of land dedicated to food-growing. In N#1 the average percentage of land given over to growing at home is 10.5%, in N#2 - 22.2%, in N#3 - 26.5%, and in N#4 - 10.3%. This is misleading however, because as we shall see in the next section, N#1 and #4 have the biggest gardens, have more residents growing more food and in the case of N#1 have the most allotments.

The Best Growers Charts #6 through #9

2009-05-05T12:16:00.006-03:00

Question 18, “What are you currently growing?” had 5 pertinent responses; nothing, medicinal or cooking herbs, leafy vegetables, root crops, fruit and/or berries. A look at the factors that were common to all or most of these “best” growers might be instructive.

In Chart #6 the educational qualifications of those growing all 4 food types, the best growers, are indicated. All but one of the best growers households have a resident with a first degree or higher. Though it is not certain whether increasing levels of education means more likelihood of food-growing within this cohort, it is not unreasonable to expect so.

The high level of educational qualification is reflected in high levels of concern for peak oil and energy prices as well as food supply and food prices. See Chart #7. Contrast this with those 15 with A level or lower qualifications, 7 expressed less than midrange concern for climate change, 8 expressed less than midrange concern for peak oil. Strangely, 10 of the 15 expressed mid or higher concern for energy prices and 9 expressed mid or higher concern for food prices while 8 expressed below midrange concern for food supply. Of the 7 that expressed mid or higher concern for food supply, 5 grow 1 or less food item and none has or is on a waiting list for an allotment though 4 would grow more with a bigger garden.

In Chart #8 we see that the well educated and committed food growers are also committed to cooking fresh local food but less so to buying organic food. This could be due to the availability of homegrown supply as 11 of the 14 grow organically. While 5 have an allotment only 6 expressed a need for more growing space in the form of an allotment or bigger home garden.

Even though all but one of this group have first degree or higher, this is no guarantee of earning power, see Chart #9. Of the 51 surveyed with first or advanced degrees, all of the respondents earning 71k or higher have just first degree, no higher. The 13 with advanced degrees earn 30k or under.

In the case of the less well off of these growers, food purchase choices are likely down to income. If we examine responses to other questions that could be construed as income related, all 4 of those at the 11-20k bracket express midrange or higher concern for energy prices, have done 3 or more energy efficiency measures in the household, and have someone in the home who is retired, unemployed or in part time employment. Only 1 has a full timer in the household and 3 state that they grow to save money. 2 would grow more with free advice or instruction.
Health concerns could also be a motivator for growing with this group. 12 of the 14 best growers do not smoke, 8 exercise 4 times/week or more, 9 drink 3 to 4 drinks per week or less, 13 grow because they want the freshest produce, 11 grow for therapy.

These best growers appear to understand the threats posed by climate change and the connections between peak oil and food supply as well as energy and food prices. The less educated appear to understand this less so and grow less food.

Education, Climate Change and Peak Oil

2009-05-05T12:13:00.000-03:00

Of the 128 adults resident in the 68 surveyed households 50 have first degrees, and 25 have advanced degrees, that is 59% with university training. Only 15 of 51 households with degrees grow no food, 29%. Conversely of the 15 with A level or lower, we see 8 who grow no food, 53%, and only 4 grow 2 or more food types. Concern about climate change seems to go hand in hand with an interest in food-growing among the better educated members of this cohort. 80% of households surveyed expressed midrange or higher concern for climate change. 73% of those grow at least 1 food item. Indeed, 86% of those with advanced degrees who expressed midrange or higher concern for climate change grow 1 or more food items.

Peak Oil concern appears to have a lower correlation with food-growing than climate change concern for this group. 78% of those with degrees express midrange or higher concern for peak oil. Of those, 65% grow 1 or more food item. Of the 20 with advanced degrees, 11 express midrange or higher concern for peak oil, 90% of those grow 1 or more food item. Peak oil has direct and clear implications on our industrial food system, whereas threats from climate change appear less certain. Also, as oil prices were at a record $140/bbl at the time I distributed the questionnaires and the media was full of news about a food crisis, it is no great intellectual feat to connect energy prices and peak oil to food. But peak oil is more abstract compared to energy prices. This is evident when you consider that 14 of the 21 with advanced degrees express significant concern for energy prices while only 11 of the 21 are as concerned about peak oil.
Of the 43 of the 51 with first or advanced degrees who expressed midrange or higher concern for energy prices, 38 expressed midrange or higher concern for peak oil as well.

31 expressed midrange or higher concern for rising food prices. I believe this indicates an understanding of the connection between peak oil, energy prices and food prices, not unusual for those with higher education. But what of concern for food supply?

Of the 51 households with first or advanced degrees, 24 expressed below midrange concern for food supply, 47%. 12 of them grow 1 or less food items. Of those 12, 4 do not grow because they can afford plenty of food, 4 because supermarket food is good enough, 5 because it is too much work. 7 of the 12 indicate 2 or more reasons they do not grow, 8 indicate 2 or more reasons they would grow more, 9 if they had a bigger garden or allotment. Of the group of 24 who have so little concern for food supply, only four have or had an allotment, none are on a waiting list, all 4 have either given one up or are not using theirs, even though 17 said they would grow more with a bigger garden or allotment. Does this lack of concern about the food supply stem from a confidence in growing ability?

Confidence Chart #10

2009-05-05T12:07:00.002-03:00

I have grouped responses on this topic from the interviews into three categories: those who think they can adapt without growing skill, those who have low confidence in growing ability and those with high confidence in growing ability.

Chart #10 shows the numbers in the interviews expressing confidence is high, but compared to the whole group of 68 households, it is small, only 20. Here are some examples of what they said.

High Confidence
Interviewee #17 - “We have a garden and we are amassing the skills by which, in the future, we can have a permaculture set up and be totally self sufficient in food ...“
Interviewee #21 - “… there is very little you can do about it apart from grow your own. … if it became more of an issue, we would certainly turn over more of the garden for food rather than flowers.”
Interviewee #18 - “I have a stash in the cellar, ... I’m trying to grow food and starting to learn more about wild foods that can be eaten. I’m learning about food preservation ...”
Low confidence
Interviewee #6 - “Last year I had almost zero success. Admittedly I didn’t grow very much; I didn’t grow enough food for one meal. So I’ve gone back to Tesco.”
Adaptation
Interviewee #14 - “I’d like to see the council and the government doing more to support local food… that would benefit us more than us doing our own gardening…”
Interviewee #12 - “I’m trying to earn more money; … training to get a better job.”

Income charts #11 and #12

2009-05-05T12:00:00.002-03:00

As seen in Chart #9 there is no consistency of income amongst the best growers. Evidence of an understanding that peak oil and energy prices are connected is clear but is there a correlation between concern for rising energy prices and the money saving behaviours queried on the survey, food-growing, energy efficiency measures, meal planning, cooking from fresh, limiting alcohol consumption, and not smoking?

Chart #11 shows money saving behaviours amongst those 43 well educated who expressed midrange or higher concern for energy prices. Only 20 plan meals before shopping 3 times per week or more. This, however, may indicate that planning is not necessarily seen as a money saving practise, as regular cookers they are likely to keep stock for cooking without planning.
Of the 43, only 9 express the highest concern about energy prices. All 9 express midrange or higher concern for food prices as well. All 9 cook from fresh 60% or more and have done 2 or more energy efficiency measures in the household. However, 8 of those purchase organic 30 to 75% of the time, all drink alcohol with 4 drinking every day, both of which could be interpreted as expensive, luxury items. 5 of the 9 who grow food do so because they want the freshest produce. All but one profess to be careful about nutrition. All 5 cook from fresh 60 to 100% of the time. 4 of the 5 earn 41k or more. Health is likely the motivation for higher purchase of organic produce and cooking from fresh and probably accounts for some of the other behaviours; indeed, only 1 of the 9 smokes and 7 exercise 3 times per week or more.

Chart #13 income to Age

2009-05-05T11:57:00.000-03:00

I expected to find that food-growing in my sample group is a response to financial need. While that may the impetus for many to start growing now that the economy is in a tailspin, it may not be the case for existing growers. Overall income distribution, Chart #12, is weighted towards the 30k and under brackets. 58 of the 68 households surveyed responded to the income question, 64% of them, 37 households, fall into that category.

Of the 128 adults resident in the surveyed households, it is clear from Chart #13 that the majority of the under 30k category is made up of 18 to 35 year olds. 85 of the resident adults live in households with 30k or under income. The largest income group of any age is the 18 to 25 year olds, of which there are 20, in households earning 10k or less.

Chart #14 shows that the poorest grow the least. Of the four types of food-growing queried: herbs, leafy vegetables, root crops, fruit and berries, most of the households in the under 10k bracket grow none, only a few even grow 1 type. The most impressive income groups for growing are the 11- 20k, 41-50k, and 71kor higher, all of which have the highest proportion of those growing the most types of food. Question 26 answer #2 was, “I grow because I need to save money on my food bills.” Only 5 out of 68 checked this box and 4 of them were in the 11-20k bracket. Financial need is not the primary motivator to grow food for the majority of this cohort.

chart #14 food grown by income

2009-05-05T11:51:00.001-03:00

Why Do They Grow? chart #15

2009-05-05T11:45:00.001-03:00

“Increased awareness of the environment and a growing consciousness of rising food prices provides this investigation on urban agriculture activities in Dublin with indicators of the reasons of why there seems to be an increase in growing one’s own food.” (Cullen 2008 p.38)

Intuitively, these would seem to be the reasons people grow their own food these days. My findings in Sheffield are somewhat different.

Question 26 responses 1 through 6 are started with the phrase “I grow food because …”. The relevant responses are “I need to save money on my food bills, I want the freshest produce, it is therapeutic, I have a friend to help me, I like gardening”. There are many instances of combinations with the most common ones being a combination of “I like gardening” with “for the freshest produce” or “because it is therapeutic”.

Of 36 who list “I like gardening” as a reason to grow, 29 are growing 2 to 4 food types, only 2 grow no food but do practice amenity gardening. 17 would grow more with a bigger garden, 17 with more time, only 7 if food prices keep rising, 29 have a first degree or higher. 27 expressed midrange or higher concern for climate change, 29 express midrange or higher concern for peak oil, 32 express midrange or higher concern for energy prices. 28 have done 2 or more energy efficiency measures. 18 cook from fresh 75 to 90%. All have done 3 or more of the gardening techniques indicated in question #19. 22 indicate therapy as well as a reason to grow, 26 indicate a desire for fresh produce as well, 17 indicate a desire for fresh produce and therapy along with “I like gardening” as reasons for growing.

Of the 27 who list wanting the freshest produce as a reason to grow, 20 cook from fresh 60% or more, 25 grow 2 or more food types, 13 would grow more with a bigger garden or allotment, 8 if they had more time, 5 with free advice, 4 if food prices keep rising, 24 have first degree or higher, 17 also grow for therapy, 25 also grow because they like it.

Overall, growing for the simple pleasure of it appears to be the primary motivator closely followed by a desire for the freshest produce and for therapeutic reasons.

Who Buys Organic Food and Why? chart #16

2009-05-05T11:43:00.000-03:00

As seen in Chart #16, among the 29 interviewed almost half choose organic to avoid chemicals in their food which is clearly a health concern, 45% described it as healthier, and 35% as better for the environment. 17% indicated that organic animal products are most important, indicating a general concern for health. Is their behaviour consistent with that supposition? It would appear so as of the 27 who list freshest produce as a reason to grow, only 8 smoke, 26 say they are careful about nutrition, 12 exercise 3 times per week or more, 15 drink once per day or less, 16 purchase organic 15 to 45%. Of the 25 who list therapy as a reason to grow, 11 purchase organic food 30% or more of the time. 17 cook from fresh 60 to 90%, 7 smoke, all but 1 are careful about nutrition.

