Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Planning for whom? The practice of cultural inclusion in alternative food initiatives in Metro Vancouver Ostenso, Victoria 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2018_september_ostenso_victoria.pdf [ 3.03MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0370966.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0370966-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0370966-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0370966-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0370966-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0370966-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0370966-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

PLANNING FOR WHOM? THE PRACTICE OF CULTURAL INCLUSION IN ALTERNATIVE FOOD INITIATIVES IN METRO VANCOUVER by  Victoria Ostenso  B.A., Carleton College, 2015  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)   August 2018  © Victoria Ostenso, 2018  ii  The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled:  Planning for whom? Cultural inclusion in alternative food initiatives in Metro Vancouver  submitted by Victoria Ostenso in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems  Examining Committee: Dr. Hannah Wittman Supervisor  Dr. Jennifer Black Supervisory Committee Member  Dr. Amy Hanser Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Rob VanWynsberghe Additional Examiner   iii  Abstract  As part of a social movement to challenge and transform the dominant agrifood system, alternative food initiatives (AFIs) strive to create more socially and environmentally just food systems through policy change and programming. In a culturally plural context, processes need to be in place to ensure change efforts consider the perspectives and priorities of individuals from diverse backgrounds, including from diverse racial, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. This thesis calls attention to the approaches and outcomes of AFIs towards cultural inclusion and racial justice through two case studies. The first is an analysis of the approaches to cultural inclusion by four food policy councils in Metro Vancouver. The second takes a closer look at one AFI, the Richmond community garden program, to better understand how garden participants navigate and benefit from the convergence of difference in public gardens. Through interviews, participant observation, and document analysis this thesis exposes the complexity of shifting towards culturally inclusive practice and provides key learnings for AFI practitioners as they strive towards more culturally inclusive outcomes in their own context.       iv  Lay Summary   The term food system refers to all the steps that food takes to get from field to fork (including growing, processing, transporting, marketing, consuming, and disposing of food). Some efforts to localize food systems seek to shift decision-making power from profit-driven multinational corporations to individuals and communities. In order for these efforts to inform and enact more just food systems, attention should be paid to who is being included in decision-making. In Metro Vancouver, this includes diverse racial, cultural, and ethnic groups. Through case studies of food systems change in Metro Vancouver food policy councils and community gardens, this research highlights benefits, approaches, and challenges to putting cultural inclusion into practice. It provides insights and suggestions for municipal-level food systems change efforts to practice cultural inclusivity in their work.   v  Preface  This Thesis is the original and unpublished work of the author, Victoria Ostenso. The research design and data collection for Chapter 2 is the result of collaboration between the author, Victoria Ostenso, and Colin Dring, PhD Candidate in Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems. Analysis of research data and manuscript preparation for Chapter 2 was independent work by V. Ostenso. The research design, data collection, and analysis for Chapter 3 was independent work by V. Ostenso. Hannah Wittman acted in a typical supervisory role, providing input and editing drafts.   The Ethics Certificate (H17-01637) was obtained from the UBC Behavioral Research Ethics Board for the fieldwork reported in Chapters 2-3.   vi  Table of Contents  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii	Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv	Preface .............................................................................................................................................v	Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi	List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii	List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix	List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................x	Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi	Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xii	Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1	1.1	 Alternative food initiatives as potential sites for food justice ......................................... 1		 Terms utilized to discuss racial, cultural, and ethnic groups .................................. 4		 Relating food security, food justice, and food sovereignty .................................... 5	1.2	 Cultural inclusion in food systems change ..................................................................... 7		 Histories of cultural exclusion in food systems in North America ......................... 7		 The current context for cultural inclusion in AFIs ................................................ 10		 Racializing cultural inclusion ............................................................................... 11		 Race and cultural inclusion in multicultural Canada ............................................ 12	1.3	 Research problem and summary of the thesis ............................................................... 14	Chapter 2: Planning for whom? Towards Culturally Inclusive Food Systems Planning Outcomes in Metro Vancouver ...................................................................................................17	2.1	 Food systems planning .................................................................................................. 17	2.2	 Food Policy Councils .................................................................................................... 18	2.3	 A framework for analyzing culturally inclusive practice in FPCs ................................ 19	2.4	 Study area ...................................................................................................................... 20	2.5	 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 22		 Data collection methods ........................................................................................ 22	 Interview sampling strategy & participant recruitment .................................... 23	 Document analysis ............................................................................................ 24	 Participant observation ...................................................................................... 25		 Validity considerations ......................................................................................... 25		 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 26	2.6	 Two approaches to cultural inclusion ........................................................................... 26	2.7	 Description of FPCs ...................................................................................................... 28		 Vancouver Food Policy Council (2004) ............................................................... 29		 Burnaby Food First (1997).................................................................................... 30		 Table Matters (2005) ............................................................................................. 30		 Richmond Food Security Action Team (2002) ..................................................... 31	2.8	 Color-blind approaches ................................................................................................. 32		 Defining food assets and nutritious food from a Western cultural standpoint ..... 33		 Creating non-specific inclusion goals ................................................................... 34		 Maintaining formal organizational structure ........................................................ 36		 Deflecting cultural inclusion work ........................................................................ 38	2.9	 Racial justice approaches .............................................................................................. 39	vii  	 Developing allyship within current FPC members ............................................... 40		 Re-allocating power through partnership .............................................................. 41	2.10	 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 45	2.11	 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 48	Chapter 3: Community Gardens: Cultivating a politics of difference through inclusive urban spaces .................................................................................................................................51	3.1	 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 51	3.2	 Community gardens: a review of the literature ............................................................. 51	3.3	 A community of difference framework ........................................................................ 54	3.4	 Richmond: the “Garden City” ....................................................................................... 56	3.5	 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 60		 Community-engaged research .............................................................................. 60		 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 61	 Participant Observation ..................................................................................... 61	 Online survey .................................................................................................... 62	 Interviews .......................................................................................................... 64		 Validity & limitations ........................................................................................... 64	3.6	 Gardener motivations to participate .............................................................................. 65		 Personal Motivations ............................................................................................ 66	 Land access ....................................................................................................... 67	 To develop or maintain a gardening tradition ................................................... 67	 To access fresh, flavorful, and culturally appropriate foods ............................. 68	 Reduce reliance on the dominant food system ................................................. 70		 Communal motivations ......................................................................................... 70	 Increased social connectivity ............................................................................ 70	 Educating youth and the general public about food production ....................... 71	 Civic responsibility ........................................................................................... 71	3.7	 Gardener meanings of community ................................................................................ 73	3.8	 The ideal of community in the garden .......................................................................... 76	3.9	 Towards a politics of difference in the garden .............................................................. 78	3.10	 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 80	3.11	 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 83	Chapter 4: Conclusion .................................................................................................................87	References .....................................................................................................................................91	Appendices ..................................................................................................................................100	Appendix A - Review of cultural inclusion in food policy documents in Metro Vancouver . 100	Appendix B - Interview Questionnaires ................................................................................. 104	B.1	 Food policy council interviews ............................................................................... 104	B.2	 Community gardener interviews ............................................................................. 104	Appendix C - Online survey questionnaire ............................................................................. 106	Appendix D – Interview Participant Consent Form ............................................................... 109	Appendix E - Resource List for Inclusive Community Gardens ............................................ 111	viii  List of Tables   Table 1.1 Definitions and key terms for food security, justice, and sovereignty ........................... 6	Table 2.1. Characteristics of interview participants ...................................................................... 24	Table 2.2. Visible minorities as a percentage of total population. ................................................ 29	Table 3.1. Gardener interview participants by gender, ethnicity, immigration status, and garden site. ................................................................................................................................................ 64	Table 3.2. Summary of survey responses to: “What does 'community' mean for you in the gardens?” ....................................................................................................................................... 74	 ix  List of Figures   Figure 3.1. Map of Richmond community garden sites. ............................................................... 59	Figure 3.3. Factors motivating gardener participation. ................................................................. 66		 x  List of Abbreviations  AFI: Alternative Food Initiative FPC: Food Policy Council RFSS: Richmond Food Security Society VFPC: Vancouver Food Policy Council  xi  Acknowledgements  I offer my gratitude to the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh people on whose traditional, ancestral and unceded territory I conducted this research. I am grateful to the faculty, staff, and students at UBC who have supported me throughout the research process. Special thanks to Dr. Hannah Wittman and Colin Dring for their support and guidance on this topic, Anita Georgy and Cameron Fitzgerald at the Richmond Food Security Society for including me in their food security efforts, and the food systems leaders and community gardeners who shared their stories and experiences with me in the field. This research was partially funded by a Traditional Fulbright Student Award and Eco-Leadership Grant from Fulbright Canada.   I would also like to pay tribute to my peers in ISLFS who have offered me laughter, graduate school real talk, and the emotional support that was needed to help me through the ups and downs of the writing process – especially Martina Clausen, Claudia Páez, Celina Solís, and Huamani Orrego.   Last but not least, I owe my family so much thanks for providing me limitless encouragement and love throughout all the stages of my education.   xii  Dedication  To my Grandma Victoria for instilling in me that knowledge is power.  1  Chapter 1: Introduction  1.1 Alternative food initiatives as potential sites for food justice Alternative food initiatives (AFIs) are grassroots efforts that seek to challenge what they view as a dominant corporate-led, industrial food system by developing locally-driven solutions to food insecurity and climate change (Goodman et al., 2012). In North America, AFIs have gained in popularity and impact since the 1990s when people sought grassroots food systems1 change to improve public health outcomes, support local food producers, and bridge the policy divide between rural and urban areas (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). Some examples of AFIs are urban agriculture initiatives, community kitchens, community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, and food policy councils. AFIs do not represent a singular alternative policy and practice. Rather, they represent a broad range of alterity -- from supporting neoliberalism through market driven approaches that are only accessible to individuals with the financial means to participate to enacting structural change and food systems democratization in favor of poor and underserved groups (Holt-Giménez & Shattuck, 2011).  The practice of food justice is central to achieving the goals articulated by AFIs towards more just food systems. Justice is the elimination or reduction of oppression (Young, 1990). Food justice seeks to address the oppression that exists in the way food is produced, distributed,                                                 1 I use the terms food systems rather than food system, acknowledging that there are interdependent but distinct food systems that are characterized by distinct values, individual and community relationships, and modes of production. Some of these food systems include: the dominant conventional food system (Morgan et al., 2006), alternative food systems that are often connected to affluent environmental and health conscious people through ethical consumption (Johnston, 2008), parallel alternative food systems that serve the food needs of ethnic populations (Gibb and Wittman, 2013), food systems that operate outside of the capitalist market and wage labor that include subsistence agriculture, community gardens, hunting, gathering, and trading (Gibson-Graham, 2008), and Indigenous food systems that seek to cultivate reciprocal relationships between humans and the land (Morrison, 2011).  	2  consumed, and valued. In Cultivating Food Justice (2011), Alkon and Agyeman review the work of many scholars that seek to challenge power inequities in food systems under the banner of food justice. Their definition of food justice emphasizes the role that race and class play in reproducing food systems inequities:  Essential to the food justice movement is an analysis that recognizes the food system itself as a racial project and problematizes the influence of race and class on production, distribution, and consumption of food. Communities of color and poor communities have time and time again been denied access to the means of food production, and, due to both price and store location, often cannot access the diet advocated by the food movement. Through food justice activism, low-income communities and communities of color seek to create local food systems that meet their own food needs. (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011, p. 5)  In other words, in order to create just food systems it is necessary to address racial justice, economic justice, and other structural inequalities by creating situations in which everyone can participate in building food systems that serves them better than the dominant agrifood system. Many scholars have critiqued AFIs for reproducing structural inequities such as racialized, gendered, and class-based disparities rather than forwarding principles of food justice (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011; Alkon & Mares, 2012; Allen, 2008; Guthman, 2008; Slocum, 2007). These scholars have pointed to ways that alternative food movement practice is culturally exclusive. For example, some AFIs reproduce inequity by framing elite food practices and spaces, which are predominantly White, as morally superior (Bradley & Herrera, 2016; Guthman, 2008; Slocum, 2007). These practices are often market-based (Eaton, 2008; Johnston, 2008) and inaccessible to racially and socioeconomically marginalized groups due to their higher cost.  Some AFIs claim to do ‘food justice’ work but fail in practice because their processes for determining group priorities are exclusive which results in food system ideals being imposed on marginalized communities through coercion rather than consent (Loo, 2014). Lastly, some AFIs perpetuate a food system narrative that overlooks the dependence of current food systems on the 3  labor of communities of color (Sbicca, 2017) as well as the distinct local food distribution chains of ethnic and cultural groups (Gibb & Wittman, 2013).  However, within AFIs, there are also practitioners of color and allies organizing within communities of color to empower individuals and elevate a participatory and antiracist agenda for just food systems change (Alkon & Guthman, 2017; Morales, 2011).   Discrepancies in AFI tactics to achieve just food systems can be partially explained by differing understandings of what is meant by ‘justice’ and how to put justice into practice. Bradley and Herrera (2016) find that food justice work exists in at least two strands – one that prioritizes systemic change to confront racism, exploitation, and oppression (original food justice) and another that prioritizes individualism and assumes that with adequate distribution of resources and knowledge, consumers will make ethical food choices (moralist food justice). Moragues-Faus (2017) identify numerous variations in the practice of ‘justice’ in food security narratives in the UK which they categorize into eleven frames: distributive, ecological, food safety, free trade, individualistic, productionist, quality, regulatory, solidarity, sovereignty, and technology. These differing frames of justice lead to disconnected and somewhat polarized efforts by organizations to address discrete components of food systems inequities rather than integrated, collaborative, and participatory approaches.  While there has been ample literature that calls attention to the vision of what just food systems should look like, there has been less attention placed on how AFIs can put this vision into practice. For this reason, Slocum and Cadieux (2015, p. 45) propose four steps to put food justice into practice:  1. Research (for which alliances with academics might be helpful) 2. Actively acknowledging the impact structural inequalities have had on people 3. Reflexivity to be able to ask good questions, but equally essential is institutionalizing practices that allow these questions to be asked (such as having each other’s backs) 4  4. To speak out in solidarity, a practice that, with these other elements, creates alliances with social justice advocates who work with disenfranchised groups builds relationships in the social context of these groups  This research will build on these proposed steps as it analyzes the ways AFIs are putting their cultural inclusion goals into practice towards food justice in Metro Vancouver.   Terms utilized to discuss racial, cultural, and ethnic groups  The focus of this thesis is on understanding processes of representation, recognition, and inclusion of individuals from various racial, cultural, and ethnic groups as participants and decision makers on AFIs. There are many terms that can be used to discuss racial, cultural, and ethnic groups, such as visible minorities, people of color, ethnocultural groups, and minoritized groups. Here is a brief introduction to each of these terms: • Visible minority: This is the term that has been employed by the government of Canada to refer to non-white immigrant groups since the 1980s, including “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour and include Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Arab, West Asian, Japanese, Korean, other visible minorities and multiple visible minorities” (Employment Equity Act, 1995). It includes some people with mixed European and non-European origin. Notably, the term visible minority does not include Aboriginal groups. This term has been critiqued for subtly implying race without actually naming it (Li, 2001). I will refer to the visible minority percentages measured by the Canadian census in this study as a broad measure of racial diversity, acknowledging this measure is limited in many ways.  • People of color: This term describes people who are racialized based on their appearance (including hair texture, bone structure, and skin color). It acknowledges the structure of White supremacy that organizes society into a binary of White/People of Color and the shared experience of racism for people who are racialized. As such, this term is useful for organizing against White supremacy but not for pointing out specificity of experience within racialized groups based on unique cultures, histories and experiences (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012, p. 187). This term is more prominent in racial justice activism in the US.   • Ethno-cultural group: This term refers to groups of people with common cultural, ethnic, and linguistic characteristics (Government of Canada, n.d.). It does not exclude ethnic and cultural groups who are racially White. This term is not deficit-based. Therefore it does not imply that the experience of individuals within an ethnic or cultural group is an experience of oppression or marginalization (even if on a structural level, these groups may be more oppressed).  5   • Minoritized group: This term refers to a social group that is devalued in society in terms of resource access, representation, and the ways in which unequal access is rationalized. Formerly referred to as a “minority” group, minoritized better captures the active dynamics in society that create a lower status for these groups and that these groups don’t have to be in the numerical minority to be minoritized (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012, p. 5). Minoritized group can refer to any group that is devalued by a dominant society based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ability but in this paper I will mainly focus on minoritized racial, cultural, and ethnic groups.   As you can see by the definitions provided above, these terms are overlapping but not interchangeable. In different sections of this study, I use the term that is most well-suited for the particular context being discussed. This is because no one term is able to encompass the complex interactions between race, ethnicity, language, nationality and other factors of identity that contribute to an individual’s unique positionality. Positionality is “the understanding that our life experiences and practices are deeply entangled with the way we see the world” (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011, p. xi). Being reflexive and attending to the positionality of social movement participants, such as AFI members, and how this shapes their collective identity is an important step towards achieving food justice (Lyson, 2014). While the focus of this thesis is the inclusion of racial, cultural, and ethnic groups, I do not argue that race, culture, and ethnicity are more important than other aspects of identity (gender, sexual orientation, class, religion, etc). Rather, considering an intersectional approach, there is no hierarchical pattern between categories of difference and “multiple categories of difference depend on each other for meaning and are jointly associated” (Williams-Forson & Wilkerson, 2011, p. 10) determining a unique individual’s worldviews.   Relating food security, food justice, and food sovereignty While this analysis will center on principles of food justice, the practitioners in AFIs in this study employ the terms and objectives of food security, food justice, and food sovereignty in 6  varying degrees of importance. As such, it is important to briefly introduce each of these terms, how they differ, and how, in some ways, they are co-constituted (Table 1.1). Table 1.1 Definitions and key terms for food security, justice, and sovereignty  Food Security Food Justice Food Sovereignty  Definition A situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1996) …communities exercising their right to grow, sell, and eat healthy food. Healthy food is fresh, nutritious, affordable, culturally-appropriate, and grown locally with care for the well-being of the land, workers, and animals (Just Food, 2010). …is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. (Forum for Food Sovereignty, 2007) Key terms  Reformist, distribution equity, top-down administrative power structure, food aid, commodities  Progressive, community organizing, participatory democracy, food choice, structural inequities, positionality   Radical, peasant uprising, global restructuring, non-hegemonic, emphasis on land access for food production  These efforts have different origins, priorities, and tactics, but they also share a common goal to allocate food more equitably. Food Secure Canada (2016) describes the relationship between food security and food sovereignty, directly pointing to food insecurity as a product of injustices in the current economic and political structure: Food security is a goal while food sovereignty describes how to get there. They differ in some key ways: • Food sovereignty is rooted in grassroots food movements. • Food sovereignty highlights the need for a democratic food system, one that involves inputs from citizens as well as producers. • Food security is concerned with the protection and distribution of existing food systems.  