Course:LFS350/Projects/2014W1/T6/Proposal

Version Control

Version	Author	Role	Changes	Date
2.1	Haider Raza	Communication facilitator	Edited Milestones	November 25, 2014
2.0	Kelsey Wickett	Technology Coordinator	Finalized project proposal 2.0	November 1, 2014
1.8	Kelsey Wickett	Technology Coordinator	Revised Project proposal	October 14, 2014
1.7	Amal & Corbin	Project Leaders	Finalized first delivery of Project Charter	October 4, 2014
1.6	Haider Raza	Communication facilitator	Edited Success Factors/Criteria & Deliverables	October 4, 2014
1.5	Audrey Ge	Technology coordinator	Edited Project Background section	October 4, 2014
1.4	Gillian Deng	Data Collection	Edited Methods section	October 4, 2014
1.3	Corbin Girard	Project Leader	Edited Methods section	October 3, 2014
1.2	Clemens Langemeyer	Communication Facilitator	Edited purpose	October 2, 2014
1.1	Gillian Deng	Data Collection	Edited methods	October 1, 2014
1.0	Corbin Girard	Project leader	Project proposal rough draft	September 28, 2014

Project Background (__ / 10)

Locally-produced food benefits local food systems by enhancing the economy, initiating positive environmental impact, and strengthening interpersonal interactions between community members and farmers (Zepeda & Leviten-Reid, 2004). What’s more, consumers benefit from the freshness and quality of said local produce, which stands as a primary motivator when considering the purchase of locally-produced versus imported foods (Zepeda & Leviten-Reid, 2004). The integration of community-driven initiatives into the local food system affects more than the direct consumer. Through word-of-mouth and the teaching of future generations, those that are removed and uninterested in food production will be exposed to the principles of food sovereignty and sustainability.

Several not for profit organizations have taken on the responsibility of supporting the community by educating its members on these concepts. Programs such as community supported agriculture (CSA) and community supported fisheries (CSF) have been steadily multiplying over the last few years. These programs seek to target the community’s involvement through support of local farmers and producers. Inner City Farms (ICF) is just one example of a community organization making a positive impact through said programs.

Inner City Farms (ICF) is a community based, not for profit organization that makes use of residential and institutional agricultural space to grow food. (ICF, 2012) The produce is distributed through the City of Vancouver by way of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) memberships, to restaurants, families, and community kitchens. (ICF, 2012) Through their farming, ICF’s goal is to provide and educate members of the community on the importance of establishing healthy, sustainable food systems. The current model that ICF operates by does not allow for an abundance of profit and hence, ICF is in need of a profit driven venture to sustain the currently active projects. Over the past three years, ICF has tapped into many areas of the food system yet they had not entered the ‘beverage system.’ Recently, the Metro Vancouver area shifted their buying power in the beer industry from large scale, mass produced companies like Molson and Labatt, to local so called ‘microbreweries.’ In 2013, ICF ran a trial with six hops plants. (Camil, personal communication, Sept. 25 2014) They were successful in producing and selling fresh hops to a local brew master and hence, the project was born. ICF is now hoping to develop a ‘for-profit’ hop yard to produce and sell fresh hops to the numerous local breweries in the City of Vancouver.

In keeping with the values of ICF’s existing farming practices, they are looking to expand and establish a profit driven venture through the development of a hop yard. Metro Vancouver is an ideal location to grow hops because the plants require long days and direct sunlight. Areas between latitudes 35 and 55 degrees north or south provide these conditions (Kneen, 2002); metro Vancouver is located at approximately 50 degrees. The mild, humid winters and relatively dry, sunny summers provide optimal growing conditions for the hops which then produce a bud of superior quality. (Warkentin, 2010) The hops that ICF grows will be available for sale to local microbreweries for the production of a specialty beer made using the fresh hops. Ideally, ICF will establish a partnership with a single brewery that will commit to purchasing their hops each year. The profit generated by the sale will enable ICF to expand their current programs to provide more sustainably, locally grown products to the community food and beverage systems.