Chart #17 organic purchasing

2009-05-05T11:35:00.001-03:00

In Chart #17, we see that only 11 of the 68 households purchase organic food 75% of the time or more. All 11 cook from fresh 60% or more, 10 of those grow 2 food types or more, 9 practise 2 or more energy efficiency measures, the 4 who grow all 4 food types purchase 75% organic, garden organically, do not smoke, are careful about nutrition, and get regular exercise. They grow for freshest produce, cook from fresh 75% or more, express above midrange concern for energy prices, and express midrange or higher concern for food prices. So within this group of 11, the more food they grow, the more focused on their health they are, which would indicate that organic food represents a healthy choice for them. They are less consistent with money saving behaviours as well even though 7 of the 11 are in the 30k or under bracket. 10 of the 11 have first degree or higher.

Just 9 of the 68 purchase organic 45 to 60% of the time. All of these get moderate exercise, cook from fresh at least 60% of the time, are careful about nutrition, drink 1 to 2 drinks per day or less, express midrange or higher concern for energy prices, plan meals 3 to 4 times per week or less, and do not smoke. 4 of these 9 grow 3 or 4 food types, all organically. They express midrange or higher concern for food prices, and have done 2 or 3 energy efficiency measures. So for these 4 perhaps purchasing a little less organic food and growing more is related to financial concerns. 2 of the 9 grow no food types and have midrange or lower concern for food prices. 8 of the 9 have first degree or higher.

Exactly half of the sample households, 34, purchase organic only 15 to 30% of the time. There is no consistency in this group other than education, 28 of the 34 have 1st degree or higher. 7 grow 4 food types; their behaviours are similar to other growers in the cohort growing 4 types. As pointed out before the more one grows, the less likely to purchase organic one is.
Of the 3 who grow 3 food types, all have done 2 energy efficiency measures, expressed midrange or lower concern for energy prices, expressed less than midrange concern for food prices. Regarding health behaviours, even these who do not purchase very much organic food but do grow some food are more likely to practise healthy lifestyles. The same goes for, if to a lesser degree, the 5 who grow only 2 food types.

The 8 who grow only 1 food type all plan meals 5 to 6 times per week or less, all expressed midrange concern for energy prices, all expressed midrange concern for food prices, drink 1 to 2 drinks per day or less. The concern for food and energy prices as well as the high level of meal planning suggests some financial concerns but not enough to curtail alcohol consumption.
13 of 68 purchase 0% organic, 9 of these grow 0 food, 9 have no degree, 7 earn 10k or lower. 10 of the 13 plan 3 to 4 times per week or less, 10 have done 2 or less energy efficiency measures, 6 drink 4 drinks per week up to 2 drinks per day. While 1 to 2 drinks per day is within the range of recommended healthy practise, that amount of alcohol consumption is not cheap. This suggests that expense may not be the primary reason for not purchasing organic even though many in this group are in lower income brackets.

Citizen Detail #1

2009-05-05T11:34:00.000-03:00

Alaya, not her real name, has two very energetic little boys. She and her husband own their own home in neighbourhood #3. Alaya is quite concerned about food security, particularly the price and supply of rice because the family budget is very tight. She likes to know where her family’s food comes from and how it is grown; she prefers fair trade, local, and organic for health, economic, and environmental reasons, but she cannot afford it very often.
Alaya very much wants to put in a garden in her small yard but needs help. She does not have the tools, a vehicle to source the tools and materials, access to the manpower to help clear the large growth of hedge and weeds in her backyard, or enough time to do it all herself. Her mother and father live in the south and grow vegetables, as do her grandparents and uncles. Having grown up with lots of fruit trees and a veg garden she is finding it hard to adjust to such a small yard. She plans to garden organically primarily to avoid pesticides in her family diet. She is hoping that she can get started at home and then get an allotment in order to seriously supplement her household food supply. She is also keen to develop an interest in gardening and nature in her children. She likes books by Monty Don.
Alaya knows several neighbours who grow and is inspired by them. She would be very happy to participate in a neighbourhood-growing scheme. She is very concerned about climate change because her home country, Bangladesh, is prone to flooding from sea level rise and she still has many family members there. She is involved in local community activism.
Alaya believes that the council should educate the public about the value of fresh organic food and the dangers of pesticides, she would like access to compost whether from the council or as a community based initiative. She would like some support and advice from the council; she is willing to work trade in return for help in her garden.

Local Food chart #18

2009-05-05T11:33:00.000-03:00

The 14 best growers purchase local less than organic, but only just. 6 purchase local 15%, 6 purchase local 30%, 1 purchases local 45% of the time and 1 did not respond to the question.
Overall, 42 of the 68 surveyed purchase local food 30% or less, while 47 purchase organic 30% or less. 20 of the 22 who shop local more than 30% have a first degree or higher. Chart #18 shows the numbers in each neighbourhood who purchase various percentages of local food.
35 of the 68 households purchase 15 to 30% local compared to 34 who purchase that quantity organic. 20 purchase 45% or more organic while 19 purchase that much local.

What Do They Need to Grow? Chart #19

2009-05-05T11:29:00.000-03:00

The numbers in Chart #19, from question #26 responses 7 through 11, were phrased as such, “I don’t grow because….”, to which they could check as many boxes as they wished. A lack of land or sun was most popular. This issue was queried again in Question #27 as a positive response, “I would be more likely to grow my own food if…” with two of the choices being “I could get an allotment” and “I had a bigger garden” as well as “I had better sunlight”. Again, land is the primary issue. Though the difference between those who want a bigger garden and those willing to take on an allotment is striking. With the long history of allotments in this country I believe very few are under any illusions as to how much work they entail. This is supported by the 30 responses regarding needing more time to grow more food shown on Chart #20. See Chart #30 below as well as the allotments discussion in the interview analysis section for more on this.

Chart #20 would grow more if.....

2009-05-05T11:26:00.000-03:00

Training and Charts #21 and #22

2009-05-05T11:19:00.004-03:00

There were many more responses to question 27 because anyone, grower or not might answer it. After a bigger garden most folks need more time. 15 individuals indicated they needed both, 5 indicated that they not only needed both but better sunlight as well, 3 that they would like free compost delivery as well, 3 said they would grow more if their neighbours did as well, only 2 if they could get an allotment.

10 individuals indicated multiple needs regarding financial assistance, such as free advice and free compost, or if food prices keep rising and a free class on gardening. All 10 earn 30k or less. 6 of them indicated 3 or more financial needs, 5 of those earn 20k or less per household.

Another relevant group are those who indicated a need for more community support. Responses indicated are “I could borrow tools”, “my neighbours did as well”, and “I could get free advice”. I do not include gardening classes and free compost delivery because I see these as council rather than community responsibilities. Gardening classes would involve certification schemes such as NVQs and properly qualified instructors rather than something put together within a neighbourhood. At the neighbourhood level it qualifies as advice. Composting on a scale large enough to properly support large numbers of home gardeners would require a committed council to set up or contract out a scheme with proper technology, operations, regulation, and maintenance. For more on composting see below.

Of the 17 expressing a need for support, 12 households expressed a need for only one of the 3 community support types, 5 expressed a need for more than one. The most common request is the 11 needing free advice. Closely related is the need for neighbours who garden, 5 of whom expressed that need, while only 4 would like to borrow tools. 5 of the 17 do not grow any food, 4 of them expressed a need for more land. 4 of the 5 have zero to minimal experience with allotments; they all buy organic food 30% or less, the same is true for local food. All 5 have midrange or higher concerns about energy prices, all have 1st degree or higher. 4 of the 17 grow 1 type of food, 4 grow 2, 1 grows 3, and 3 grow 4 food types. The willingness to grow is there, but the supports to make it happen are not or are at least perceived to be lacking.

Community support is needed in the form of advice but land is the primary issue. The need for a bigger garden or an allotment is the chief restriction on food-growing amongst this cohort. Taken together, 44 households expressed land related reasons for not growing more food, almost 68% of respondents. 30 have university training, 14 do not. 59% of those surveyed with degrees perceive land to be a limitation to food-growing while 82% of those without university training see it that way. 17 of the 30 earn 30k or under, 56%, while 10 of the 14 less educated earn 30k or under, 71%. 8 of those 14 are growing nothing, 12 of the 14 are growing 1 or less food type. 33% of the 30 with degrees who cite lack of land as an issue, grow nothing, just over half grow 1 food type or less. Having a degree and a decent income appears to affect the perceptions of lack of land as a limitation. Doing without both appears to increase the perception that there is a barrier to access to land.

If we look at the overall group of those who grow no food, 23, we see 18, or 78%, who express lack of land as a limitation. Adding in those who grow only 1 food type the total number rises to 35, 28 of whom, 80%, express lack of land as a limitation. Only 43% express lack of time as a limitation.

Chart #21 shows gardening training pursued and is drawn from the questionnaires. Not surprisingly, the vast majority, growers or not, have watched a television gardening programme. Referencing a garden book was also fairly common; using the internet was less so. Though only 9% of residents surveyed had attended a gardening class, all those interviewed felt that hands on training would be valuable with some lecture or internet back up. Evenings and weekends being the best times for a class.

69% have been to the local city farm, though when I queried this in the interviews most felt the primary value was stress relief or an opportunity to show animals to children. Several spoke highly of the Farm’s courses, discontinued due to budget cuts, and most expressed a wish for access to advice or training at the Farm. In an interview with the most senior and experienced staff member I was told that there was no sure way to get growing advice but that if I could catch the chief grower onsite he would be happy to offer advice.

Chart #22 is drawn exclusively from the interviews and it is obvious that human contact either from family members or other gardeners has been of the most value in learning about food-growing. This is followed closely by practise. Reading, which included both books and magazines, comes next.

Composting and Charts #23 and #24

2009-05-05T11:13:00.004-03:00

Every gardening project needs good compost.

Among the growers of my cohort composting is very popular. The percentages of surveyed households that compost or have done so are indicated in Chart #23. The two neighbourhoods that grow the most, N#1 and N#4, have the highest incidence of household composting, and incidentally are also the neighbourhoods with the most land. Composting can take up valuable space.

There have been several initiatives by private citizens and community groups over the years to organise composting on a community scale. At one point funding was provided to set up an anaerobic composting system for Sheffield, but when the funding ended so did the project. Unfortunately, the council’s efforts in composting are meager: a small green bin programme, with no provision for the return of composted material, and reduced price composters is the extent of it. Many suspect that the waste contract with the Veolia incinerator is at the root of the problem.

There is a small amount of compost for sale through the City Farm, certainly not enough to supply a serious expansion of home-based food-growing. Several of my cohort mentioned being frustrated by the lack of dependable supply there. This leaves individuals to source compost at B&Q or other garden centers or to make their own. The composters available through the council contract with Veolia at a reduced rate are currently the best option as they solve two problems at once, reducing the waste stream and producing high quality soil improvement. The units are reasonably space efficient, but people need training in their use.

Other councils in the area also have not learned how to deal with composting.

“One sustainability official … had recently consulted with Bradford Planning about the potential for developing a localized ‘community’ composting system using the council’s park waste as one waste source. He was told that Composting was an industrial activity that would have to occur in the industrial part of the city. He commented that this made a mockery of the now widely embraced planning principle of mixed uses.” (Howe 2002)

Compost is a challenge on the individual level as well. Interviewee #6 said,

“I don’t have a car to get compost. That was why I got a composter; every day I throw away vegetable peelings. It got mushy at the bottom over winter but the stuff at the top had only been in there a couple of days.”

She gave up on it and mentioned that having free compost delivery would be a huge help. She had taken a bus to B&Q to have a bag of compost delivered which cost more than the bag of compost.

Chart #24 shows the percentage of households surveyed in each neighbourhood that indicated they would grow more if they could get free compost delivery. N#3 is the neighbourhood with the smallest gardens. One possible solution to this problem is division of labour. Interviewee #29, a resident of N#2, specializes in composting. While most of the gardeners with allotments bring compost from the allotment to the home garden, he does the reverse. When asked how his home garden interacts with his allotment,

“I take my composting there. It was part of an art project. Set up a composting scheme; gift the compost to different projects. The artwork is the gift and the potential for it to improve things…”

He grows nothing at home but keeps multiple compost bins going. Compost could be traded for produce with his neighbours.