Because food security efforts are top-down and reinforce the dominant food system they may serve to undermine grassroots food justice or food sovereignty approaches to change the food system.  7  Scholars and practitioners are beginning to acknowledge interconnections between the food sovereignty movement, which originated in the Global South, and the food justice movement, which originated in North America, as grassroots efforts to strengthen community and environmental outcomes through food systems change (Andrée et al, 2011; Block et al, 2012; Clendenning et al., 2016; Desmarais & Wittman, 2013). By identifying the relationship between these two initiatives in practice, solidarity can be found towards creating just food systems for all. This includes solidarity across cultural differences.    1.2 Cultural inclusion in food systems change   Cultural inclusion is necessary to advance food justice in culturally plural contexts. Cultural inclusion requires an acknowledgement of difference, which is an important aspect of achieving justice because it challenges cultural imperialism (Young, 1990, p. 147). First, this section provides a historical glance at how cultural exclusion from food systems decision-making has contributed to the oppression of immigrants, refugees, and Indigenous groups in North America. Then, it describes the current framework for cultural food rights and the role that AFIs have played in advancing cultural inclusion.   Histories of cultural exclusion in food systems in North America  In North America, cultural food rights for minoritized immigrant, refugee, and Indigenous populations have been violated through the imposition of dominant Western cultural food practice and restricted access to land, economic, and political power to influence food systems. Nabhan (2004) shares an example of a culturally inappropriate food distribution effort in which the milk powder distributed to a Native American community in Ak-Chin Village, 8  Arizona by the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) was not considered edible. One community member explained,  We can’t drink milk, even when it’s mixed up from powder. Give me milk and I bloat up like a Pillsbury Doughboy. Don’t you know squat about us? All of us Indians got lactose intolerance. (p. 17)  Rather than drink it, the community used the milk powder to line their baseball fields. This example contains multiple layers of “failure” of the dominant colonial system to support cultural food practice. The first layer is the forced removal of Native Americans from their traditional lands and food resources. The second is the failure of the US government-sponsored food access program, FDPIR, to acknowledge and support culturally relevant diet and practice.   Similarly, in Canada, many Indigenous people were forcibly removed from their traditional lands to attend residential schools where their diets were both nutritionally inadequate and culturally inappropriate which has had lasting health consequences (Mosby & Galloway, 2017). Furthermore, even for individuals who weren’t forced to attend residential schools, colonial legacies have degraded traditional food sources and imposed Western diets on many Indigenous communities in Canada and around the world (Damman et al., 2008).  It is important to note that despite persistent colonial oppression, Indigenous food practice is resilient. Deeply help cultural knowledge about the connection between diet and identity support the maintenance of traditional food sources and consumption practices for Indigenous groups (Borre, 1991). A resurgence of Indigenous activism in Canada, including the Working Group on Indigenous Food Sovereignty (WGIFS) which originated in BC in 1996, and around the world is revitalizing Indigenous knowledge on the relationships between humans and our food sources (Coté, 2016; Morrison, 2011).  9  Immigrant and refugee communities also face challenges in maintaining their food culture in the new food environment in their host country. The cultural acceptance of diverse diets and food perspectives in increasingly global localities is important because food is not only energy for the body, it also plays a key role in human socialization. For immigrants, food can be a medium for maintaining traditions and for creating new ones (Koc & Welsh, 2001). Therefore, recognizing the cultural significance of diet and supporting food systems that empower immigrants to fulfill their cultural food needs as they evolve over time is an important aspect of social inclusion.  Historically, immigrants have been discriminated against for their race and appearance, their traditions, and their diets. For example, in 1901 Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor portrayed Asian immigrant laborers as lesser due to their cheap diets of rice compared to the “hearty” white laborers diet of meat and wheat (Mannur & Matsumoto, 2006). In Modern Food, Moral Food, Helen Veit outlines the shift in conceptions of the appropriate diet in the national conscious of the United States during the early 20th century. European foods, such as plain meats and starches were considered “the foundation of American efficiency and success” and were seen as more digestible and moral food choices while spicier Italian, Asian, Arab, and Mexican foods were viewed as sinful and gluttonous (Veit, 2013, p. 123).  In Canada, a parallel story of food as a means of exclusion could be told as the traditions and customs of Western European immigrant groups were upheld socially and politically over those of Chinese, Japanese, East Indian, Black and other non-White immigrant groups. For example, when recruiting soldiers for WWII, the military rejected Black, Japanese, and Chinese Canadians and “decided that East Indians could not be conscripted and could only be accepted as volunteers if they assimilated to Anglo-Canadian dress and dietary standards” (Walker, 1997, p. 10  30). Adhering to White dress codes and dietary standards was an important facet of performing Canadian-ness which wasn’t available to racialized ethnic groups who, if they arrived in Canada in spite of racially exclusionary immigration policies, were pushed to the margins of society.  Due to colonialism and White racial superiority in North America, political authority over how food is produced and cultural authority over what food is considered good, ethical, healthy (Johnston et al., 2012; Guthman, 2008), and even authentic (Hyde, 2014) is still disproportionally held by White affluent actors while the precarious labor that sustains food production is heavily dependent on communities of color (Harrison, 2013; Otero & Preibisch, 2015). Resistance to this dominance is present through social movements for food sovereignty (Wittman et al, 2010).   The current context for cultural inclusion in AFIs   While AFIs emerged from environmental justice and public health discourse in the 1970’s, recognition for the need to support the maintenance of cultural food traditions of minoritized groups is increasingly a component of their efforts. For example, the international human rights community recognized the importance of “non-nutrient-based values” attached to food in 1999: Cultural or consumer acceptability implies the need also to take into account, as far as possible, perceived non-nutrient-based values attached to food and food consumption and informed consumer concerns regarding the nature of accessible food supplies. (UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 1999)   This definition emerges from a food security lens and focuses on ensuring access to culturally appropriate food at the supply end. In contrast, food justice and food sovereignty practitioners attend to the need to redistribute power to all people to determine their own food systems which includes access to traditional foods, land, and power to self-determine how to maintain their cultural food traditions (Alkon & Guthman, 2017).  11  Following these trends to recognize culture as a relevant aspect in food systems, many AFIs, including the ones in this study, list inclusivity and cultural acceptability as part of their group’s mandate for food systems change. However, what is meant by cultural acceptability is often unspecified, or operationalized as “access to ‘multicultural ingredients’” for food insecure cultural groups (Hammelman & Hayes-Conroy, 2014, p. 40). When used this way, AFI efforts call attention to the significance of culture in food without making efforts to incorporating diverse cultural knowledge to shift the structures that are producing food insecurity in these communities. On the other hand, some AFIs operationalize cultural acceptability through a food sovereignty framework as supporting the decision-making power of cultural communities to determine their means of food production and consumption (Wittman et al., 2010). When goals for cultural appropriateness recognize the knowledge, experiences, and contributions of diverse cultural groups in food systems and shift power, they contribute to achieving socially just food systems change.    Racializing cultural inclusion  This study uses a “cultural inclusion” framework as a proxy for understanding the participation of people from various racial, cultural, and ethnic groups in AFIs. Food and food practices are an important aspect of identity and cultural reproduction for ethnic groups (Mintz & Du Bois, 2002; Visser, 1999).  The cultural dimensions of food systems and how they are represented cannot be understood without attention to race. Slocum and Saldanha (2013) suggest scholars analyze race as constructed by colonial and capitalist forces, fluidly changing over time, and differently influencing individuals depending on cultural context (p. 3). They consider racialization as 12  having more than just the biological aspects (skin tone, hair texture, facial features) but also cultural aspects (mannerisms, norms, values). The cultural aspects of racialization include food behaviors and practices. Slocum and Salbanha (2013) warn that “wherever race is a structuring principle of foodscapes” it should not be undermined by “voluntarist terms” such as “cultural difference” (p. 4). Therefore, for AFIs to be more inclusive, they need to call attention to the racialized landscape that they inhabit rather than just attending to a color-blind landscape of cultural difference.  As I discuss “cultural inclusivity” throughout this study, I follow the critical framework presented by Slocum and Salbahna (2013), asserting that racializing forces inform cultures and cultural forces give meaning and significance to race which changes over time. This analysis acknowledges that ethno-cultural groups are fluid (Oliver & Edwald, 2016) and does not aim to reify social boundaries or distill complex identities into a White and non-White binary (Alcoff, 2003).  Furthermore, while this study seeks to bring attention to the inclusion of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups who are not fully represented by dominant culture, it does not seek to assert that there is not cultural diversity amongst White people or that White people do not have culture. In North America, White culture is implicit and dominant. Whiteness is silent and pervasive and plays a major role in the positionality of all people regardless of the color of their skin. I hope this research can bring attention and insight to the influences of race and the interplay between race and culture in food systems.    Race and cultural inclusion in multicultural Canada  In Canada, White racial superiority has been a major condition of belonging to the nation since its foundation. Multicultural Canada is a culturally pluralistic society in which White, 13  settler colonial culture (especially British and French) is dominant and other racial and ethnic groups are recognized as members and protected by the law but are “different kinds of legal beings” (Thobani, 2007, p. 28). Historically, theories of racial superiority informed state practices and inscripted “whiteness as the embodiment of legitimate and responsible citizenship” (Thobani, 2007, p.75). One example is immigration policies which favored British, French, and then other European settlement over non-White settlement until the 1960s and ‘70s (Thobani, 2007). Today, racialization continues to inform the exclusion of First Nations, Asian, African, Latinx and other minority ethnic groups from certain aspects of Canadian society based on their otherness in relation to the ‘exalted’ characteristics of those European settlers who possess belonging in the colonial nation-state (Thobani, 2007).  White racial superiority influences the food system in Canada. Some examples include: ethical eating discourse that privileges Whiteness and affluence (Johnston et al., 2012), lack of infrastructure to support the cultural transmission of traditional food knowledge of immigrant groups (Kwik, 2008), institutional exploitation of Indigenous food sources and repression of traditional food knowledge by the colonial government (Coté, 2016) which has led to a high prevalence of food insecurity for Indigenous people (Tarasuk et al., 2016), labor precarity faced by immigrant and migrant food workers (Otero & Preibisch, 2015), and a lack of research and institutional support for the parallel food systems that serve visible minority communities (Gibb & Wittman, 2013). For these reasons, attention to race matters in contemporary food systems change efforts.  In Canada, efforts towards cultural inclusivity are embedded in federal policies that support the concept of multiculturalism, such as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1988) which describes the government’s commitment to 14  Promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation” (p. 837-838)  While Canadian multiculturalism can be viewed as a model for strengthening minority rights, it has also been criticized for diminishing citizenship to adaptation to the economic marketplace, strengthening Anglo-Saxon dominance in political and economic spheres, undermining the influence of race in the outcomes of different cultural groups, and promoting separatism between cultural groups (Bottez, 2011). The prominence of race neutral discourse within multicultural policies in Canada, such as the term “visible minority”, also has the potential to further racial inequality faced by racialized groups by overlooking race as a harmless concept (Li, 2001).    1.3 Research problem and summary of the thesis  Considering the critiques of cultural exclusivity within AFIs that have been identified by many food justice scholars (Bradley & Herrera, 2016; Guthman, 2008; Slocum, 2007; Loo, 2014; Eaton, 2008; Gibb & Wittman, 2013) this thesis examines racial, cultural, and ethnic group inclusivity in two contexts: Chapter 2 examines the approaches of food policy councils towards more culturally inclusive practice and Chapter 3 examines the experiences of community gardeners who are engaging in culturally diverse public gardens spaces. By considering cultural inclusion in both high-level planning and on-the-ground programmatic spaces, this research provides insights into the dynamics of inclusivity in multiple spheres of civic involvement.  The objective of this thesis overall is to explore what approaches are hindering cultural inclusivity in AFIs, what approaches are supporting cultural inclusivity in AFIs, and what are the benefits and challenges to maintaining cultural inclusivity AFIs. This thesis contributes to current literature in critical food studies by exposing the complexity of shifting towards culturally inclusive practice 15  in AFIs. It also provides key learnings for AFI practitioners as they strive towards more culturally inclusive outcomes in their own context.       Chapter Two analyzes approaches to cultural inclusion in food systems planning by four municipal food policy councils (FPCs) in Metro Vancouver through document analysis and ethnography. I find that while all four FPCs have written goals to be culturally inclusive and FPC members support discourse around cultural inclusivity, outcomes of cultural inclusion are mixed due to two distinct approaches: a color-blind approach and a racial justice approach. Color-blind approaches are not attentive to difference and therefore maintain the dominance of Western/Eurocentric values within FPCs. Racial justice approaches attempt to address structural inequalities and allocate power to culturally diverse immigrant groups through representation and recognition of different cultural ways of knowing and understanding food systems. By exploring how FPCs negotiate between these approaches, this chapter offers insights into how organizational structure, participant ideologies, and resources available contribute to culturally inclusive outcomes. It concludes with a set of suggestions for how FPCs can achieve outcomes of cultural inclusivity. Chapter 3 explores the understandings of and approaches to community held by individual community gardeners and analyzes how this shapes outcomes of inclusion. I find that community gardeners from diverse backgrounds (including culture, age, gender, immigration status) approach and define community differently which can contribute to tension between gardeners and with the general public. Using the framework of the politics of difference (Young, 1990), I identified gardener discourse that promotes two ideals in the garden: an ideal of community as sameness and an ideal of city life as a convergence of differences. I describe implications for each ideal on inclusion and the potential that recognizing the virtues of city life 16  (social differentiation without exclusion, variety, eroticism, and publicity) in community gardens has to create more inclusive outcomes.  17  Chapter 2: Planning for whom? Towards Culturally Inclusive Food Systems Planning Outcomes in Metro Vancouver  2.1 Food systems planning  The term food system planning refers to the envisioning and implementation of structures and processes that influence the food supply chain. This includes growing, processing, transporting, marketing, consuming, and disposing of food. This systems approach addresses a range of concerns regarding the public health, social justice, and ecological integrity of food systems (Morgan, 2009). Currently, food systems planning takes place in a variety of formats, some of which are embedded in formal governance structures (for example: municipal land-use planning, zoning, and economic development) and some of which are efforts by civil society organizations to address citizen concerns (for example: food policy councils and some community food programs). This planning also takes place on many scales including municipal, regional, national, and multinational levels.  Local food systems planning actors include regional and municipal government agencies, public health authorities, agricultural advisory committees, food policy councils, and community food security groups. The efforts of these groups are guided by food policies or “any decision made by a government agency, business, or organization which affects how food is produced, processed, distributed, purchased and protected” (Hamilton, 2002, p. 423). These policies include documents that are public and formally endorsed by the municipal government, citizens, and stakeholders (e.g. food strategies, charters, and action plans) or internal documents that guide the food system planning process (e.g. Terms of Reference). This chapter focuses on municipal-scale food systems planning efforts by food policy councils (FPCs) in Metro Vancouver. For the purposes of this research, I will refer to both formal food policy councils and food security groups who do food policy work as FPCs. 18  2.2 Food Policy Councils   Since the 1980s, food policy councils (FPCs), as regional groups comprised of members of civil society that seek to influence food systems planning, have formed in North America (McCullagh & Santo, 2012) and across the globe (Baker & de Zeeuw, 2015). These groups  strive to address a perceived trend of citizen disempowerment in the food system (Lang, 1999) and the lack of incorporation of food and agriculture in municipal policy (McRae & Donahue, 2013) and planning fields (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). FPCs contribute to food systems planning by building alliances between disparate food systems stakeholders, conducting systems-level research, and strategic planning (McRae & Donahue, 2013). FPCs have the potential transform urban areas into spaces of “food citizenship”, or places where people can actively partake in shaping the food system outside of their role as consumers (Mooney et al., 2014; Levkoe, 2006), bridging the divide between rural producers and urban consumers by enabling urban citizens to use their political power to respond to challenges in the food system (Morgan & Sonnino, 2010; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). FPCs also face limitations such as inadequate funding/resources and lack of institutional recognition which have lead scholars to question the capacity of FPCs to affect change in food systems (Harper, et al., 2009; McRae & Donahue, 2013). In the report “Food Policy Council: Lessons Learned”, Harper et al (2009, p. 7) identify that one of the greatest assets of FPCs is their ability to bring together activists, advocates and practitioners and “create democratic spaces for convergence in diversity”. Similarly, Stevenson et al. (2007) see the role of FPCs in AFIs is to be “weavers”, creating linkages between food systems actors by developing an inclusive network. By bringing together diverse stakeholders 19  with differing roles in food systems, these spaces have the potential to build coalitions and create innovative approaches to transform food systems (Levkoe & Wakefield, 2014; Bedore, 2014).  However, while many FPCs have been successful at bringing together diverse food system stakeholders (consumers, farmers, policy makers, scholars, food industry representatives, etc) they have been critiqued for not effectively or equitably engaging members from diverse racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Horst, 2017; Clark et al, 2017; McCullagh & Santo, 2012). Whether intentional or not, this disparity challenges the potential for FPCs to represent citizen-driven food systems change. This chapter will assess how cultural inclusion happens (or does not happen) in Metro Vancouver FPCs.  2.3  A framework for analyzing culturally inclusive practice in FPCs  This chapter combines the politics of difference (Young, 1990) and critical race theory (Delgado, Stefancic, & Harris, 2012; Slocum, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2013) to understand the significance of cultural inclusion in FPCs. Through the politics of difference framework, Young (1990) calls attention to the oppressive consequences that ignoring difference has for individuals who do not fit into the “neutral standard” (p.165) created by implicit dominant norms. By making dominant norms explicit and promoting participation from differently positioned individuals in group decision-making processes, Young (1990) suggests that we can move towards more representative processes. Furthermore, Young (1990) argues that in order to be inclusive of difference and foster participation from structurally marginalized groups, extra supports and resources are needed from the institutions and organizations that have historically been complicit in furthering their oppression.  The influence of structural inequalities on the participation of individuals from different cultures cannot be understood without attention to race. Critical race theory provides a lens with 20  which to analyze the reliance of food systems on the exploitation of people of color and to question food systems starting at the structural foundation (Delgado, Stefancic, & Harris, 2012; Slocum, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2013). It acknowledges that “White, wealthy, and masculine epistemologies” have dominated Western history, shaped spatial relationships, and ignored or erased the history of marginalized groups (Slocum, 2011, p. 304). Slocum (2011) reviews the many ways that race interacts with food practice such as: the disproportionate environmental degradation and resulting famine or food insecurity faced by racialized groups, continued institutional land dispossession of people of color, the “whitened dreams of farming and gardening” perpetuated by AFIs, and the way food and cultural food practice inform our racial identities by shaping who we are and who we relate to. As such, the concept of race and processes of racialization have far-reaching impacts on individuals, cultural practices, and the food system.  Considering this framework, this chapter will ask: How are leaders and members of FPCs in Metro Vancouver currently recognizing diversity within their municipality and supporting participation of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups? How do participants understand the ways their governance and planning processes have (or have not) addressed cultural pluralism? Finally, do these approaches to participation address the role that the food system has played in the structural oppression that some of these cultural and ethnic groups face?   2.4 Study area  Metro Vancouver is the third largest metropolitan area in Canada with over 2.4 million people. Metro Vancouver is home to 23% of BC’s Indigenous population including 12 local First Nations (Metro Vancouver, 2018). The region is characterized by multiple waves of settler 21  immigration from Europe and Asia beginning in the late 1800s. Today, it is the second most culturally and ethnically diverse area in Canada with over one million people (48%) identifying as members of a visible minority group2 (Statistics Canada, 2016).  Metro Vancouver is distinct from urban settings in the US, where food justice has been practiced/studied more extensively, due to the narrative and policy approach of “multiculturalism” in Canada (Bottez, 2011) and the racial and socioeconomic diversity of immigrant groups. In this context, racialization cannot be understood through black/white and correlated poor/affluent binaries that often frame understandings of who belongs in North America. For example, racialization is strongly linked to class in the US while the relationship between racial groups and class is less straightforward in Metro Vancouver where, for example, there are a large number of wealthy, business class immigrants from the Pacific Rim (Ley, 2010). Additionally, in the context of food retail distribution in urban areas, research in US cities have found racial minority groups have less access to healthy food retail (Walker et al., 2010) whereas similar studies in British Columbia metropolitan areas found visible minority groups have just as much or more physical access to healthy food retail (Black et al., 2011). However, racialization has informed the treatment and exclusion of Chinese farmers from the narrative of ‘local’ food (Lim, 2015) and maintained the precarity of racialized migrant workers in British Columbia (Weiler, Otero, & Wittman, 2016), much like it does in the US. Black/white and poor/affluent binaries do not adequately describe the experience of racialization for diverse racial and ethnic groups in Canada or the US (Alcoff, 2003) or aid scholars in thinking through racial topics.                                                 2  The Employment Equity Act (1995) defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.' Categories in the visible minority variable include South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Arab, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, Visible minority, n.i.e. ('n.i.e.' means 'not included elsewhere'), Multiple visible minorities and Not a visible minority. 22  In Metro Vancouver, FPCs began to form in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Six municipalities in the Metro Vancouver region are included in this study: Vancouver, Burnaby, North Shore (which includes North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, and West Vancouver) and Richmond. These municipalities were chosen based on past and present local food policy efforts and the availability of municipal actors (City staff, non-profit staff, members of FPCs) within the study period.  