Course:LFS350/Projects/2014W1/T9/Proposal

LFS 350 Final Report - Little Mountain Riley Park Food Asset Mapping Project

Team 9: Bily Ho, James Hoang, Jessica Phung, Michelle Ebtia, Mikaela Hudson, Shirley Zhang, Yuki Zhao

Executive Summary

Over the past three months, seven UBC undergraduate students have been involved in performinga Community Food Systems Research Project concerning the food security of Little Mountain Riley Park (LMRP) community. The purpose of this project is to identify the food assets (strengths and resources) that the LMRP community has at their disposal, with two underlying reasons:

(1) LMRP Neighborhood Food Network (NFN) is aimed to provide the community with information regarding food activities in the area.

(2) LMRP community has identified the necessity to better understand all food assets that are present within the community.

Under this context, the project has progressed based on the following research questions: “What food assets do LMRP residents recognize and value within their community? What is the most accessible, appropriate, and effective way to organize and express them on a digital Food Assets Map (FAM)?”

The methods of analysis and data collection in this research project are mainly based on the methodological framework of Community Based Participatory Action Research (CBPAR), which emphasizes the importance of incorporating feedback from all the stakeholders involved in the community. The ultimate deliverable of the project is the FAM, which is constructed based on data collected from the LMRP community. The findings of the research demonstrate that most community members prepare and eat meals at home, while patronizing community assets including grocery stores, butcher shops, and specialty shops most frequently. Limited variety of store types, and the selection of food items that they carry, in addition to the costs of food, are the main identified barriers that limit access to adequate and appropriate food and compromise food security.

The investigation also led to realization of the following limitations:

(1) Results have limited generalizability, as the surveys were distributed and completed at the LMRP Neighbourhood House, which indicates use of unrepresentative sample of convenience with a small sample size. Therefore, findings may be more conclusive and generalizable to the portion of the LMRP population that utilizes the Neighbourhood House.

(2) Lack of knowledge, socioeconomic status, and limited variety of stores in the neighborhood are the major factors that hinder the usage of available food assets and resources.

(3) The FAM on Google Map requires moderation, so that assets are kept accurate, appropriate and updated.

Based on the findings of CBPAR and community members’ feedback, the following recommendations have been made:

(1) The variety and types of stores within the LMRP area need to be improved, so that the demands of community members are met.

(2) To extend the accessibility and reach of the FAM, community-based food programs such as meal share, and community dinners and potlucks need to be encouraged and incorporated in the map.

(3) A fully dedicated working group is needed to keep the FAM dynamic and current; moderating the addition and removal of food assets.

Introduction

Key Terms and Acronyms

NFN = Little Mountain-Riley Park Neighbourhood Food Network

LMRP = Little Mountain-Riley Park

LMNH = Little Mountain Neighbourhood House

This report presents the findings from our Community-Based Experiential Learning (CBEL) research project with the Little Mountain Neighbourhood Food Network (NFN), a division of Little Mountain Neighbouhood House (LMHN) in Vancouver, BC. Our UBC team of seven undergraduate students from the faculty of Land and Food Systems employed participatory research methods to identify salient food system issues in the Little Mountain Riley Park (LMRP) area, culminating in the co-production of a digital Food Assets Map and Food Assets Database with the LMRP community.

Operating under LMNH’s umbrella of social programming, the NFN provides the community with information about food literacy, food security, and food systems sustainability; in addition, it hosts events to promote community dialogue on food system issues (LMRP, 2014a). Although the LMNH was established to provide social services to local residents and newcomers in the community – which is geographically bounded by 16th Avenue to the north, 41st Avenue to the south, Cambie Street to the west and Knight Street to the east - it is frequently used by individuals from across the city, representing a broad range of demographics (LMNH, 2014b, c). Thus, it is imperative to recognize the fluid social boundaries of the “LMRP community” with whom we collaborated, which we have chosen to define as those who conduct activities in the LMRP region and/or use the LMNH.

