1

Growing From Your Roots

Evaluation Report

Dr. Luke Owen

Dr. Lopamudra Saxena

January 2017

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

1.1. Context and background of Growing From Your Roots ........................................................ 4

1.2. Aims and objectives of the evaluation ................................................................................... 5

1.3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Evaluation Workshop structure .................................................................................................. 7

2. Assessing the Impact of Growing From Your Roots ............................................................ 10

2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2. Profile of participants .......................................................................................................... 10

2.3. Impacts from GFYR ............................................................................................................ 11

2.3.1 Assessment from Activity 1 ................................................................................................... 11

2.3.2 Assessment from Activity 2: timeline .................................................................................... 12

2.3.3 Assessment of Activity 2: Before and After ........................................................................... 15

2.4 Summary of the assessment of impacts of GFYR ................................................................... 21

3. Conclusions and the future of Growing From Your Roots .................................................. 24

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 24

3.2 Key findings and conclusions ...................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Future recommendations ............................................................................................................ 25

4. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 30

4.1. Workshop 1 profile data ...................................................................................................... 30

4.2. Workshop 2 profile data ...................................................................................................... 32

3

Executive Summary

This document reports an evaluation of the effectiveness of Garden Organic’s Growing From Your

Roots (GFYR) project in capturing, preserving and sharing the cultural heritage of food growing

amongst multi-cultural communities in the West Midlands, UK. This involves understanding how the

growing of crops, sharing of seeds, recipes and cooking practices have changed as a result of

GFYR. The evaluation also assesses whom the project has reached, and how the project has

contributed to preserving cultural knowledge, experiences and practices in relation to growing crops

amongst the participant communities in Walsall and Birmingham.

The evaluation was conducted through two interactive workshops. The findings indicate that GFYR

has had a significant social and cultural impact within partner communities. The project activities,

which included the documenting of oral histories, training workshops on growing, cooking and seed-

saving, have increased awareness, understanding and knowledge about food growing, cooking,

sharing recipes and seeds amongst multiple types of cultures and people in the largely urban

participant communities.

For the successes and impacts attributed to GFYR to continue and be built upon, this evaluation

report outlines five interconnected future recommendations. They are i) continued practical

workshops; ii) increased community outreach and engagement; iii) increased education and youth

engagement; iv) greater use of online platforms for engagement and skill/knowledge sharing; and v)

continued access to external funding. The key challenges to addressing these recommendations

and developing GFYR will depend on access to competitive funding bodies, but also on whether

grass-roots, urban community growing initiatives have the social, economic and environmental

capacity, capability and resources to sustain and perhaps even expand their activities.

4

1. Introduction

1.1. Context and background of Growing From Your Roots

Growing From Your Roots (GFYR) is a Garden Organic (GO)-led project which started in 2015,

supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). The aim of the 21-month project (April 2015-

December 2016) was to capture, preserve and share the diverse cultural heritage of growing

multicultural crops that have been recently introduced to the UK. The project was created as a

means to ensure this rich cultural heritage and knowledge does not ‘disappear’. Moreover, it was

created to document and showcase cultural knowledge, experiences and practices in relation to

food growing to both current and future generations who may have little or even no physical connection with countries/regions of their heritage.

Geographically, the GFYR project was focused in the multicultural region of the West Midlands, UK.

The participants and communities who have engaged with GFYR are from typically BME groups and

communities located across three growing sites in the Birmingham urban conurbation (One in

Walsall, two in Birmingham city).

The West Midlands is a highly multicultural region, with 17% of people from Black and Minority

Ethnic (BME) groups. Although food is eaten from a wide range of cultures, this cultural diversity is

not generally reflected in the foods that are grown in allotments or back gardens. The knowledge

about growing multicultural crops is concentrated in a few ‘first generation’ immigrants and is at risk of being lost (Garden Organic 20171).