2.5  Methodology  This study utilized qualitative methods including participant observation, key stakeholder interviews, and document analysis to gain greater depth in understanding the various determinants of inclusion in food policy council’s planning processes. Given the focus of this study on the values and opinions of individual food policy participants, a qualitative approach is useful when attempting to render the complexity of an issue of study into a coherent picture or narrative. According to Creswell (2007), qualitative research includes “reporting multiple perspectives, identifying the many factors involved in a situation, and generally sketching the larger picture that emerges” (p. 39). This approach is well suited to draw upon and explore what Creswell terms “participants’ meanings” (2013, p. 47), or the meaning that participants attribute to the subject rather than the researcher’s own meaning.   Data collection methods All data collected for this chapter was conducted by two researchers: Victoria Ostenso (author) and Colin Dring (ISLFS PhD Candidate). We collaborated to design the interview questionnaire and meeting observation guide, then divided the fieldwork equally amongst the two of us – conducting separate interviews and meeting observations. Throughout the process, we met to discuss our observations, adapt our research design, and determine a coding 23  framework. This collaboration likely lead to richer ethnographic work because of the different positionality of the researchers. Dring is a Chinese-Canadian male from Richmond, B.C. who brought knowledge and relationships from several years of food systems work in professional and volunteer capacities in Metro Vancouver to the study. Ostenso is mixed race, white-passing American female of Chinese, Trinidadian, Norwegian, German who was new to the context, having moved from the Midwest, USA to Metro Vancouver to attend UBC in 2016. She offered an outsider perspective and insights from her involvement in food justice initiatives in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska but had much to learn in order to understand and find her footing within the local research context. Interview sampling strategy & participant recruitment  We conducted semi-structured interviews with seventeen key informants over the course of March to October 2017. Potential participants were identified based on current or previous involvement on FPCs. This purposive sampling protocol enabled the rapid and efficient identification of knowledgeable key informants and critical cases (Patton, 2002). All participants’ contact information was publicly available or obtained through the researcher’s professional networks. Participants were emailed a letter of invitation to participate in the study. The email included a study description, expected benefits and impacts identified, an explanation of confidentiality (i.e. that participants will not be identified by name) and data security, and contact information of researchers. At the time of interview, informed consent was obtained in writing from all participants (see Appendix D for a copy of the consent form). The interview sample was mixed-gender; affiliated with FPCs based on their job in municipal planning departments and non-profit organizations, or as independent/volunteer 24  contributors; and represented all municipalities in the study (Table 2.1). Each semi-structured interview lasted between 20 and 60 minutes. The interviews were held in public spaces, such as cafes, or in the participant’s office spaces. Researchers followed an interview questionnaire (Appendix B.1), but also left the conversation open to participant directions and priorities. Data from the key informant interviews were digitally recorded as audio files (WMA) and then transcribed as Microsoft Word documents. Transcripts and audio files were stored on encrypted laptops. In order to maintain participant confidentiality in interview excerpts throughout the discussion, I will refer to interviewees as “FPC members” and “participants” and disclose more information (i.e. ethnicity and gender) when participants self-identify these factors as being relevant to the topic of conversation. Table 2.1. Characteristics of interview participants  Interview Participants   n=17 % Gender   Male 7 41 Female 10 59 Organization affiliation Municipal staff  5 29 Non-profit staff  10 59 Volunteer  2 12 Municipality Vancouver 8 47 Richmond 5 29 North Vancouver 3 18 Burnaby  1 6 Document analysis   We selected food policy documents that were (2) publicly available and (1) produced by or specifically governing the FPCs in this study. This includes: food charters (Vancouver, North Shore, Richmond), food strategies, assessments and action plans (Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, Richmond), and terms of reference for food policy council organizations (all sites) (Appendix 25  A). These documents were analyzed using Nvivo coding software. During interviews, the relevance of these documents was validated by participants. Due to the intersectionality of food systems planning and other planning initiatives, the sample of documents analyzed does not claim to be comprehensive. For example, sustainability action plans, community and diversity planning documents, and agricultural action plans may all contain components that relate to structural change in food systems but we chose not to include them in this study. Participant observation   Field observations were conducted between March and October 2017 at eight different FPC meetings across the region. Researchers emailed the meeting chairpersons in advance to obtain informal consent and to explain the purpose of our study. Approximately 20 hours of observations were conducted in total.    Validity considerations  Creswell and Miller (2000) define validity as the extent to which participants’ accounts accurately reflect participants lived experience. Creswell and Miller (2000) point to the pluralistic nature of this paradigm and note that validity procedures will aim to: “present criteria…such as trustworthiness (i.e. credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability) and authenticity (i.e. fairness, enlarges personal constructions) which leads to improved understanding of constructions of others, stimulates action and empowers action” (p.125). We used two strategies to verify the validity of the research findings. (1) Triangulation: by using multiple sources of information (key informant interviews, observations, documents) one can cross-check to determine that information is consistent. (2) Seeking disconfirming evidence: post establishment of categories and themes, the researcher looks for evidence that is 26  contradictory to these themes or categories. This approach is well-suited as the research seeks to identify a range of perspectives.  Data analysis  Following Guest et al.’s (2012) description of applied thematic analysis, the analytic approach combined exploratory analysis of field observations, food policy documents, and interview transcripts in order to identify emergent themes based on the research questions outlined in the introduction. First, the two researchers independently read each document and used open-coding to create a comprehensive list of themes that emerged (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). Then, the researchers met to compare coding schemes and a set of themes were selected based on frequency and relationship to the research question. After a coding framework was agreed upon by both researchers, the lead researcher used Nvivo coding software to independently code all transcripts using that framework. This step was iterative, allowing the researcher to add codes that were not included in the first round of coding. A final re-coding of the documents was done by the lead researcher at least 90 days after the initial coding as a measure of validity (Guest et al., 2012).   2.6 Two approaches to cultural inclusion   The extent to which the FPCs in this study engage in food policy work varies greatly due to unique missions, membership and funding resources. Adding to that, achieving cultural inclusion is different for each group because of the unique demographic composition of the residents that they represent (Table 2.2). Therefore, this study does not attempt to compare the level of cultural inclusivity achieved by each group. Rather, it focuses on current approaches to cultural inclusion that are expressed by members in order to document the aspirations, efforts 27  and achievements of these groups. In the following sections, approaches to cultural inclusion expressed by FPC members are grouped into two categories which emerged from the data analysis: color-blind and racial justice approaches.  Color-blind approaches assume that all people have equal capacity to participate in FPCs. Following this approach, FPCs do not actively recognize implicit group bias or make special efforts to accommodate for individual differences, nor do governance processes have specific strategies to assess whether FPC discourses and practices are exclusionary. This approach can fail to acknowledge the influence that structural oppressions may have in determining the likelihood that individuals within non-dominant racial, cultural and ethnic groups will participate in FPCs. By not being attentive to difference, this approach can perpetuate social inequality by reinforcing a white spatial imaginary of the local food system (Lipsitz, 2011).  In contrast, racial justice approaches make difference explicit by naming implicit group norms, identifying power relations, and making specific efforts to include individuals from diverse racial, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to address structural oppressions in the food system (Slocum, 2006). This approach acknowledges Whiteness as a set of structural privileges that is reinforced culturally through politics and practice (Guthman, 2008) and strives to incorporate new strategies to involve members of non-dominant racial, cultural and ethnic groups in decision-making.  Notably, documentation, meeting discussions, and participants’ viewpoints did not fit neatly into one approach or the other. The inability to neatly categorize policy documents and individual member perspectives into one of these two approaches reflects the pervasive nature of structural oppression. Participants who may understand the importance of taking a racial justice approach in one context may not have developed or be able to articulate that understanding in 28  another context. This could be due to many factors including: the life experiences and learning opportunities that inform individual participant’s understandings of structural oppression and member openness to listen to and learn from the experiences of others. It is also a reflection of how FPC spaces are constituted. For example, even if there is knowledge of what a racial justice approach might look like, participants and/or FPCs may not be able to apply these approaches in certain contexts due to cultural norms that influence what is OK to say (or not to say) and structural inequities in what resources are available to do cultural inclusion work (eg. grants).    2.7 Description of FPCs    The FPCs in this study have varying degrees of commitment to policy change, community engagement, and support from municipal and regional government. They are also different contexts in regard to cultural inclusion and diversity (Table 2.2). Each FPC also has differing origins which inform current group values and objectives. For example, Burnaby Food First and the Richmond Food Security Society originated as food security initiatives, the Vancouver Food Policy Council’s objectives originated with an environmental focus through the Greenest City Action Plan (a sustainability initiative), and North Shore Table Matters originated with an environmental and public health/food security focus. A brief description of each group’s organizational structure and goals for inclusion are provided below.     29  Table 2.2. Visible minorities as a percentage of total population.    Vancouver Food Policy Council (2004)   The Vancouver Food Policy Council (VFPC) is 21-member civic agency whose members are city-appointed and represent various sectors of the food system. The VFPC has five working groups that focus on specific food policy areas (food waste, development, children and youth, urban agriculture, and food justice). As an official civic agency, the VFPC submits an annual work plan and report of accomplishments to City Council, holds public meetings, and publishes meeting minutes online. The VFPC is rooted in a framework of environmental sustainability and public health, guided by municipal goals outlined in the Greenest City Action Plan (2012) and Healthy City Strategy (2014). In 2016, the VFPC began to actively incorporate more of a sociocultural lens in their work with leadership from the Food Justice Working Group.  Cultural inclusion is implicated in the VFPC’s Terms of Reference (n.d.) that states its goal to act as a “bridge between citizens and civic officials” for topics regarding the food system. The Food Charter (2007) and Food Strategy (2013) identify goals to celebrate the diverse food cultures in the City, ensure residents have access to culturally appropriate food, and enable participation in food system activities that reflects Vancouver’s ethno-cultural diversity.  Municipality # of visible minorities % of visible minorities in total population Metro Vancouver Region 1,185,680 48% North Shore (North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, West Vancouver) 33,125 29% Richmond 150,015 76% Vancouver 319,010 52% Burnaby 146,310 63% Source: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population 30   Burnaby Food First (1997)   Burnaby Food First is “a group of community members and local agencies working together to bring food security to Burnaby” (Burnaby Food First, n.d.). Meetings are held monthly in the public library and are open to anyone. Meeting attendance includes staff of non-profit organizations and community members with an interest in food security. The group focusses on implementing change in their community through food-related workshops and programs. Some of these programs are for skill-sharing, such as their community garden program, whereas others foster knowledge sharing and discussion around the root causes of food insecurity in their community, such as their “Income and Food Connection” workshop (Burnaby Food First, n.d.). While writing and implementing policy change is not the focus of their work, Burnaby Food First advocates for and endorses policy change that intersects with their food security efforts, such as a plan to reduce poverty in BC. While the goals and priorities for Burnaby Food First do not specifically mention cultural inclusion, they do emphasize that the aim of their work is to make fresh, healthy food, food skills knowledge, and “different kinds of foods” available to everyone and that anyone can participate in the group (Burnaby Food First, n.d.). This could imply that they aim to be inclusive of cultural groups into their food security efforts.   Table Matters (2005)  Table Matters is a network of North Shore residents guided by a 14-member steering committee that is coordinated by a paid staff person and includes representatives from two municipalities, the School District, non-profit organizations, businesses and other community members. The Table Matters network “supports food policy and community development projects that build sustainable food systems and make healthy food accessible for everyone 31  living on the North Shore” (Table Matters, n.d.). The three municipalities represented by North Shore Table Matters – West Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, and City of North Vancouver – are located on the unceded territory of three First Nations (Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh). Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh reservations are located in multiple places across the community. There is also a high level of ethnocultural diversity within the region: 36.2% of community residents are recent immigrants, including Filipino, Indian, and Chinese immigrants (Statistics Canada, 2016).  Table Matters advocates for and develops food security policy and supports community members who wish to present local food system issues to City Council.  Table Matters work has an environmental and public health focus, for example, coordinating a carbon footprint diet challenge (2015) and food waste reduction challenge (2013). North Shore Table Matters’ guiding principles, outlined by the North Shore Community Food Charter (2013), refers to the importance of cultural inclusion in regard to a celebration of diversity: “Food Culture & Education: Our community becomes proficient in food literacy and celebrates all food cultures.”  Richmond Food Security Action Team (2002)  Richmond is the most ethnically diverse municipality in this study, with 76% of the population identifying as a visible minority from over 150 ethnic origins (Statistics Canada, 2016). The first FPC formed in Richmond in 2002 when the Richmond Poverty Response Committee created the Richmond Food Security Action Team, a group of representatives from local government, health authority, and non-profit organizations chaired by the Richmond Food Security Society (RFSS).   The Richmond Food Security Action Team’s 2014 Terms of Reference contain multiple goals for representation such as: “to collaborate with community partners and individuals”, “to 32  provide shared leadership […] with community members”, “foster relationships between diverse stakeholders.” The Richmond Food Charter development process (2014-2016), which was spearheaded by Food Security Action Team members, made specific efforts to include cultural groups beyond those who are already involved (e.g. foodies, environmentalists, and food philanthropists/charitable food agencies, or health agencies). Leaders described their motivation to develop a Food Charter as a starting point to involve a greater diversity of voices in food systems planning.  Richmond Food Security Action Team disbanded in 2016 and since that time, the main voice for food policy work in Richmond has been expressed through RFSS (e.g. advocacy for community gardens and farmland protection). RFSS’s organizational goals are to “identify and understand the diverse audiences that we serve and adapt our programs to reflect these demographics” (RFSS, 2017). At the time of this study, RFSS was in conversation with City of Richmond, Vancouver Coastal Health, and other NGOs to form a municipal advisory committee for food security issues.   2.8 Color-blind approaches  Everybody is interested in being healthy, everyone is interested in eating good food and if you try to connect with people on the level, those "Motherhood issues" or you know basic issues, then you could possibly make a connection. (P10)  The FPC member quoted above exemplifies a color blind attitude that universalizes what is considered “healthy” and “good” food, in order to unify people across difference. Color-blind approaches further dominant ways of thinking about food by applying a white spatial imaginary onto the foodscape. This section is an overview of the ways in which FPC documentation, meetings, and interviews utilized color-blind approaches to inclusion, which include: the 33  definition of food resources, privileging a Western nutrition perspective, lack of clarity in how to achieve stated inclusion goals, and organizational structure.   Defining food assets and nutritious food from a Western cultural standpoint  One way that FPCs further a color-blind approach is in defining what perspectives and resources are important for food systems change. For example, the Vancouver Food Strategy (City of Vancouver, 2013) defines a list of food assets, or “resources, facilities, services, or spaces that are available to Vancouver residents and are used to support the local food system” (p. 23). The food assets list includes community gardens, urban farms, community orchards, neighborhood food networks, farmers’ markets, community food markets, street food vendors, and community composting sites (City of Vancouver, 2013, p. 24). A member of the Food Justice Working Group, a subset of the VFPC, described the current food asset list as “white-washed” because the food places that are valued by other cultural groups are not included, such as a café that is an important gathering space for elderly Chinese people in Chinatown (field observation, March 13, 2017). By not recognizing this space and other cultural food assets, this food policy document overlooks components of the local food system that are important for maintaining cultural food traditions. Another participant reflected on how this list of assets includes “feel good” places in the landscape in the local food system like community gardens but not the places that are really feeding people like the produce wholesale district (P9). These discussions show that in order for their work to enhance food systems resilience for all residents, FPCs need to learn from residents from different racial, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds about the food resources that are important to them. 34  Another color-blind approach expressed in policy and programming efforts was the prioritization of nutrition-based perspectives over cultural perspectives. Access to healthy food and culturally appropriate food is a core goal of all FPCs in this study. Interviewees indicated, however, that the healthiness of food from a conventional nutritional science perspective often took precedence over cultural diets and food practices. For example, this participant explained how she experiences the tension between healthy foods and cultural foods in her work as a dietitian:   Speaking about cultural food is definitely on everybody's radar. So it has come out in terms of when nutritious food can overcome cultural foods, such as brown rice versus white rice. White rice is much more cultural, however, brown rice prevents high blood sugars, chronic disease, and heart disease. […] And to be frank about this one, I'm on the [side] of choosing the brown rice because that's my nutrition space. (P11)  In this nutrition-forward standpoint, white rice is not considered healthy despite it being a staple in many food cultures. Without representation of other cultural ways of understanding and relating to food, the nutrition perspective based on a construct of “health” in food and the “neutral” rationality of Science (which is biased towards Western culture), will continue to guide FPCs.    Creating non-specific inclusion goals   Another example of a color-blind approach within FPC documents was the use of vague and universal language to discuss inclusion goals (in different cases, referring to the inclusion of “diversity”, “all” or “everybody”, and “different” foods). Without specifying what groups FPCs wish to be more inclusive of, how they will achieve inclusion, and how they will evaluate success, these goals are illusive. In interviews, some FPC members thought they could achieve cultural inclusivity without targeting specific cultural groups. Rather than identifying specific 35  strategies, one approach, reflected in the following excerpt, is to run programming that is “open to everybody”: None of our programs are exclusive, they are open to everybody. We don’t even ask what people’s nationality is, or their gender, we don’t really care. We want everyone who is interested in our work to be involved [...] we just haven’t had capacity to be that targeted in our program offerings and I am not sure it would be the right approach for us. We certainly will make every effort to not exclude anybody for financial reasons, for cultural reasons […] I would hate to say that we are not already meeting the needs of cultural populations because we just don’t know that. Just because it hasn’t been explicit doesn’t mean it is not already happening. (P14)  This participant aims to include everyone through a color-blind approach which assumes equality of access and that communications and outreach will reach the diverse populations within the municipality. This participant dismisses an explicit, targeted approach both due to lack of capacity and because they are not convinced it would make a difference.  Another FPC member discussed how measuring cultural inclusion by asking participants about their race, culture, or ethnicity was inappropriate from a privacy standpoint. Their organization is not in favor of tracking the ethnic background of participants because questions of identity are “sensitive” and could be “very problematic” (P13). This was attributed to both not wanting to threaten participant comfort by asking questions of identity and to legal privacy concerns with the organization storing sensitive personal information. While these data storage concerns are relevant, they may interfere with FPCs achieving culturally inclusive outcomes. The lack of capacity to do cultural inclusion work was repeatedly referenced by white FPC leaders. This white female City planner explained that food security and diversity work often relies on unpaid labor and gets put off to the side:  Because our work in food security is ad hoc, or off to the side a little bit, it’s the same in relation to diversity. So it’s not to say that we aren’t doing anything but what we end up doing might be just, sort of ad hoc and off the side of our desk. (P15)  36  Because the core group of FPC leaders are white professionals, it was much easier for them to put cultural inclusion “off to the side” and prioritize other work. This speaks to the importance of capacity, knowledge, and representation of policy leaders to challenge white spatial imaginaries within food systems work.  In these examples, color-blind cultural inclusion goals have the contradictory outcome of dismissing difference due to its irrelevance, sensitivity, or the additional burden they pose to the group. When FPC leaders treat cultural inclusion in this way, they dismiss the importance of acknowledging cultural difference in favor of furthering implicit white values.      Maintaining formal organizational structure  Participants identified an environment of color-blind professionalism that is reinforced by membership selection processes, attitudes towards community engagement, and meeting structure. All FPC meetings that researchers attended followed a bureaucratic structure (following agendas, taking minutes, and utilizing Robert’s Rules for majority decision-making) that can restrict participation from newcomers and laypersons. As one interviewee notes: “...we are still grounded in that very bureaucratic way of being and it is not inclusive.” (P1) Another participant noted that FPC meetings don’t always have an open, “community feeling vibe” (P4). For example, in one meeting individuals from the general public were treated as observers rather than encouraged to participate in discussion (field observation, March 25, 2017). Other barriers to meeting participation that interviewees mentioned include work schedule conflicts, childcare needs, language barriers, and personal discomfort in formal government spaces (such as City Hall).  Because meetings are the main spaces for group decision-making, the limited representation of cultural and ethnic minority groups at these meetings is at odds with group 37  goals for cultural inclusivity. This could be due to a color-blind approach to membership selection. For example, one VFPC member expressed disappointment because, despite group discussions about the desire for the council to be more diverse, White applicants were selected over applicants of color and there was little transparency as to how these final decisions were made (P2). Without transparency, it is very difficult to ensure racial equity in the selection processes, especially when dominant professional culture implicitly favors whiteness (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). The protocol residents must follow to become a member can support or hinder cultural inclusion. For the FPCs in this study, membership was either self-selected (anyone can join by showing up), peer-to-peer (current members refer new members), or based on an application. The two FPCs who followed peer-to-peer and application-based membership protocol took a color-blind approach by asserting the importance of individuals to have credentials and food systems expertise in order to invite or accept people to become a member on the Council. One White participant described how because of the leadership positions that FPC members hold, they can speak for their own and other communit(ies):  A lot of the reason why the council […] [is] diverse, or from different facets of the food system is that a lot of us are on the pulse of what's happening in Vancouver, in BC, at the national level in the food system and food policy. Therefore, we're on the pulse of things that may not be affecting everyone but they may be affecting one particular cultural group in Vancouver. So I mean [a Chinese Canadian cultural leader] was very present but if they would not have been there […] to point out the loss of Chinese cultural heritage in [Downtown Vancouver] and the food assets there, I think one of us would have known and brought this to the table. (P2)  In this excerpt, this participant indicates that because the council is comprised of individuals with experience in many areas of the food system (production, distribution, retail, access and waste), they are “on the pulse” of the food system and can speak on behalf of the communities that they represent (or claim to represent). Furthermore, this participant asserts that the presence of a 38  Chinese Canadian cultural leader in the group was not essential to the FPC addressing the priorities of that cultural group.  