Time and chart #25

2009-05-05T11:09:00.002-03:00

Of the 30 households expressing a need for more time to grow food, Chart #25, 70% have at least one individual in the household working full time. 30% of them have children. 55% of the households that did not need more time have full time employment. Only 23% of them have children in the household.

charts #26 and #27 - Time issues

2009-05-05T11:04:00.005-03:00

83% of those who attest to needing more time cook meals from fresh ingredients 60% of the time or more, Chart #26. 74% of those who do not indicate time as a limitation to growing cook from fresh 60% or more. Those in need of more time do a surprising amount of meal planning.
43% plan 3-4 meals/week or more, see Chart #27. Among the 38 with plenty of time only 45% plan to that degree. Assuming that most people would only plan the evening meal, 3 or 4 per week, this represents 43% to 57% planning. Interestingly, both households that claim more than 5-6 times per week are single adult households with no children.

Additionally, the presence of children in the household probably influences the degree of planning and cooking from fresh. 5 of the 13 time poor households who plan 3-4 meals per week or more have children in the household, compared to 6 of the 17 of those with plenty of time. Indeed, in the overall cohort 11 of the 19 households with children plan to this degree while 8 with children do not, regardless of need for extra time. 14 of the 19 households with children cook from fresh at least 60% of the time. 4 cook from fresh 30 to 45% of the time.
Having children appears to increase the amount of time dedicated to food provision.

Age and growing chart #28

2009-05-05T11:01:00.003-03:00

Chart #28 shows the surveys divided by age. This was determined using the oldest age indicated for a member of the household unless that person was a single grandparent living with a family in which case I used the age of the couple in the house. The typical food grower in this cohort is aged 46-55. The next most successful group is the 56-65 year olds. The largest group is the one that grows nothing and it is populated by similar numbers of people from each age group.
The group that grows the least is the 66 and over group; it is also the smallest age group in the cohort.

Citizen Detail #2

2009-05-05T10:59:00.000-03:00

Albert, not his real name, is an old age pensioner, a grandfather, and the oldest person I interviewed for this research. Aged 87 years, he lives alone in a beautiful 3 story Victorian semi-detached house and is an inspiration to his entire neighbourhood and to me as well. While he recognises that he will not live to see the more severe changes resulting from climate change and peak oil, his commitment to energy efficiency and sustainability is evident in his actions. He gave up his car over a year ago, and I have seen him cycling all over town. He has solar photovoltaics and hot water panels fitted on his roof. A massive custom conservatory of his own design rising 2 stories on the south side of his house provides passive solar gain to his home. Albert has personally installed a small green roof outside one of his upper windows. All the modifications to his house have occurred since he moved there 3 years ago. One of the main reasons for his efforts is “more to set an example”.

Albert grew up on a farm and his family grew most of its own food. Later his wife and her family were influential as keen gardeners and cooks; the couple had a one hectare sized garden and grew most of their own food. Albert still uses a book he and his wife bought nearly 50 years ago ‘The ABC Vegetable Garden’ by W.E Shewell-Cooper; it is full of notes and addendums, a family treasure. He has trouble with digging now but still keeps a vegetable garden.

Albert lives in the neighbourhood, of all the ones I researched, with the highest level of community involvement. He is quite active there and is a highly valued neighbour. His career before retirement was as an academic and researcher in life sciences. He believes that children should be provided with a plot of their own to grow on, that councils should obey the law and provide everyone who wants one with an allotment, and that there should be widespread access to composted material and tools VAT free through the council. Albert is concerned about climate change, peak oil, soil erosion, the lack of farmers markets in Sheffield and the deleterious effects supermarkets are having on the food supply.

Allotments Charts #29 and #30

2009-05-05T10:55:00.005-03:00

Allotments
Chart #29 shows the distribution of experience with allotments amongst those surveyed. Only 8 of the overall group have an allotment. 7 are working theirs, 3 are working more than one. All 7 of those working their allotments are growing 3 or 4 food types. 4 of the 7 live in neighbourhood #1, 1 each lives in each of the other neighbourhoods.
6 of the 7 have at least a first degree. 6 expressed above midrange concern for food supply. 6 expressed midrange or higher concern for food prices. 4 purchase organic 30% or less even though all of them practise organic gardening.

It is likely that the high concern for food supply coupled with the practise of growing organic food results in a steady supply of organic food for the household which allows these folks, 5 of the 7 of whom are in the 11 to 30k bracket, to save by not purchasing as much organic food. The 2 who purchase 75 to 90% organic are in higher income groups.
As we saw with the home growers, health concerns likely predominate as motivators. 5 indicate that they grow for the freshest produce, none smoke, all are careful about their nutrition, 4 exercise 4 times per week or more, 5 drink 5 to 6 drinks per week or less.
Based on the data from the questionnaire, having higher education appears to increase the probability of growing food and that in itself appears to increase the probability of having an allotment but overall, allotments have very little bearing on the subjects in this study. 78% of households have 0 to minimal experience with allotments.
The primary reasons cited by my cohort for not taking an allotment, see chart #30, are lack of time, lack of confidence that they could handle the amount of work involved alone, too long a wait to get one, and lack of proximity.

Allotment problems Chart #31

2009-05-05T10:51:00.003-03:00

Why do the residents of N#4 take fewer allotments than N#1? Reasons given are displayed in Chart #31. They both have allotment sized or larger back gardens, they both have adequate solar resource; there is a commitment to growing food in both neighbourhoods. 4 of the 5 respondents, 3 from N#4, who expressed distance problems mentioned reluctance to use a car to access an allotment. Compare this to Chart #30 which is based on responses from all 4 neighbourhoods. It is clear that in all 4 neighbourhoods distance and time are the primary issues.
There are others who have done extensive research on allotments in England and there is ongoing research on allotments in Sheffield. I will leave details on this topic to them. However, as it impacts on the growing decisions of my cohort I should discuss some of what I learned about allotments in Sheffield.
Those who I talked to in depth about allotments expressed great concern about the council’s lack of commitment to adequate, fair, and supportive management of the allotments in existence, and dismay that so few are provided. The relationship between highly committed and experienced growers and the management has been quite dysfunctional at times and has hindered the positive development of the allotments in the Sheffield area. There have been many disputes with the chronically understaffed Allotments Department.
Certainly sufficient allotments to meet demand are not being provided. Interviewee #19 stated that they had been on a waiting list for 20 years. Apparently waits of 5 to 10 years are common. Meanwhile a great many sit unused. Of the approximately 3600 plots on 66 sites, 1000 are sitting unused or disused with approximately 1000 people on waiting lists, some of which were closed in 2008. (Clare 2009) In my opinion, if an allotment is unused for a certain period of time it should be rented to someone else through a sensitive and well-informed process involving all stakeholders, including the allotment federations. Also the rules governing the marketing of produce should be revised as needed to encourage maximum use of allotments and to help provide the city with local fresh produce. Terms of use agreements should be negotiable, particularly in the allowance of paid training to take place on allotments.
In my opinion, allotments are the heart and soul of urban agriculture in the UK. They have provided large quantities of food in hard times and are highly valued by those who are committed to them. They are also valuable centers of learning and gardening culture. Allotments have the potential to and indeed are already providing vital services to home-based food growers, from composting to seed swapping. Some home-based growers have an allotment and have developed methods of interaction between the two. Most use their home planting to bring on seedlings. Most do their composting on the allotment and bring it back home, though different forms of composting sometimes take place on the two sites.
Allotments have been the center of community supported agriculture projects, educational efforts, and a lifeline for disadvantaged, disabled, and/ or disturbed individuals who have been lucky enough to find their way onto a site. “In the most recent survey of allotment provision in Sheffield, 75% of tenants defined themselves as either disabled or disadvantaged.” (Clare 2009) In Sheffield several successful examples of these types of projects exist.

Project Detail #1

2009-05-05T10:50:00.002-03:00

The Foyer Project is a charity hostel for young homeless adults between 16 and 25 yrs old based around providing a stable home life as well as life-skills education. The goal is to return the residents to the community as self-sufficient, well-balanced people. A large portion of this effort is centered on health: exercise, hygiene, cooking, eating habits and nutrition. They have recently installed a growing space and greenhouse to involve the residents in growing their own food both as an exercise in practicality and as therapy.

Project Detail #2

2009-05-05T10:50:00.001-03:00

The Leaf Project, Local Enterprise Around Food, is a very successful community garden scheme. It is a pragmatic and flexible programme based around the needs of community, committed to healthy eating through healthy food production and training healthy growers. All food produced goes to the volunteers involved in growing it.

LEAF operates 7 allotments on a previously derelict site and supports food production on other sites such as school and retirement facility gardens with 25 regular volunteers and 300 beneficiaries in total. Anyone is welcome and supported community groups tend to feed in volunteers. Almost all volunteers are local and arrive on foot.

During sessions, which center on long term development of the site and the needs of the growing plan, personal attention develops out of deepening relationships with volunteers and occurs onsite as well as at home gardens. Areas of training include; growing, propagation, soil improvement, companion planting, crop rotation, pests and diseases, seed saving, harvesting and preserving, composting, vermiculture, RWH, and food affordability.

The LEAF project has neighbourhood penetration and awareness throughout the Southey and Owlerton regeneration area. It has stimulated home growing in a two ways: flow of produce and surplus plants to and from site and home gardens. Also, produce tends to come back to the site as value added pies and crumbles.

Soil Testing and Contamination

2009-05-05T10:49:00.001-03:00

One of the responses to Question #19 about gardening techniques was soil testing. Type of testing was not specified though most interpreted it as ph and nutrient testing. Only 12 of those returning the questionnaire said they had tested their soil in any way, 4 said in interviews that they had tested for PH and some for nutrients and trace elements as well. All 12 grow 2 or more food types and 8 grow all 4. All 12 have undertaken soil improvement and composting. 11 of them garden organically. 9 harvest rainwater. Taken together these behaviours indicate a thoroughness of approach to food-growing.

Only 1 in N#2 has tested their soil for contamination while 3 of the 9 interviewed there said they were concerned about soil contamination and 4 had no idea how to get contamination testing done. 2 of those unconcerned indicated their own understanding of their garden techniques and the history of the area as reasons.

While only 2 in N#3 have tested their soil, 5 of 8 interviewed expressed concern about contamination. 4 expressed confidence that they could find a way to get their soil tested for contamination.

4 in N#1 had tested their soil and 4 of 5 interviewed were aware of general contamination issues and gave reasons for being concerned or not; only 2 expressed concern. 3 did not know anything about getting soil tested for contamination, while 1 provided names of 3 Labs in Yorkshire that do it.

While 5 in N#4 had tested their soil, only 2 of 7 interviewed expressed concern about soil contamination, 1 of whom said that they had chosen the SW side of town to buy due to prevailing winds blowing pollution to the NE side of town. 2 expressed complete confidence that their neighbourhood was not contaminated. 4 would not know how to get contamination testing done.
It is not surprising that N#1 and N#4 have done the most soil testing; these neighbourhoods have the most committed and active growers.

Chapter 4 - Analysis of Method

2009-05-05T10:45:00.002-03:00

Questionnaire
There are improvements that could have been made to the questionnaire.

• Based on numbers from the questionnaire indicating the levels of concern about peak oil and climate change relate to levels of education I have made an assumption that having a university degree increases the likelihood of understanding the threats they present. This is not certain.
• I should have included more specific questions regarding ownership of residence so I could relate that to food-growing and activism. In question #5 I queried household composition but did not phrase the question so as to isolate tenants from owner-occupiers even though one of the responses was roommates/tenants. Thus I was limited to interviews for this data. Additionally, as there is student housing in the neighbourhoods I surveyed, it became apparent in the data analysis stage that a better understanding of numbers of students in my cohort and their involvement in growing and activism would have been useful. In question #6, I queried income and indicated retired/student as a response. This was insufficient.

I was only able to identify 28% of my interviewed cohort as tenants. This was far too small a percentage of the overall cohort to draw any accurate conclusions that would relate to the whole group. A large population of the city is tenants or students; their rights and willingness to grow food at their residence should be more thoroughly investigated.