Stakeholder Summary (__ /5)

List and describe the responsibilities of the student team, community partner(s), and other key stakeholder groups and their associated teams and roles.

Name, Role & Organization	Responsibilities
All Student Team Members Amal Abukar Hannah Borland Gillian Deng Audrey Ge Corbin Girard Clémens Langemeyer Haider Raza Kelsey Wickett	Complete required project phases Communicate frequently through email, Google docs, and Facebook page Provide updates in regards to changes to the Charter Lead all project phases Create project documents Lead and manage project team for all phases of project Document Management (location, updates) Status Reports Lessons Learned
Community Partner Inner City farm	Camil Dumont project background information sign off on proposed research questions
Teaching Assistant, LFS 350: Kieran Findlater	provide feedback for project proposal and survey development
LFS teaching team Dr. Eduardo Jovel and William Valley	Sign off on project revision

Purpose and Research Question (__ / 20)

The purpose of the hop yard development project is to provide ICF with a breakdown of the costs associated with establishing a one-acre hop yard and a market analysis pertaining to the demand for fresh hops in the Vancouver area. Through this analysis, ICF will be able to decide if a hop yard could be a suitable means of making money to sustain and further develop their current projects. The goal of the project, once established, is to provide a source of locally and sustainably grown hops for sale to microbreweries in the Metro Vancouver area while bringing income to ICF. Currently, there are very few large-scale hop yards in the City of Vancouver. This opportunity will allow ICF to be at the forefront of hop farming in the community and establish a rapport with brew masters for the sale of hops that are produced in future growing seasons.

1. What are the costs associated with establishing a one-acre hop yard is Metro Vancouver?
2. What is the past, current, and future market value of fresh hops in the City of Vancouver?
3. Does the farming of fresh hops coincide with common ethical principles of urban farming?

Methods

Question 1: What are the costs associated with establishing a one-acre hop yard is Metro Vancouver?

Qualitative:

• internet based research: on the design of a hop yard, materials required
• interviews with local breweries: what varieties of hops are most desired for the production of fresh hop beers

Quantitative:

• internet based research: cost of the materials needed to develop a hop yard
• compiling of the associated costs of said products
• calculation of overall cost associated with a one acre hop yard

Data Analysis: generate a comprehensive plan that includes a detailed analysis of all associated costs for the development of a one-acre hop yard

Advantages/disadvantages of internet based research:

Advantages

• Easily accessible
• Enormous amount of sources
• Less time consuming
• Able to find information provided outside of Metro Vancouver

Disadvantages

• Information may not be accurate or reliable
• Less involved than community based research

Question 2: What is the past, current, and future market value of fresh hops in the City of Vancouver?

Qualitative: Interviews conducted with local brewmasters: regarding fresh hops beer, their current use of fresh hops, and the future goals/plans for production of fresh hops beer. Also, the likelihood/chance that the brewery would recognize ICF on their logo when/if their fresh hops are used Email/phone based interview with Driftwood brewery: how have they become so successful in the fresh hop beer market?

Quantitative: Internet research: number of breweries located in Metro Vancouver that have made a fresh hops product in the past internet research: number of local breweries that currently make a fresh hops product

Proposed Breweries to be Interviewed:

1. Granville Island Brewery
2. Main Street Brewery
3. Powell Street Brewing Company
4. Parallel 49 Brewing
5. Driftwood Brewing via email (ie. located in Victoria)

These breweries are located in the metro vancouver area and are known to be able to produce fresh hops beer.

Data Analysis: generate a market comparison (past, present, and future) to determine if the development of a hop yard could have the potential to generate profit for ICF through the sale of fresh hops.

Advantages/disadvantages of interviews

Advantages

• Obtain in-depth qualitative comprehension of hop yard development.
• Not restricted by defined variables, issues can be examined in detail and in depth.
• The research framework could be revised as new information emerges.

Disadvantages

• Cost time and money to interview brewmasters in different locations within Metro Vancouver.
• Data are collected from a few number of brewmasters, so it may not be an accurate representation of the brewing industry.
• Bias may exist since many factor can affect the subjects’ response, such as the presence of interviewers and the researchers’ mood.