In order to achieve its objectives, the project’s key activities included:

• Recording and disseminating 20 oral histories from a range of immigrant growers

1 Cited from Garden Organic website; http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/roots

5

• Holding 3 workshops (Introduction to growing; Cooking and recipes; Seed saving) at 2

partner sites between April – July 2016

• A social celebration event (Sept 2016)

1.2. Aims and objectives of the evaluation

Researchers at the Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR), Coventry University,

were commissioned to evaluate the GFYR project in late 2016. Pre-evaluation dialogue between

GO and CAWR co-produced the following aims and objectives:

Overall aim of the evaluation:

‘To evaluate the effectiveness of the project in preserving the cultural heritage2 of

food growing amongst project participants and their immediate communities, and

provide recommendations for future activities for preserving this resource.’

Evaluation objectives To achieve this aim, the following 3 objectives were created. These objectives enabled the research

team to assess the impact of project activities both on an individual and collective (community)

basis. The evaluation objectives were:

2 The United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation (UNESCO) define cultural heritage as “the legacy of physical artefacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations” (cited from UNESCO website http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cairo/culture/tangible-cultural-heritage).

6

1. Establish which activities have been most effective in capturing, preserving and

disseminating cultural heritage

2. Gain an overview about key milestones and events within the GFYR projects, and where

learning, exchange and impact has occurred

3. Understand the participants’ vision, hopes and expectations for future work

As will be discussed, these aims and objectives fed into the methodological design of the evaluation.

1.3. Methodology

To meet the aforementioned aim and objectives, the evaluation adopted a workshop format where

participants could engage with one another, and share their experience of the project and how it had

impacted upon them. Two workshops took place in two project sites in Walsall and Birmingham in

December 2016, lasting around 2-2.5 hours each, which were open to participants of the GFYR

project. The workshops were designed to be interactive and discussion based, with the aim of

producing rich qualitative data. This approach was selected over a more quantitative methodology

that would have involved a combination of questionnaires, structured one-to-one interviews and

surveys.

A qualitative, participatory approach was chosen as the topics at hand (cultural heritage,

experiences of growing, learning outcomes and future expectations) required a more nuanced,

‘open’ forum to collectively discuss and generate data. Moreover, the workshops afforded space for

7

the research team to better understand the GFYR project and types of activities that took place,

which questionnaires could not necessarily capture, for example.3

1.4 Evaluation Workshop structure

The two evaluation workshops, however, did have a specific structure to ensure replicability and that

the data produced within both settings was comparable and addressed the same issues/topics. The

workshop format was structured around three activities as listed below.

- Activity 1 – YOUR STORY objectives 1, 2 Discussion

- Activity 2 – THINKING BACK objective 2 Discussion, interactive exercise

- Activity 3 – THINKING FORWARD objective 3 Discussion

Activity 1 ‘YOUR STORY’ was conducted in the form of a round-table discussion where participants

were invited to share their memorable experiences from the project in order to address evaluation

objectives 1 and 2. The discussion in workshop 1 (at Walsall) was audio recorded, with the

participants’ informed written consent.

Activity 2 ‘THINKING BACK’ assessed the impact of GFYR at personal, collective and cultural

levels. It was organised as a group activity. Table 1 and Table 2 below show the instruments that

were used.

Table 1 was presented in the form of a timeline to identify where and when and how

learning/exchange/impact occurred; it offered participants the opportunity to reflect on what the

3 The research team had some exposure to the GFYR project prior to the evaluation workshops. In September 2016 there was a ‘social celebration event’ in Birmingham that was attended by a member of the CAWR research team. This enabled a greater understanding of the types of people involved and of the achievements made by GFYR, and for some pre-evaluation rapport and contact to be made between researchers and participants.

8

project had achieved and what they had learned from it. Each participant was asked to think back

over their participation in the project and asked to document, using post-its, their responses, in the

Table.

Table 1: Template of the timeline

Project Activity How has it

changed/helped you personally?

PERSONAL change/Impact

How has it helped others? (i.e. in

collective/community sense)?

COMMUNITY/GROUP

change/impact

How has it helped or changed anything

else?

IMPACT on CULTURAL HERITAGE

Oral Histories

Workshop 1 Introduction to

growing (March/Apr 16)

Workshop 2 Cooking and

recipes (July 16)

Workshop 3 Seed saving (Oct

16)

Social Celebration Event

(Sept 16)

Other

Table 2 was in the form of a BEFORE and AFTER exercise in relation to participating in the GFYR

project. Its aim was to ‘dig deeper’ into the impact that the GFYR has had on growing, cooking,

sharing/exchanging of recipes, and seeds of particular vegetables. The participants were asked to

document, using post-its, their responses, in the Table.