• 28% of households surveyed have children resident. I looked at having children as it impacts perception of time constraints but this is insufficient. Taking care of children involves large time commitments and is likely to influence food choices relating to expense, ease of preparation, the satisfaction of the juvenile palate, and health. These effects and how they impact food-growing behaviour were not fully accounted for in my research. As children are not as likely to be the chief growers this did not significantly affect my results but the effects of having children on food-growing behaviour deserves a study all it’s own.
• By framing the second half of question 26 as such, “I don’t grow because….” I attempted to limit the responses to those who do not grow. This was to be contrasted to question #27, “I would be more likely to grow my own food if…”, particularly where the responses were related, as in “if I could get an allotment” and “if I had a bigger garden” or “if I had better sunlight” for #27 which relates to “ ...don’t have enough land or sun” in question 26.
This proved only partially successful as all of those who checked none of those boxes in question 26 do grow at least 1 type of food. However, of those who checked at least one of the responses 7 through 11 on question 26, 9 are actually growing while 23 are not. Of those 9, 7 are growing only 1 type of food and 2 are growing 2 types. It seems that all 9 interpreted the question as “I don’t grow MORE because….”.

Though this problem did not significantly affect the results, questions #26 and #27, being at the heart of the purpose of this research, should have been better thought out and designed.

• Question #13 on meal planning should have defined meal planning. Deciding what breakfast cereal to buy is not really relevant but may constitute planning for some. What I was really interested in was the degree of care the household took with the food they consumed. The way I phrased the question was not clear enough to determine that. It ended up being more about time and as an indication of money saving behaviour. This proved useful, as I was quite interested in the degree to which financial need motivates growing.
• It is quite possible that the houses most likely to return the questionnaire were those most interested in the topic, though I know of at least one household that was completely uninterested in growing food and yet returned the questionnaire. I tried to never leave a questionnaire without getting a verbal agreement to fill it out and return it. I had carefully chosen my words upon initial contact not to say I was specifically researching food-growing, but rather gardening.

The introduction letter was clearer about my purpose. In this way I hoped to get agreement to complete the questionnaire regardless of whether they were interested in growing food. If this study were to be expanded, more focus should be placed on those who don’t grow, as they are likely the larger segment of society. The most useful result would be to discover what would motivate them to grow.

• The time to do a trial survey and analyse that data before distributing my questionnaire would have been of great benefit. In retrospect it is apparent that I would have also had a better interview design if I had completely analysed and starting writing up the questionnaire results first. It is also clear that had I done so, it would have jeopardised the completion of the thesis, as it would have pushed the interviews so late in the schedule that I might not have completed them in time. Additionally due to the rapidly worsening financial situation in the UK, I would likely have been looking at two different sets of household circumstances from the time of the questionnaire to the interview. This would have compromised conclusions, as the two would not have related as tightly. The solution would have been to more rigorously plan the analysis procedure for the questionnaire to allow me to draw out conclusions more rapidly. Having a software package available and being comfortable with it would have been invaluable. This option should be made available in both Mac and PC formats through tutorial and/or workshop at AEES modules.

Interview
Several who did not do any gardening allowed an interview, but most of the interviewees had some reason to connect to the topic. Some expressed an interest in participating in research; others valued having a forum for their opinions. Some of those I interviewed in my own neighbourhood, N#2, probably allowed it because we were neighbours. Most of those were or had been growers so I do not believe that my being a neighbor had any effect on the results. In fact, my own neighborhood had the highest number of cancellations after an interview had been scheduled, one of whom was my next door neighbor.

Many, particularly in N#1 and N#4, were keen gardeners and or activists and were very interested in the topic. While this limits the results and focus of the research to growers predominately I do not perceive this as a problem as long as it is kept in mind when drawing conclusions. The point of the study was to determine the factors that promote and support home-based food-growing so focusing on the most successful growers makes sense. Focusing on those who do not grow would take a different approach, both in identifying the sample group and gaining access for interviews. That work needs to be done but falls outside the realm of the possible within the personal, financial, and time constraints of this study.

In general the interviews were the most successful portion of the study, the design, recording process, and transcription all worked well. I perhaps could have been more on task in the interviews at times. I tended to let the subjects elaborate quite a lot which made the transcription a more lengthy process.

Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Recommendations

2009-05-04T21:53:00.001-03:00

Education, Climate Change and Peak Oil
The correlation of food-growing to educational level is evident in the results. Those with at least a first degree are more likely to grow food. This would suggest that a means of addressing the needs of the less well educated should be developed, as it seems unlikely that the UK will somehow become a more educationally homogenous society. Hopefully, as home-based food-growing spreads among the better educated, their less educated neighbours are more likely to start growing. My results indicate that this is more likely to occur in neighbourhoods with high degrees of interaction and activism. But having a university degree is not the only factor relating to education.

Pursuing a university degree also appears to increase the likelihood of both food growing and activism according to my results. As the effects of peak oil begin to manifest, there is an opportunity, some might say even a responsibility, for the local universities to get involved with fostering community resilience through projects utilizing the creative energy and enthusiasm of their students to research and facilitate urban agriculture in general and specifically home-based food-growing in Sheffield.

The immediacy of the challenge presented by peak oil appears to be a factor in food-growing but less so than climate change. Perhaps, because of the higher level of education, the group of well educated growers is quite willing to extrapolate effects on food production from global warming, even though those effects are less well defined by science and media. There may also be a better understanding that the challenges presented by peak oil may be easier to deal with via a shift to organic agriculture or even paying more for food to facilitate continued industrial production and transportation. Climate change will present challenges that are far more difficult to address, e.g. the increasing aridity of Spain, where much of the winter produce for the UK is sourced. Agriculture cannot proceed without water. Even so, concern for food supply is still lower than for food prices.

Climate change is not only an issue of food security. If the UK switched to food produced entirely locally and organically it could reduce GHG emissions by 22%. (Stanley 2002 p.25) While that degree of change is not likely, as a nation attempting to meet ambitious emissions targets, a transition to consumption of locally produced organic food to whatever degree possible in the UK is advisable. Similarly, using oil to support agriculture is clearly unsustainable. People grew food without oil for millennia; there is no reason why they cannot do it again. Encouraging small-scale production of food in the home gardens of Sheffield will necessarily be a part of that effort.

Ownership, Land, and Activism

2009-05-04T21:52:00.000-03:00

Having land available to grow on is the biggest single factor encouraging food-growing amongst my cohort. The more land, the more likely they are to grow food. Where abundance of land and high levels of community involvement, whether social or activist, occur together, the most food is grown.

Those in my interviewed cohort who own their own homes are only 18% more likely to grow food. In the neighbourhoods with the least resources, students are providing much of the impetus toward activism, social interaction, and food-growing. An attempt should be made by permanent residents and landlords to welcome students and tenants into the neighbourhoods and to involve them in local activities. In reaching out to tenants and students, permanent residents should assist in gaining acceptance for gardening from landlords.

Food Security

2009-05-04T21:51:00.000-03:00

Food deserts, neighbourhoods with no access to healthy seasonal foods, are a threat to food security as supermarkets have supplanted local grocers and after destroying local commerce pull out at the first sign of a downturn in profits. Home-based food-growing improves resilience in the face of such fluctuating supply. Supermarket supply is not threatened as of yet in the neighbourhoods studied and as a result, fears of supply problems are not listed as reasons for growing. This may change as climate change and peak oil begin to impact on food supply.

Food security, health, and fuel poverty are all linked. As incomes drop, if fast foods and processed foods are the cheapest alternative, then health suffers, similarly as choices have to be made between eating and heating, health is threatened.

Food Choices and Health

2009-05-04T21:49:00.001-03:00

The UK suffers from over nutrition. 22% of men and 24% of women were obese by 2005. (Millstone and Lang 2008 pgs.26-29) Rising rates of obesity and diabetes are increasingly linked to our nutrition transition characterized by an increase in,

“• … intakes of fat, sugar, salt, and often animal foods
• … alcohol consumption …
• … the consumption of refined and processed foods.” (Millstone and Lang 2008 p.82)

Fresh seasonal food has significant health benefits. Local seasonal foods are consumed closer to their peak of ripeness, which increases the intake of health promoting phyto-chemicals found in the color and aromatic qualities of ripe produce. (Leitzmann 2005 p.758)

In my cohort, purchasing organic is largely undertaken by those with higher education and to a lesser degree with higher incomes. Those who do not purchase organic also do not grow food. Choosing organic products is a choice related more to health than to money issues. The best growers, who mostly grow organically, choose organic over local, while the rest of my cohort tends to prefer local over organic, though the differences between the two are slight. This is likely down to the motivations to grow being largely health related. It follows that those motivated enough to grow significant amounts of food, and grow it organically, place a premium on healthy food and therefore choose organic before local food.

Those in my cohort with low educational qualifications and low income purchase the least organic and local food and grow the least as well.

Motivation to Grow Food

2009-05-04T21:48:00.000-03:00

Gardening as therapy was recognised in Sheffield by Dr. William Buchan in the 18th century and is recognised as such by the Foyer Project, LEAF Project, and therapeutic horticulture courses run by Richard Clare. (Buchan 1760 p.143) Gardening as therapy is not unfamiliar to my cohort either.

Financial need is not a primary motivator to grow food for most of my cohort. The growers do so because they like gardening, they want fresh produce, and because it is therapeutic. As doing something you enjoy can be considered therapeutic, all three reasons can be interpreted as reasons of health. This is supported by the data measuring the behaviours polled that could be considered healthy that are also in evidence with the growers, particularly the best growers.

What do they need to grow more?

2009-05-04T21:47:00.000-03:00

Land is the simple answer, land that is close to home and available in various sizes to suit the need and time available to work it. Those with a lack of higher education and a low income are much more likely to feel the need for more land in order to grow.

Allotments are not high on the list of desired assets. Waiting lists, transportation issues, the size of the commitment and the time needed to adequately utilise an allotment are all cited as reasons.

80% of those who grow only 1 food type or less feel that lack of land is a limitation to growing more. Only 43% of those express lack of time as a limitation, but time to garden is second only to land as a vital resource that is listed as being in short supply.

Life skills training, like that provided by the Foyer Project to homeless youths, can help to prioritise activities and avoid time wasting behaviour like television watching, shopping, and excessive online time. This should be included in school curricula.

One of the most personally surprising results from my research was the degree to which members of my cohort are cooking meals. This is a significant choice for healthy food. Even in households too short of time to grow food, time is taken to cook meals from fresh ingredients.

The degree to which households plan meals and cook from fresh is a good indicator of priorities, as both activities can improve the health and financial well being of the household. The fact that 83% of those who attest to needing more time for growing food, cook meals from fresh ingredients 60% of the time or more indicates to me a healthy set of priorities. They need strategies for improving their time efficiency. These households could benefit by participation in community garden schemes, compost delivery, and onsite evaluation and training.

Training

2009-05-04T21:45:00.001-03:00

With the growing threats to food security from peak oil and climate change along with the ever increasing rates of diabetes and obesity due to over reliance on processed foods, consensus is growing that urban agriculture should be an increasingly important part of the UK’s food supply. Due to the generally small individual areas available, careful attention to growing systems must be applied in order to ensure that it fulfills the needs of the people. (Tomkins 2006 p. 42) In order to maximise production of healthy food in the home gardens of the city, a relevant training system is needed that is widely available.

There is a deep well of experience on allotments around Sheffield. While permaculture courses are available through Sheffield Organic Food Initiative and opportunities abound for informal training, formalised training leading to certification in urban agriculture is urgently needed. This is currently unavailable in local colleges that are focused on amenity horticulture. This type of training should be available where it applies, on allotments and in home gardens.

Sheffield is also blessed with another perfect location for training. For thirty years Heeley City Farm has been an invaluable resource for the city. Interviewees spoke of the value of being able to see how successfully food can be grown in the city as well as having the opportunity to see a successful composting operation. Interviewee #17 said,

“It was good how they had all the raised beds with different crops in; interesting seeing how some of ours had done better than theirs, or theirs had done better than ours. They also had other stuff like artichokes, seeing how abundant they were makes me realise I would like to grow those in the future … Maybe if they had either staff or volunteers around the gardening section and one could go and talk to them about the crops.”