Deflecting cultural inclusion work  Participants also used color-blind professionalism to deflect the work required to further a more culturally inclusive agenda to a subgroup of diversity experts or cultural community organizations. In the case of the VFPC, cultural inclusive work was delegated to the Food Justice Working Group which is comprised of activists of different ethnocultural and racial backgrounds who pursue anti-oppression and anti-racism interventions in their professional and personal lives. However, Food Justice Working Group members recounted that advancement towards racial justice is constrained by a lack of shared understanding, interest, and action from the FPC as a whole. The following excerpt exemplifies a desire for the work of cultural inclusion to be simple:  You know, it would be great to have a cheat sheet for people for which [cultural inclusion] is not really [their] expertise. I'm well versed in the social aspect of food systems but that's not what I do on a day to day basis. It's not my background. This being said, I recognize the value in having a little simple cheat sheet like, ‘Here are five ways you can think about [inclusion] a bit more.’ (P2)  While this White female FPC member acknowledges the importance of cultural inclusion, she does not see herself implicated in the difficult and ongoing work required to advance that priority. This FPC member suggests that cultural inclusivity can be achieved through following guidelines in a simple template. This positions cultural inclusion as something that can be quickly taken care of through a “cheat sheet” rather than something that involves personal and group reflexivity to recognize and unlearn oppressive tendencies and challenge power imbalances. In this way, this participant is outsourcing and deprioritizing the work of cultural inclusion.   39  Participants discussed how the structure of meetings and community workshops structure was not fostering conversations that would challenge group norms and values towards a more culturally inclusive vision for food systems change. At the end of one VFPC meeting, Food Justice Working Group members discussed frustration with the way that meetings were structured as formulaic check-ins rather than spaces to have meaningful conversations that build shared understanding around structural oppression from which an anti-racist agenda can begin to take shape (field observation, March 13, 2017). A similar tension was observed in another FPC meeting where members quarrelled about whether their workshops should build practical food skills or build advocacy skills by developing participant knowledge about structural oppression (field observation, March 22, 2017). By not engaging in conversations that challenge implicit group values, FPC meeting and workshop structure followed a color-blind approach.  As outlined in this section, color-blind approaches to cultural inclusion include: defining food systems assets and nutritious food from a Western cultural standpoint, making vague statements about including “everyone” without metrics to evaluate inclusion, bias in organizational structure (meeting location and format, membership selection) that implicitly privileges White Western values, and FPC leaders not seeing themselves implicated in the work required for their council to become more culturally inclusive.   2.9 Racial justice approaches  [The first step towards cultural inclusion is] being able to name that race and culture is not being addressed and that [race] has historically and continues to segregate and reinforce a Western base of food practice. (P3)  In the quote above, a Chinese-Canadian interviewee shared what he considered the first step for FPCs to move towards cultural inclusion– to begin naming difference rather than masking it.  This section is an overview of the ways FPCs are currently practicing a racial justice approach by 40  developing allyship amongst current FPC members and reallocating power through partnership with ethno-cultural community members and organizations.    Developing allyship within current FPC members  Allyship is “an active, consistent, and arduous practice of unlearning and re-evaluating, in which a person in a position of privilege and power seeks to operate in solidarity with a marginalized group” (PeerNet BC, 2016). One white female FPC member explained why she thinks it is important for her and her white colleagues to figure out how they can use their power and privilege to be an ally for racialized groups.  It gets back to […] what it means to be white and privileged and speak out about racism. […] How do folks who have the best of intentions and passion for this movement address their power and privilege? And how do we work on inclusion together and start to pick up on some nuance? Like the things that I can say or do that my colleagues who come from communities of colour, who don’t carry white privilege, or have been exhausted by saying over and over, can’t? So I think that’s the next level where we recognize that power and privilege exists in our movement but for those of us that have power and privilege, what do we do with that? (P4)   This participant asserts that current members, who hold power and privilege within the movement, are responsible for being able to talk about race, understand how it operates within the food system, and critically engage in their work and learn how to use their power to be more culturally inclusive. One way for FPC members to practice allyship is to leave formal meeting spaces and go to inclusive spaces where the needs of culturally diverse residents can be heard. This participant recognized the need for FPC members to hear from diverse residents in the places that are convenient for them:  I’m much more around incorporating diversity in the sense of hearing from […] diverse voices and bringing it to the other levels of conversations or other circles. I do not expect people who are struggling on a day-to-day basis -- trying to line up for food and trying to find work and all the rest of it -- to have the time to be sitting in [food policy] circles. (P9) 41   This excerpt highlights how supporting multiple locations and means to influence the direction of FPC work is one way for FPC members to be an ally for the interests of racially, culturally, and socioeconomically diverse residents in their work.   Another strategy to support the development of allyship in FPC members was to designate group member time to a working group with a focus on food justice. The VFPC’s Food Justice Working Group is dedicated to integrating food justice into the FPCs work, including furthering cultural inclusion. During one meeting, this working group brought up limitations to the current pillars of food systems sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) and proposed recognizing culture as a fourth pillar. This is just one example of a culturally inclusive effort that was supported because FPCs dedicated member time to addressing structural oppression. However, as mentioned in the previous section, without commitment to advance anti-oppression from the group as a whole, this sub-group unfairly bears the responsibility of this work.  The racial justice approaches that some FPC members were advocating for would hold space in meetings and workshops for conversations that address complex structural inequalities, uncover internalized biases, and begin to develop the skills needed for participants to become allies for racial justice through their efforts for food systems change.  Re-allocating power through partnership  FPCs also took a racial justice approach by strengthening the power of cultural group’s agendas through their work. One white female FPC member recognized that leadership roles in food policy are disproportionately allocated to white, middle class, university-educated people. She described the importance of these leaders, including herself, stepping aside so that FPCs can 42  support grassroots community innovation, rather than defining the changes that a community needs.  One size certainly doesn’t fit all. One of the best ways I’ve heard it put about the role of a food planner is to “get out of the way.” […] I don’t know that the current approach is just “get out of the way” and let communities innovate and create a really high ceiling for innovation and experimentation. (P4)  Getting out of the way and providing support to bridge organizations or cultural ambassadors was a racial justice approach held by other FPC members as well. This participant discussed the importance of supporting the work of organizations led by ethnic minority community members: I think about the work that the Neighbourhood Food Network is doing, the Hua Foundation is doing, the Food Bank is doing, the stuff that all the neighbourhood houses are doing on the ground. I think the City needs to be ever-supporting those initiatives. (P12)  Cultural bridging is a racial justice approach because it redistributes power so that cultural, racial, and ethnic minority groups can take up space that is predominantly held by white decision-makers. It also can attract community members from other cultural communities to FPC work. For example, one Chinese-Canadian FPC member explained how they didn’t “put a lot of time” into food policy work or decide to become a member until a few years ago when they noticed the FPC was supporting the antiracial agendas of other groups.  [The VFPC] has been traditionally quite tokenistic and without […] allies I wouldn’t have put a lot of time into it. That was really the tipping point for me, in terms of knowing that there is a growing number of [racial justice activists] that are recognizing that [representation of racialized groups in food policy] is an issue and that FPC members might not be able to activate so much in terms of empowerment or antiracial agendas but they are giving people that are working on it, such as Hua Foundation, and other folks, a lot of space to advance that agenda on their behalf. (P3)  FPCs starting to recognize the priorities of cultural groups and enlist racial justice advocates was critical for this individual to begin to engage in food systems change work.  43  Multicultural engagement or consultation was an inclusion effort in the development of some food policy documents. For example, one of the consultation principles for the Vancouver Food Strategy (City of Vancouver, 2013) was to “engage ethno-culturally diverse communities” (p.18). This consultation was in collaboration with non-profits that serve multicultural communities and included small roundtable meetings, events, and dialogues. Similarly, another FPC member spoke of the extensive consultation that she was involved in to create a food charter in her municipality, We ended up doing 26 different focus groups … and we tried to get engagement in terms of a wide variety of people from the community. So I remember doing groups with Chinese people, South Asian people. I remember doing a group with Somali people. You know? […] [our City] is just a very diverse community.” (P16)  These consultation efforts offer an opportunity for cultural groups to provide input on local food policy documents. However, engaging in community consultation efforts does not inherently forward racial justice. For example, RFSAT members discussed limitations to their food charter engagement including the inability for focus group participants to inform agenda setting or provide feedback. Another FPC member’s description of community engagement included identifying a token individual who can effectively deliver ideas from FPCs into cultural communities: Ideally, we've got someone from that community who speaks the language well but also understands the importance of the food policy idea.. mantra.. whatever and is able to be an ambassador, a cultural ambassador perhaps. (P10)  Community consultation efforts can be tokenistic gestures towards inclusivity if it they don’t shift power structures or involve reciprocal knowledge sharing.  Inviting cultural knowledge holders in to speak to the group is another approach to bring food systems knowledge that is not represented by group membership to the food policy conversation and forward racial justice. In one meeting, the FPC welcomed a workshop 44  facilitator from an Indigenous community member who presented on how to bring a reconciliation framework to the work of the FPC (field observation, March 22, 2017). In another group’s meeting, FPC members discussed their interest in having a workshop around working with First Nations towards reconciliation and their desire to have a First Nations member represented on their FPC (field observation, Mach 9, 2017). The effort and desires of these two groups for their members to recognize their settler colonial positionalities and figure out how to meaningfully incorporate First Nations perspectives into their work through listening to and learning from cultural knowledge holders is an approach towards racial justice. These approaches are different from the ‘cultural ambassador’ approach described above because cultural group members are given agency in determining group outputs.     FPC members discussed other means for their group to support the food-related initiatives of cultural groups that weren’t present in the meetings such as sponsoring an upcoming event organized by Indigenous leaders to protect wild salmon habitat in BC, endorsing the work of the Hua Foundation on the loss of cultural food assets in Chinatown (see Ho & Chen, 2017), and supporting a study of the cultural food retail environment in the City (see But & Bencio, 2017). By using their resources to support cultural community initiatives, FPCs furthered racial justice.  However, engagement with cultural community members is only meaningful if their input is incorporated into FPC priorities, goals, and visions. FPC members discussed tension between efficiently moving ahead on group objectives and established timelines, and taking the time to build relationships with cultural and indigenous groups. In this example, a White female member reflects on how the ideal timeline for creating a Food Action Plan conflicted with the amount of time it takes to build relationships with a local First Nations community: 45  In speaking with one of the people who I am in contact with at the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, she has talked to me about how much time this is going to take and she's really trying to facilitate the connections with the right people. And I said to her, you know, this is going to be really challenging because this [action plan development] process isn't going to slow down. It's going to keep on going. (P1)  This tension between continuing to move ahead on objectives with current core supporters and pausing to transition processes and adjust timelines to be more inclusive of cultural groups demonstrates how conflicting group priorities can impact outcomes of inclusion. This section has reviewed ways that FPCs have begun to explicitly acknowledge the significance of race and culture in their work and practice racial justice approaches to cultural inclusion by developing allyship and reallocating power. It has also highlighted some of the shortcomings of these efforts, demonstrating how more work is needed to shift organizational structure and develop capacity in current FPC members.    2.10 Discussion  Guthman (2008) critiques a trend towards color-blind universalism in AFIs for masking the dominance of White actors whose solutions for the food system limit what transformation is possible. Many scholars have documented the challenge cultural exclusivity poses for creating more democratic and participatory food system (Loo, 2014; Bradley & Herrera, 2016; Boden & Hoover, 2018). However, few studies have investigated approaches to cultural inclusion in food systems planning (Clark et al., 2017; McCullagh & Santo, 2012). This study identified an array of color-blind and universalist approaches to inclusion in Metro Vancouver FPCs that align with Guthman’s critique (2008). It also identified racial justice approaches that are simultaneously being applied to acknowledge difference, identify gaps in group understanding of the food system, build relationships with culturally diverse actors, and shift power. The negotiation 46  between these two approaches within the FPCs in this study shows the complexity that exists within discrete AFIs as they strive to become more culturally inclusive.  The color-blind approaches are supported by legacies of colonialism and cultural imperialism (Thobani, 2007) and by the dominant rhetoric of multiculturalism in Canada which masks race and racism (Bottez, 2011) and makes it challenging to have discussions about difference. Color-blind approaches were discussed by FPC members who did not express their racial, cultural, or ethnic identity as significant to their role on the FPC, consider racial inclusion work as part of their skillset, or explicitly consider racial and cultural difference as relevant within specific project contexts. Color-blind approaches were ends-based and discussed as being more efficient in achieving policy goals in terms of time, people power, and money. Some participants also described the inherent power of food, as a universal human need, to transcend social boundaries and overcome difference, thereby eliminating the need to make special efforts to be inclusive of distinct cultural groups.  Color-blind approaches in FPCs are augmented by what Lichterman (1999) calls “community interest politics” which focuses on a unified group identity that downplays difference. In predominantly White social movements like the local food movement, community interest politics hinders racially diverse actors from participating and threatens to reproduce colonial processes (Lyson, 2014). However, having racially diverse membership doesn’t inherently lead to groups utilizing racial justice approaches. Even in interracial social movements, color-blind approaches can be used as a strategy to promote group solidarity and maintain a unified front (Beeman, 2015). Therefore, in order to shift away from color-blind approaches, both a diversity of representation in membership and a racial justice approach to change is needed. For the FPCs in this study, community interest politics was reinforced by 47  color-blind processes and structures, such as structuring meetings as formulaic check-ins while allocating little or no time in meetings to attend to group difference or outside of meetings to build relationships with cultural groups that are not represented.  Within these color-blind structures, racial justice approaches are viewed as time-consuming, resource-intensive, and just plain difficult. Interviewees referred to the challenges that their groups face to financing their initiatives at all, without adding the extra time and money that it might take to ensure that these initiatives are culturally inclusive (for example, by organizing community consultations, doing targeted outreach, translating materials, etc.) They also mentioned volunteer burnout as a limitation to having the people power that they need to implement their goals. However, the time and resources that groups allocate to engage with cultural communities are also limited by the ideologies of FPC members who don’t see the value in acknowledging and accommodating for difference.  Racial justice approaches acknowledge the ways that race and culture influence the landscape of the food system (Slocum & Saldahna, 2013) and access to participation in planning and formal governance structures (Thobani, 2007) and assert that cultural community members need to be valued as essential creators and contributors, not just receivers, of food systems change efforts. Interviewees who advocated for racial justice approaches challenged FPCs to put the pre-existing visions, plans, and professional goals of FPC members “of to the side”, learn how to use their power and privilege to become allies, and engage in the relationship-building with racial, cultural, and ethnic minority groups that is needed to open up new possibilities for equitable food systems change.  This study has found that planning for an inclusive, just food system is an iterative process of learning, relearning, and adapting to new contexts. It requires participants to look 48  inward and contextualize personal values, goals, and priorities in relation to the group and the broader community that the group strives to represent, which is constantly changing. It requires acknowledging the historical context of the food system, imbalances in the distribution of power, and the ways different cultural groups are implicated in that. It involves making mistakes and then a willingness to acknowledge those mistakes, learn from them, and change. For example, since the fieldwork for this research was conducted, the VFPC has acknowledged the work of the Hua Foundation on the loss of cultural food assets in Chinatown (Ho & Chen, 2017), and is conducting research on how to redefine food assets with consideration for different cultural food values (VPFC meeting minutes, January 2018). This is an example of one FPC recognizing what they don’t know and how that is reflected in current policy and adapt to new knowledge.   2.11 Conclusion  This research has assessed how FPCs in Metro Vancouver put cultural inclusivity goals into practice by identifying two approaches operating simultaneously within these organizations: a color-blind approach and a racial justice approach. Color-blind approaches limit FPCs ability to achieve culturally inclusivity by defining the food system through a dominant White perspective (e.g. food assets and nutritious food), claiming to be inclusive of “everyone” while reinforcing this perspective. These approaches are characterized by minimal efforts to include structurally marginalized groups, and conducting processes in spaces and formats that privilege professional [read: primarily white] voices. The color-blind approach paradoxically contributes to the maintenance of a White/Other binary and a racial imaginary that cannot be separated from the category of ‘immigrant.’ In contrast, racial justice approaches, recognizing difference, sought to develop alliances among FPC members, develop social learning, and challenge unequal power relations to reciprocally engage with cultural groups.  49  In this study, the capacity of FPCs to represent the food systems interests of diverse actors are limited by color-blind approaches and leadership by individuals from within similar social structural locations (Lyson, 2014). Rather than claiming to be inclusive entities that represent a unified vision for the local food system, FPCs should acknowledge whose interests they represent, who is excluded and what they don’t know, and attempt to learn more and build a culturally inclusive network. This paper offers the following suggestions for FPCs to weave in the perspectives of racial, cultural, and ethnic groups. These suggestions include: • Transparency o Outlining cultural inclusion goals, including how to achieve and assess o Make modes of participation (formal membership) and decision-making public  • Reflexivity o Understanding how positionality shapes priorities (Lyson, 2014) o Actively attending to the role of race, power, and structural oppression and the relation with cultural inclusion (Slocum & Cadieux, 2015) • Social/Emotional Practice o Embed a compassionate, healing-centered approach to planning practice (Lyles et al., 2017) o Engage with dissent ensuring counter-narratives and alternate viewpoints are recognized and included (Clark et al., 2017) • Accessibility o Acknowledge and cultivate different institutional arenas as nodes of a broader food policy network o Actively seek out and build relationships with cultural knowledge holders, leaders, and issues  This study explores one aspect of cultural inclusion by learning from FPC leaders about their goals, achievements, and approaches. It has shown that in order to be culturally inclusive, the work of FPCs should focus on network-building with diverse food systems stakeholders and skill development among members towards cultural competence. Further research is needed to assess the capacity of FPCs to represent diverse racial, cultural, and ethnic groups, especially studies that explore the perspectives of cultural group members. In addition, there is a need to understand the different ethnocultural food systems that are operating in the Metro Vancouver 50  that are locally and globally situated (in their supply chains and their markets), learn from the experiences of individuals who participate in those systems, and determine if they would like to collaborate with FPCs. Finally, more research is needed to identify how grassroots social movement initiatives shift from ends-based to means-based approaches to participation.   51  Chapter 3: Community Gardens: Cultivating a politics of difference through inclusive urban spaces  3.1 Introduction While the previous chapter highlights food policy councils as potential sites for urban residents to engage in food systems policy development, engagement in policy change is not the only way for individuals to influence food systems change. To the contrary, an analysis that centers on difference recognizes that singular food policy council spaces cannot accommodate for the participation preferences and abilities of diverse individuals. Community garden participation is another method for individuals to influence food systems through direct action. In a time when humans are increasingly disconnected from the land, the food system, and civic life, cultivating plants in public settings can be seen as a radical, political act. However, dominant ideals of “community” can influence how racially and culturally diverse community members are able to participate, posing challenges to the ability of these garden spaces to contribute to radical social justice outcomes. This chapter explores what motivates gardeners from diverse cultural backgrounds to participate and what “community” means to them in the gardens. By calling attention to diverse understandings of and approaches to community held by individual gardeners, this paper makes an argument for moving away from an ideal of community and understanding community gardens through a politics of difference framework.  3.2 Community gardens: a review of the literature Community gardens are public green spaces with diverse uses and management structures. Broadly defined, they are “open spaces which are managed and operated by members of the local community in which food or flowers are cultivated” (Guitart et al., 2012). Community gardens are different from private gardens because they are public, to some degree, in terms of 52  ownership, access, and democratic control (Ferris et al., 2001). The level of public access and control varies depending on the community garden location, leadership, and structure. In North America, community gardens are often managed by non-profit organizations or volunteer citizen groups and located on public land (e.g. parks and schoolyards) although some community gardens also operate on leased private property or vacant lots.  Community gardens are a type of community commons.  