9

Table 2: ‘Before and after’ GFYR activity template Vegetables/Fruits

grown Cooking

Shared/exchange

recipes Shared/exchanged

seeds

BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER

Activity 3 ‘THINKING FORWARD’ was conducted in the form of a group discussion to learn about

the participants’ hopes and expectations as well as concrete future plans if any that they had. This is

presented in Section 3 of the report as it focused on recommendations for the future.

The data obtained from the three Activities were analysed by the research team using qualitative

data analysis techniques after both workshops had taken place. This involved coding audio

recordings4, transcribing and coding notes, and analysing materials produced (such as flip-charts,

post-it notes). The datasets and findings are presented in the following section.

Finally, as part of the ethics and integrity of the methodology, Coventry University Ethics Committee

had reviewed and approved this evaluation prior to the workshops taking place. In addition, signed

consent was granted by the participants for the information provided to be anonymously used for

reporting purposes.

4 Several participants of workshop 2 did not consent to audio recording so data from the recordings is only available from workshop 1.

10

2. Assessing the Impact of Growing From Your Roots

2.1. Introduction This section presents analysis of the data generated at the evaluation workshops. First, a profile of

the participants who took part in the evaluation workshops is presented, followed by impacts of the

project.

2.2. Profile of participants

A total of 23 participants took part across the two evaluation workshops (9 at workshop 1, 14 at

workshop 2). The profile data is presented visually in the appendices, but some of the key points

and areas of comparison in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socio-economic status are presented

in Table 3. As suggested, the two evaluation workshops included people from diverse backgrounds.

Workshop 1 had a much greater representation of white people, though this did not necessarily

mean they were British, and of whom over half were in full-time employment. Both workshops,

however, had a higher female presence compared to males and the majority of participants were

aged 40+ years (78% workshop 1 and 64% workshop 2 respectively).

11

Table 3: Participant profile comparisons

Workshop 1 (n=9) Walsall

Workshop 2 (n=14) Birmingham

Ethnicity

67% White

11% Black (Caribbean,

African, Other)

14% White

43% Black (Caribbean,

African, Other)

Age range 22% aged 18-40 years

(*0 aged 18-30 years)

36% aged 18-40 years

Gender 56% Female, 44% Male 71% Female, 29% Male

Socio-economic

status

56% Full-time employed

11% Unemployed

7% Full-time employed

29% Unemployed

2.3. Impacts from GFYR

2.3.1 Assessment from Activity 1

In order to assess which activities of GFYR left the deepest impact, the participants were asked to

share a memorable experience from their ‘story’. Examples of responses from the audio transcript

(Workshop 1) and from notes (Workshop 2) include the following. They were overwhelmingly

positive across all of the activities associated with GFYR:

“the social celebration event…sharing of experiences with cooking new vegetables” “cooking together” “exchange of contacts, learning about similar things”

12

“learnt to grow vegetables” “the social event… cooking…and networking” “amazing to learn about seeds… a new experience” “African Kale – learnt the benefits and also learnt from her how to cook it” “recording the oral histories was a highlight” “growing new plants introduced by Garden Organic such as Cuban oregano, a medicinal plant and also callaloo” “learning to cook from scratch…learning to grow vegetables…learning about insects which live around plants” “learnt about saving seeds, how to store and use them the next time round...learnt a lot…”

2.3.2 Assessment from Activity 2: timeline

The participants had been asked to complete a timeline and as shown earlier in Table 1, the project

activities had been added to the timeline to help them to recall which activities they had participated

in over the project period. They had used post-it notes to describe impacts on them as individuals,

collectively as a group, and going beyond their group to wider cultural heritage. Figures 1 below

shows timeline data from workshops 1 and 2:

13

Figure 1: data from the timeline activity

Selections of the written comments on the post-it notes from this exercise are presented below.

They highlight the impacts from the project that have occurred throughout the project period, and

show that they have been overwhelmingly positive.