Questions 3: Does the farming of fresh hops coincide with common ethical principles of urban farming?

Qualitative: Brewery survey: to determine if the community would value locally produced fresh hops for the purpose of beer production Vancouver Population survey: to determine if the community would value locally produced fresh hops for the purpose of beer production

The purpose of creating two surveys is to include the opinions of the general public and those with a more extensive background in the beer production process. Exclusively conducting a brewery survey may lead to a sampling bias because the population is assumed to be more knowledgeable in hops and beer production than the general population.

Survey design: When creating the questions that will make up the surveys, we will take into account the relevance of the questions as well as the accuracy. In terms of relevancy, the objective of each question will be analyzed to ensure it properly contributes in answering the third research question (Iarossi, 2006). We will revise the questions, as necessary, to ensure that they are easy to answer and understand therefore, enhancing the accuracy of the results (Iarossi, 2006).

Vancouver Population survey

Survey Administration: This survey will be administered by our team members and the respondents answers will be recorded. Verbally administering this survey will allow any unclear terms to be defined. We hope to reduce non-response bias by recording the answers ourselves. This will enhance the accuracy of our results.

Survey Locations (4):

1. Downtown Vancouver (ie. Robson and Burrard & Canada Place area)
2. Point grey area (ie. Sasamat and 10th)
3. Commercial Drive Area

These areas were chosen because they will help give a more representative sample of the Vancouver population. Choosing three densely populated areas will allow us to include a diverse group of people from different socioeconomic statuses, who have varied beliefs and values. Results from this survey will allow us to draw conclusions related to our third research question.

Brewery Survey

Survey Administration:

This survey will be self administered via the breweries. The surveys will be placed inside the bill fold that is presented to customers. The customer will be given a pen to use if they choose to fill out the survey. If completed, the customer will be advised to put it back into the bill fold to be collected. The server will then take the surveys and place them in a box provided by our team.

Advantages/Disadvantages of Surveys:

Advantages

• Understand the status of the fresh hops market from the breweries’ perspective, as well as from the general population’s point of view
• Provide a good comparison of opinions between breweries and general population in terms of food security and fresh hops farming
• Randomization is achieved by conducting the surveys in different areas of Metro Vancouver, leading to more reliable results
• An efficient method in sample gathering

Disadvantages

• Non-response bias could occur during data collection (ie. the brewery survey could present bias as those who fill out a self administered survey tend to be more knowledgeable and passionate in the subject area.)
• Small sample size that may not accurately represent the population

Final Indicator: Comparison of the cost analysis breakdown with the market analysis to determine if the venture will be profitable Financial threshold regarding the feasibility of the project is defined by whether projected to profit 33% of the initial investment within 18 months after the Societal impact (assessed from cultural and ethical standpoints) will be considered when determining the suitability of fresh hops as an urban crop.

Deliverables (__ / 5)

Provide ICF with a visual (an image of a well laid out hop yard based on the dimensions provided to us by our community partner) and numerical (a spread sheet calculation of all costs associated with the development of a one acre hop yard with applicable formulas for future manipulation/expansion purposes) analysis of the costs associated with developing a one acre hop yard

Provide ICF with a visual (a graphic representation in the form of bar graphs showing sales trends of fresh hop beer sold at breweries interviewed) and numerical (a comparison of all numbers displayed in the visual representation) analysis of data gathered to compare past and current market trends for fresh hops beer sales.

Provide ICF with a visual representation (line graph) of projected future market trends based on consumer preference regarding locally-produced fresh hops vs. imported fresh hops. Furthermore, to provide a numerical representation (percentages, data tables) of consumer preference versus past and present fresh hop beer production as to provide an outlook on potential shifts in fresh hops marketability.

Market trends will be presented using data tables to emphasize the major trends extrapolated from the bar graphs. In doing so, ICF will have concrete data to reflect on when weighing the pros and cons of starting a for-profit one-acre hop yard.