Commons are important places because they provide leisure space for people living in urban areas, strengthen ties between people in communities, and promote interactions with social groups across difference (Shinew et al., 2004). Community gardens in particular are common spaces where people can reclaim their relationship with the land, create and share food skills, and begin to engage in policy change (Kuo et al., 1998; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004; Levkoe, 2011; 2006). In an increasingly privatized world, community gardens as commons have the potential to transform the way participants think about food systems from an individual “consumer” mindset in which change is made through market choices to community-oriented “citizen” mindset in which change is made politically to address structural inequalities and advance objectives of food justice (New Citizenship Project, n.d.). They also have the potential to challenge dominant values around land-use management and ownership (Tornaghi, 2014) and promote alternative economies (Gibson-Graham, 2008). As community gardens and other urban food projects seek to increase the range of citizen’s roles within the food systems, they can also serve as a bridge extending the global food sovereignty movement into urban areas (Desmarais & Wittman, 2013; Hansen, 2011).   Community gardens can provide many benefits for the community. In a literature review of community gardening in the US between 1999-2010, Draper and Friedman (2010) summarize 53  the purposes, benefits, and motivations for participating in community gardens into eleven themes:  1. health benefits 2. food source/food security 3. economic development 4. youth education, employment, and skill development 5. open space use and preservation 6. crime prevention 7. leisure and recreation 8. neighbourhood beautification 9. social interaction/cultivation of relationships 10. cultural preservation and expression 11. community organizing and empowerment  Community gardens can promote community well-being by improving the social and physical environment of a neighborhood. They can also supplement the availability of fresh local food and promote alternative economies of cooperation, trade, and sharing (Miller, 2010). Community gardens can also benefit the environment through climate change mitigation and sustainability education (Okvat & Zautra, 2011). In some settings, community gardens provide space for recent immigrants and refugees to access land to grow and save seeds of culturally relevant produce (Pearsall et al., 2016; Baker, 2004; Cortlett et al., 2003) and host cultural gatherings that promote community development (Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004).  Conflicts and challenges also arise in community gardens. In North America, some of the most frequently reported challenges that lead to the closure of community gardens are lack of funding, low participation, insecure land access, and low material availability (e.g. soil, water, compost) (Drake & Lawson, 2015). Maintaining land tenure for community gardens is difficult due to pressures for development, especially for historically low-income neighborhoods (Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004). In some cities, such as Vancouver and Richmond, there are high levels of community interest to participate and not enough garden space available to 54  accommodate for demand. In cities like these, long garden waitlists can create tension regarding who has the right to public garden space and who is excluded (Reynolds & Cohen, 2015; Drake, 2014). This exclusion can be furthered by efforts to privatize garden spaces to keep non-garden members out in order to reduce theft such as constructing fencing and locking gardens (Kurtz, 2010; Staeheli et al., 2002). In some cases, such as the Richmond community gardens, municipal policies are in place to maintain public access to community gardens that are located on public land despite opposition from vocal community gardeners who have experienced theft (field observation, September 2016).  Without equitable processes for input from all groups, community gardens can reproduce social inequality. In gardens that bring together people from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, without equitable processes for participation dominant structures may exclude structurally marginalized individuals. For example, in a case study of a New York City community garden, Aptekar (2015) found that the guidelines in place privileged a “tidy”, Western style of gardening in neat rows over other gardening styles preferred by gardeners from different cultural contexts and contribute to neighborhood gentrification (see also Quastel, 2009). In North America, community gardens can perpetuate structures of inequity and be “White spaces” that are characterized by disproportionate representation of White affluent residents in the membership and leadership who determine the dominant culture, language, and delivery of services in the space (Reynolds & Cohen, 2015).   3.3 A community of difference framework  In community gardens, the “community” aspect is often idealized while the lived experience of each gardener in relationship to other gardeners and visitors to the space is a 55  negotiation of difference that involves conflict and compromise. Iris Marion Young (1990) critiques the ideal of community and urges us to work within the politics of difference. The ideal of community, in which face-to-face interactions enable persons who occupy the same spaces to coexist in harmony based on common identities, interests or visions for the space, is a utopian ideal that can overlook political and cultural difference and social dynamics that are not based on living in close spatial proximity. Young defines difference relationally as “specificity, variation, and heterogeneity” (1990, p. 171) rather than otherness, which can be biased because it frames difference around a dominant way of being. According to Young, ignoring difference has oppressive consequences in these three respects:  1. disadvantages groups whose experience, culture, and socialized capacities differ from the privileged groups (the other) 2. allows privileged groups to ignore their own group specificity (implicit norms) 3. produces an internalized devaluation by members of groups who “deviate from an allegedly neutral standard” (Young, 1990, p. 165)  Because of these oppressive consequences, in order for “community” spaces to be accessible, individual difference needs to be made explicit and efforts should be made to promote participation from differently positioned individuals. Analyzing community gardens through a politics of difference framework can increase understanding of diversity and call attention to the normalizing forces that may be reproducing structural inequalities and exclusion in these spaces. In contrast to the ideal of community, a politics of difference “envisions an ideal of city life as a being together of strangers in an openness to group difference” (Young, 1990, p. 256). The “ideal of city life” (Young, 1990, p. 237), does better at characterizing cities for what they are, a being together of strangers.  Young (1990) describes four virtues of the ideal of city life: social differentiation without exclusion, variety, eroticism (in the wide sense of attraction to the other), and publicity (p. 238-241). The virtues of city life can be reflected in accessible 56  community gardens spaces when they support intermingling across difference, are located in publicly accessible city parks and school yards which attract people for a variety of uses, and put the unfamiliar on display (e.g. distinct veggies, growing techniques) which supports multiple modes of learning across difference. Considering this framework of the politics of difference and the virtues of city life, this chapter will ask how differing understandings of what it means to participate in “community” informs the social aspect of community gardens in Richmond.    3.4 Richmond: the “Garden City” Richmond is located on unceded Coast Salish territory of the Musqueam, Tsawwassen, and Kwantlen families. Coast Salish peoples cared for the land for about 4000 years, building temporary dwellings, collecting berries, and fishing. The first record of outsider colonization was in the 1860s when European settlers established farming communities along the Fraser River (Newman et al., 2015). Agriculture was successful for early settlers due to the fertile delta soil and Richmond became known as “the Garden City.” Today, 39 percent of the land in Richmond is designated in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR)3 and the main crops produced are cranberries (35.8%) and blueberries (25.6%) (BC Census of Agriculture, 2016).  Richmond is a community whose composition has rapidly changed in the last three decades from a sleepy, mostly white, rural suburb to a “hyper-diverse” city (Todd, 2015) with dense high rise apartments, large shopping centers, and mega-mansions built increasingly through foreign investment. Today, Richmond is the most ethnically diverse municipality in Metro Vancouver                                                 3 The ALR is a “provincial zone within which agriculture is recognized as the primary activity” (Government of B.C., n.d.). It was established in 1973 by the B.C. provincial government to ensure agricultural is protected for future generations of farmers and ranchers. ALR land makes up about 5% of B.C.’s total land area, some of which is public (Crown) land and some of which is privately owned.   57  with 76% of the population identifying as a visible minority (Statistics Canada, 2016). More than half of its residents (53%) are of Chinese descent; followed by South Asian (7.3%) and Filipino (6.9%) (Statistics Canada, 2016). Richmond’s 2017-2022 Intercultural Strategic Plan (Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee, 2016) describes the most recent demographic shifts as an increase in Mandarin-speaking immigrants from mainland China, a growing Filipino community, a more diverse refugee community including refugees from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Somalia, and a “more confident Aboriginal community” (p. 2). Immigration is a common experience for the majority of Richmond residents, with 60.2% of the population identifying as being born outside of Canada (Statistics Canada, 2016). The visible minority immigrant population is characterized by large proportion of wealthy business migrants from China and Southeast Asia (Ley, 2010). While these Asian immigrants have economic mobility, they are newcomers to a landscape with a history of racist hierarchy and separation, particularly against Chinese immigrants (Anderson, 1991), and must navigate tension with long-settled European Canadians. Some examples of local racialized tension during the time of this study include the debates over farm home size and “mega mansions” on ALR land and non-English or French language signs on business storefronts. These features inform the context for analyzing cultural inclusion in Richmond.    This case study of community garden spaces was conducted in partnership with the Richmond Food Security Society (RFSS)4, a non-profit that manages all of the community garden sites in Richmond. RFSS was formed by the Richmond Poverty Response Committee as a Food Security Task Force in 2002 and then became an independent society in 2009. RFSS is a small society with two full-time staff positions and a varying number of part-time paid and                                                 4 RFSS is also included as an FPC in Chapter 1.		58  volunteer positions. To carry out its mission of “inspiring a robust Richmond food system through education, advocacy, and community building initiatives” (Richmond Food Security Society, 2017) it relies heavily on support from the City of Richmond, grant funding, and volunteer work. In addition to the garden program, RFSS publishes an annual local food guide, runs a cooking program for at-risk youth, hosts a public seed library, manages a fruit recovery program, and advocates for policy to enhance the local food system (such as protecting ALR land).  RFSS’s work is grounded in a framework of community food security which inform its priorities to educate the community through food literacy, promote the local food economy, and support food skill development in community members through their community garden program. In exchange for their leadership in managing the gardens, the City provides RFSS office space and money to cover some of their operational costs. This partnership is of benefit to the City, who doesn’t have to deal with the administrative and public relations aspects of community gardens (like processing gardener applications and responding to gardeners’ questions and concerns). In this way, RFSS acts as an intermediary between the City Parks Department and Richmond residents who are interested in community gardening.  The case study will focus on the RFSS community garden program which is comprised of nine community garden sites that are located on public property, either in city parks or schoolyards (Figure 3.1). Within these nine garden sites, there are over 300 allotment-style garden plots, or 60-120 square foot raised-bed plots that individuals and families rent seasonally to grow food for themselves (Figure 3.2). In order to utilize a plot, residents submit an online application and their name is added to the gardener waitlist. Waitlist times range from 1-5 years. Once residents obtain a plot, they pay $30-80 per season as a plot rental fee, depending on the 59  plot size. There are partial and full subsidies for people facing financial hardship to access garden plots.   Figure 3.1. Map of Richmond community garden sites. Richmond Community Garden [Digital map]. (2018) Retrieved from  60   Figure 3.2 An example of a community garden plot, public park in Richmond, B.C., July 17, 2017.  From RFSS’s management perspective, their primary role is to supporting individual/family-scale food production through supplying space, tools, and occasional skills workshops and efforts to foster communal aspects of the garden are left to the gardeners. The allotment layout, fee-based membership structure, and top-down leadership arrangement with RFSS and the City all contribute to community gardens that focus on individualistic food security outcomes. Despite limited resources to promote the communal aspects of the community gardens, the results section demonstrates how gardener’s participation is both individualistically and collectively motivated.   3.5 Methodology    Community-engaged research A research partnership was established in 2014 between the UBC Centre for Sustainable Food Systems and the Richmond Food Security Society due to a shared desire to understand best practices for implementing food systems programming in a multicultural setting. From this 61  shared interest, a research topic specific to community garden programming was co-developed with the researcher and the community organization over a year-long, part-time academic internship (January-December 2017). The research project engages with questions of community and belonging for culturally diverse members of RFSS’s community garden program. Observations and data that inform this study were gathered from these sources: participant observation of RFSS events and activities, an online survey to gardeners regarding their experience gardening with RFSS (n=70), and in-depth interviews with community gardeners (n=11). All of this research was conducted with dual supervision from the Executive Director of RFSS and the researcher’s academic advisor at UBC. Informed consent was obtained from survey participants through a Yes/No question on the survey (Appendix C). Written consent was obtained from interview participants prior to the interview (Appendix D).   Data Collection Participant Observation As an academic intern, the researcher supported the RFSS programming by working on projects in the RFSS office, visiting garden sites, attending outreach events, and organizing gardener gatherings. The two gardener gatherings which took place in public community centres in August of 2017 were an especially fruitful opportunity for the researcher to learn about community dynamics from the gardeners through a facilitated discussion about the gardener’s vision for community and barriers to achieving that vision. Observations from the time spent in the field (approx. 300 hours) were recorded in field notes and help to inform the researchers understanding of the garden program.  62 Online survey A bilingual online survey (English and Mandarin) was distributed to all RFSS garden participants via RFSS email newsletter in order to gain understanding of community gardener’s experience and concerns. Of the over 300 community gardener participants, 67 responded to this survey (approx. 22% response rate). All responses were in English.  Some of the questions included in the survey were: What are the motivations for you to take part in community gardens? What does “community” mean for you in the gardens? Do you think your definition of community differs from other community gardeners? (Appendix C) Responses to these questions were either short answer text or multiple choice with a blank field to add participants’ own responses. There were also opportunities for survey participants to address additional issues related to their experience with community gardening in Richmond through open-ended comment boxes. This open-ended format generated rich responses about participant’s experiences. At the end of the survey there was an optional section for participants to share information about their identity (age, gender, educational attainment, homeownership status, occupation, ethnicity, country of birth, primary language, and other languages spoken). 5 Most respondents (85%) partially or fully completed this section (see results below).                                                 5 Demographic questions were optional in order to not deter participants who did not wish to disclose this information from submitting responses to the survey as a whole.  	63    As a cross-section of the 300 community gardeners in Richmond’s program, this survey begins to showcase the diversity of community garden participation. Because RFSS does not collect data regarding the demographic background of its gardeners, there is no way to cross-check to see if survey respondents are indeed a representative sample of garden participants. As compared to Richmond’s population as a whole, community garden members who responded to the survey are disproportionately White, with 41% of survey respondents reporting as ethnically White (including the self-reported categories of White, European, British, and Russian) in comparison to 23.7% of the Richmond population (Statistics Canada, 2016). This aligns with other studies that have found an over-representation of White residents in community gardens such as a study in Vancouver which found that visible minority representation in community gardens was 20% less than the number of visible minority residents in the neighborhood surrounding the garden (Seto, 2011, p.22).  Overview of survey participant demographics  • Average age: 53; Age range: 24-73 • Gender: 20 male, 43 female • Education level: 18 Masters or above, 16 Bachelors, 4 Some post-secondary, 21 post-secondary certificate or diploma, 2 High School Diploma, 1 Some High School  • Homeownership status: 46 homeowners, 15 renters • Occupation: 16 retired, 10 administration/management, 7 IT/Tech, 6 public services, 5 education, 4 accounting/finance, 4 healthcare, 4 other • Self-reported ethnicity [fill in the blank]: 13 White, 13 Chinese, 8 Canadian, 5 European, 3 British, 2 Asian, 2 Russian, 1 Fijian, 1 Korean, 1 Japanese, 1 Indian, 1 South Asian, 1 Vietnamese, 1 “why does this matter” • Country of birth: 26 Canada, 7 China, 5 Hong Kong, 3 Philippines, 3 England, 2 United Kingdom, 1 Chile, 1 Europe, 1 France, 1 Germany, 1 India, 1 Japan, 1 Korea, 1 South Africa, 1 Uzbekistan, 1 Vietnam • Primary language: 44 English, 3 Chinese, 3 Mandarin, 1 Cantonese, 1 French, 1 German, 1 Japanese, 1 Russian, 1 Tagalog • Other Languages spoken: Farsi, Gujarat, Hebrew, Hindi, Korean, Spanish, Vietnamese  64 Interviews Interviews took place between September and November of 2017.  Interviewees were selected from within the sample of survey participants. At the end of the survey, participants were given the opportunity to select “yes” to be contacted for a follow-up conversation by the researcher. Twenty-three survey respondents selected “yes.” These respondents were sent a follow-up email with an invitation to participate in the study.  Twelve people responded to this email and interviews were conducted with 11 gardeners within the study period.  The interviews took place in public spaces, such as the public library, cafés, or in the community garden. These interviews were semi-structured, guided by a survey questionnaire (Appendix B.2), and offered an opportunity to gain more depth in understanding of gardener experiences.  Table 3.1. Gardener interview participants by gender, ethnicity, immigration status, and garden site.  Interview Participants  n=11 % Gender   Male 6 56 Female 5 44 Ethnicity White 7 64 Visible minority group 4 36 Immigration status   Non-immigrant 3 27 Immigrant 8 73 Garden Site   Terra Nova 4 36 Gilbert 3 27 Railway 2 18 King George 2 18   Validity & limitations  This research employed triangulation by collecting information from multiple sources (observation, survey, and interview) in order to validate evidence from participants. The 65  sampling strategy for participant recruitment has some limitations. First, using emails to RFSS garden listserv as a participant recruitment strategy may give preference to those who are more comfortable with the English language6 and more proficient using computers. Secondly, survey and interview participants may be over-representative of gardeners who are eager to contribute to the social aspects of community because of their willingness to dedicate time to reflect on and contribute to knowledge regarding the topic of community in the gardens. Finally, despite the garden spaces being open to the general public, only plot-renting RFSS garden members were included in this study. These factors limit the degree to which the research participants can represent all aspects of community in the garden.   3.6 Gardener motivations to participate This section is an overview of what motivates participants from diverse backgrounds to participate in community gardens. Survey participants were asked to determine what factors are most important in motivating them to participate in community gardens on a scale of 1-5, 1 being least important and 5 being very important (Figure 3.3). The categories provided by the survey were defined based on Draper and Freedman’s (2010) summary of literature on the personal motivations for participating in community gardens in the United States: to learn how to garden, conservation of green space, to give back to community, opportunity socialize, health benefits, to spend time outside/enjoy nature, and access fresh, better tasting food (p. 480).                                                   6 Although all communication materials were all translated into Mandarin and it was noted in invitation to participate emails that translation services were available for interviews, since RFSS has only ever communicated in English, its garden membership base may already disproportionately favor English-speakers.   66   Figure 3.2. Factors motivating gardener participation. This table shows the total number of gardeners that indicated each motivation was of high (4) or very high (5) importance. Data from online Gardener Survey.   These responses show that that personal motivations (learn how to garden, conservation of green space, health benefits, spend time outside/enjoy nature, and access to fresh, better tasting food) ranked of higher importance than communal motivations (to give back to the community, opportunity to socialize). Survey participants were also given space to provide additional reasons why they garden.  Some of the additional reasons include: as a form of mindfulness/therapy (6), no access to garden space at home (5), to teach children how to grow food (4), to save money (2), to reduce pesticides in diet (2), and to increase food security in Richmond (1).  As these survey results show, there are many factors that motivate gardeners to participate. In the following sections, I provide more detailed examples of the personal and communal motivations that bring gardeners to participate based on interviews and open-ended survey responses.  Personal Motivations  67 Land access One predominant motivator for gardeners to take part in the community garden program was to have access to arable land and resources to grow food that is limited in the City due to high density housing (e.g. high-rise apartments, townhomes, and condos). This Iranian-Canadian immigrant gardener7 reflects on how his participation in the community garden is motivated by the opportunity to access land and resources (tools, water, compost services) to grow food in Richmond.   First of all, to me it is the free land. That is very important. Especially when the City also provides the tools and the facility like the garbage disposal, we don’t need to take the shovel from home […] and in return we are just paying $80 per year, which is actually nothing for what we are getting. We don’t have to worry about taxation of the land […] We live with the freedom and enjoyment of our apartment… and so at the same time we are a gardener and a civilized citizen. To develop or maintain a gardening tradition  Education was another personal motivation for gardeners who had no previous gardening experience. As reported in the survey, 38 participants (n= 54%) joined the community garden to learn how to garden (Figure 3.3). For example, this gardener immigrated from a big City in China and had no previous gardening experience. I didn’t know anything about gardening before. This is the first time. I have learned a lot about when I should put seeds in the ground and how I can do it; when I should [harvest] and to communicate and exchange some things with other gardeners.   This participant recalled that his grandparents were the last generation in his family to live in a village and farm. Similarly, other interviewees discussed how they were grateful to learn a new skill of gardening later in life.                                                  7	Ethnicity, immigration status, and gender are listed for participant if they chose to share these personal characteristics in the demographics section of the survey or during interviews.			68  In contrast to these beginner gardeners, other gardeners participated because they were taught to garden as a child and wanted to continue their family’s agricultural or gardening tradition. One British immigrant gardener explained that she was “raised to garden” and described childhood memories spending time with her grandfather at his garden allotment. This participant’s grandparents and parents had highly productive gardens to feed themselves and their family, especially during WWII.  A mixture of beginner and experienced gardeners facilitated an environment of learning in the gardens. Newcomers reflected on the tips and tricks that more experienced neighboring gardeners have shared with them. They also described learning a lot about gardening from Googling and watching Youtube videos. To access fresh, flavorful, and culturally appropriate foods Another motivating factor for gardeners was being able to grow flavorful, nutritious, and culturally acceptable food for themselves and their family. Gardeners of all ethnic backgrounds detailed the enhancement of the flavor of foods that they grow compared to foods that are sold in the supermarket. One Iranian-Canadian immigrant gardener described coming from Iran to Canada and being completely off-put by the lack of flavor in the produce at the store: When we came to Canada, the change [in food] was so big that we didn’t believe. All the aromas, all the taste, everything is gone. […] Everything in Iran comes from the field, whether it is poisoned or not is not my thing, but everything has a taste and everything has odor. Cucumber has an odor; tomato has a special unique taste. So when we came [to Canada], everything we were eating became odor free and they tasted weird. They are extremely sweet but they don’t taste properly.  Now this gardener and his partner (quoted below) are able to revisit the taste and aromas of the produce in their home country through the produce that they grow: [Because we garden], we have the freedom of growing whatever we want, especially those that are very expensive here or we couldn’t find them because they are very specific to our culture.  69   Similarly, a Chinese gardener spoke of the traditional Chinese varieties of tomato, cucumber, and beans that he has been able to grow with the seeds that he acquired during a trip to China, and a Korean gardener shared his experience growing a particular Korean green and sharing it with Korean friends. Through this produce gifting, some of his Korean friends learned about the garden program and decided to put their name on the waitlist for a garden plot.  