Through approaching our research from a “food systems” perspective, we were able to identify salient food security issues in the LMRP community, which largely pertain to access and awareness vis-à-vis local food assets (McCullum, Desjardins, Kraak, Ladipo, & Costello, 2005). We designed our research questions to deepen and contextualize this knowledge, allowing the “transitional” nature of the LMRP food system to shape our focus of inquiry (McCullum et al., 2005). Our primary research questions were as follows:

Research Question:

➢ What food assets do LMRP community members recognize and value within their community?

➢ What is the most accessible, appropriate, and effective way to organize and express them on a digital food assets map?

We also used several preliminary questions to structure our research, which were framed in the context of the LMRP community. There were:

Preliminary Questions:

➢ Which assets are used the most? The least?

➢ What are the barriers to accessing food assets?

➢ Are food assets inclusive of the entire community?

➢ Which assets contribute to food sovereignty and enhance community food security?

Methods (__ / 20)

Methodology

Our research was strongly grounded in the methodological framework of Community Based Participatory Action Research (CBPAR). CBPAR emphasizes the importance of involving all stakeholders in the research process, in order to ensure that the research questions address the needs and desires of the community, that the methods employed are in alignment with community values, and that the knowledge produced has subjective meaning (Burns, Paul, & Paz, 2012). Rather than performing research on the community, CBPAR advocates research that is done by and for the community; it facilitates a collaborative, reflexive, and fluid research process in which the strengths, agency, and unique place-based knowledge of community members are recognized and highly valued. Although CBPAR is a strongly ethical approach to community research, it is not devoid of potential pitfalls (see Appendix A). Thus, we discussed strategies for proactively addressing such potential challenges at the outset of our research, and continually reflected upon them in collaboration with our research partner.

Circle of assets

In order to explore our research questions, we engaged in a process of Participatory Asset Mapping (PAM) with the LMRP community (see Box 1). We worked intensively with community members to chart the geography of their local food system; through a series of PAM sessions, we collaboratively identified food assets in LMRP, which we then organized on a digital map. This map evolved over the course of our project, as we continually revisited and refined the knowledge we co-created with the LMRP community; in this way, our collaboration was guided by a strong process-focus, which we believe will be key to the ongoing success of LMRP Asset Mapping initiative.

Strategies of Inquiry

We employed a systematic and multi-pronged approach to identify the food assets that LMRP community members recognize and value within their community. In the first stage of our research, we used archival and survey research strategies to familiarize ourselves with the local geography of the LMRP food system, and to identify food assets located within the LMRP community (see Box 2). We used the information acquired through these search methods to create a Food Asset Database and a Food Asset Map; these resources were used to guide our collaborative food systems inquiry in the next stage of our research.

In the second stage of our research, we contextualized and enhanced our findings through the use of round-table discussions, focus groups, and informal conversations with LMRP community members. In order to better understand the community’s unique needs, we attended events hosted by the and conducted several PAM and PAM-inspired sessions (see Appendix B). During these sessions, we presented our work-in- progress Food Asset Map and Database to LMRP community members, and guided them in identifying missing food assets, providing additional information about assets we had already identified, and contesting any assets that they felt should not be represented on the map/database (see Appendix C). We also encouraged community members to share their opinions about the map/database’s aesthetics, layout, and usability, as well as their ideas regarding potential distribution channels, barriers to access, and future hopes/goals for the LMRP food asset mapping initiative. Following these sessions, we made changes to the Food Asset Map and Database according to community members’ feedback and recommendations.

Additional Ways of Knowing

In order to gain a holistic understanding of the way LMRP community members use the food assets present in their community, we created a survey to investigate their attitudes, practices, and beliefs regarding the LMRP food system (see Appendix D). This survey, which we will refer to as the Food Asset Worksheet, was distributed across the LMRP community; in this way, it enabled us to capture the voices of a broad range of community members, beyond those who attended our PAM sessions. The Food Asset Worksheet also helped us to contextualize the information we collected through our PAM sessions, and provided a deeper level insight into our research questions. We used excel to input our survey data, which we subjected to a variety statistical and qualitative analyses. Key findings from our data analysis are presented below.