Examples of personal change/impact: “Heard stories from our members that were surprising, interesting and at times amazing”

“I have been part of learning how to grow plants like gooseberry, garlic, ginger… also [meeting]

other group members who come [to the garden]”

“Being around greenery and finding peace”

“Learned new knowledge [at the cooking and recipe workshop, June 2016] to diversify my cooking

range”

14

“I’ve learned to grow Cuban oregano, callaloo and African maize”

“Learned all about new crops and where they come from”

“[My involvement in the oral histories] improved my confidence”

Examples of community group change/impact:

“Community resilience – as we share our new knowledge with local communities”

“[The cooking and recipe workshop, June 2016] was great for members to showcase their own

cooking methods”

“Made us more adventurous as a group”

Examples of change/impact on cultural heritage: “[The oral histories] helped me see a world outside of the UK”

“Members were proud to be asked [to showcase their cooking skills] and to take part and

demonstrate”

“Learned more about the background of others”

“Explained about East European foods and ingredients”

15

Moreover, these written comments about learning to grow vegetables and to cook those vegetables

as a result of GFYR affirmed the comments/views expressed in the discussion earlier (Activity 1).

Examples of those comments are outlined below, and they highlight how GFYR has had positive

impacts.

“plants which I thought were ‘decorational’ can also be used in cooking… had a narrow vision that these are vegetables and others are decorational, but there is cross-over”

“surprised that some plants can actually grow – like callaloo, lemongrass, despite the different weather here”

“learnt how to cook from scratch – such as Kenyan kale”

These positive impacts on growing new vegetables, sharing recipes, understanding of seeds are

also evident from the BEFORE and AFTER exercise which focused on particular vegetables/fruits

grown, seeds shared/exchanged and cooking/sharing recipes. The results are presented in the next

section.

2.3.3 Assessment of Activity 2: Before and After

Increase in growing crops

The participants were asked to place post-it notes into the relevant section (colour irrelevant);

identifying vegetables/fruits they had grown before their involvement with GFYR and what they had

grown since being involved with GFYR (Figure 2).

16

Figure 2: Data from workshops 1 and 2 about what was grown before/after GFYR

The data shows that prior to participating in GFYR, the following had been grown:

Coriander

Ground spinach

Mint

Tomatoes

Cauliflower

Potatoes

Onion

However, when participants reflected about what they had grown in the time since they became

involved with GFYR, all exotic crops listed had been grown (or attempted to be) over a 10-month

period (2015-16).

17

Cinnamon plant

Jamaican kale

Courgette

Fenugreek

Karela

Chinese yam

Dudhi

Callaloo

Mexican chilli

Tumeric

As one participant said, she had become “more experimental”. Another mentioned “expanding what

I grow in my allotment…[which she] found [to be] very beneficial”. Two other participants also

commented:

“never grown anything before”

“a sort of empowerment”

The results of both workshops display a trend whereby a greater variety of exotic, non-native crops

had been grown after engaging in the GFYR project. This is further evidence that suggests GFYR

has been successful and directly responsible for an increase in the growing – and sharing/exchange

- of exotic crops in partner communities.

When asked whether the growing of vegetables/fruits had any impact on their buying at home or on

the diversity of their diet, the responses included:

“stopped buying tomatoes”

18

“eating different types of spinach”

“its all organic [when I/we grow it]”

“usually bought mint, but no longer buying, also chillies”

“[A participant] makes jam from fruits, so not bought any more, also salad from gardens, not

bought any more. Some money saved…”

“ excess and surplus like courgettes shared with neighbours, friends”

Increase in cooking and/or sharing recipes

As in the earlier exercise, the participants were asked to place post-it notes into the relevant section

(colour irrelevant) identifying the ‘new’ vegetables/fruits they had used in cooking since being

involved with GFYR and contrast those with which they had used before their involvement with

GFYR (Figure 3).