Gardeners did not have to be in a visible minority immigrant group to have this experience of longing for the taste of foods from their home country or childhood. A few gardeners who immigrated here from England echoed this sentiment that gardening enables them to grow culturally relevant produce and return to the true flavor of that produce, such as tomatoes and carrots. Similarly, a retired Canadian-borne participant reflected on how the food available in stores had changes a lot in her lifetime and the produce that she grows in her garden are truer to taste. This is a reflection of drastic changes in the food system that have occurred within these gardeners’ lifetimes.  The younger, second generation immigrant Canadian gardeners that I interviewed did not share this desire to reclaim flavors of their cultural foods. For example, this gardener explained how she does not consider her Indian heritage as a factor that impacts what she grows in her garden: Being that I was born here, I don’t really do a lot of my cultural cooking. But I remember my Mom telling me that my Grandma used to grow cilantro and fenugreek but when I grow cilantro it is more for making guacamole than it was for making Indian food.   Similarly, a Richmond-born Chinese-Canadian woman described how her gardening is more influenced by what is available in the West Coast Seeds catalogue than her ethnic background. These participants discussed indifference towards the cultural significance of their produce choices based on their hybridized Canadian identity. This is a reminder that visible minority 70  status on its own is not an indicator of cultural food differences. Race, culture, ethnicity, immigration status, age, and other factors intersect to inform an individual’s food values. Reduce reliance on the dominant food system  Many interviewees expressed concern over the environmental sustainability of the dominant food system and saw community gardening as one way for them to reduce their dependency on this system. For example, an Iranian-Canadian gardener who was formerly employed by a fruit export company learned about volatilities in the global food supply chain through her work and was motivated to garden as a matter of ensuring personal food security for herself during the summer months: Being able to grow gives me security. […] I know that in summer, if there is no food around, I can grow something. And so [gardening] is actually a very beautiful and strong ambition for my food security.   A few survey participants echoed the desire to produce food locally and without reliance on pesticides that are harmful to themselves and the environment. Other gardeners discussed the physical and mental health benefits of working outside in their garden plot. Getting good exercise, living in the moment, relaxation, and meditation were just some of the health benefits mentioned by community gardeners.  Communal motivations Increased social connectivity  The garden was also described as an opportunity for residents to expand their social networks in Richmond. This Japanese-Canadian immigrant survey participant described social opportunities in the garden as an opportunity to become more connected to her new community. Here she describes her motivation to participate in the garden community:  Make new friend and studying. It is very important to bring myself into the Canadian communities. Because that is to improve myself and the others too. 71   Other gardeners discussed how spending time in the gardens was an opportunity catch up with neighbors. Sometimes, this catching up took precedence over garden care. For example, this British-Canadian immigrant participant explained how, due to his social nature in the gardens, he finds it difficult to keep himself on task when he stops by quickly before dinner to harvest a few ingredients for the meal: So, you are either talking to other gardeners or, because that [walking/biking] pathway goes down next to [the garden], you start seeing old neighbors and so very rarely do you ever get to go down for 15 minutes, you always end up going 2 or 3 hours.   Whether to connect with new friends or cross paths with old friends, the gardens provided casual opportunities for gardeners to socialize. Educating youth and the general public about food production  In contrast to the self-education motivations discussed above, gardeners also discussed community gardening as an opportunity to share learnings with the next generation and the community at large. This Korean-Canadian immigrant gardener discussed the importance of educating future generations about where their food comes from.  And the second [reason why I garden] is to show my daughter, the kindergartener, to feel more included in the nature and how the [food] system works. […] After we got the garden plot, one of the first thing she asked is ‘Daddy, can I grow ham here?’ The answer was, ‘Not really’...  Other participants discussed how the gardens can be a demonstration of local food production to the community at large who can learn by walking through the gardens and asking questions. Civic responsibility   A couple gardeners described being motivated to participate in order to contribute to the betterment of Richmond. These participants described a desire to give back to the community through beautifying park spaces and providing an example for urban food production. Some 72  participants were also motivated to give back some of their produce to the community. The following British Canadian immigrant describes how community gardening generates a sense of abundance.  So, there is the idea that gets generated in that sense, you use the community garden to grow food for yourself, you have a bountiful harvest, so what are you going to do with that and how are you going to give back? So, for example, you donate things to the Foodbank.   Another gardener set up a system so that anyone at the garden site who wanted to donate food to the food bank could drop it off at her plot one day of the week and she would deliver it for them. Other gardeners described sharing their abundance with family and friends and trading produce with plot neighbors. While many gardeners described their experience of abundance and sharing in the gardens, there was a concurrent experience of produce loss and privatization that threatened the publicity of the gardens. During gatherings, gardeners expressed concerns for their safety in the garden. One gardener recounted an experience between herself and a produce thief who, when she reprimanded them for stealing, pulled a knife out on her (field observations, August 2017). In response to their concerns about safety, gardeners proposed solutions that would further privatize the gardens including: replacing the word “community” with “allotment” in the title of the gardens, installing fencing, surveillance cameras, and official multilingual signage against theft. One participant described how these reactions to theft have created a more insular garden community, as non-members who entered the garden were viewed as suspects of a crime: So, in the old days people used to come in and chat but then as the theft gets worse… now-a-days you look around and see if [visitors] are looking for things to steal.  73  Narratives of stealing sometimes further polarized the community across lines of difference as various participants described thieves as ethnically Chinese, drug addicts, immigrants, pot-smoking teenagers, poor/food insecure/homeless people, or just hungry passersby.   This section has highlighted the many motivations that bring community gardeners to participate. Whether gardeners are more motivated to participate for individualistic or communal reasons influences the social aspect of the garden space. The following section will move from motivations to meanings and explore how gardeners define “community” in the gardens.   3.7 Gardener meanings of community  Survey participants expressed different definitions of what community means to them. Open-ended responses to the survey question “what does ‘community’ mean for you in the gardens?’ detail this variety (Table 3.2). For some gardeners, “community” in the gardens is defined as a geographic designation for public land that is available for them to grow food on. For others, “community” in the gardens means fostering social connections through sharing space, exchanging ideas, supporting one another, and, possibly, developing a sense of belonging to place and each other.    74  Table 3.2. Summary of survey responses to: “What does ‘community’ mean for you in the gardens?” Meanings are grouped into 5 themes (1st row) with corresponding examples (2nd row). Notably, all responses did not fit neatly into these themes as they included multiple, overlapping components.  Access to a public good Sharing space Exchange ideas Support each other Sense of belonging Having a community garden gives an opportunity for families who don't have the space to garden.   Community means that we are renting a piece of public land for gardening purposes.  People working side by side for the same purpose.   A group of gardeners growing things together.   Gather together in the friendly environment.  An environment where people can share experience together.   A chance to share techniques and growing tips and life with other gardeners. Cheer for each other's work, encourage and give insights to each other in order to foster the green community…   Helping out fellow gardeners, working as a team with other gardeners. The garden gives me a strong sense of belonging to our little local community.   A second home, a place I feel I belong to.  Some gardeners interpreted “community” to mean that the gardens are an accessible public good. These gardeners participated as an opportunity to utilize a public space to grow food for their family. For example, this male survey respondent explained, “[community] means that it is located in my community – solely a geographic designation. The fact that it is a "community of gardeners" is secondary.” Along with this attitude towards “community” in the garden came the desire to protect their personal plot and keep non-gardeners out. As one female gardener suggested, “Many people are annoyed that these privately rented plots are not better protected and more accurately named [allotment gardens].”  The social aspect of community was highlighted by gardeners who described community as a network formed by gardeners to share knowledge, tips, seedlings, labour, and produce. This Canadian female gardener described her ideal of a sharing and caring community in the gardens:  75  Sharing ideas and abundance, assisting others with their garden (i.e. watering), looking out for safety of others (i.e. keeping aisles clear), removing diseased plants from garden before the disease spreads to other gardens, the same with obnoxious weeds.  This sharing helped to enhance overall gardening knowledge. For example, this Korean-Canadian immigrant gardener explained that because he was a newcomer to gardening, the garden community helped him to troubleshoot and solve problems in his garden: Community gardeners have helped me to figure out what to worry and what not to worry about. When I was telling [other gardeners] that something was eating my lettuce and I thought ‘what could it be’, [they helped me to] realize that it was rabbits in the end so we put in a fence.   In a culturally plural context like Richmond, sharing often involves observing, learning about, and being gifted plants from diverse cultural contexts which enhances community understanding across difference.  For example, one gardener described being gifted unique varieties of squash and melon from Japanese and Chinese gardeners with plots adjacent to her.  Another important aspect of community that gardeners discussed was the responsibility to offer support to other gardeners when needed. For example, support in watering their plots when someone goes away on vacation. This is especially important in a setting like Richmond where many residents are immigrants with familial obligations in far-reaching places in the world. Participants were grateful for the support other gardeners offered when they travelled to visit family in China, Europe, and other countries. Another gardener described offering season-long garden support to a garden plot neighbor who got in a car accident.  Lastly, for some, participating in “community” in the gardens offered a sense of belonging. As one white female gardener described “The garden gives me a strong sense of belonging to our little local community.” Similarly, a Chinese Canadian female gardener referred the community garden as “a second home.”  76  In summary, responses to inquiries about what “community” means in the garden has uncovered the various interpretations of community held by different garden members. For some gardeners’, “community” in the gardens meant access to a public good. For others, public land access was just the starting point for the formation of a community that involved connection and responsibility to people and place.   3.8 The ideal of community in the garden  The previous sections demonstrate that Richmond community gardens are tended by diverse gardeners with different motivations to garden and different expectations for community. Due to these differences, if individual gardeners impose their ideal of community on the space, it may create a sense of exclusion or not belonging for gardeners and members of the community at large who do not fit that mold. For example, one British-Canadian immigrant gardener discussed dissatisfaction with other gardeners who weren’t “community gardening”, as in his interpretation, they were “just gardening for themselves.” He described this situation using the example of his plot neighbor, … he grows fantastic vegetables some of them I have never seen in my life before, but he never comes to clean up days or has weeded around his plot. He has just come, looks after his things, and moves out.  A female survey respondent echoed this sentiment that gardeners who express indifference towards helping or contributing to the social aspects of the garden aren’t truly community gardening: I believe a few other gardeners do not embrace like-mindedness, supporting each other, and tend to only care for themselves and their plots. This is evident in the fact that the same like- or community- minded individuals are taking responsibility to come out to garden clean-ups and take on regular garden maintenance.   As shown in these quotes, turning up to clean-up days was a recurring measure of a gardener’s contribution to this ideal of community. These workdays occur once or twice a season and there 77  are many factors other than a person’s willingness to support the community that could contribute to low attendance (date, time, outreach effort, etc.).  Another aspect of the garden community that was not meeting some gardeners’ ideals was the seasonal produce loss to neighborhood “thieves”. While community gardens have been found to promote interactions between neighbors and decrease neighborhood crime (Draper & Friedman, 2010), in this study, gardener’s reactions to produce loss has led to increased criminalization through formal and informal policing. RFSS rejected requests to change the name or secure the gardens with fences and surveillance. Instead, RFSS opted to install new signage and endorse a protocol for gardeners to call the police department if they experience theft, which reads: Theft is a criminal offense, and it will be at [the police department’s] discretion about how to follow up.  They do appreciate reports as it lets them track crime rates in Richmond neighborhoods. (RFSS website)  As Richmond gardeners continues to navigate points of conflict such as low levels of volunteering and increasing garden theft, they should consider whose values are being upheld by the dominant “ideal of community.” During gardener gatherings and interviews, a singular ideal of what it means to “belong” in the community garden was articulated by some gardeners as participating in garden workdays, being social with other gardeners, being a productive gardener, and maintaining standards of tidiness in and around their plots. These metrics privilege Western/Eurocentric values over other ways of being and belonging to the space. Because these gardeners are often more vocal, reporting complaints and plot neglect to RFSS, they have more influence and power to shape the space.  Other gardeners countered these individualistic values, suggesting the garden should be open to anyone, regardless of experience level and community commitment. These gardeners 78  discussed how the community education aspects of the gardens are more important than the individual food production aspects. A Korean Canadian immigrant gardener who was in favor of making the garden experience open to as many people as possible discussed how the current system for plot ownership privileges experienced, long-time gardeners who get to keep their plot year after year. Another Chinese Canadian garden suggested a lottery system in which gardeners can only keep their plot for a maximum of 3-5 years. As these gardeners suggested, the educational benefit of public gardens for the community-at-large and the social benefit of inclusive commons spaces for cross-cultural learning (DeLind, 2002) should be considered to counter narratives of selfish gardeners and neighborhood “thieves” that reinforce criminalization and privatization of community garden commons.  In a city with a rapidly increasing non-White immigrant population, a singular, culturally constituted “ideal of community” can further exclusionary sentiment about who belongs and how to belong, rather than being open to difference. As evidenced by the discussion above regarding produce theft, when these ideals of community aren’t met it can lead to gardeners pressuring to discard the “community” aspect of gardening in public spaces all together in favor of a more privatized arrangement.  3.9 Towards a politics of difference in the garden   Other gardeners expressed definitions of community that were more inclusive of difference. For example, this Korean Canadian gardener’s description of community involved co-inhabiting a space:  You know, I was thinking about what community is, and you don’t really have to talk to someone to know them. You can just be there with other people nearby and that is also community too. Like for baseball games, people don’t go there to socialize but they are together in the group. Just being there at the same time.  79  Gardeners with more open definitions like this one were more likely to accept their garden community for its differences – whether they reasoned they were the result of cultural background, individual personality traits, or the amount of free time individuals had to dedicate to the space. They were also more willing to accept occasional theft, weedy pathways, and unusual encounters as part and parcel of gardening in public space.    Moving from an ideal of community that is comprised of like-minded and similarly motivated individuals to an ideal of city life that acknowledges the reality of difference is important for creating inclusive spaces. Approaching community gardening from a politics of difference framework says that while gardeners aren’t all “like-minded” or participating in the same ways, they are all showing up and contributing to the space in their own way. Additionally, it opens up a broader sense of community that includes non-garden members of the public who are welcome to pass through and engage with the garden spaces. By thinking about the community gardens through an ideal of city life framework, as a being together of strangers, all types of contributions can be recognized more fully.   The virtues of city life that Young (1990) describes -- social differentiation without exclusion, variety, eroticism, and publicity -- were alive and well in the gardens. Community gardeners benefitted from inhabiting a public space with social differentiation by learning new gardening techniques, produce varieties, and perspectives on food and health from observation and interactions with other gardeners.  It is quite funny to see the different gardens and techniques and how people do things. Lots of different languages, European languages and Asian languages and everyone has got their [own experiences], you know, [you ask other gardeners] ‘what are you doing over there?’ ‘Are you having trouble with those beetroots too?’ … It has been a real sharing experience.   80  As this British-Canadian immigrant gardener discusses, the opportunity to garden in a context of difference was an exciting glimpse into other ways of being. Difference in participants also lead to a greater variety of uses for the garden spaces including vegetable production, flower cultivation, pollinator habitat, meditation, picnicking, and tea times. Eroticism was found in intercultural garden encounters, such as an instance described by an elderly white interviewee whose curiosity about a novel plant variety lead her to approach her Chinese plot neighbor and, despite language barriers, communicate about the plant through gestures and observation. The materiality of gardening supports this type of practice-based learning in the gardens (Shan & Walter, 2014) which can transcend language barriers. Finally, the publicity of the gardens enabled anyone to pass through and demonstrated urban food production to the greater Richmond community.   3.10 Discussion  Previous community garden studies have highlighted the potential for community gardens to bring diverse community residents together and strengthen relationships to each other and place (Shan & Walter, 2014; Mares & Peña, 2011; Shinew et al., 2004) as well as their potential to reproduce social inequality by excluding minoritized cultural groups in membership and structure (Reynolds, 2015) and contributing to gentrification (Quastel, 2009; Aptekar, 2015).  This study sought to investigate how differing understandings of what it means to participate in “community” inform the social aspect of community garden space in a multicultural urban setting.  This analysis of Richmond community gardeners contributes to research on “everyday multiculturalism” which seeks to document the “dynamism that occurs when different groups come to live and interact together” (Ang, 2001, p. 4) in commons spaces. Accessible public 81  spaces that promote this dynamism are an asset in multicultural urban settings because they support learning and sharing across difference. These spaces are also difficult to organize, as the convergence of differing values and expectations can create both synergies and conflict.    This study identified that diverse gardeners come to participate for a multitude of reasons, some of which are more individualistic and others more communal. Gardeners also have different understandings of what community means in the garden which influences how they participate. Some gardener’s definition of community -- as a like-minded group of social, volunteer-oriented, and culturally homogenous individuals -- imposes an ideal of community that excludes people who participate differently from being considered as “proper” members. These ideals challenge accessibility and equity in the commons space and the potential for the dynamism of everyday multiculturalism to occur.  In her study of community gardens in New York, Aptekar (2015) finds that the economic, social, and cultural capital held by White gardeners can lead to their preferences and ideas about proper participation being legitimized by the City and affiliated non-profits over the opinions of minoritized cultural community members. In Richmond, the RFSS’ Community Garden Rules and Agreement document, which every garden member must sign annually, outlines requirements for gardeners to dedicate volunteer time to maintain shared spaces “to the best of their ability” and treat other gardeners with respect, among other guidelines (RFSS website). This policy does not legitimatize a fixed ideal of community because these guidelines are open to individual gardener interpretation (RFSS does not enforce the volunteer requirement or define what they mean by respect). However, some gardeners’ dissatisfaction with other members’ level of community involvement is evidence that a more rigid social contract may exist between gardeners. Due to demographic changes in Richmond in recent decades, becoming less White 82  and rural, the fixed ideals of community held by some gardeners can be exclusive of recent immigrant and visible minority gardeners who experience and define community differently.     This study provides insights on how to create inclusive community gardens in practice by reframing community through Young’s politics of difference framework (1990) which promotes a more expansive understanding of “community” that aligns with the ideal of city life. This ideal was expressed by some gardeners who acknowledged a broader set of ways that different gardeners contribute to the member community the Richmond community at large including offering one on one advice and assistance to other gardeners, supporting the maintenance of traditional food knowledge and culturally relevant seeds for their cultural group, donating to the foodbank, and providing an example of urban food production to other city residents. Considering the multiplicity of ways that a gardener can contribute to community through a politics of difference framework recognizes that gardeners have many diverse identities, interests, and abilities from which they contribute to the gardens in different ways. Through this reframing, the model of the “ideal” gardener gets replaced with the ideal of variety, social differentiation, and eroticism that is possible in public garden spaces.  Other research has found that community gardens have the potential to enhance the social and political skills of participants (Travaline & Hunold, 2010; Gottlieb & Joshi, 2010; Levkoe, 2011; McClintock, 2014). Community gardeners in Richmond attended “town-hall” style gatherings hosted by RFSS to express their concerns about garden theft, describe various resource needs, and complain about the behaviors of other gardeners (field observations). However, voicing complaints and concerns to RFSS was often the extent of political engagement. Gardeners described difficulty organizing amongst themselves towards initiatives that would serve their collective interest in the gardens such as ordering soil amendments in bulk 83  and troubleshooting garden issues. This could be due to many factors including the suburban character of Richmond (e.g. car/commuter culture, distance between some gardeners’ homes and their garden plot), the individualistic structure of community garden membership (individuals pay organization to rent private plots), and linguistic, generational, and cultural barriers between gardeners. Furthermore, due to the top-down administrative structure of the gardens, gardeners defer to RFSS’ authority when any concerns arise. In my observations, gardeners were frustrated because they knew RFSS was under-resourced and couldn’t respond to all of their concerns in a timely manner but they also didn’t think they could enact their own solutions without approval from RFSS and/or the City. This frustration exposed challenges to gardener agency and ability to navigate power hierarchies. Compared to grassroots community gardens where collective action skills are necessary to maintain the space (Hansen, 2011) the top-down structure of RFSS gardens appears to have a demobilizing political effect.  Despite the lack of direct political action and grassroots organizing that was observed in Richmond gardens, the time community gardeners spend to cultivate produce in public space can be considered as one type of community activism. Kennedy et al. (2017) refer to this as “small p” political action, or non-confrontational social engagement that promotes cultural change by demonstrating alternatives. Richmond community gardeners demonstrated alternatives by growing vegetables, saving seeds, creating pollinator habitats, spending time outdoors pursuing active lifestyles, and bartering and sharing with other gardeners.    3.11 Conclusion In summary, this research has discussed the many motivations and definitions of community that are held by diverse community gardeners in Richmond. It found that gardeners 84  are motivated to participate in community gardens for different reasons, some of which are more individualistic and others more communal, and that individual gardeners define the garden community differently based on their positionality (including cultural background, immigration status, gender, age). During the time of this study, the more vocal gardeners who attended community gatherings were responding to theft and calling on RFSS and the City to make changes to further privatize the gardens. However, surveys and one-on-one interviews with gardeners have shown that behind this frustration, there is also an understanding by many gardeners that produce loss is an inevitable consequence of gardening in public spaces. For these gardeners, the benefits of participating in the gardens (including learning a new skill, spending time in nature, and increased social connectivity) far outweigh the cost of produce lost.  