Results

Deliverables

Our collaboration with the LMRP community culminated in the production of a digital Food Asset Map and a digital/physical Food Asset Database (see Appendix E). These resources will be available to the LMRP community through the LMRP website; in addition, the database will be available in print form at the LMNH. The online Food Asset Map will also serve as a prototype for a print map that Joanne will commission from a local artist; this map will be enlarged and used to generate ongoing community feedback at community events, and will also be printed in pamphlet form and distributed at the LMNH. The online versions of Food Asset Map and Database will be updated on an ongoing basis in response to community feedback; however, due to time and financial constraints, the print versions will only be updated once or twice per year.

Survey Results

84 respondents completed our Food Asset Worksheets. The respondents from our survey represented a diversity of racial/ethnic backgrounds (see Figure 2). 75% of our respondents were female, while 24% were male and one respondent did not specify his/her gender. The age of our respondents ranged from 22 – 87 years old, with a mean age of 44 years. The proximity of the mean, median (43) and mode (45) age of our respondents suggests a normal distribution of age throughout our sample population.

Through our data analysis, we found that 84% of respondents eat most of their meals at home, and that 78% of respondents usually eat at restaurants when they eat outside the home. In addition, the majority of respondents indicated that food and food services are of moderate quality, affordability, and accessibility in LMRP.

We also used our survey data to investigate where LMRP community members purchase food (see Figure 3), what their most important considerations are when buying or obtaining food (see Figure 4), what barriers they face to obtaining adequate and appropriate food (see Figure 5), and what barriers they experience to accessing food services (see Figure 6). These topics provided insight into how LMRP community members interact with their food system, and helped us to identify the challenges that they face to achieving food security and food system sustainability.

Discussion

The findings that emerged from our survey data analysis led us to make several changes to our food asset map and database, helped provide insight into certain issues that arose at our PAM sessions, and increased the depth, credibility, and robustness of our research. However, in order to practice “strong objectivity” and “robust reflexivity” in our research, we emphasize that these findings must be viewed in the context of our survey’s limitations (Harding, 1998) (see Box 3).

In defining what should qualify as a food asset on our map, the community was uncertain whether all restaurants and food stores should be included. However, in light of certain findings from our survey – specifically, that respondents eat at restaurants more often that any other location when they eat outside the home, that a variety of factors (eg. nutritional value, cost, taste preference, etc.) affect respondents’ food decisions, and that respondents shop at a broad range of stores when they purchase groceries – we decided to include all food outlets on the map and database. In addition, the identification of cost as a major barrier to obtaining adequate, appropriate food encouraged us to include price ratings on our map and database, a suggestion that also emerged during our PAM sessions.

Analysis of our survey data also helped us explore our research questions pertaining to food asset inclusivity and barriers to food asset use in LMRP. In addition to cost, respondents identified limited choice and distance as significant barriers to purchasing/obtaining adequate, appropriate food; moreover, they identified lack of information/awareness as the most significant barrier to accessing food services in LMRP. Through providing information about diverse food outlets and services in (and within close proximity to) LMRP, our map and database will directly improve community members’ ability mitigate these barriers; in this way, our food asset mapping project will contribute to improved food security in LMRP (McCullum, Desjardins, Kraak, Ladipo, & Costello, 2005). Another key finding that emerged from our survey data pertains to the relationship between our survey respondents and the LMRP community. We found that only 45% of our respondents live or work in LMRP; we hypothesized that this may be due to the way in which our survey was distributed, as all surveys were distributed by Joanne MacKinnon via the LMNH and NFN. Thus, our survey results might be more representative of the population that uses the LMNH/NFN than the LMRP community as a whole. In addition, we found that survey respondents frequently purchase groceries from stores that fall beyond the geographic boundaries of the LMRP neighbourhood (Eg. Superstore, T&T, Costco, etc). These locations may correspond to the areas in which respondents live and work, as 55% of respondents live/work outside of LMRP; however, they may also indicate that LMRP is a “food mirage,” meaning that although there are a variety of food assets present in the LMRP region, they do not meet the specific needs of the community (Breyer & Voss-Andreae, 2013). Our food asset map and database will help combat the illusion of a “food mirage” in LMRP by connecting individuals to information about a broad range of food outlets and food services that they may not be aware of in their community; however, in order to determine why respondents choose to shop where they do – and whether “food mirages” play a role in the LMRP food system – it will be important to investigate this issue further on future surveys.