19

Figure 3: Data from before-after cooking and recipe sharing activity

As can be seen from above, when participants reflected about the vegetables they had used in

cooking since they became involved with GFYR, there was evidence of a greater diversity and

‘trying new things’. For example, a ‘coriander balls’ recipe was widely shared, as was beetroot

salad. This activity shows that some participants shared recipes using the exotic, non-native (to the

UK) crops, and thus recipes they would have not normally encountered. However, this also shows

that native, ‘familiar’ (to the UK) crops such as beetroot are being used by non-British members of

the community who might otherwise have little understanding or knowledge of vegetables such as

beetroot, and how to cook with it.

This is further evidence that suggests GFYR has been successful and directly responsible for

ensuring that the knowledge of cooking such vegetables has been shared and passed on within

partner communities. As one participant commented, “food breaks the barriers”.

In response to a question on how the recipes were shared, it was found to be done online, through

social media, through recipe cards produced by GO and also through physically cooking together. A

20

popular example was the sharing of a pumpkin soup recipe. The value of cooking and ‘doing’ to

learn and share was also reflected by the participant, who said “I prefer cooking together, rather

than passing on written recipes as in the ‘English way’.”

Increased understanding of seeds

In a similar exercise as for growing and cooking, the participants were asked to place post-it notes

into the relevant section (colour irrelevant) describing what they knew about seeds before their

involvement with GFYR and what they had learnt since being involved with GFYR (Figure 4). This

was the final part of activity 2.

Figure 4: data from seed sharing activity

As suggested above by the relative sparsity of responses compared to previous activities, seed

saving and exchange was a less widespread activity within communities. One participant wrote that

even after training, “it is highly unlikely I will save/exchange seeds”. This is likely due to the

‘technical’ nature of seed saving and ability to recognise specific seed varieties. However, the

guidance and training from GO via GFYR has led to the saving and exchange of:

21

Callaloo

Pumpkin

Mustard

As one participant said, the project helped in getting a “good understanding of extracting, storing,

reusing seeds”

Moreover, the few participants who were engaged in seed saving recognised the importance and

value of saving and sharing exotic, non-native varieties, to ensure that they are preserved and

available for future generations to use5.

These results suggest that GFYR may not have had the impact it would have hoped in terms of

more vibrant seed saving and sharing within the partner communities, but that the training and

guidance they have provided has helped people recognise the cultural importance of these

activities.

2.4 Summary of the assessment of impacts of GFYR

Overall the participatory timeline exercise (Activity 2) that the participants carried out bears evidence

of how GFYR has delivered impacts at different levels, and also provided richer data on which

particular vegetables/fruits were grown, which were used for cooking and/or sharing recipes, and

seed-saving. When these responses are analysed along with the data from the discussion (Activity

1) on why participants had decided to become involved with GFYR, it can be said that the project

5 In addition, of the 25 people who attended one of two seed saving workshops in Autumn 2016, 17 (68%) participants stated on a survey that they would ‘definitely give seed saving a go’, with the other 8 (32%) saying they ‘may do’. Nobody at the workshops said they would not try it. This suggests there is a willingness amongst participant communities for seed saving to take place.

22

has delivered on their expectations about learning how to grow ‘new’ vegetables/fruits, and add

them to their diet through cooking.

One of the main aims of GFYR was to ensure that knowledge, experience and practices of growing

crops and preparing food using those crops amongst the various communities that make up West

Midlands multicultural population does not disappear. As such, participants were asked to identify

the various cultures and nationalities that they have engaged with as part of GFYR. The purpose of

this was to gain an overview of the various communities whose heritage in relation to growing crops

had come to attention through the project. Some responses are as follows:

“…when I was talking to a Polish couple growing crops on their allotment… I was connecting

with my generation … at the cooking session learning from them how things are done… feeling

a part of that community… and linking parts of my heritage that I was not aware of, or that I

was not skilled at…feeling proud to be Polish…and that was quite important I think.”

[Workshop 1 participant]

Within the workshops, it emerged that a range of nationalities and cultures were involved including

Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Afghan, Polish, Eritrean, Malawian, Czech, Chinese, Japanese, English,

Hungarian and Malaysian. The results strongly suggest that engagement with GFYR has had a

positive impact on people’s feelings, understanding and expression of their cultural heritage. This is

as much through the growing of exotic crops, as with the inter-cultural sharing of knowledge about

preparation and cooking of those crops, sharing recipes and seeds.

