UBC Undergraduate Research

Campus greenscaping : management plan for the first rooftop garden at UBC Vancouver Knoll, Kelsey; Mussel, Kerry; Radley, Michelle; Severide, Megan; Van Horne, Kalyn 2012-04-09

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


18861-Knoll_K_et_al_SEEDS_2012.pdf [ 1.33MB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0108584.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108584-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108584-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108584-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108584-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108584-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108584-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report         Campus Greenscaping: Management Plan for the First Rooftop Garden At UBC Vancouver  Kelsey Knoll  Kerry Mussel Michelle Radley Megan Severide Kalyn Van Horne University of British Columbia LFS 450 April 9, 2012         Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. 1    CAMPUS GREENSCAPING: MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE FIRST ROOFTOP GARDEN AT UBC VANCOUVER LFS 450 UBC Food Sy stems Projec t  Scenari o 6   4/ 9/2012  T eam 11: Kel sey Knol l , Ker r y Mus sel , Michel le Radl ey, Megan Sever i de, and Kalyn Van Horne      2   Abstract   The new Student Union Building on the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver campus, which is scheduled for compl eti on in 2014, wil l feature a rooftop garde n with 166m 2  dedicated t o food cro p producti on.  This UBC Food S ystem Project wil l focus on creati ng a mana gement plan that wil l implement a comm unit y gard en sche me of mana gin g the ga rd en.  This rooftop gard en has the abil it y to posit ivel y impact the environmental, econo mi c, and social sus tainab il it y of th e UBC Food S ystem.  Methods were con ducted through determi ning if th ere was demand for com muni t y garden sp ac e on UBC campus , outl ini ng t he go als of the gard en b y meeti n g with stakeholders, revi e wing past U BCFS P pape rs, rese archin g the man a gement structure of othe r comm u nit y gard ens, and creati n g a mana gem ent plan b y determi ning the essential components of the roofto p ga rden b y performi n g a cost - benefit an al ysis .  It was determined th at ther e would be adequ ate interest in th e rooft op gard en and the goals of th e gard en shoul d be to be: student focuss ed, foster pee r - t o - p eer learni ng, of fer comm unit y buil ding opportuni ti es, prom ote food s yst em and sustainabil it y iss ues, enhanc e the sustainabil it y of the UBC Food S ystem, and be cost neu t ral. It was det ermined tha t the ga rden would need a coo rdinator in the form of a work stud y student, dir ec ted studi es student, or a paid posi ti on and the pros and cons of each of thes e opti ons was discussed.  Hav ing an AMS gardenin g cl ub to provide struct ure to the operati ons of the garden was also discussed.  The ru les that would need to be implemented into the plot - holders contra ct agr eem ent were also determined , discussed, and put into a draft contract.  Stakeholde r re c omm endati ons were divi ded int o fou r secti ons: pr e - gard en compl eti on, pre parati on for gard en openin g, annu al garden man a gement, and recomm endati ons fo r gen eral club functi ons.  The project was then evaluat e d based on a comparison between the obj ecti ves and the result s.              3   Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................4  2.0 Methodology..............................................................................................................6 2.1 Investigated demand for community gardens within the community.............................................6 2.2 Contacted stakeholders, Andrew Longhurst and Justin Ritchie....................................................6 2.3 Performed a literature review of past projects.................................................................................6 2.4 Reviewed management of other gardens.........................................................................................7 2.5 Determined essential components of community garden style management.................................8 2.6 Performed a cost-benefit analysis of these management structures in order to evaluate how they could be best applied to meet the goals of the rooftop garden..............................................................9 2.7 Composed our own management strategy based on our research that was tailored to the proposed rooftop garden at UBC.........................................................................................................10 2.8 Evaluated the plan for indicators of success.................................................................................10  3.0 Findings and Outcomes...........................................................................................10 3.1 Demand for community garden space...........................................................................................10 3.2 Contacted key stakeholders............................................................................................................12 3.3 Reviewed other garden’s management strategies..........................................................................13 3.4 Determined key components to a management plan.....................................................................14 3.5 Projected cost estimates and funding sources...............................................................................15 3.6 AMS garden club style management vs. student management board..........................................17 3.7 Rules and Plot-holder Contract Agreement..................................................................................17  3.8 Outcomes.........................................................................................................................................19  4.0 Discussion.................................................................................................................19 4.1 Garden Coordinator.......................................................................................................................19 4.2 AMS club style management..........................................................................................................20 4.3 Rules and Plot-holder Contract Agreement..................................................................................21  5.0 Stakeholder Recommendations...............................................................................22 5.1 Pre-garden Completion..................................................................................................................23 5.2 Preparation for Garden Opening...................................................................................................23 5.3 Annual Garden