Conclusion

Recommendations

Through our PAM sessions, survey data analysis, and communication with our community partner, we have developed several recommendations that we feel will support the longevity and success of the LMRP food asset mapping initiative.

Recommendation 1 – Formation of a LMRP Food Asset Mapping Working Group

We believe that the establishment of a LMRP Food Asset Mapping Working Group is essential to the success of the project long term. As the food asset map and database will always be “works in progress” – reflecting the ever shifting physical and social terrain of the LMRP community – the working group will responsible for updating them on a regular basis in response to feedback from the community. It will also be responsible for connecting the asset mapping initiative to similarly interested projects in the community (such as urban foraging groups and the Village Vancouver map), gaining community support for and interest in the project (eg. via social media), and leading the community in food system/food security dialogue. Plans are currently underway to facilitate the formation of this working group: at our last PAM session (the Food Asset Map Launch), we collected contact information from individuals who would like to participate in the group. Joanne will follow up with these individuals in January 2015; in addition, she will send out a bulletin to the LMNH/NFN mailing list notifying the community of the group formation, and inviting those who are interested to participate.

Recommendation 2 – Coordinated Food Asset Maps Across Metro Vancouver

From our communication with our community partner, we discovered that coordination of food asset maps across the city is a key action item on the NFN’s agenda. In light of this, we suggest that maps city-wide should use the same mapping software, layout and icons, so that they are easy to interpret from one neighborhood to another; this is particularly important given that many individuals live, work, and shop in different neighborhoods. In addition, food asset maps should provide a standardized set of information about all food assets; this will allow individuals to predict what information they will receive from the map, and will enhance the maps’ reliability and credibility. In order to achieve this level of coordination, we believe that the food asset mapping initiative should be taken up by the City of Vancouver; the City could ideally provide a coordinated mapping platform, facilitate inter-neighbourhood dialogue, and provide funding to the lower level organizations (such as NFNs) that would conduct PAM on a community level.

Final Remarks

We are extremely grateful to have worked with such a dynamic and dedicated community team on the LMRP food asset mapping project. As students and community-based researchers, we feel incredibly privileged to have had this opportunity to learn from the LMRP community. We would like to thank Joanne MacKinnon for her for her incredible positivity and support throughout the research process, and for sharing her wisdom and expertise with our team. This experience has been truly transformative for us as learners and “knowledge producers,” and we have been humbled by the immense knowledge, capacity, and enthusiasm we have encountered in the community. Lastly, we would like to thank Will Valley, Eduardo Jovel, Kieran Findlater, and the rest of the LFS 350 teaching team for supporting us in our journey this term.

Appendix A

Ethics in CBPAR

In our review of the literature, we found that several ethical issues are of particular concern vis- à-vis the CBPAR framework. In light of this discovery, we took such ethical concerns into consideration during all stages of our research, from planning, to implementation, to data analysis, discussion, and ex-post reporting. See below for selected key findings from CBPAR scholars and practitioners.