At one time the farm offered yearlong horticulture classes that were highly regarded. Due to fluctuations in funding they have struggled to maintain services to the public. Unfortunately, these vital courses were cut. Residents in my cohort spoke quite highly of the farm and lamented its difficulties. The council should see to it that the farm has a reliable funding stream as a matter of food security for its inner city residents.

Courses resulting in an NVQ in urban agriculture should be designed, funded and offered through the Heeley City Farm, the LEAF Project, Sheffield Organic Food Initiative, as well as on allotments where applicable.

Composting and Allotments

2009-05-04T21:44:00.000-03:00

Composting recycles valuable nutrients, eases demand for landfill and incineration, and provides home growers with the healthy growing medium so necessary to successful gardening. Home composting is likely inadequate to the task of providing sufficient compost to a large expansion in numbers of growers. This should be organised by the council and vigorously implemented.

Until that time provision of composting equipment should be accompanied by adequate training in its proper use. The use of allotments to produce compost for the home gardener should be investigated and made available to those without allotments of their own.

For the majority of my cohort, allotments are currently irrelevant, but long waiting lists suggest that demand for land to grow on is rising and will continue to rise as economic conditions worsen. In Sheffield there are around 3600 allotments, approximately half of which lie unused while upwards of 1000 people are on waiting lists. (Clare 2009) To even comply with the existing allotment laws, it is clear that the allotment system will need to be expanded and funded to a much greater degree. Management needs to be carefully re-organised and sufficiently staffed to involve stakeholders and those with sufficient experience to advise.

Resilience and Policy

2009-05-04T21:41:00.001-03:00

The burgeoning Transition Movement offers guidance towards “ … a culture based on its ability to function indefinitely and to live within its limits, and able to thrive for having done so.” (Hopkins 2008 p. 13)

Much can be learned from work done in the developing world as well. With increasing foreclosures, unemployment, rising energy and food prices, the developing world and the developed world begin to look more and more alike.

Food security and quality is of increasing concern. With the swelling tide of obesity and diabetes, it has become apparent that attention must be paid to the types and quality of food consumed. This is as much a problem of education as one of access to resources. It is clear a holistic approach is necessary.

“… the evolution of the concepts and issues related to household food and nutritional security led to the development of the concept of household livelihood security. … Food is understood to be only one of the priorities that people pursue. People are constantly required to balance food procurement against the satisfaction of other basic material and non-material needs (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992).” (Frankenberger and McCaston 1998 p. 2)

Each part of household livelihood security is necessary to provide sustainable basic needs. Weakness in any one area threatens overall security. Home-based food-growing not only helps to insure household food security, it’s effects can be much more broad.

By spawning ancillary businesses such as the production and marketing of value added products, local transportation and distribution, as well as marketing of fresh produce, sustainable urban agriculture, including home-based food-growing, enhances household livelihood security for many within the community, even those not actively involved in growing. But the scale of the deployment necessary is large.As Cuba discovered when the Soviet Union collapsed and their oil supplies were sharply reduced, sustainable agriculture on the scale required to adapt to the challenges of peak oil depends on community involvement.

Skill sharing and training will be required on a massive scale to enable urban and peri-urban dwellers to contribute in a significant way to the food supply. In the Transition movement this is part of the re-skilling of the community. (Hopkins 2008 pgs.166-170) Though many who participated in the Dig for Victory campaign are gone, there are those who have continued to practise small-scale sustainable agriculture ever since. Their knowledge should be capitalised on while it is still available.

Additionally, in designing a plan for the promotion of urban food-growing,

“… care should be taken not to continue the practise of imposing master plans on to the urban landscape, as had been the norm in the post war years, but to seek an understanding of the local site and tailor UA accordingly.” (Tomkins 2006 p. 52)

Accordingly, when assessing yield potential it is important not to discount the small plots that are so common in the inner city:

“… research in Cuba has suggested that there is not a direct relationship of size versus yield (Cruz and Medina, 2003) but it is the interplay of labour versus yield that determines efficiency.” (Tomkins 2006 p. 74)

Currently the citizens of Sheffield are forging ahead with community gardens, programmes to harvest and care for abandoned fruit trees, neighbourhood growing clubs, informal training sessions with master gardeners as well as more formalised curriculum, and community activism based around urban food-growing. Yet when I queried a Sheffield council worker about what types of support structure were in place to assist home-based food growers, I got a response and look that made it clear she thought I was deluded to expect the council to help people in their own gardens. From the lack of food based horticulture training, the abysmally understaffed management and provision of allotments, and the complete lack of support for a serious composting programme, the council is now in the position of playing catch up. They have but to look to Cuba, to the Transition Movement, and to their own citizens already leading the way in programmes like the LEAF Project, Heeley City Farm, and the Sheffield Organic Food Initiative.

Contamination

2009-05-04T21:39:00.001-03:00

At a lecture given by Roberto Perez, the Cuban agronomist featured in the film ‘The Community Solution’, I asked what steps had been taken to assess or remediate soil contamination in the city of Havana. The response was that nothing had been done other than to assume the soil was suspect and to use raised beds with imported soil fortified with locally produced compost. Mr. Perez added that in cases where severe contamination was suspected, one should seal the existing soil with a liner before adding soil above.

Dr. Rule, the biogeochemist from Loyola University, recommends:

“The addition of organic matter … these materials will bind a large number of contaminants and reduce their uptake by plants. The addition of lime will also render many metal contaminants unavailable to plants. … Be careful if obtaining bulk soil to ensure the origin is from an uncontaminated area.” (Rule 2008)

A Boston Globe article recommends regarding that when gardening in lead contaminated soil to:

“… plant fruiting crops such as tomatoes, squash, peas, and corn because they take up relatively little lead … avoid planting root vegetables, potatoes, and leafy vegetables, which take up more.” (Daly 2008) See appendix #10 for more from this article.

Many metals and chemicals are to be found in soils in urban areas. Each can have an effect on the bioaccessibility of the others, not only in the soil and water but in vivo as well. See appendix #11. Research indicates in vitro testing for contamination is not very useful in determining in vivo effects of contamination or bioavailability. (Environment Agency 2007) Clearly, research into the true effects of contaminants, singly and in groups, on human health is needed. Until reliable soil guideline values (SGV) are produced based on in vivo testing, perhaps the precautionary principle should be applied; in the presence of serious threats one should not wait for scientific certainty before taking action to prevent damage.

Without evidence to the contrary, citizens within Sheffield should assume the worst of their soil and only grow in carefully sourced replacement soils or if they suspect contamination, they should use a liner above the existing soil.

Meanwhile, pressure should be put on Sheffield City Council to comply with the Environment Act of 1990 and to produce a comprehensive register of contaminated sites.

Summary - A Better Way

2009-05-04T21:37:00.000-03:00

“Around 800 million city dwellers worldwide … use their agricultural skills to feed themselves and their families.” (Millstone and Lang 2008 p.54)

While Havana is well known for successful urban agriculture, with 41% of the city area dedicated to agriculture, less well-known examples in the developed world include;

“Germany – 5% of population benefit from allotment gardens
Tokyo – 10% of city area used for agriculture
London - 14% of households grow vegetables in garden
Toronto – 40% live in households that produce some of their own food
Vancouver – 42% grow some food
Moscow – 65% of families involved in agriculture in urban or suburban areas”
(Millstone and Lang 2008 pgs.54-55)

Clearly, the understanding that urban agriculture is a part of our future is spreading. The reasons are many.

Every portion of food grown at home is one portion less that need be produced by industrial agriculture either abroad or in the UK. Homegrown food need not involve artificial fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. It is not transported in containers across an ocean or across the UK. Eaten within hours of being picked it requires no packaging or refrigeration and is healthier as a result. For all these reasons and since one need not drive to purchase it, its carbon footprint is much lower. Individual and national dependence on fossil fuels is reduced. Food security, health both mental and physical, and community resilience are enhanced.

Because my research included such a high proportion of active growers, a study designed to look more closely at those who do not grow would be useful. What do they need to get started? Is it merely a matter of adequate education, a supportive neighbourhood and access to land? It seems unlikely. Waiting until hunger drives this population to start growing does not seem prudent. Strategies should be tested now to get larger portions of the population of Sheffield and the UK to start growing food.

At the council level, access to land nearby to neighbourhoods is vital; parkland, sporting fields, estate grounds, and derelict building sites, but more can and should be done to help people produce food at their own homes. This is what I believe is required;

• a vigorous public education outreach that emphasizes the health benefits of homegrown produce, the cost savings possible and food security issues,
• a city wide composting plan that provides delivery of free compost,
• a food-growing advice service that householders can access via telephone, email, web, and even personal onsite consultation,
• a training programme resulting in an NVQ in small-scale food-growing.

In addition, a thorough and speedy assessment of the risks to the public from soil contamination and education about methods to remediate those risks must be completed and made public.

At the neighbourhood level, the most effective thing residents can do would be to organise around food-growing. Citizens should get to know their neighbours, start a growing club, share skills, and work together to help more households grow more food.

Further Research Suggested

2009-05-04T21:34:00.001-03:00

I produced my own data. As economic stability was quickly eroding and census data would have been unreliable, I did not look at census derived demographic data of the neighbourhoods.

There was very little research to be found regarding home-based food-growing in northern England. Literature review undertaken related primarily to urban agriculture and the relationship of the food system to energy, GHG emissions and health. This was to establish context and rationale for my research and conclusions.

Though studies do indicate urban agriculture improves food security within vulnerable households,

“An output indicator … such as ‘increased backyard production of food’ cannot be assumed to automatically improve household food security or better diet;” (RUAF 2001 p. 24)

Research that follows homegrown produce from garden to eater would be of great value. Understanding to what degree homegrown food supplants fast food or food sourced from supermarkets might help health professionals and council members to better support gardeners.

Several other questions come to mind when contemplating follow up research;

1.What percentage of growers in a socially functional neighbourhood creates a self-perpetuating movement that can sustain itself through turnover and economic vagaries? Would that number fall or rise based on the degree of social activity or community activism?
2. What is the extent of the risk posed by contaminated soil in Sheffield?
3. To what degree do my results apply to other neighbourhoods in Sheffield? Are the majority of home-based food growers in wider Sheffield well educated? Are their motivations the same as my cohort’s? What about nationwide?
4. How does having children in the household influence the decision to grow food?
5. What can be done to provide more allotments and make them a more reasonable proposition for the average householder?