As demonstrated by the responses below, GFYR workshops and events have had considerable

impact amongst the partner communities of Walsall and Birmingham. Activity 2 data reveals that the

project has increased the number of exotic crops being grown. Moreover, GFYR has enhanced

cultural heritage through safeguarding knowledge, experience and practices when it comes to

23

growing of exotic crops. The oral histories, workshops and social celebration event associated with

GFYR have been particularly successful in capturing, preserving and sharing of multicultural

heritage in relation to growing and consuming food. As participants remarked:

“learning to grow different things…cooking different things…meeting people” [Workshop 1

participant]

“what this project has brought to me is an increased awareness of the different types of foods

and vegetables and an understanding of those that I didn’t have …I’d see them in a

supermarket & okay, I’ll buy coriander, fenugreek… & that was about it… I admit…I see some

other novel things & they look interesting …but I don’t know what they are. What this project

has brought to me is a better understanding of how they fit into the different cultures we have &

it has improved the range of foods I used to eat”

[Workshop 1 participant]

“this project is not just about garden…’look we are just gardeners’… but that is just the tip of

it… its more about…the act of sharing food, enjoying food is something… This project… the

growing stuff and then cooking it…I think that sort of energised if you like a genuine interest

and an education for all of us in exploring aspects of other cultures in more depth than we had

ever thought about before… it really broadened one’s outlook – that’s the kind of message

that could be used…helping cultures and communities to get along with each other”

[Workshop 1 participant]

The final activity (Activity 3) included a group discussion on future plans– which are dealt with

separately in section 3 below.

24

3. Conclusions and the future of Growing From Your Roots

3.1 Introduction

This section summarises the key findings and results from the data analysis discussed previously.

Recommendations and considerations for future work are also presented which are drawn from

discussions that took place with participants at the workshops. This ensures that the

recommendations build on what the project participants themselves regard as important / priority

areas for future work.

3.2 Key findings and conclusions

There are three key findings in relation to the evaluation objectives (as stated in Section 1) that

this report emphasises:

1.The oral histories, workshops, and social celebration event have been effective in their

own specific ways in capturing, preserving and disseminating cultural heritage; no single

one has emerged as more effective than another. Rather, the collection and ‘package’ of

the activities delivered through GFYR has enabled cultural heritage to be effectively

preserved and expressed.

2. Learning, exchange and impact has occurred continuously over the project period at its

different stages through the growing and cooking of crops, sharing of seeds, and

recording of oral histories. This continuity in terms of learning and practicing (such as

cooking) has contributed to the impacts in partner communities.

3. The project has been considered a success and met the participants’ hopes and

expectations and generated a strong demand for continued support from GO through

such projects.

25

3.3 Future recommendations

The main points from workshop discussions about how to progress and build on GFYR are captured

in Figure 5. The main recommendations that emerged from these discussions have been distilled

into five interconnected areas, which are now described and explained in more detail.

This evaluation recommends that all five areas are considered and explored but this has to be

tempered with the resources and capacities of growing projects, and the capacities of supporting

organisations such as GO who themselves operate in a competitive funding landscape. As such, the

recommendations should be carefully considered amongst individual projects and groups of

participants (e.g. committees) to determine what is achievable and manageable from the outset.

Figure 5: Flip chart outputs from group discussion about how to progress GFYR in the future

26

1. Continued practical sessions/workshops

The ‘hands on’, interactive nature of many of the sessions organized by GO were regarded as a key

reason for the success of the GFYR project. There is a strong appetite amongst all of the

participants for practical training sessions (around e.g. growing, particularly for ‘new’ seeds/plants)

to continue, and for knowledge and skills to be shared and exchanged. This practical approach is strongly encouraged and should be the cornerstone for future collaborations between GO and urban growing initiatives. Indeed, the practical format has clearly been successful and is

invaluable when imparting guidance about growing.

2. Community outreach and engagement

Firstly, there was consensus about the need to continue engaging local communities, and for more people to become aware of, and involved in, urban growing projects. Other cultures

and nationalities that are not/poorly represented within the growing projects were considered as

possibilities that could bring new skills, seeds, experiences and general input to the projects.