Meredith Minkler (2004) has identified several key challenges in community based participatory action research. These are:

(a) achieving a true “community-driven” agenda

(b) insider-outsider tensions

(c) real and perceived racism

(d) the limitations of “participation”

(e) issues involving the sharing, ownership, and use of findings for action

(Minkler, 2004, p. 685)

In addition, Burns et al. (2012) have identified research ethics that must be taken into consideration when conducting CBPAR. These include:

(f) accessibility of findings

(g) benefits to the participants

(h) community voice

(i) representation of local communities

(j) rigor of research and fidelity to findings

(Burns et al., 2012, p. 40)

Appendix B

Research Timeline

Appendix C

LMRP Food Asset PAM Session: Breakout Group Facilitation Guide

This guide was used by UBC researchers to facilitate the discussion that took place at our PAM session on October 14th, 2014. Although some modifications were made due to the low number of participants, the basic format of the session remained the same. In addition, this guide served as a framework for community dialogue at our November 4th Food Asset Map Launch.

1. Introductions

Introduce yourself to the group
Everyone introduces him or herself and states their involvement in the Little Mountain Riley Park community (ex. lives there, works there, etc).

2. 	Establish group norms

(Brainstorm with the group for 2-3 minutes. If the following norms do not come up, make sure to state them at the end.)
It is important that all voices are heard
Try to wait until someone has finished speaking before you respond
The goal isn’t necessarily to come to a group consensus – dissent can be a positive and productive force, so long as opposing views are expressed respectfully
There are no right or wrong answers
The UBC facilitator is there to help keep the process on track and clarify any ambiguities – the community members are the true “knowledge makers” in this setting

3. 	Briefly review purpose of the breakout session

To identify any assets that are missing from the food asset map/database
To identify any assets present on the map/database that should be excluded (on a basis of community members opinions/experiences)

4. 	Briefly review the format of the breakout session

Refer to the Food Asset Database handout
We will be going over the food assets identified on this handout (which correspond to the ones on the map)
For each category, we will take a moment to read the assets listed
Then we will discuss if there are any missing. We will write missing assets on post-it notes (ask one group member to be the recorder and write the missing assets down). At the end of the breakout session, we will then post the notes on the large poster paper located around the room, under the appropriate category
We will then discuss if any assets listed on the database should not be classified as assets. We will write these down on post-it notes as well in a different colour pen. At the end of the breakout session, we will post these notes on the large poster paper located around the room, under the appropriate category, in the section specified.
Half the breakout groups will start with the first category, and half the groups will start with the last category (and work through the database backwards). This is to ensure that all categories are discussed. The head facilitator will indicate where your group will begin.

5. 	Conduct the breakout session following the guidelines listed above

The UBC student reads out the first category listed on the Food Asset Database
Give the group a minute or so to read the assets listed (judge time according to length of list; check in with group members to see if they’re ready to discuss it)
Open the group discussion, starting with identifying missing food assets. You might want to say something along the lines of “Ok, now that you’ve had a chance to read the food assets classified under X category, can you think of any that we might have missed?”
If group members aren’t responding, you may want to use a gentle prompt such as:
Where do you go to buy your groceries/eat out/participate in community food-related programs? (according to the category under discussion). Are these places on the Database list?
What food providers/services are on the block where you live? In your closest commercial area? Are these listed on the Database?
*** You may also ask community members to refer to their Food Asset Worksheet for reference
After all community members have had a chance to contribute and the missing food assets have been written down, begin discussing any food assets listed that should not be classified as food assets
Ex. “Now, of the food assets listed on the Database, are there any that you think shouldn’t be classified as food assets? Why not?”
Write down the reasons given and any other relevant comments.
*** Remember, not all group members have to be in agreement about this. If the group is divided on whether a specific asset should count or not, write the asset down on a post it and put a small tally in the corner of how many people thought it should count, and how many thought it shouldn’t.
Once everyone has had a chance to contribute, move on to the next category listed
Repeat this process for every category on the database

6. 	Wrap-up and debrief

Once your group has had a chance to discuss all of the categories, send one or two group members up to post the post-it notes on the appropriate posters around the room. Remember to post missing assets and assets that shouldn’t be classified as assets under their respective headings
Debrief the breakout session. You might want to open the discussion by saying something like
i. “So, how do you feel about your breakout session experience?”
ii. “Did any questions or concerns arise for you? Do you feel comfortable sharing them?”
iii. “As community members, do you think the breakout session was a good tool for engaging the community in the asset mapping process? Why or why not?”
iv. “Do you have any feedback regarding how the breakout session could have been improved?”