Bibliography and References:

2009-05-04T21:32:00.000-03:00

Barnes B., Saikat S., Westwood D. 2007 - Inter-laboratory comparison of in vitro bioaccessibility measurements for arsenic, lead and nickel in soil Science Report – SC040060/SR2; conclusions page 66 and 67 Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD ISBN: 978-1-84432-721-8 [online] http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ [Accessed December 2008]

Buchan, W. 1760 - Domestic Medicine, pg. 143 in Flavell, N. 2003 - Urban allotment gardens in the eighteenth century: the case of Sheffield, British Agricultural History Society vol 51 part 1 [online] http://www.bahs.org.uk/51n1a5.pdf [Accessed February 2009]

Chapman, Peter 1975 in Viljoen 2005 - CPULs Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes , Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities edited by Andre Viljoen; Architectural Press 2005 Elsevier Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP; 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803

Clare, R. 2008 - Courses 2009 [online] http://www.organic-guru.co.uk/resources/ediculture09.pdf Accessed February 2009]

Clare, R. (richard@organic-guru.co.uk)(05/02/2009) – from personal e-mails to C Robb Worthington (crobbw@gmail.com)

Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (2003) Statement on Arsenic in food: results of the 1999 total diet study, [online] http://cot.food.gov.uk/search?p=R&srid=S2%2d2&lbc=food&w=ARSENIC%20IN%20FOOD%3a%20RESULTS%20OF%20THE%201999%20TOTAL%20DIET%20STUDY&url=http%3a%2f%2fcot%2efood%2egov%2euk%2fpdfs%2fArsenicStatement%2ePDF&rk=1&uid=756904747&sid=13&ts=cot&rsc=7B0zFb3Q5SUmBQzm&sec=cot%2efood%2egov%2euk&method=and&sec=cot%2efood%2egov%2euk&mainresults=mt%5fmainresults%5fyes [Accessed December 2008]

Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (2008/19) Contaminants in Soil, [online] http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox200819.pdf&ei=E1NjSZ6NM9iKjAe57emPCg&sig2=0FmXVL8NT6MyBNImQz67bQ&usg=AFQjCNF9p5xymRBL1t0vLmDZlPZo8A2c4w [Accessed December 2008]

Cox, B.D. Whichelow, M.J. and Prevost, A.T. 2000 - Seasonal consumption of salad vegetables and fresh fruit in relation to the development of cardiovascular disease and cancer Public Health Nutrition: 3(1), 19–29, in Tong, Y. Szeto, Tomlinson, B. and Benzie I.F.F. 2002- Total antioxidant and ascorbic acid content of fresh fruits and vegetables: implications for dietary planning and food preservation, British Journal of Nutrition 87, 55–59 DOI: 10.1079/BJN2001483 [online] http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=897260 [Accessed December 2008]

Cullen, Michael 2008 – Uncovering the Plot: Investigating Urban Agriculture in Dublin A thesis submitted to the Dublin Institute of Technology in part fulfillment of the requirements for the award of MSc. in Culinary Innovation and Food Product Development [online] http://dublinfoodgrowing.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/michael-thesis-with-bibs-refs-and-apps.pdf [Accessed February 2009]

Daley, Beth (2008) Boston Globe: Lead may lurk in backyard gardens, [online] http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/08/11/lead_may_lurk_in_backyard_gardens/?page=full [Accessed December 2008]

Defra (2008) Guidance on the Legal Definition of Contaminated Land, [online] http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/land/contaminated/pdf/legal-definition.pdf&ei=5gtWSc2VKOTGjAeSv-SrDw&sig2=pGqWmIbmf5X2j-E4PF85OA&usg=AFQjCNGZuVAT0x6dncoIvfyuDK6UAD7ZUw [Accessed December 2008]
Don, Monty 2008 – The Lady Eve Balfour Memorial Lecture, Soil Association podcast [online] http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/(UNID)/08F419D30B563DE380257507003DB7A9/$file/lady_eve_lecture_08.mp3 [Accessed December 2008]

Dowler, E., S. Turner, and B. Dobson 2001, Poverty Bites: Food Health and Poor Families, London, Child Poverty Action Group in Sheriff, Graeme 2005 The Human Ecology of Urban Food Understanding Environmental Justice through Participative Research in Community Projects - University of Manchester thesis for Ph.D. in the Faculty of Humanities School of Environment and Development [online] http://www.edibleecosystems.net/phd/05sherriffphd.pdf [Accessed December 2008]

Environment Agency 2007 Environment Agency views on using in vitro bioaccessibility data in land contamination risk assessments for human health [online] http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/5-bioaccessibility_1796763.pdf [Accessed December 2008]

Environment Agency 2008 Online text results for pollution map of Sheffield area [online] http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?topic=pollution&layerGroups=default&lang=_e&ep=summary&scale=4&x=439703.7666666666&y=389529.8333333333 [Accessed December 2008]

FAO Newsroom report 2005 - Farming in urban areas can boost food security-FAO [online] http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102877/index.html [Accessed February 2009]

Frankenberger, T.R. and McCaston, M.K. 1998 - The Household Livelihood Security Concept CARE USA [online] ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/X0051t/X0051t05.pdf [Accessed December 2008]

Garnett, Tara 2008 Cooking up a Storm: Food Greenhouse Gas Emissions and our Changing Climate Food Climate Research Network, Centre for environmental Strategy, University of Surrey [online] http://www.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/CuaS_web.pdf [Accessed December 2008]

Gilham, B. 2007 - Developing a Questionnaire, Continuum International Publishing Group, The Tower Building, 11 York Rd. London, SE 1 7NX , ISBN - 9780826496317

Gilham, B. 2004 - The Research Interview, Continuum International Publishing Group, The Tower Building, 11 York Rd. London, SE 1 7NX, ISBN – 0-8264-4797-x

Hopkins, Rob 2008 – The Transition Handbook, Green Books Ltd. Foxhole, Dartington, Totnes, Devon TQ9 6EB ISBN 978 1 900322 18 8

Howe, Joe 2002 – Planning for Urban Food: The Experience of Two UK Cities, Planning Practice & Research,Vol.17,No.2,pp.125–144, 2002 Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Group [online] http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713691963?words=planning*|urban*|food*|experience*|two*|cities* [Accessed December 2008]

Kachenko, Anthony and Singh, Balwant (2004) Heavy metals contamination of home grown vegetables near metal smelters in NSW, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. [online] http://www.regional.org.au/au/asssi/supersoil2004/pdf/1537_kachenkoa.pdf [Accessed December 2008]

Kol, R. Bieiot, W. and Wilting, H.C. 1993 in Viljoen 2005 in Viljoen 2005- CPULs Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes , Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities edited by Andre Viljoen; Architectural Press 2005 Elsevier Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP; 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 Page 28

Lieztmann, C. 2005 Wholesome nutrition: a suitable diet for the new nutrition science project Public Health Nutrition, 8: 753-759 Cambridge University Press doi:10.1079/PHN2005781 Published online by Cambridge University Press 02 Jan 2007 [online] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=631960&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=6a&aid=583500&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession= [Accessed December 2008]

Millstone, E. and Lang, T. 2008 The Atlas of Food Who Eats What, Where, and Why 2nd edition Earthscan, Myriad Editions, 59 Lansdowne Place, Brighton, BN3 1FL, UK

Naidu R., Semple K.T., Megharaj M., Juhasz A.L., Bolan N.S., Gupta S.K., Clothier B.E., and Schulin R. 2008 Bio Avaialbility: Definition, Assessment and implications for Risk Assessment from Developments in Soil Science, volume 32 chapter 3 published by Elsevier [online] http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=svHE0xBWCw0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA39&dq=bioaccessibility+definition&ots=HgqbG3C_5G&sig=yMO-5St-xXMM79BS_e6QRmJQgig#PPA39,M1 [Accessed April 2009]

National Federation of City Farms in Garnett, Tara 1996 Growing food in cities: A report to highlight and promote the benefits of urban agriculture in the UK a report for the National Food Alliance and SAFE Alliance [online] http://www.peoplesgrocery.org/brahm/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/growing food in cities.pdf[Accessed December 2008]

Paxton, A. and Viljoen, A. 2005 in Viljoen 2005- “CPULs Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes , Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities” edited by Andre Viljoen; Architectural Press 2005 Elsevier Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP; 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803
page 41-42

Raven, H. Lang, T. Dumonteil, C. Off our trolleys? Food retailing and the hypermarket economy, Institute for Public Policy Research, 1995 in Garnett, Tara 1996 Growing food in cities: A report to highlight and promote the benefits of urban agriculture in the UK a report for the National Food Alliance and SAFE Alliance [online] http://www.peoplesgrocery.org/brahm/wpcontent/uploads/2006/10/growing food in cities.pdf [Accessed December 2008]

Robson, C. 2002 – Real World Research 2nd edition, Blackwell Publishing 108 Cowley Rd. Oxford OX4 1JF UK, ISBN – 0-631-21305-8

RUAF (2001) – Research Centre on Urban Agriculture and Forestry, Proceedings of the expert workshop on Appropriate Methodologies for Urban Agriculture Research, Policy development, Planning, Implementation and Evaluation, Nairobi, Kenya [online] http://www.prgaprogram.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&req=visit&lid=66[Accessed December 2008]

Rawlins, B.G. et al. (2005)Abstract The assessment of point and diffuse metal pollution of soils from an urban geochemical survey of Sheffield, England Soil Use and Management Volume 21, Issue 4 , Pages353 – 362 British Society of Soil Science 2005 [online] http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118695980/abstract [Accessed January 2008]

Rothwell, JJ K.G. Taylora, E.L. Anderb, M.G. Evans, S.M. Daniels, T.E.H. Allott (2008) Arsenic retention and release in ombrotrophic peatlands, Sci Total Environ 2008,doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.10.015 [online] http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969708010474&ei=YwxWSbzBO9iKjAegiYW5Dw&sig2=24ie8PPgZwlVENpBRvH27Q&usg=AFQjCNEfignf3BgpH0lZqE_nV02xiOZZtA [Accessed December 2008]

Rule, Joseph H. Ph.D, Professor of Biogeochemistry Loyola University (2008) Guide to Vegetable Garden Safety, [online] http://www.loyolaecomm.org/vegetable-garden-safety/ [Accessed December 2008]

Sheriff, Graeme (2005) The Human Ecology of Urban Food Understanding Environmental Justice through Participative Research in Community Projects - A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Ph.D. in the Faculty of Humanities School of Environment and Development [online] http://www.edibleecosystems.net/phd/05sherriffphd.pdf [Accessed December 2008] citing - Lang, T. and T. Heasman (2004). Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. London, Earthscan, Holben, D. H. (2003) An Overview of Food Security and Its Measurement. Nutrition Today 37(4):156-162

Stanley, D. 2002 in Viljoen 2005- “CPULs Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes , Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities” edited by Andre Viljoen; Architectural Press 2005 Elsevier Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP; 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 page 25

Tomkins, Mikey 2006 – The Edible Urban Landscape: An assessment method for retrofitting urban agriculture into an inner London test site - Masters Thesis for MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental Studies and Energy, University of East London, School of Computing and Technology, Longbridge Road Dagenham, RM8 2AS

Vale, B. Vale, R. 2000 and Kramer K.J. et al., 1999 in Viljoen 2005- CPULs Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes , Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities edited by Andre Viljoen; Architectural Press 2005 Elsevier Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP; 30 Corporate Drive, Burlington, MA 01803 page 23-24

Worthington, C Robb (2008) Personal interview with Richard Clare, transcript available on request

Appendix #1

2009-05-04T21:31:00.000-03:00

#1 Glossary
Bioaccessibility – the fraction of a contaminant that is soluble and which is available for uptake into the circulatory system (Ruby et al., 1996, 1999; Kramer and Ryan, 2000; Moore 2003). Definition from Naidu et al 2008 p. 41

Bioavailability – A measure of the physicochemical access that a toxicant has to the biological process of an organism (USEPA 1997) Definition from Naidu et al 2008 p. 40

In vitro – in an artificial environment outside the living organism; "an egg fertilized in vitro", definition from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In vivo - within a living organism;"in vivo techniques", definition from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Ombrotrophic – soils that gain all their water and nutrients from precipitation rather than from springs or streams, definition from reference.com

Appendices #2

2009-05-04T21:30:00.000-03:00

#2 Research Diary Sample Entry
Wednesday 18th Sept- Wednesday Oct 1st 08
I've been primarily focused on the 1st pass questionnaire analysis so I'll detail the process I've been following.

For almost every question I first look at the numbers on the income breakdown looking for the categories with the biggest numbers. For instance Q15 - percentage of meals cooked from fresh, "46 of the 58 who responded to the income question fall in the 60% or higher category w/28 of those in the 75 to 90% category". I will then look for any indication that income is influencing the numbers, for example 6 people in the 71k+ category (all the people in that category) responded in the 90 to 100% range. I will look for other correllaries such as education, how much food they grow, are they careful about their health, etc.
As an example of the way it is broken down in this first pass here is the entry for the neighborhood where those rich folks live;
"In the (name of the neighborhood) Of those 10 who cook from fresh 90 to 100%, 6 earn 71k or higher, 9 have first degree or higher, 8 have full timer (employment) in house, 6 expressed level 5 or 6 (6 being the highest) concern for CC (climate change) the rest expressed 3 or 4, 6 expressed level 3 or 4 concern for PO (peak oil) the rest expressed 5 or 6, 7 expressed level 3 or 4 concern for energy prices the rest expressed 5 or 6, 6 expressed level 4 or 5 concern for food supply, 6 expressed level 3 or 4 concern for food prices, 6 purchase organic 30% or less, 6 plan (meals) 5to6X/week or less, 7 purchase local 30% or less, all practice 2 or more EE (energy eff) measures, 7 grow 2 or more food items w/5 growing all four, 8 compost and soil improve, 6 RWH, 5 organic garden, all watched gardening program, 8 visited City farm, 9 read a book (about gardening), 6 researched on the internet (about gardening), 5 have experience with allotments, none smoke, all are careful about nutrition, 7 exercise 3X/week or less, 6 drink 3/4 drinks/week or less, 5 grow because they want the freshest produce, 8 because they like gardening, 5 would grow more if they had more time, 6 if they had a bigger garden, none would give over yard."