Secondly, possibilities of working across/with other community organisations was discussed. This

would be a worthwhile area of exploration and allocation of resources, as linking with and across local/regional organisations and communities can help improve connectivity and ultimately improve community resilience (Carnegie Trust 2011). For example, the projects could explore

connecting with mental health community groups/charities, whose users and members would benefit

from engaging with growing activities based on the health benefits that this brings.

Thirdly, a further aspect of community engagement that was suggested concerns the provision of

any surplus food from the urban gardens to those in need locally. The rationale for this is to i) avoid

food waste and foods perishing, and ii) improve community food security and local people’s intake of

vegetables (which is typically lower amongst poorer households and below the recommended five

27

portions of fruits and vegetables per day). One example could be for the urban gardening projects to collaborate with a local food bank to explore the viability of these types of waste avoidance arrangements.

3. Education and youth engagement

As with the previous point about community engagement and outreach, many of the participants

were in agreement that urban growing projects need to be more closely aligned to local schools and

educational institutions. Indeed, urban growing projects have the potential to be ‘alternative’ classroom spaces where practical learning can occur.

Collaboration with schools is encouraged and a worthwhile avenue to allocate resources. These

types of activities in particular would enable younger generations to engage with gardening activities

and the social, health and cultural benefits that this affords, from an early age. The youth focus is also integral for the long-term sustainability of urban community growing projects and for the preservation of largely verbal, undocumented cultural heritage that is at risk of being lost.

4. Platforms and spaces for exchange and knowledge/skill sharing

This builds on the recommendations from point 1, which advocates workshop and practical sessions

as an important means for knowledge and skills to be shared. However, such events are not always

accessible to people who may work full-time, or who cannot be physically present in a workshop

setting for some other reason.

The value of other platforms to disseminate and share knowledge, expertise and advice was

therefore considered an important area for the future development of community growing projects.

For example, the generally widespread use and access to online social media platforms

28

(particularly in urban areas) such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were regarded as potentially ‘powerful spaces’ for exchange, and to ‘showcase’ activities. As was discussed,

this evaluation recommends blogging / micro-blogging through Twitter, to increase the profile of

urban growing projects.

The practical and visual elements that were considered valuable in workshop settings are also possible through short audio-visual recordings that can then be made available on YouTube. This is also strongly encouraged, as these outputs would serve as supplementary

training and guidance for people who may not be able to attend workshops. They can also be used

to supplement community outreach and school engagement as discussed in points 2 and 3.

5. Access to funding

The participants were acutely aware of the importance of external grant funding for the GFYR project – and the proposed recommendations - to materialise. We therefore recommend that

GO provide some guidance and/or signposting to community groups about how to effectively write

or contribute to relevant grant funding proposals (to e.g. the HLF, Big Lottery Fund). This approach

would give urban growing projects a greater degree of autonomy and capability, and to be more

‘tuned in’ to and aware of the competitive funding landscapes in which they operate. It may also

assist partners such as GO in the long-term who are often burdened with completing lengthy funding

proposals.

29

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all of the participants who took part in the workshops. The findings from this

evaluation and recommendations for future work would not have been possible without their input

and engagement.

30

4. Appendices

4.1. Workshop 1 profile data

Asian(Banladeshi,Indian,

Pakistani,Other,1,11% Black

(Carribbean,African,Other),

1,11%

White,6,67%

Other,1,11%

Ethnicity

0

1

2

3

4

18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over61

Agerangeofparticipants(Years)

31

4, 44% 5, 56%

Gender

Male Female

Fulltime,5,56%

Parttime,1,11%

Homemaker,1,11%

Unemployed,1,11%

Retired,1,11%

Employmentstatus

32

4.2. Workshop 2 profile data

Asian(Banladeshi,Indian,

Pakistani,Other,3,22%

Black(Carribbean,African,Other),

6,43%

White,2,14%

Other,3,21%

Ethnicity

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over61

Agerangeofparticpants(Years)

33

4, 29%

10, 71%

Gender

Male Female

Fulltime,1,7%

Parttime,2,14%

Homemaker,1,7%

Unemployed,4,29%

Retired,1,7%

Prefernottoanswer,5,36%

Employmentstatus