7. 	Reconvene as a large group for round-table wrap up and debrief

Appendix D

Little Mountain-Riley Park (LMRP) Food Asset Worksheet

The LMRP Food Asset Worksheet was a 2 page self-administered questionnaire composed of quantitative and open-ended, qualitative questions. It was distributed via the LMNH and NFN mailing lists, and carried out in various LMNH/NFN groups, such as the newcomer’s community kitchen. The worksheet enabled us to collect data from a diverse range of community members about their experiences with the LMRP food system; it also enabled us to collect demographic information such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, etc. from our respondents, which helped us to disaggregate and contextualize our findings.

The Little Mountain Riley Park Neighbourhood Food Network is building a food asset map with help and feedback from our community. Food assets include information about grocery stores, community kitchens, food banks and gardens. We want to inventory where our community members eat, shop and grow food. A food asset map that is updated regularly will help us to identify gaps and opportunities to increase our community’s food security. It is also a helpful way to share information about food resources.

By completing this worksheet, you will be helping us to identify and map the food assets in Little Mountain Riley Park. If you have any questions, please contact Joanne MacKinnon, Food Network Coordinator at joanne_mackinnon@lmnhs.bc.ca or 778.998.3471.

1. Age: _____

2. I identify my gender as: Female Male Trans* Other

3. What is your ethnic group?

Chinese__       Vietnamese__       Filipino__        Caucasian__       South Asian__        Latin American__  
  Indigenous/First Nations (please specify):_______________     Other (please specify):  ___________________

4. I live in the LMRP area Yes No I work in the LMRP area Yes No

5. Where do you eat most of your meals?

__Home
__Restaurant
__Family/Friends house
__Community kitchen/meal program
__Other (please specify): ___________________________________

6. Where do you eat most often when you eat outside the home?

__Restaurant
__Family/friend’s house
__Community kitchen/meal program
__Other (please specify): ___________________________________

8. What are your main considerations when purchasing/obtaining food? Rank your top three considerations on the list below. (1 = Most important)

______ Cost				______ Convenience 		______ Health/Nutritional Value
______ Taste preference		______ Food production ethics (I.e. OceanWise, Fair Trade etc.) ______ Traditional/cultural preferences ______ Other (Please specify): _______________________

7. Where do you buy most of your food?

9. On this scale, how accessible is food (ex. from grocery stores, restaurants, etc.) in your community?

__Not accessible	  ___Moderately accessible		  __Very accessible

10. How affordable is the food is in your community?

__Not affordable	  __Moderately affordable		 __ Very affordable

11. How would you rate the quality of food in your community?

__ Low quality		  __Moderate quality		 __High quality

12. What do you feel are the main barriers to getting adequate, appropriate food for your household? (write in the space below)

13. How accessible are food services (ex. meal programs, community kitchens, food preparation workshops, etc.) in your community?

__ Not accessible	  __Moderately accessible		  __Very accessible

14. How affordable are food services are in your community?

__ Not affordable	 __Moderately affordable		  __ Very affordable

15. How would you rate the quality of food services in your community?

__ Low quality		  __Moderate quality		 __High quality

16. In your opinion, what are the main barriers to accessing food services in your community?

17. Can you identify specific foods or food services that are currently unavailable in your community? Would you like these foods/food services to become available?

18. In your opinion, how might the accessibility, affordability, and quality of foods and food services be improved in your community? If possible, provide specific details.

Additional questions/comments: Thank you!