My plan is to complete this process for each question and then compare each neighborhood and look for consistencies or differences that stand out about which I can make conclusions, such as perhaps "the majority of people expressing level 5 or 6 degree of concern for climate change have at least a first degree, they also comprise the largest group of people who grow 2 or more food items" I hope I can get to that point. I should be able to have all the questions dissected into this first pass by the next update as I'm more than halfway now.

This seems laborious but I haven't thought of a better way to do it. Input appreciated.

Appendices #3

2009-05-04T21:29:00.001-03:00

#3 Introduction Letter
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a mature student pursuing a Masters Degree in advanced environmental studies and energy at the Center for Alternative Technology/University of East London Graduate School of the Environment.
I am interested in finding out what factors are most effective in promoting and supporting households in Sheffield in growing their own food in gardens, back yards and allotments. I am asking many in your neighborhood as well as in several other neighborhoods in Sheffield to please fill out the enclosed questionnaire. It shouldn’t take more than 15 minutes to complete. I will choose 20 to 25 representative households for follow up based on the results of this questionnaire. Of course it is up to you if you want to participate. If you are selected and agree to participate your household will have an opportunity to;
• be assessed for growing potential and current growing activities. This will involve measuring growing space, rating solar resource, and noting gardening related activities.
• be provided with a list of existing food growing support available to you as well as book recommendations and gardening tips.
You will also be;
• interviewed once in person for no more than 3/4 hour and once on the phone, both of which will be recorded,
• asked to fill in a follow-up questionnaire.
• Re-assessed, as in the first assessment, to determine any level of change in behaviour at the end of the trial period, which will be 2 to 3 months.
Please be assured that no personal details will be shared from this research and no respondents will be identified by name or address in the final report. Also any questions you find objectionable at any stage of the research can be ignored.
If you are happy to be involved in this study please fill in the questionnaire and mail it back to me within the next week. Even if you don’t want to participate in the in-depth study, which you can indicate on the form, the questionnaire alone will be useful to me and I would very much appreciate it if you would fill it in and send it back. Remember, you may skip any question which you do not wish to answer.
Yours faithfully,
C. Robb Worthington crobbw@gmail.com

Appendix #3

2009-05-04T21:12:00.006-03:00

If you'd like to see a copy of the questionnaire, email me and I'll send you a pdf.

Subject interview request letter
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for returning the questionnaire I left with you. It has proven very helpful in my research. You indicated that you would be willing to participate in further research. I would like to interview you and assess your household. The assessment will involve taking some measurements, observations and possibly photographs. The interview should take no longer than 30 minutes. Both can take place at your convenience. As the interview will be recorded and transcribed, a quiet place will be needed for the interview. Alternately, we could meet at my home.
As with the questionnaire, all questions are optional. I will attempt to keep the interview sequential and will be working from a prepared list of questions. Please see a list of sample questions below and on the next page. I will tailor the questions to you from your questionnaire responses. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions and it is important that you give your true opinions. A brief follow up telephone interview is also requested for any additional clarification needed.
Though a general acknowledgment of assistance will be included in the finished thesis paper please be assured that you will not be personally identified by name or address. A summary of this research will be available to you if requested.
As with the questionnaire your support of this research is gratefully received.
Date and time of interview:
Please contact me if you need to change the date or time:
Robb Worthington
0114 266 3416
crobbw@gmail.com
Sample Questions:
• can you estimate the percentage of your income you spend on food? Or give a monthly figure.
• Do you have the flexibility in your budget to handle rising food prices? Can you reapportion or make lifestyle changes to increase budget for food?
• If sourcing local and or organic food was easier and/or cheaper would you do more of it? why?
• why do you plan meals? why do you (don’t you) cook from fresh so much?
• is there a history of food growing in your family?
• If growing food became a priority do you see a way you could make the time for it?
• what is preventing you from getting an allotment? How much do you value getting one?
• do (would) you garden organically? why or why not?
• what would be the primary reason for you to grow food?
• what would be the best format for a free gardening class to take for you? daytime, evenings, weekend? internet based, distance learning, local hands on, classroom, some combination? what type of personal gardening training has been of the most value?
• How would you like to access free advice? internet, telephone, personal contact, home visit
Household/plot questions:
• Do you own this property? if not, is your landlord amenable to gardening?
• do you feel it’s possible to save money by growing any of your own food here?
• are you concerned about soil contamination?
• is gardening a skill you’d spend time perfecting? Would this change if food security became more of an issue?
Neighborhood/Community questions:
• How long have you lived in this neighborhood? How well do you know your neighbors? any that grow food?
• As an active grower, have you seen any evidence of an increase in growing in your neighborhood since you’ve been growing here? Have you actively supported any neighbors in growing?
• have your growing activities or interest in growing increased since your neighbors started growing food?
• Are you familiar with any neighborhood community activism here since you have lived here.
• Would you participate in neighborhood growing scheme? can I distribute your contact information to others in this neighborhood who feel the same?
• would you be interested in gardening in someone else’s yard?
• What value was your visit to a city farm? What should a city farm offer?
Policy and food security
• As a parent, or not, do you feel there should be council or national support for personal food growing as an issue of childrens health? what form should that support take?
• in general what should the local council do to foster and support food security? what should national government do?
• what would be the most valuable thing that could be offered to you to support your own food growing

Appendix #4

2009-05-04T21:08:00.000-03:00

Appendix #5

2009-05-04T21:05:00.001-03:00

Appendices #6 -#12

2009-05-04T20:39:00.002-03:00

#6 Sample from Questionnaire Data Sheet
Q18 - currently growing
of the 23 who don’t grow any food items, 3 didn’t respond, 15 are in 30k or under bracket, 2 are in 31 to 50k bracket, 3 are in 51k or higher bracket.
Of the 12 who grow 1 food item, 1 didn’t respond, 9 are in 30k or under bracket, 1 is in 31 to 50k bracket, 1 is in 51k or higher bracket.
Of 9 who grow 2 food items, 2 didn’t respond, 3 are in 30k or under bracket, 2 are in 31 to 50k bracket, 2 are in 51k or higher bracket.
Of 10 who grow 3 food items, 1 didn’t respond, 4 are in 30k or under bracket, 5 are in 31 to 50k bracket.
Of 14 who grow 4 food items, 3 didn’t respond, 6 are in 30k or under bracket, 5 are in 51 or higher bracket.
So of the 45 who grow 1 or more food items 8 are in 51k bracket or higher, 8 are in 31 to 50k bracket, 22 are in 30k or under bracket.
In Neighborhood #4 every household growing less than two of the food categories (4)purchased 30% or less of their food as organic, 2 of which purchased none, ed quals from GCSE up to first degree.
Those in Neighborhood #4 who purchase 60% organic or higher (4) are growing at least 2 food categories with 3 of the 4 growing 3 categories and 2 growing all 4 categories,
however 3 others in Neighborhood #4 growing at least 3 categories only purchase 15% organic. All 4 who purchase at least 60% organic only purchase 45% or less local, all 4 cook from fresh at least 60% of the time with 3 of the 4 at 90% or higher fresh cook. All 4 expressed #3 quite a bit or higher on Q’s 7-11, 3 of the 4 @ 5- hugely or higher on climate change, 3 of the 4 @ 4-very much or 5-hugely on Peak oil, 3 of the 4@ 5-hugely on energy prices, only 2 @ 4-very much or higher on food supply, only 1@ 4 very much on food prices. All 4 have first degrees or higher and 3 of the 4 have at least 1 full time worker in the house. All 4 practice at least 2 of the energy efficiency measures w/3 practicing at least 4. 3 garden organically, all compost and practice soil improvement, 3 RWH. All have watched a gardening program and read a book about gardening, 3 have been to the city farm, only 2 have ever had a gardening mentor, researched on the internet or attended a gardening class (same 2), all have some experience with allotments. None smoke, all are careful about nutrition, 3 exercise at least 3 times/week, 2 have 1-2 drinks/week and 1 has 1-2 drinks /day. They all grow because they have land/sun and they like gardening, 3 want the freshest produce, grow because it is therapeutic. 2 didn’t indicate they would grow more for any reason. The other 2 would grow more if they had more time. None indicated willingness to allow others to grow in their yard.

#7 Categorisation of Interview Questions and Responses
A. Involvement in community
How long have you lived in this neighborhood?
How well do you know your neighbors? any that grow food?
Are you familiar with any neighborhood community activism since you have lived here?
Would you participate in neighborhood growing?
Would you be interested in gardening in someone else’s yard?
Would you allow others to grow food in your garden?

B. Food stress
What percentage of your income do you spend on food?
Do you have the flexibility in your budget to handle rising food prices?
Concern for food security.
Concern for Peak Oil and Climate change.
What impact you think PO and CC will have on your neighborhood’s food security?

C. Gardening/food rationale
If sourcing local food was easier and/or cheaper would you do more of it?
You indicated that you never shop for local food? why?
If there was local farmers market or green grocer would you shop there?
Rationale for sourcing organic food.
Why do you plan meals?
Why do you cook from fresh so much?
What would be the primary reason for you to grow food?
Do you garden organically? why or why not?

D. Extent of gardening
What is preventing you from getting an allotment?
You indicated you are on a waiting list for an allotment, how much do you value getting another one?
How do your allotments work with your household growing?
You gave up an allotment, why?

E. Gardening interest
Is gardening a skill you’d spend time perfecting?
Is there a history, that you remember, of food growing in your family?
As an active grower, have you seen any evidence of an increase in growing since you’ve been growing here?
Have your own growing activities changed since your neighbors started growing food?

F. Personal limitations to gardening
Do you own this property?
Is your landlord amenable to your gardening?
Do you feel it’s possible to save money by growing any of your own food here?
Are you concerned about soil contamination? Do you know how to test for it?
You indicated that you have tested your soil? For what and how did you do it?
Is time a limiting factor to your gardening?
Are food prices limiting your gardening?
You indicated there aren’t really any limitations on your food growing, is that because you feel you are doing all you need to do or all that is possible?

G. Gardening support availed
What value was your visit to a city farm? What should a CF offer?
What has been of the most value to you in learning about gardening?
Can you recommend a gardening book or website?
Do you know of an individual who provides good advice?
What gardening class did you attend?

H. Gardening support needed
What is the format for a free gardening class for you to take?
How would you like to access free advice?
Do you feel support for personal food growing is an issue of children’s health?
In general what should the local council do to foster and support food security?
What should national government do to foster and support food security?
What is the most valuable thing that could be offered to you to support your own food growing?

#8 Sample from Interview Analysis Document
How well do you know your neighbors? any that grow food?