Success Factors/Criteria (__ / 10)

The success of our project will be determined by a number of factors. Firstly, our cost breakdown will be successful once we have received the approval our of community partner; they should be satisfied that we have included and analyzed all associated costs of developing a one acre hop yard. Secondly, our market analysis will be deemed successful once we have retrieved enough information to provide our community partners with a detailed report of the past, current, and future trends related to the sale of fresh hops. Finally, our project, in its entirety, will be deemed successful when ourselves and our community partner can conclude that the development of a one acre hop yard does or does not have the potential to become a beneficial ‘for profit’ venture.

Communication Plan (__ / 5)

Action Item	Deliverable	Dates	Accountable
Weekly Meetings to discuss work completed the previous week and plan and delegate tasks to be completed during the next week	Progress Report (bullet points)	Ongoing, Wednesdays	All student team members
Information updates via Facebook group	Project tasks for upcoming week	Wednesday	All student team members
Cost Analysis presentation with Camil	Stakeholders meet to discuss cost analysis and review research question	October 15th	All team members and Camil Dumont
Meetings with breweries	Obtain information and data collection from proposed breweries	Week of November 3rd-7th	All team members and breweries
Revisit with Camil (via email or face to face meeting)	Obtain feedback and approval of project ongoings	November 5th	All team members and Camil Dumont
Debrief post brewery interviews	Surveys distributed, interviews conducted	Week of November 8-14th	All team members
Survey Collection	Revisit breweries to collect surveys and thank them for their participation	November 17th	All team members and breweries
Meeting with Camil	Update Camil post survey collection	November 19th	All team members and Camil Dumont

Milestones (__ / 5)

Milestone	Event or Deliverable	Target Date	Responsibility
Milestone 1	Meeting with community partner	Friday, Sept. 26, 2014	Haider & Amal
Milestone 2	Presentation of Charter and Proposal	Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2014	All team members
Milestone 3	First Draft Project Proposal	Saturday Oct. 4, 2014	All team members
Milestone 4	Presentation of Cost Analysis	Wednesday, Oct 15, 2014	All team members
Milestone 5	Surveys Completed	Friday, Oct. 31, 2014	All team members
Milestone 6	Data Collection	Complete by Friday, Nov. 6, 2014	All team members
Milestone 7	Data Analysis	Complete by Friday, Nov. 20, 2014	All team members
Milestone 8	CBEL hours with community partner	Sunday, Nov. 23, 2014	All team members
Milestone 9	Final Presentation	Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2014	All team members
Milestone 10	Final Report	Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2014	All team members

Approvals (__ / 5)

The following individuals hereby approve this Project Charter:

Role or Title	Name and Signature	Date
Project Background editing, gathering of references, survey design	Amal Abukar	November 1st, 2014
Proposal rough drafting, communication coordination, and time management	Hannah Borland	November 1st, 2014
Proposal advantages and disadvantages drafting and editing, survey design	Gillian Deng	November 1st, 2014
Project background drafting and editing, survey design, technology coordination	Audrey Ge	November 1st, 2014
Proposal rough drafting, survey design, note taker, wiki updates	Corbin Girard	November 1st, 2014
Proposal drafting, survey design, project coordination, corrector of poor grammar, and penpal to Camil	Clémens Langemeyer	November 1st, 2014
Proposal drafting and editing, survey design, logistics and travelling advisor	Haider Raza	November 1st, 2014
Technology coordination and content handling, Document drafting and editing, brewery communication liaison, survey design	Kelsey Wickett	November 1st, 2014

References (__ / 5)

Iarossi, G. (2006). The power of survey design: A user's guide for managing surveys, interpreting results, and influencing respondents. World Bank Publications.

Inner City Farms. (2012). Meet your urban farmer. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-L03T_68A

Kneen, R. (2002). Small Scale and Organic Hops Production (p. 15). Sorrento.

The Great Dominion: Studies of Canada, 1895. (2010). In J. Warkentin (Ed.), So Vast and Various: Interpreting Canada's Regions in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (p. 219). McGill-Queen's Press.

Zepeda, L., & Leviten-Reid, C. (2004). Consumers’ Views on Local Food. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 35(3), 5-5. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/27554/1/35030001.pdf In-text citations and references should follow APA guidelines.