Appendix E

Food Asset Map and Database

Little Mountain Riley Park Food Asset Map

Live map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z1BO-aEaPsB8.k0SpHyYMwBFI

Little Mountain Riley Park Food Asset Database

Appendix F

Reflections

Michelle Ebtia

In reflecting upon my involvement in this project, I used the three-stage evaluation tool presented to us in the Land, Food and Community course series, i.e. objectively reporting the facts, analyzing the experience, and contemplating the future impact of the experience. This was the first research project with a community-based participatory approach that I’ve ever been involved in. Considering my background in Electrical Engineering and then in health sciences, my ecology of knowledge prior to this was dictated by valuing research methods that included a carefully thought-out, meticulously designed research method and flawless implementation of quantitative data collection and analysis, with any unpredictability regarded as design flaws. This was in complete contrast to the community-based research we carried out, where even the research questions emerged from participatory sessions and identifying the true needs and desires of the community. This experience was significant because through my engagement in this research, I developed an understanding and appreciation for this truly unique, surprisingly effective research method. The unpredictable nature of community-based research, calls for unique skills such as enhanced levels of flexibility and attentiveness, which complement the careful objective analysis required in other types of research. I am very involved in my community, specifically in research that addresses public health; so in my future projects, I will incorporate these skills to carefully elicit meaningful and personalized feedback from community members to better identify the elements that contribute to, or otherwise impede the effectiveness of devised strategies that aim at improving the level of well-being in the community.

Billy Ho

During our CBEL project, I’ve learned that flexibility is necessary when working with a large group. The flexible learning approach of this course did help alleviate some scheduling conflicts since we were given time to meet up during regular lecture times. A frustrating part was the lack of direction given at the beginning of the course. The over dependence on students to figure out what was expect of them caused a lot of confusion. Another aspect that caused some concern for me was the scope of work that we were expect to do. We tried our best to complete as much as we possibly could for our community partner but due to time constraints and course requirements, we were unable to do everything and that left me feeling remorseful towards our partner.

James Hoang

I have gained lot of experience from this course and the CBEL project. I have learned many things especially from the working sessions with our community partner such as finding out the breadth of knowledge of community members, learning all of the ethical implications with working with the citizens, and finding out the extensive amount of work that our community partner puts in to run programs for the community. I have learned throughout this project that you can’t just tackle a problem head on. You must use a systems model of thinking to approach a substantial project such as this one. I would also like to comment on the use of the project charters, which I believe was very crucial to the success of our work. It allowed us to appropriately allocate time to certain tasks and goals. It also kept the group functioning as a whole by having a common goal that the group could collectively work towards.

Mikaela Hudson

This CBEL project was without a doubt the most meaningful and rewarding experience of my undergrad so far. Working with the community allowed me to put the knowledge and skills I have acquired in an academic setting into practice, and helped me see the real-life applications of my university education. However, it was also frustrating, disheartening, and disillusioning at times, particularly when academic ideals could not be realized, or tensions emerged between community-and university-driven agendas. Although our team and community partner shared a collective vision of how the project might unfold, the “research” component of our CBEL placement did not mesh as easily with the goals and needs of the community. As such, we had to creatively approach our role as community-based researchers, in order to satisfy the academic requirements of our placement without sacrificing our commitment to the principles of Community Based Participatory Action Research (CBPAR). As our project evolved, we were able to implement research strategies that served the dual purpose of supporting the community’s needs and allowing us to fulfil our academic goals; thus, through adopting a flexible and fluid approach, we were able to resolve any dissonance between community- and university-desired outcomes. The flexible learning component of LFS 350 played a large role in allowing us to do so, as it enabled us to adapt our schedules to suit our community partner’s needs; in addition, planning and documenting our research project using the Wiki helped us conceptualize our research process, identify potential challenges, and keep track of the progress we had made so far. This was of enormous benefit in communicating our research process to our community partner, as it provided a clear framework in which we could articulate our goals for the CBEL placement, concretize our methodologies and strategies of inquiry, and reflect on how our research unfolded.