N#2
“I know immediate neighbours and the other house is rented and I know them to say hello to. On the road, quite a few people. ” interview 01 No, oh not this year.” interview 01
“Not very well. ” interview 06
“One side very well, my partner, other side not very well at all...” interview 07
“Not at all. I put a screen up bc I found it a bit exposed; we chatted over the fence until then. Are they the only ones to grow food? Yes. The other two are overgrown. ” interview 09
“Some well, others I could pass in the street and wouldn’t have a clue if...anyone below I recognise and anyone above I don’t know.” interview 10
“Not very well, medium well. Strawberry next door.” interview 17
“We have just moved in. We don’t have any. We know two doors down to say hi. No. ” interview 20
“Not too well. … the woman on the end has a whole stack of things, number 21.” interview 28
Not well, No, just flowers; I imagine some will grow tomatoes. ” interview 29

N#1
“Yeah quite a lot of them. … of the people that we know 90%. (I would say 50%) Well maybe 75% then.” interview 02
“My immediate ones just say hi and pass the time of day a little bit, not close friends. but I have people in the neighbourhood I am close friends with; they grow food. ” interview 12
“I feel rooted here; I know people. Most to say hello to by name; I do cultivate that. Yes, … ” interview 13
“40%, no 70%. There are a lot of people who grow food. Next door gave us some apples; he is always growing stuff. ” interview 24

N#4
“I know a lot of neighbours well. The woman over the road is creating a veg patch.” interview 03
“Pretty well, they are very friendly. Half of them at least do.” interview 04
“Very well. Yes. Half grow at least something. 10 yrs ago I used to grow onions, potatoes, leeks, salads, my relationship broke down, I was socialising...nesting. ” interview 11
“Quite well.” interview 19
“Better here than anywhere else we’ve ever lived bc of this community. Next door. The gardens get shorter, ours is the last of the long gardens. ” interview 21
“Either side really well, but the rest much less than any time since I’ve been here. I know one guy across the road. 10 yrs ago I knew everybody really well but they have moved; my job is the problem, I’m away.
“All of them. ” interview 25

N#3
“Not as well as I’d like to . By name. My husband knows one neighbour better than I do. My mother-in-law lives round the corner. Yes the Bengali neighbour grows spinach and mustard leaves and marrow. ” interview 05
“ ...We know the kids and they are fantastic, brilliant. ...A lot of the Asian community round ‘ere have this wonderful lorry that comes on Thursdays full of veg and they buy in bulk. They don’t have back yards, space. The Asian, Chinese and Turkish people round here don’t have time to grow bc they work so hard. Shops, taxis. They eat far better food than white British anyway. … We will get the children in here and say this is how you grow something. … There is such a huge turnover of people within flats. … The flats up the road unfortunately there is a mishmash of other problems, disfunctional, damaged in some way. There is no way we are going to reach out to them to grow veg; it is just not going to happen; unless they go to prison; it is very sad.” interview 08
“Very well, all of them. 10%. Space is a big thing. Some others I don’t know too well are growing as well, probably a bit higher. That is excluding herb growers.” interview 14
“Not very well. One barrier is language; it is a diverse area, and I only speak English. I do talk to people of the same ethnic group as me. No there area has not got big enough gardens.” interview 15
“There is a little lot of us around here that know each other fairly well, but broadening out, not so well. Next door 50 yrs, Next door but one and next door has peppers. ” interview 16
“Not very well at all. A little, not very much.” interview 18
“One side well, other not well. A couple of other who I say hello to. No.” interview 22
“No, I’m a bit shy. I don’t . ” interview 26

#9 From the Sheffield City Council website
Contaminated Land - The Environmental Protection Act 1990 http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=134447&ratingsReturnMessage=success
“The Environmental Protection Service is responsible for implementing Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and has a dedicated Contaminated Land Officer to undertake this role. … In accordance with Part IIA, Sheffield produced a Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy in 2001 which has been periodically reviewed and is currently being revised. Part IIA only deals with land which in it's current use has the potential to cause 'significant harm' to human health, specified plants and animals, specified buildings and property and the water environment. The legislation also requires that we compile and maintain a register of contaminated land. This register only includes details of land where formal action has been taken - it does not include details of every site in Sheffield.”

Development on Land Potentially Affected by Contamination http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/environment/environmental-health/pollution/land-pollution/contaminated-land/development
“It is government policy that most land affected by the presence of contamination will be dealt with during the planning process. For planning purposes land contamination has a wider meaning. For any new development the developer is responsible for identifying potential risks to future occupiers of the site. … The actual or possible presence of contamination is a material planning consideration. In many cases it will be an advantage to determine whether there are likely to be any contamination issues on site before submitting an application for planning consent. This may involve a basic historical land use search and site walk over. On large scale developments it could form part of a pre-application enquiry where any necessary investigations can be determined prior to submitting a planning application. … We are mainly concerned with risks to human health and ensuring that the proposed development will be suitable for use.”
The Site Investigation Procedure - General Advice for Developers http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/environment/environmental-health/pollution/land-pollution/contaminated-land/development/site-investigation
“The site investigation procedure needs to identify the potential for contamination and identify possible areas that may require remedial works in order to make a site suitable for use. … The site investigation should be done in phases in order that resources are appropriately targeted.
* the Phase 1 investigation should establish whether there have been any former contaminative uses on the site or adjacent properties which could impact upon the development. The Phase 1 should include a preliminary conceptual site model.
* the Phase 2 investigation should determine the nature, extent and severity of contamination using risk based criteria. It should provide details of remedial options, health and safety issues, potential impacts on the environment and a detailed work plan. It should assess the risks to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment.
* the Phase 3 Remediation Method Statement should provide details of proposed remedial options, health and safety issues and a detailed remediation strategy.
* the Post Remediation Validation Report should provide a summary of remedial works carried out together with relevant documentary evidence and post remediation test results.
The site investigation procedure involves specialist technical knowledge and it is essential that all phases of the site investigation procedure are conducted by competent and experienced people (who should hold recognised and appropriate qualifications). … In the past we have received reports submitted on behalf of developers, which have not used a proper scientific or appropriate sampling strategy in order to assess risks from land contamination. It is essential that developers conduct their site investigations in accordance with current good practice.
Examples of current good practice can be found in the following documents:
* Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, Contaminated Land Report 11, Environment Agency 2004
* BS 10175:2001 British Standard Institute (2001) Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites- Code of Practice, British Standard Institute. London.
* Environment Agency (2001) Secondary Model Procedure for the Development of Appropriate Soil Sampling Strategies for Land Contamination. R&D Technical Report P5-066/TR. Water Research Centre, Swindon
* Environment Agency (2000) Technical Aspects of Site Investigation (2 Vols.) Research and Development Technical Report P5-065/TR. Water Research Centre, Swindon
* Environment Agency (2000) Guidance for the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination. The Stationary Office. London

#10 The Boston Globe Contamination Article
Beth Daley (2008) Boston Globe Lead may lurk in backyard gardens http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/08/11/lead_may_lurk_in_backyard_gardens/?page=full
“Having lead doesn't have to mean no garden, however. Environmental and health officials say if you live in an urban area, first pick a place for a garden away from the house. If that soil tests high for lead, build a raised bed and place clean soil in it. People do need to monitor raised beds because they can become contaminated by windblown lead dust, said Dan Brabander, a geochemist at Wellesley College. Gardeners should also plant fruiting crops such as tomatoes, squash, peas, and corn because they take up relatively little lead. At the same time, people should avoid planting root vegetables, potatoes, and leafy vegetables, which take up more. Gardeners should also use mulch, which keeps the lead-contaminated soil contained.
"People need to be careful, be prudent," said Carol Rowan-West, director of the state Department of Environmental Protection's Office & Research and Standards. "They need to have their soil tested."
Some scientists and homeowners try other methods. Brabander and The Food Project experimented several years ago with planting mustard greens and other plants that take up large amounts of lead to see if they could rid soil of lead. While it could theoretically work, cleaning a small garden plot could take decades, Brabander said. Sam Fogel, a Newton microbiologist and avid gardener, said phosphate spread over soil can bind with lead and make it unavailable for plants to take up. The phosphate must be thoroughly mixed into the 6- to 8-inch soil depth. Gardeners can retest their soil after spreading phosphate to see if it is truly binding.”

#11 Chemical Cocktails
For more about how contaminants interact and how those interactions are interpreted see a document labeled “tox200719.pdf” and available for download at the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment website http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox200719.pdf

#12 Resource Pamphlet
Soil testing labs
Paul Armitage - Technical Sales
Paul.Armitage@alcontrol.com
General : 01244528700
Direct : 01244528727
FAX : 01244528769
ALcontrol Laboratories
Units 7-8 Hawarden Business Park
Manor Road (off Manor Lane)
Hawarden
Deeside
CH5 3US

Lancrop Laboratories
Manor Place, Wellington Road,
Pocklington, York,
YO42 1DN
Tel: 01759 305116
www.lancrop.com Dr Sarah Pitcher
NRM Laboratories
Contaminated Land Analysis
DD: 01344 899034
Tel: 01344 886338
Fax:01344 890972
www.nrm.uk.com

Voelcker Consultants
Analytical and Consulting Chemists,
380 Bollo Lane,
Acton, London
W3 8QU
Tel: 020 8993 2421
www.voelckerconsultants.co.uk

Composting
Sheffield council compost bins - http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/env/waste/gardenwaste/compostbins

Sheffield Organic Food Initiative - http://www.organic-guru.co.uk/

Organizations
Garden Organic - http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/
Ryton, Coventry
Warwickshire
United Kingdom
CV8 3LG
Tel: +44 (0) 24 7630 3517
Fax: +44 (0) 24 7663 9229
Email: enquiry@gardenorganic.org.uk

Grow Sheffield - http://www.growsheffield.com/
email: grow@growsheffield.com
tel: 0114 258 0784
the old junior school
southview road
sheffield s7 1db

Heeley City Farm - http://www.heeleyfarm.org.uk/
Richards Road
Sheffield
S2 3DT
Tel: (0114) 258 0482
Fax: (0114) 255 1400

Low Impact Living Initiative - http://www.lowimpact.org/venues_north.htm
email (preferred): lili@lowimpact.org
telephone / fax: +44 (0)1296 714184
Redfield Community
Winslow, Bucks
MK18 3LZ
UK

Permaculture Association - http://www.permaculture.org.uk/
Hollybush Conservation Centre
Broad Lane, Kirkstall
Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS5 3BP.
Email: office@permaculture.org.uk

Royal Horticultural Society - free advice to members
80 Vincent Square
London
SW1P 2PE
Telephone 0845 260 5000
info@rhs.org.uk
http://www.rhs.org.uk/index.htm

Sheffield Organic Food Initiative - http://www.organic-guru.co.uk/
e-mail: richard@organic-guru.co.uk
Telephone: 0114 2686727
Snail mail: 41 B Burns Road
Sheffield S6 3GL

Soil Association - apprenticeship scheme in organic gardening. http://www.soilassociation.org/apprentice
South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX
T: 0117 314 5000
F: 0117 314 5001
E: ff@soilassociation.org

Whirlow Farm - http://www.whirlowhallfarm.co.uk/
Education Department
tel : +44 (0)114 236 0096
email : educationenquiries@whirlowhallfarm.org

Books:

All about Compost by Pauline Pears & Charlotte Green.
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=736

Composting with Worms by George Pilkington
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=2224

Grow Organic - part of Dorling Kindersley's Made With Care range of books.
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=2607

HDRA Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=735

Managing Soil Without Chemicals by Jo Readman
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=1876

Organic Vegetable Planning Guide - full colour poster, B2 Size (72 x 52 cm)
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=1371

Pests: How to Control Them by Pauline Pears & Bob Sherman -
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=759

Square Foot Gardening by Mel Bartholomew
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=2077

The Organic Gardener's Handbook by Michael Littlewood
http://www.organiccatalog.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=63_194&products_id=2481

The Vegetable and Herb Expert by Dr. Hessayon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vegetable-Herb-Expert-D-G-Hessayon/dp/0903505460

Seeds

Seedy Sunday: Seed Swaps across the UK and valuable information on how to save seeds etc: http://www.seedysunday.org

Fruit

Julian Brandram. local expert on fruit trees and soft fruit offering advice and trees for sale suited to the region http://www.appletrees.org.uk/

Allotments

Sheffield forum allotment and gardening group http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/f-86.html

The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners Ltd - http://www.nsalg.org.uk/
O’Dell House,
Hunters Road,
Corby,
Northants
NN17 5JE
Tel: 01536 266576

The Allotments Regeneration Initiative - ARI http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/ari/

Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/
A charity which supports and represents community gardens and city farms throughout the UK.

BBC - Gardening http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/