This study has highlighted how every individual who participates in community has a unique perspective for what the community is and should be. Gardeners’ reflections on the definition of community demonstrate that ultimately, community can be defined by a multiplicity of individuals who share likenesses and differences. Within communities of difference, structures need to be in place to talk about differences, address conflict, and arrive at compromise. However, because of historical context and structural inequalities, formal policies and informal social contracts in public spaces may not facilitate a fair compromise of community interests. When individual gardeners impose a fixed “ideal of community” on the space, they are likely to be dissatisfied with the reality of how a range of cultural differences influence how community is experienced in the gardens. If garden organizers attempt to enforce this ideal of community, for example by excluding people who do not share the same sense of civic responsibility, it could lead to increased polarization across lines of difference, limitations in who can achieve a sense of belonging to the place, and a more rigid contract that all garden 85  participants must adhere to. However, if gardeners hold expectations for the space that align with a less prescriptive “ideal of city life”, they are likely to see the ways in which community gardens sites are richer because of the opportunity that gardeners have to contribute their time and skillset to a public space and learn from one another’s differences. This may lead to more tolerance regarding difference in the gardens and more support for restructuring garden spaces to be more welcoming to the community at large.   Fostering community spaces that are inclusive of difference in multicultural urban settings is one way that AFIs can forward principles of food justice in practice. This chapter suggests a narrative shift in the way we envision “community” in public spaces so that they can strive to be more inclusive.  While reframing discourse around community in multicultural urban public spaces will contribute to garden accessibility in the long-term, there are logistical barriers to accessibility that can be addressed in the short-term. For example, one major barrier to garden access is an insufficient number of plots available. This is evidenced by a 3-5 year waitlist to receive a garden plot. As one gardener reflected,  The City should put their money where their mouth is instead of using the gardens to get more PR, […] I think it would be money well spent. There is an awful lot of enthusiasm for maintaining agricultural land and opening up that land for people to grow on.   Other suggestions made by gardeners to improve accessibility included: multi-lingual outreach, public plots for non-members to utilize, raised garden beds for seniors, smaller garden plots for beginner and senior gardeners, level pathways for people with mobility issues, 3- or 5-year term limits on plot rentals to cycle more interested residents into the gardens, and more events and opportunities for gardeners to get to know each other (which could support overcoming racial and cultural stereotypes) and for the public to learn about the gardens (suggestions included an annual garden tour or a fruit and vegetable show).  86  Involving residents in shaping future community gardens and other commons spaces through inclusive planning practice will help to ensure that the City and RFSS continues to adapt these spaces to meet residents’ needs. This will require leaders to be on the cutting edge of inclusive planning practice, answering questions such as: What is the responsibility of the City, RFSS, and individual gardeners in creating the community space that they desire? How do leaders incorporate feedback from long-time gardeners, beginner gardeners, and community residents in shaping the future of community garden spaces? What structural and policy change is needed for adaptive and inclusive decision-making in these spaces? For resources towards creating inclusive commons spaces, see Appendix E.  Additional research is needed to determine what policies and practices are supporting cultural inclusivity in Richmond community garden spaces, what is hindering accessibility, and what could be done to improve access for diverse cultural groups. This research could explore non-member Richmond residents’ desires for community garden spaces, including individuals who are on the garden plot waitlist. It could also compare allotment-style community gardens with other forms of public urban agriculture (ie. public produce gardens, food forests, guerilla gardens). Secondly, research on the role that community garden participation plays in putting food justice into practice could further examine how gardeners perceive their involvement in the gardens as a form of civic engagement, considering direct forms of political activism, “small p” politics (Kennedy et al., 2017), and deep democracy (McIver & Hale, 2015). Further research could also explore the dynamics of commons spaces and collective action in increasingly diverse cities with transnational migrant populations. This research would look at different forms of collective action, new forms of commons, and factors that lead to the privatization or protection of commons. 87  Chapter 4: Conclusion   Through this research I have highlighted areas where action can occur to put food justice into practice in AFIs by promoting culturally inclusive practices. This research contributes to a growing body of literature on race, culture, and participation in food system planning (Boden & Hoover, 2018; Clark et al., 2017; Horst, 2017 McCullagh & Santo, 2012) and urban agriculture (Reynolds & Cohen, 2015; Aptekar, 2015; Quastel, 2009; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004) in North America. It has contributed new insights into AFIs from a culturally diverse, urban, Canadian context and showcased tensions and opportunities that emerge as AFI spaces become more culturally diverse. Chapter two demonstrates how exclusive structures, a focus on achieving strategy documents over network building, and an attitude of color blind professionalism from some members can inhibit FPCs from achieving their goals of cultural inclusion. It also identified racial justice approaches that challenge this exclusivity by identifying racism and shifting power to underrepresented racial and cultural groups through relationship building and partnership. Chapter three describes cross-cultural learning that occurs when public spaces are accessible to diverse groups and how that accessibility is challenged by gardeners who impose a personalized ideal of community on the space, highlighting how framing “community” through an ideal of city life framework (Young, 1990) can contribute to more inclusive outcomes for gardeners and the public.   While FPCs and community gardens are very different in structure and contribution towards food systems change, their efforts are intertwined and they face some of the same challenges in achieving outcomes of inclusivity. Municipal food policy influences food programming outcomes (like community gardens) and, if FPCs strive towards civic participation, the experiences and insights of food programming participants can inform food policy direction. 88  These two studies have been placed in conversation with each other in order to compare what can be learned from their diverse practices and contexts in order to move towards cultural inclusivity. In both cases, a threat to inclusion was the over-representation of white, Western values. For example, some FPC members represented a white spatial imaginary for the food system and overlooked cultural food spaces. Similarly, some gardeners envisioned an ideal community garden space in which productive, social, and volunteer-oriented members shared space to grow food for themselves. In both cases, there was also a set of participants challenging these values and ideals by supporting food systems change and community garden spaces that represent the more complex reality of racial and cultural difference. For example, some FPC members were making efforts to include communities who aren’t represented in their current food policy initiatives and some gardeners described their vision for accessible, multi-use garden spaces in which members and non-members with all sorts of personalities, talents, and motivations could belong to and learn from one another’s differences.  In both FPCs and community gardens, inclusivity and accessibility are important for supporting equitable food systems change. The shared value of these spaces to cultivate individuals’ sense of agency within food systems becomes more clear using the framework of deep democracy (Ober, 2008; McIver & Hale, 2015). Deep democracy does not confine democratic participation to formal governance spaces. Rather, it is the capacity of people to act together to make change and shape the future in any context. Deep democracy relies on the cultivation of lasting relationships, power and interest mapping, and an orientation towards the “common” and community that is a dynamic convergence of individual differences (McIver & Hale, 2015, p. 729). In FPCs, following the framework of deep democracy means challenging structural power hierarchies (within the group and in society), acknowledging diverse and 89  dynamic visions for the food system, and embracing tension in order to formulate innovative solutions. In community gardens, following the framework of deep democracy means shifting priorities from creating infrastructure to support individualistic urban-scale food production to supporting the capacity that these spaces hold to cultivate civic relationships and collective action. It also means supporting community dialogue to address difference and tension in the commons and formulate equitable ways forward. By recognizing the many modes to influence food systems change, the framework of deep democracy can help food system actors (who identify as policy makers, community organizers, gardeners, farmers, fisherman, chefs, cooks, food distributors, business owners, etc.) recognize the synergies and inconsistencies in their efforts and build a more collaborative approach.  The desire for equitable and sustainable food systems necessitates the participation of racial, cultural, and ethnic minority groups. In a culturally pluralistic society that privileges Whiteness, methods for citizens to engage and participate must pay attention to difference in order to accommodate the range of individuals and highlight the unique rights and injustices faced by racial, cultural, and ethnic minority groups. Calling attention to difference can be burdensome and uncomfortable for participants within a context of colonialism and color-blind multiculturalism, especially for White participants who benefit from the current status quo. As food policy council members and community garden organizers and members take steps to put their visions for the food system into policy and practice, they should consider if the structures they are complicit in and the efforts they are promoting are furthering a white spatial imaginary for the food system or a dynamic, difference-centered approach to food systems change.  This study explores one side of cultural inclusion in AFIs by learning from current participants (both FPC leaders and community gardeners) about how cultural inclusion is 90  experienced and put into practice. This research describes the shifting demographics of participation in AFI spaces, the development of structures to support more diversity, and some of the adversity faced by food system actors who challenge culturally exclusive practice. In order to understand the full picture, future research should draw attention to the perspectives of individuals who aren’t participating in AFIs due to exclusive structures, disinterest, or refusal. This may uncover alternative alternatives, or efforts that excluded groups are already engaging in to transform the food system. Insights from this research will help AFIs adjust oppressive processes and attitudes within their group to accommodate for difference and become more racially and culturally inclusive.     91 References  Alcoff, L. (2003). Latino/As, Asian Americans, and the Black-White Binary. The Journal of Ethics, 7(1), 5-27. Retrieved from Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (2011). Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Food, health, and the environment. Alkon, A. H., & Guthman, J. (2017). The new food activism: opposition, cooperation, and collective action. Oakland, California: University of California Press. Retrieved from Alkon, A. H., & Mares, T. (2012). Cultivating Food Justice. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(3), 347–359. Allen, P. (2008). Mining for justice in the food system: Perceptions, practices, and possibilities. Agriculture and Human Values, 25, 157–161. Anderson, K., (1991). Vancouver’s Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875–1980, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.  Andrée, P., Cobb, M., Moussa, L., & Norgang, E. (2011). Building unlikely alliances around food sovereignty in Canada. Studies in Political Economy, 88, 133–159. Ang, I. (2001). On not speaking Chinese : living between Asia and the West. Routledge. Aptekar, S. (2015). Visions of Public Space: Reproducing and Resisting Social Hierarchies in a Community Garden. Sociological Forum, 30(1), 209–227. Baker, L., & de Zeeuw, H. (2015). Urban food policies and programmes: an overview. In H. de Zeeuw & P. Dreschel (Eds.), Cities and Agriculture (pp. 26–55). London: Routelage. BC Census of Agriculture (2016). Retrieved from Bedore, M. (2014). The convening power of food as growth machine politics: A study of food policymaking and partnership formation in Baltimore. Urban Studies, 51(14), 2979-2995. doi: Beeman, A. (2015). Walk the Walk but Don’t Talk the Talk: The Strategic Use of Color-Blind Ideology in an Interracial Social Movement Organization. Sociological Forum, 30(1), 127–147. But, I. & Bencio, C. (2017). The role of small grocers in neighbourhood food access: A study of resident’s perceptions in Renfrew-Collingwood (report) Retrieved: Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. Black, J. L., Carpiano, R. M., Fleming, S., & Lauster, N. (2011). Exploring the distribution of food stores in British Columbia: Associations with neighbourhood socio-demographic factors and urban form. Health and Place, 17(4), 961–970. Block, D. R., Chávez, N., Allen, E., & Ramirez, D. (2012). Food sovereignty, urban food access, and food activism: Contemplating the connections through examples from Chicago.   92 Agriculture and Human Values, 29(2), 203–215. Boden, S., & Hoover, B. M. (2018). Food policy councils in the mid-Atlantic: Working toward justice. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 8(81), 39–52. Borre, K. (1991). Seal Blood, Inuit Blood, and Diet: A Biocultural Model of Physiology and Cultural Identity. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 5(1), 48–62. Bottez, M. (2011). Critical Multiculturalism in Canada and USA. In E. Bujnowska, M. Gabryś, & T. Sikora (Eds.), Towards critical multiculturalism : dialogues between/among Canadian diasporas = Vers un multiculturalisme critique : dialogues entre les diasporas canadiennes (p. 476). Katowice, Poland: PARA. Bradley, K., & Herrera, H. (2016). Decolonizing Food Justice: Naming, Resisting, and Researching Colonizing Forces in the Movement. Antipode, 48(1), 97–114. Burnaby Food First (n.d.). About. Retrieved from, March 21, 2018 Burnaby Food First (n.d.). Workshops. Retrieved March 3, 2017 from: Canadian Multiculturalism Act, S.C. 36-37, c. 31 (1988). Retrieved from City of Vancouver (n.d.). Vancouver Food Policy Council: How we work. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from: City of Vancouver (2007). Vancouver Food Charter. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from: City of Vancouver (2013). What feeds us: Vancouver Food Strategy (Report). Retrieved March 21, 2017 from Clark, J. K., Freedgood, J., Irish, A., Hodgson, K., & Raja, S. (2017). Fail to include, plan to exclude: Reflections on local governments’ readiness for building equitable community food systems. Built Environment, 43(3), 315–327. Clendenning, J., Dressler, W. H., & Richards, C. (2016). Food justice or food sovereignty? Understanding the rise of urban food movements in the USA. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 165–177. Coté, C. (2016). “Indigenizing” food sovereignty: revitalizing indigenous food practices and ecological knowledges in Canada and the United States. Humanities, 5(3), 57. doi:10.3390/h5030057  Corlett, J. L., Dean, E. a., & Grivetti, L. E. (2003). Hmong Gardens: Botanical Diversity in an Urban Setting. Economic Botany, 57(3), 365–379.[0365:HGBDIA]2.0.CO;2 Creswell, J., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.   93 Damman, S., Eide, W. B., & Kuhnlein, H. V. (2008). Indigenous peoples’ nutrition transition in a right to food perspective. Food Policy, 33(2), 135–155. Delgado, R., Stefancic, J., & Harris, A. (2012). Introduction. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical Race Theory (pp. 1–18). NYU Press. Retrieved from DeLind, L. B. (2002). Place, work, and civic agriculture: Common fields for cultivation. Agriculture and Human Values, 19(3), 217-224. doi:10.1023/A:1019994728252 Desmarais, A. A., & Wittman, H. (2013). Farmers, Foodies & First Nations: Getting to Food Sovereignty in Canada. Food Sovereignty : A Critical Dialogue, 6150(December), 1–23. Draper, C., & Freedman, D. (2010). Review and Analysis of the Benefits, Purposes, and Motivations Associated with Community Gardening in the United States. Journal of Community Practice, 18(4), 458–492. Drake, L. (2014). Governmentality in urban food production? Following “community” from intentions to outcomes. Urban Geography, 35(2), 177–196. Eaton, E. (2008). From feeding the locals to selling the locale: Adapting local sustainable food projects in Niagara to neocommunitarianism and neoliberalism. Geoforum, 39(2) 994-1006. Employment Equity Act, S.C. 1995, c. 44. (1995). Retrieved from Ferris, J., Norman, C., & Sempik, J. (2001). People, Land and Sustainability: Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development. Social Policy &amp; Administration, 35(5), 559–568. Food and Agriculture Organization. (1996). World Food Summit Plan of Action (Report). Retrieved from Forum for Food Sovereignty. (2007). Declaration of Nyéléli. Retrieved from Food Secure Canada (2016). What is food sovereignty. Retrieved December 20, 2016 from Gibb, N., & Wittman, H. (2013). Parallel alternatives: Chinese-Canadian farmers and the Metro Vancouver local food movement. Local Environment, 18(1). Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2008). Diverse economies: Performative practices for other worlds. Progress in Human Geography 32(5) 613–632. Goodman, D., DuPuis, E. M., & Goodman, M. K. (2012). Alternative food networks : knowledge, practice, and politics. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge. Gottlieb, R., & Joshi, A. (2010). Food justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Government of Canada (n.d.) Ethno-cultural groups. Retrieved from Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Guitart, D., Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2012). Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. Guthman, J. (2008). “If they only knew”: color blindness and universalism in California   94 alternative food institutions. The Professional Geographer, 60(3), 387–397. Hamilton, N. D. (2002). Putting a Face on our Food: How State and Local Food Policies Can Promote the New Agriculture. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 7(2), 407–454. Retrieved from Hammelman, C., & Hayes-Conroy, A. (2014). Understanding Cultural Acceptability for Urban Food Policy. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(1), 37–48. Hansen, Y. (2011). Growing Community: Community Gardens as a Local Practice of Food Sovereignty. In H. Wittman, A. A. Desmarais, & N. Wiebe (Eds.) Food Sovereignty in Canada: Creating Just and Sustainable Food Systems (pp. 97-113). Winnipeg and Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing. Harper, A., Shattuck, A., Holt-Giménez, E., Alkon, A., & Lambrick, F. (2009). Food Policy Councils : Lessons Learned (Report). Retrieved from \ Harrison, J. (2013). Situating Neoliberalization: Unpacking the construction of racially segregated workplaces. In S. A. Wolf & A. Bonanno (Eds.). The neoliberal regime in the agri-food sector: crisis, resilience, and restructuring. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Ho, A. & Chen, A. (2017, August) Vancouver Chinatown Food Security Report. Retrieved from Holt-Giménez, E., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 109-44. Horst, M. (2017). Food justice and municipal government in the USA. Planning Theory and Practice, 18(1), 51–70. Hyde, Z. (2014). Omnivorous Gentrification: Restaurant Reviews and Neighborhood Change in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. City and Community, 13(4), 341–359. Johnston, J. (2008). The citizen-consumer hybrid: Ideological tensions and the case of Whole Foods Market. Theory and Society, 37(3), 229–270. Johnston, J., Rodney, A., & Szabo, M. (2012). Place, Ethics, and Everyday Eating: A Tale of Two Neighbourhoods. Sociology, 46(6), 1091-1108. Retrieved from Just Food. (2010). What is food justice? Retrieved from Kennedy, E. H., Johnston, J, & Parkins, J.R. (2017, August). Small-p politics: how pleasurable, convivial and pragmatic political ideals influence engagement in eat-local initiatives. British Journal of Sociology. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12298.  Koc, M., & Welsh, J. (2001). Food, Foodways and Immigrant Experience. Paper written for the Multiculturalism Program, Department of Canadian Heritage at the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association Conference (pp. 1–14). Retrieved from Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community:   95 Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823–851. Kurtz, H. (2010). Differentiating Multiple Meanings of Garden and Community. Urban Geography, 22(7), 656–670. Kwik, J. (2008). Traditional food knowledge: A case study of an immigrant Canadian "foodscape". Environments, 36(1), 59-74. Lang, T. (1999) Food policy for the 21st century: Can it be both radical and reasonable? In M. Koc, R. McRae, L. Mougeot. & J. Welsh (Eds.) For Hunger Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems (pp. 216–224). Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre. Levkoe, C. Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(1) 89–98. Levkoe, C. Z. (2011). Towards a transformative food politics. Local Environment, 16(7), 687–705. Levkoe, C. Z. (2014). The food movement in Canada : a social movement network perspective, Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(3) 385-403. Levkoe, C. Z., & Wakefield, S. (2014). Understanding contemporary networks of environmental and social change: complex assemblages within Canada’s 'food movement’, 23(2), 302–320. Ley, D.  (2010). Millionaire migrants: trans-Pacific life lines. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Li, P. S. (2001). The racial subtext in Canada’s immigration discourse. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2(1), 77–97. Lichterman, P. (1999). Talking identity in the public sphere: Broad visions and small spaces in sexual identity politics. Theory and Society, 28, 101–141. Lim, S. R. (2015). Feeding the “Greenest City”: Historicizing “local”, labour, and the postcolonial politics of eating. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 24(1), 78–100. Lipsitz, G. (2011). How racism takes place. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Loo, C. (2014). Towards a More Participative Definition of Food Justice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(5), 787–809. Lyson, H. C. (2014). Social structural location and vocabularies of participation: Fostering a collective identity in urban agriculture activism. Rural Sociology, 79(3), 310–335. Mannur, A., & Matsumoto, V. (2006). Asian Americans on Meat Vs. Rice. Amerasia Journal, 32(2), 1–6. Mares, T. & Peña D. (2011). Environmental and food justice: Toward local, slow, and deep food systems. In A. H. Alkon and J. Agyeman (Eds.) Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability (pp. 197–220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McClintock, N. (2014). Radical, reformist, and garden-variety neoliberal: coming to terms with urban agriculture’s contradictions. Local Environment, 19(2), 147–171. McCullagh, M., & Santo, R. (2012). Food Policy for All: Inclusion of Diverse Community Residents on Food Policy Councils (Report). Retrieved from   96 McIvor, D. W., & Hale, J. (2015). Urban agriculture and the prospects for deep democracy. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(4), 727-741. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9588-9 McRae, R., & Donahue, K. (2013). Municipal food policy entrepreneurs: a preliminary analysis of how Canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change (Report). Retrieved from Miller, E. (2010) Solidarity Economy: Key Concepts and Issues. In E. Kawano, T. Masterson, and J. Teller-Ellsberg (Eds). Solidarity Economy I: Building Alternatives for People and Planet. (pp. 1-12) Amherst, MA: Center for Popular Economics.  Mintz, S. W., & Du Bois, C. M. (2002). The Anthropology of Food and Eating. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 99–119. Mooney, P. H., Tanaka, K., Ciciurkaite, G., Mooney, P. H., Tanaka, K., & Ciciurkaite, G. (2014). Food Policy Council Movement in North America: A Convergence of Alternative Local Agrifood Interests. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 21, 229–255. Moragues-Faus, A. (2017). Problematising justice definitions in public food security debates: Towards global and participative food justices. Geoforum, 84, 95–106. Morales, A. (2011). Growing Food and Justice: Dismantling Racism through Sustainable Food Systems. In A. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability (pp. 149–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Morgan, K., Marsden, T., & Murdoch, J. (2006). Worlds of food: place, power, and provenance in the food chain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Morrison, D. (2011). Indigenous Food Sovereignty: A Model for Social Learning. In Wittman, H., Desmarais, A.A. & Wiebe, N. (Eds.) Food Sovereignty in Canada: Creating Just and Sustainable Food Systems. (pp. 97-113). Winnipeg and Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing. Mosby, I., & Galloway, T. (2017). ‘The abiding condition was hunger’: assessing the long-term biological and health effects of malnutrition and hunger in Canada’s residential schools. British Journal of Canadian Studies, 30(2), 147–162. Nabhan, G. P. (2004). Why some like it hot : food, genes, and cultural diversity. Washington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books.  Nelson, N. & Wright, S. (1995). Participation and power. In N. Nelson & S. Wright (Eds.) Power and Participatory Development: Theory and practice (pp. 1-18). Intermediate Technology Publications, London, 1-18.  New Citizenship Project (n.d.) Food Citizenship (Report). Retrieved from Newman, L., Powell, L. J., & Wittman, H. (2015). Landscapes of food production in agriburbia: Farmland protection and local food movements in British Columbia. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 99–110. Ober, J. (2008). The original meaning of “Democracy”: Capacity to do things, not majority rule. Constellations, 15(1), 3-9. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2008.00471.x   97 Okvat, H. A., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual, Community, and Environmental Resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3–4), 374–387. Oliver, J., & Edwald, Á. (2016). Between islands of ethnicity and shared landscapes: rethinking settler society, cultural landscapes and the study of the Canadian West. Cultural Geographies, 23(2), 199–219. Otero, G. & Preibisch, K. (2015, November 18) Citizenship and Precarious Labor in Canadian Agriculture. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved from Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pearsall, H., Gachuz, S., Sosa, M. R., Schmook, B., Wal, H., & Gracia, M. A. (2017). Urban Community Garden Agrodiversity and Cultural Identity in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. Geographical Review, 107(3) 476-495. PeerNet BC (2016). what is allyship? why can’t I be an ally? Retrieved May 16, 2018 from: Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (1999). Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of municipal institutions in food systems planning, Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 213–224. Quastel, N. (2013). Political Ecologies of Gentrification. Urban Geography, 30(7), 694–725. Reynolds, K. (2015). Disparity despite diversity: Social injustice in New York City’s urban agriculture system. Antipode, 47(1), 240–259. Richmond Food Charter Working Group (2016). Richmond Food Charter. Retrieved January 15, 2018 from: Richmond Food Security Society (2017). About us. Retrieved January 15, 2018 from: Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee (2016). 2017-2022: Intercultural Strategic Plan. Retrieved from Richmond Poverty Response Committee (2006) Richmond Food System Assessment: Environmental Scan and Action Plan. Retrieved January 15, 2018 from Saldivar-Tanaka, L., & Krasny, M. E. (2004). Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 399–412. Sbicca, J. (2017). Resetting the Good Food Table: Labor and Food Justice Alliances in Los Angeles. In A. H. Alkon & J. Guthman (Eds.), The New Food Activism: Opposition, Cooperation, and Collective Action (pp. 107–132). Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. J. (2011). Is everyone really equal?: an introduction to key concepts   98 in social justice education. New York: Teachers College Press. Seto, D. (2011). Diversity and Engagement in Alternative Food Practice: Community Gardens in Vancouver, B.C. (Master’s Thesis) Retrieved from  Shan, H., & Walter, P. (2014). Growing Everyday Multiculturalism. Adult Education Quarterly, 65(1), 19–34. Shinew, K. J., Glover, T. D., & Parry, D. C. (2004). Leisure Spaces as Potential Sites for Interracial Interaction: Community Gardens in Urban Areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3), 336–355.<Go to ISI>://000223149200003 Slocum, R. (2006). Anti-racist practice and the work of community food organizations. Antipode, 38(2), 327–349. Slocum, R. (2007). Whiteness, space and alternative food practice. Geoforum, 38(3), 520–533. Slocum, R. (2011). Race in the study of food. Progress in Human Geography. 35(3) 303-327. Slocum, R., & Cadieux, K. V. (2015). Notes on the practice of food justice in the U.S.: understanding and confronting trauma and inequity. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), 27–52. Slocum, R., & Salbanha, A. (2013). Geographies of Race and Food: An Introduction. In Geographies of Race and Food: Fields, Bodies, Markets. (pp. 4–23). Statistics Canada (2016a). Census Profile, 2016 Census: Vancouver [Census metropolitan area], British Columbia and British Columbia [Province]. Retrieved April 5, 2018 from: Statistics Canada (2016b). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity: Key results from the 2016 Census. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from: Statistics Canada (2016c). Visible Minority and Population Group Reference Guide, Census of the Population, 2016. Retrieved February 10, 2018 from: Staeheli, L. A., Mitchell, D., & Gibson, K. (2002). Conflicting rights to the city in New York’s community gardens. GeoJournal, 58(2/3), 197–205. Stevenson, G. W., Ruhf, K., Lezberg, S., and Clancy, K. (2007). Warrior, Builder, and Weaver Work: Strategies for Changing the Food System. In C. Hinrichs, & T. Lyson (Eds.), Remaking the North American Food System. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. (p. 33-62) Table Matters (n.d.). The North Shore Table Matters Network. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from Table Matters (2013). North Shore Community Food Charter. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from Tarasuk, V., Mitchell, A., & Dachner, N. (2016). Household food insecurity in Canada, 2014. Toronto: Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity (PROOF). Retrieved from   99 Thobani, S. (2007). Exalted subjects: studies in the making of race and nation in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Todd, D. (2015, June 16). Part one of three: Richmond, global centre of a demographic explosion. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from Tornaghi, C. (2014). Critical Geography of Urban Agriculture. Progress in Human Geography, 38(4). Travaline, K. & Hunold, C. (2010). Urban agriculture and ecological citizenship in Philadelphia. Local Environment, 15 (6), 581–590.
 UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1999). General Comment no. 12, art. 11. Retrieved on December 12, 2016 from Veit, H. Z. (2013). Modern Food, Moral Food: Self Control, Science, and the Rise of Modern American Eating in the Early Twentieth Century. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. VFPC (n.d.). Mandate and Terms of Reference. Retrieved January 5, 2018 from: VFPC (2018, January 31). Meeting Minutes. Retrieved May 25, 2017 from Visser, M. (1999). Food and culture: Interconnections. Social Research, 66(1). Vorley, B. (2018). Citizen-generated evidence for a more sustainable and healthy food system: a discussion paper. Walker, J. W. (1997). Race, rights and the law in the Supreme Court of Canada: historical case studies. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Univeristy Press.  Walker, R. E., Keane, C. R., & Burke, J. G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health and Place, 16(5), 876–884. Weiler, A. M., Otero, G., & Wittman, H. (2016). Rock Stars and Bad Apples: Moral Economies of Alternative Food Networks and Precarious Farm Work Regimes. Antipode, 48(4), 1140–1162. Williams-Forson, P., & Wilkerson, A. (2011). Intersectionality and food studies. Food, Culture and Society, 14(1), 7–28. Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A., & Wiebe, N. (2010). Food sovereignty: reconnecting food, nature & community. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.    100 Appendices  Appendix A  - Review of cultural inclusion in food policy documents in Metro Vancouver   Municipality Document Examples of framework for cultural inclusion  Metro Vancouver Regional Food System Strategy (2011)  Making it easier to identify the healthy food options from labels and menus is critical especially in a region where English is not everyone’s first language. (p. 32) “Strategy 3.4 Celebrate the taste of local foods and the diversity of cuisines: Experiencing local food is one of the best ways to develop a passion for it. Festivals celebrating the harvests from land and sea as well as the wealth of different cuisines within the region over opportunities to taste new foods and learn new ways to prepare familiar foods. Harvest events remind us of the seasonality of foods and the connections between food, culture and nature. Creating and promoting these events are important opportunities for building new networks among farmers, fishermen, chefs, community groups, media, and local governments.” (p. 33) Action: “Expand the number of events celebrating local harvests and the diversity of cuisines within a municipality. (p. 34) Goal 4: Ensure everyone has Access to Healthy, Culturally diverse and Affordable (p.35) Involve ethnic and immigrant communities in the development of urban agriculture initiatives and food access programs to ensure that the foods they are familiar with are available.  (p. 56) Regional Food System Action Plan (2016) 4.1 Improve access to nutritious food among vulnerable groups - Planned Actions: Offer discounted nutritious meals for seniors, immigrant or refugee families; Improve access to information on participating in community gardens for under-represented ethno-cultural groups;  (p. 23) New collaborative actions: Collaborate with non-profit organizations, build on existing multi-lingual initiatives to develop and distribute information on sustainable and local food programs to new immigrants (p. 33); Draw from Surrey’s experience to create and share information on culturally relevant local food availability for refugee and new immigrants (p. 34) Vancouver Vancouver Food Strategy (2011-12) “Multicultural Public Engagement”  • “Recognizing the rich ethno-cultural diversity of our city, specific engagement techniques and formats were used that focused on multicultural communities and the organizations and non-profits that serve them” • Translation of materials   101 • Storytelling engagement for “harder-to-reach” communities Fifth of 5 priorities: “Enable broader participation in food system activities, such as strategies reflecting Vancouver’s ethno-cultural diversity and engaging with youth.” Last food strategy principle: “Celebrate our city’s diverse food cultures” Definition of Food Asset: “Community gardens and orchards, urban farms, farmers markets, food processing infrastructure, community composting facilities, and neighborhood food networks.” VFPC Food Charter (2007)  2 of 5 commitments: “Recognizes access to safe, sufficient, culturally appropriate and nutritious food as a basic human right for all Vancouver residents; Celebrates Vancouver’s multicultural food traditions.” Principles:  • “Social Justice: Food is a basic human right. All residents need accessible, affordable, healthy, and culturally appropriate food1.”  • “Celebration: Sharing food is a fundamental human experience. Food brings people together in celebrations of community and diversity.”  VFPC Terms of Reference2 First mandate: food is “Safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate” Produced in a way that “Protects the health and dignity of people” Local Food Security: Turning Policy into Action in Metro Vancouver (May, 2016)3 “The City of Vancouver, through its 2014 Greenest City Community Grant program, provided $25,000 to the Hua Foundation for The Choi Project Phase II. The grant is used to empower the Hua (ethnic Chinese) community to take part in the local food movement. The project developed a guide on where to find BC grown, pesticide-free daikon, pea shoots and choy sum.” North Shore Community Food Charter (2013) Guiding Principles “1. Health Access & Equity: Nutritious, safe and personally acceptable food is accessible to all people in a dignified manner […] 5. Food Culture & Education: Our community becomes proficient in food literacy and celebrates all food cultures.” Draft of Food Charter Process “Particular effort was made to attract youth, ethnic communities and families in low income.”  Table Matters Terms of Reference4 By encouraging opportunities to share food skills, traditions and knowledge, we strengthen our vibrant community. Table Matters: (1) celebrates and supports food cultures; (2) promotes the connections between food and mental, physical and spiritual   102 health; and (3) supports information sharing, education and training to build awareness, skills and capacity for food literacy. Richmond Food Charter (2016) Community value: Farming and food are important parts of Richmond’s culture; Community Commitment: Celebrate our diversity by supporting and sharing food traditions Richmond Food System Assessment (2006)  “Availability and accessibility of culturally-appropriate foods” is one of the indicators of effective food access. (p.3) Included in a list of Issues and Gaps: “Culturally-specific food resources are limited for Filipino, Somali, Afghan, Japanese and other minority immigrants. For example, there are few sources for halal meat in Richmond and many Richmond residents shop in Vancouver or Surrey for culturally-specific items.” (p. 6) Richmond Intercultural Food Security Study (2016) Suggestion for inclusion: Efforts should be made to actively recruit and support community members to participate in the development of programming. Inclusion of diverse voices may serve to identify and generate culturally appropriate strategies for food security programming.  RFSS Terms of Reference5 Strategy No. 12 (of 12): “Identify and understand the diverse audiences that we serve and adapt our program to reflect these demographics” Burnaby Burnaby Food First Terms of Reference6 “About” page, • “Everyone has access to many different kinds of food.” • “Our food system values other people, both locally and around the world.” • “Burnaby Food First is open to anyone interested in food security in Burnaby.” Local Food Security: Turning Policy into Action in Metro Vancouver (May, 2016) “In the City of Burnaby in the summer of 2015, the Burnaby Village Museum highlighted and celebrated Burnaby’s long history of agriculture with its summer theme of ‘Homegrown Harvest.’ There was a demonstration garden with heritage food varieties and a farmer in residence. The museum partnered with Burnaby Food First to offer 7 workshops in July and August that included container gardening, beekeeping, jam making, pickling and preservation, and meal planning using local seasonal ingredients. Burnaby’s Community Festival and Events Grant provides funding to eligible Burnaby organizations for new or existing events and festivals. Many of these festivals feature cultural or specialized food items as a component of the event. “   103 1 Culturally appropriate food is a term that has been employed by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1999), La Via Campesina (2011), the Community Alliance for Global Justice (2013), and many other community organizations. It is defined by the UN as “Cultural or consumer acceptability implies the need also to take into account, as far as possible, perceived non-nutrient-based values attached to food and food consumption and informed consumer concerns regarding the nature of accessible food supplies” (UN, 1999, Comment no. 12, p. 11). 2VFPC, “Mandate and Terms or Reference”, 3  This document was created by Grant Rice, a contracted member of Burnaby Food First and addresses four municipalities in the region: Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, and Vancouver 4 Table Matters, “Our work: Food culture & education”, 5 Richmond Food Security Society, “About us”, 6 Burnaby Food First, “About”,    104 Appendix B  - Interview Questionnaires B.1 Food policy council interviews 1) Introductory Questions a) In your experience, how has [your organization] addressed diversity? b) What was your role in this?  2) In writing: a) What are the most important documents that you would identify as most pertinent to the topic of intercultural food system planning?   i) How does your organization's Terms of Reference/Mission address inclusion and diversity? ii) How do organizational policies address inclusion?  b) How do organizational policies address diversity?  3) In membership: a) Tell me about the membership of the group that you’ve worked with?  i) How does the membership represent the community it serves? 4) In practice: a) Describe how your organization or council have included diverse community residents in policy-making? b) Describe how your organization or council have included diverse community resident in programming activities? c) Describe successes that emerged from this process. Why do you think this happened? What would you have done differently?  d) Describe failures that emerged from this process. Why do you think this happened? What would you have done differently?  e) What indicators for inclusion did you use? Why did you select these?  5) In aspirations:  a) How do you think your group could do better? b) What would you have done differently?  c) Why is the inclusion of diversity important?  6) Is there anything else you would like to add? Is there anything that you would like to discuss that we haven’t addressed?  B.2 Community gardener interviews 1) Introduction:  a) What motivates you to garden?   b) Why do you participate in community gardening in Richmond? i) How long? What site? c) Have you gardened in other settings before having a plot here? 2) Public space/private space (commons, land use) a) How do you use the garden space?  b) How do you and your immediate family benefit from participation in the gardens? c) Have you ever gifted anything from your garden? d) Re: stolen produce. What is you understanding of being in a community garden on public land? Rental of a community garden on public space… e) How do the gardens benefit your neighbourhood?   105 f) Do you think everyone in your neighbourhood should be welcome to spend time in the gardens? g) Do you think everyone in your neighbourhood feels welcome in the gardens? 3) Relationship to other gardeners a) Do you know a lot of the other gardeners that garden at your site? i) If yes, what is your relationship like? how did you meet? b) How do you interact with fellow gardeners while tending to your garden? c) Do you have a desire to get to know your fellow gardeners more?  4) Use and value of produce (community food security) a) What do you do with the produce that you grow?  i) Who eats it? Is it shared? Does any go to waste?  b) What is the value of this produce to you? 5) Gardener concerns a) Stories of theft. Hard work/effort à individual plant ownership b) Have you had any bad/unpleasant experiences at the community garden site?  c) If you could do anything, what would you change about the community garden site? Why?  d) In your time as a garden member, how have you been in contact with RFSS? The City of Richmond?  6) Food system vision (transformative) a) How has the food system changed in your lifetime? b) What do you think would make the food system better than it is today?  i) Globally? Regionally? In Richmond?  7) Is there anything else you’d like to add?    106 Appendix C - Online survey questionnaire   Survey description: This survey seeks to understand more about gardener's experience and concerns. We are using this information to better inform our efforts to address theft in the gardens. By participating in the study, you will have a chance to WIN a $25.00 gift certificate to Phoenix Perennials in Richmond. The survey results will be kept confidential in accordance with RFSS's Privacy Policy:    Name (optional): [Short answer text]  Garden site: [Select from drop down: Brighouse, Garret, General Currie, Gilbert, King George, Paulik, Railway, Richmond High, Terra Nova)  Which of these best describes why you take part in community gardening? Please rank your options from 1-5, (1 = least important, 5 = most important). [Multiple choice grid: 1-5 scale] 1. Access to fresh, better tasting food 2. Spend time outside, enjoy nature 3. Opportunity to socialize 4. To give back to community 5. Conservation of green space 6. To learn how to garden  Additional comments on why you garden (optional)  [Long answer text]  What does "community" mean for you in the gardens? [Long answer text]  Do you think your understanding of community differs from other gardeners? [Yes/No]  If yes, please explain: [Long answer text]  What is the outcome of the produce that you grow?  Please estimate the percentage of produce for each outcome.  [Multiple choice grid: <10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, 50-70%, 70-90%, >90%, n/a] 1. Consumed by me and my family 2. Given away/donated 3. Sold for profit 4. Taken by someone/stolen 5. Left to decompose  Other uses of produce:  [Long answer text]    107 If you have given away produce, who did you give it to? [Long answer text]  If you have had produce stolen, who do you think might have taken it and why?  [Long answer text]  What do you think should be done to address theft in community gardens?  Please rank each item based on how important it is to you on a scale of 1-5, (1= least important, 5 = most important)  [Multiple Choice Grid: 1-5 scale]  1. Fences and increased security 2. Additional signage 3. Education (media ads, brochures, events, etc.) 4. Change name from “community garden” to “allotment garden” 5. Install public produce gardens (ie. collective garden plots for everyone to harvest from) 6. Nothing/don’t care  Briefly explain why you think the action you indicated above is the most important?  [Long answer text]  Do you have anything else you would like to share? (Optional)  [Long answer text]  Demographic information (optional) This information will help us to understand the background of our gardeners within the multicultural context of the City of Richmond. You do not have to provide responses if you do not want to.  Age [Short answer text]  Gender [Multiple Choice] 1. Female 2. Male 3. Non-conforming 4. Prefer not to say  Education level [Multiple Choice] 1. 0-8 years 2. Some high school 3. High School Graduate 4. Some post-secondary 5. Post-secondary certificate or diploma 6. University Degree (Bachelor’s) 7. University degree (Master’s or higher)  Homeownership Status [Multiple Choice]   108 1. Homeowner  2. Renter 3. Other  Occupation [Short answer text]  Ethnicity [Short answer text]  Country of birth [Short answer text]  Primary Language [Short answer text]  Other languages spoken [Short answer text]  UBC Research Consent [Multiple Choice] With your permission, the results of this survey will be analyzed by Tori Ostenso, UBC Food Systems research student as part of her Thesis research on food policy in a multicultural context. All personal information will be anonymized.  Do you consent to the use of the data in this the study? [Yes/No]  Would you like to be contacted by Tori Ostenso to participate in a follow-up interview? [Yes/No]  Email (optional) Please provide your email if you would like to be contacted regarding any reports or presentations related to the outcomes of this study. [Short answer text]  Thank you! Your input will be taken into account as we decide what we can do to better address challenges in the gardens.    109 Appendix D – Interview Participant Consent Form  Consent Form for “Metro Vancouver Intercultural Food Systems Policy and Programming”  Principal Investigator: Hannah Wittman Co-investigator: Victoria Ostenso  Co-investigator: Colin Dring  Purpose:                   This project is interested in how people of different races, cultures and ethnicities engage with food system planning processes and community food security programming.                            Study Procedures:                         You are being invited to participate in this study because of your involvement in either 1) Metro Vancouver food systems planning or 2) Richmond Food Security Society community garden programming. Your participation will entail an interview of approximately 30 minutes. The interview will be conducted by Victoria Ostenso or Colin Dring. It will take place in a public location (café, library, community garden, etc). If the interviewee is a paid staff member, the decision of whether to conduct the interview during or outside of work hours will be determined by the interviewee in consultation with their supervisor.   With your permission the interview will be recorded and then transcribed to accurately record your views and opinions. If you would prefer the interview not to be recorded, written notes will be taken. Within the period of this study, you may be contacted for a follow-up interview of 20-60 minutes. If this happens, the researcher will review the consent form with you.                           Project Outcomes:                      The results from this project will be included in a Master’s thesis by the primary researcher. The results may be communicated in academic journals, online reports, and conference and workshop presentations.                          Potential Benefits:                      There are no explicit benefits to you by taking part in this study. However, the interviews will provide you with the opportunity to voice your opinion on your experiences, and will hopefully promote inclusion in food systems planning processes and in community food security programming in Metro Vancouver. This work may serve to support you and your community by providing key lessons learned, knowledges, and process tools for engagement with diversity.   Potential Risks:                           110 As the interview will ask about your opinions regarding inclusion practices in groups that you may define as being a part of, or have a close relationship with, it is possible that you may feel uncomfortable disclosing information about your experiences. If this happens, please inform the researchers that you do not wish to comment on that topic any further.  You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to, as well, you can end the interview at any time. You can also withdraw your participation in the project at any time.   Confidentiality:                   All hard copies of documents and recordings will be identified only by code number and kept in a locked filing cabinet. You will not be identified by name in either the recording or the interview transcript (unless you so wish). Hard copies of the interview notes and transcripts will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the researchers and electronic copies will be kept on the password protected local hard drives of team members’. Participants will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed study unless you want to be identified.                      Remuneration/Compensation:                 There will be no remuneration or compensation for participation in this study.                       Contact for information about the study:               If you have any questions or desire further information, you may contact Victoria Ostenso or Colin Dring.                      Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects:                If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail or call toll free 1-877-822-8598                      Consent:              Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time.                      Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. Your signature indicates that you consent to participate in this study.                      Subject Signature ____________________________________________________    Date_____________________                     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please provide your contact details if you are interested in being contacted regarding the results of this study (including reports, workshops, presentations, etc.):                      Name: __________________________________ Phone #:___________ ____________________________                      Email: __________________________________    111 Appendix E - Resource List for Inclusive Community Gardens Lowcock, A. (2014). Inclusive Community Gardens: Planning for inclusive and welcoming spaces in Vancouver. City of Vancouver Greenest City Scholars Report. Retrieved from Scholars/GCS reports 2014/More than vibrant green spaces%3A Improving access to community gardens as a source of healthy%2C fresh%2C and low-c This community-based outlines five goals for inclusion in community gardens and provides tips and tools for organization to work towards those goals. The five goals are:   1. Equitable access 2. Availability of land and resources 3. Adequate education, training, programming, connections, and support 4. Acceptability and respect of all participants  5. Agency of members to influence the space Sedgman, E. (2013). Public Produce: Growing Food in Public Spaces.  A Start-up Guide, Kamloops Food Policy Council. Retrieved from  Using examples from Kamloops, B.C., this resource provides tips and tools for starting, caring for, and sustaining public produce projects.  Walljasper, J. (2011). Elinor Ostrom’s 8 Principles for Managing the Commons, Commons Magazine. Retrieved from Ostrom’s research investigates how communities co-operate to share common-pool resources. These principles for managing the commons can be applied to community garden spaces:   1. Define clear group boundaries. 2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions. 3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules. 4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities. 5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior. 6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators. 7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution. 8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.”    112 Bowens, N. (n.d.), The Color of Food Map, Retrieved from This interactive map showcases food activism and programming led by people of color in North America and around the globe.   National Good Food Network (NGFN) Webinar Archive, Retrieved from The NGFN seeks to “move closer to a new food system that rewards sustainable production, treats growers and workers fairly, and improves the health of families and the wealth of communities with healthy, green, fair, affordable food.” Its webinar archive includes many great examples of how practitioners are implementing new food programs and policies with an emphasis on food justice.   Race Forward: Research, Tools, and Training, Retrieved from  Race Forward’s mission is to “build awareness, solutions, and leadership for racial justice by generating transformative ideas, information, and experiences.” They provide research, tools and trainings for organization to advance racial justice.     


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items