Jessica Phung

This CBEL project was an interesting learning experience working directly with a community partner, determining their ideal outcomes and what we could as a group realistically achieve. Coming to an agreement and evaluating what we could actually achieve under the constraints of time and resources was not the most linear path. It is rewarding to be involved with a project that has actually come into fruition and has the potential to be meaningful not only in theory but also in reality. Although the CBEL project more closely mirrors reality in respect to the thought processes and challenges associated with collaborative work and community based research, it is also crucial to keep in mind that students have other obligations beyond the scope of just this CBEL project and the LFS 350 course. The wiki for our project charter was beneficial as it did assist us in mapping what we had achieved so far and also aided in identifying our knowledge gaps. The LFS 350 course overall was relatively enjoyable in terms of allowing us the opportunity to experience community based research and providing us with valuable and interesting readings; however, I find that the course was also limiting in relation to time constraints and lack of clear instruction.

Yuki Zhao

Over the past three months, the hands on community-based project that was offered to us is truly unique for me. I enjoyed the time working on the food assets map with my group members and appreciated the time spent at the Community Potluck Dinners hosted by the neighborhood house. It was great to meet our community members and receive some valuable suggestions from them. Through working with Little Mountain Riley Park Neighbourhood House, I’ve observed that the community has the lacking knowledge of available food sources, therefore, I hope our food assets map has contributed to increasing food security for the community members. Moreover, I’ve learned the importance of a survey in a research project because it’s a good way to gather meaningful opinions, comments, and feedback from the community, which could be graphed and statistically analyzed. Even though there are some limitations to our survey methods and results such as language barriers and misinterpretations, overall, we did very well. Hopefully our efforts along with our community partners will inspire further explorations into the new area of food assets mapping, where our needs for healthy food, and the working group from the community can continuously work on it.

Shirley Zhang

The e-lecture was better than I thought at the beginning of the year. I thought I would not remember to do it, but it was somewhat enjoyable to watch videos at home and it gives more time for students to work on the CBEL project which requires a lot of time. In addition, I find it easier to focus when I watch video at home than at school listening to lectures. The UBC wiki page is not easy to use. It’s hard to add pictures onto the page and even the pictures are successfully added, the page would not look good. I personally prefer to use normal word document for reports. Also, the information on the wiki page is hard to find. It took me a lot of time to figure it out at the beginning. On the other, the CBEL project was hectic; as I said above, it requires a lot of time, attention and patience to keep it going. And it took some time for me to get an idea of it, so it was confusing and I didn’t know which part of the group work I could contribute to. But in the end, it was a great experience to work with a community outside the school and I learned that everyone needs to cooperate, in order for a project like this to have a great result.

References (__ / 5)

Breyer, B., & Voss-Andreae, A. (2013). Food mirages: Geographic and economic barriers to healthful food access in Portland, Oregon. Health & Place, 24, 131-139.

Burns, J., Paul, D., & Paz, S. (2012). Participatory Asset Mapping: A Community Research Lab Toolkit (T. Bonilla, D. Cooke, & T. Farris, Eds.). Los Angeles, CA: Advancement Project - Healthy City Community Research Lab. Retrieved fromhttp://communityscience.com/knowledge4equity/AssetMappingToolkit.pdf

Harding, S. (1998). A Role for Postcolonial Histories of Science in Theories of Knowledge? Conceptual Shifts. In S. Harding, Is Science Multi-Cultural: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (pp. 1-22). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Retrieved from 325pdfadditionalreadings2014 at www.connect.ubc.ca

Little Mountain Neighbourhood House. (2014a). Food Network & Community Activities. Retrieved from http://www.lmnhs.bc.ca/wp/programs-services/community/

Little Mountain Neighbourhood House. (2014b). Maps. Retrieved from http://www.lmnhs.bc.ca/wp/resources/maps/

Little Mountain Neighbourhood House. (2014c). Our History. Retrieved from http://www.lmnhs.bc.ca/wp/about-us/our-history/

McCullum, C., Desjardins, E., Kraak, V., Ladipo, P., & Costello, H. (2005). Evidence-Based Strategies to Build Community Food Security. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(2), 278-283. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2004.12.015

Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical Challenges for the “Outside” Researcher in Community-Based Participatory Research. Health Education and Behaviour, 31, 684-697. doi:10.1177/1090198104269566