Management........................................................................................................24 5.4 Recommendations for General Club Function.............................................................................25  6.0 Scenario Evaluation.................................................................................................28 6.1 Comparison of Objectives and Results..........................................................................................28  6.2 Successes and Challenges..............................................................................................................29  7.0 Works Cited.............................................................................................................30  8.0 Media Release...........................................................................................................31  9.0 Appendix..................................................................................................................32  4   1.0 Introduction S cenario six of the 2012 UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) is “Campus Greenscaping: Management of the First Rooftop Garden at UBC Vancouver.” This scenario is based on the construction of a new Student Union Buil din g (SU B) projected for compl eti on in 2014. Th e design for the new SU B in clud es a rooftop g a rden which will featu re 166 m 2  of food crop producti on area. In ord er to ensure thi s croppi ng area is uti li z ed producti vel y, th e gard en will require a mana gement plan. This paper will address a ma nagement scheme that wil l  invol ve the producti on of food fo r personal use in the st yle of a comm unit y garden .   Rooftop gard ens have the potential to positi vel y impa ct the environmental, social, and econo mi c sust ainabili t y of the food s ystem at the UBC, Nor th American, and global l evels.   In th e contex t of the UBC food s ystem, growin g produce in rooftop gard e ns can reduc e the reli an ce of students and other campus residents on the produ ce of fer ed in campus groce r y stores. This can help to m ake a differen ce environmentall y, as item s p urchas ed from groc er y stor es invol ve m an y packa gin g mat erials.  In addit ion , reducin g  the demand on produce from campus gro cer y stor es can help to reduce the fossil fuel s emi tt ed through the transportati on of produce to UBC from other countries. Wit h the i mpl ementati on of man y rooftop ga rdens, thi s met hod of produ cti on has the powe r to reduc e the de mand on the North Ame rican and global food s ystems, mak ing food produ cti on muc h more sust ainable.  Rooftop ga rdens hav e t he potential to incre ase social sust ainab il it y thro ugh the sh ared producti on of food in a comm unit y space. In the contex t of the UBC food s yst em, rooftop gard ens ca n provide opportuni ti es for student s and other campus resi dents  to feel a sense of comm unit y.  Rooftop ga rdens can also provide educa ti onal opportuni ti es, such as for students to perform directed studi es and for teach ers to uti li z e gardens as learni ng spac es. In the contex t of the North American food s yst em, rooftop ga rdens can provide opportuni ti es for people to connect with their neig hbou rs and othe r people withi n their comm unit y. In the cont ex t of the global food s ystem, rooft op gard ens can provide opportuni ti es for the man y urb an cit iz ens of the globe to connect wit h nature and the food s ystem.  5     Rooftop gard ens also ha ve the potential to incre ase economi c sust ainabi li t y. In the contex t of the UBC food s ystem, rooft op gardens can provide students with a che ape r alt ern ati ve to loc al an d or gani c produce. Rooftop garden s would enabl e students t o gro w their own  food, ensuring that it is saf e and healt h y, without pa yin g the pr em ium prices demanded b y gro cer y sto res and farm ers mark ets. In the conte x t of the North American food s ystem, rooftop gard ens ca n provide food for peopl e who cannot affo rd fres h produce. Rooftop gardens could f uncti on as charit y gard en s wher e food could be pr oduced for us e in soup ki tchens. In the contex t of the glob al food s ystem, the implementation of man y roo ftop ga rdens could help to reduce th e costs for air condit ioni ng and heati n g  throu gh ins ulation , as th e rooftop ga rdens would act as a bu ff er for the buil ding. Thes e are only a few ex ampl es of the wa ys which rooftop gardens could be used to incre ase environmental, social, and economi c sust ainabil it y of the food s ystem at the UBC, North Am er ican, and global  lev els.  The UBCFSP “Vision Statement for a Sustainable UBC Food System” was discussed.         Group members refle cted that man y of th e prin cipl es ar e dire ctl y appli c able to the Rooftop Gard en, with onl y a few principles that ar e not appli cable. The Roof top Garden has the potentia l to functi on as a mode l of the UBCFS P visi on, and cou ld be used to promot e ed ucati on and aw aren ess of sust ainable food s ystems.  The value assum pti ons among group members were unanim ous. This included the assum pti ons that people  car e about sust ai nabil it y, and ar e will ing to make an effort in or der to make the food s ystem more sust ainable. That peopl e are int e rested in growin g their own food, and wo uld consi der it a desirabl e wa y to spend time and resour ce s due to the social, heal t h, and environmental be nefits. These assum pti o ns support our final assum pti on:  that people would be in terested in a roo ftop ga rden proje ct, and woul d also be int erested in volunt eerin g for such as project. Th is project was approa che d with these assum pti on s in mind; the assum pti ons were lat er supported b y the dema nd that was discover ed fo r comm unit y ga rden plot s.    Group members agr eed with all of the UBCFS P visi on statement principles, even the principles that did not appl y dire ctl y to t he garden. Thus, it  did not seem necess ar y to add or remove an y principle s f rom the visi on statement.  6   2.0 Methodology A series of steps wer e ta ken in order to creat e a comm unit y garden st yle mana gement plan, all of which are l aid out below in detail .  2.1 Investigated demand for community gardens within the community W ait li sts for  garden plot s in other comm unit y ga rd ens in the neighbou rhood of UBC campus such as the Universit y Nei ghbour hoods Association, (UN A) and Acadia ga rdens  were looked at . Wait li st information was found on comm unit y ga rden websit es. These s pecific ga rdens were cho sen for the reason that th e y are comm unit y gard ens that are in the sam e nei ghbou rhood as the UBC SUB rooftop ga rden will be, an d therefor e the roo ftop gar den ma y serv e as an ov er flow from these w ait li sts . This was done to ensur e that a comm unit y gard en st yl e rooftop garde n is in demand and would be a succ ess wit hin the neighbour hood of UBC.  2.2 Contacted stakeholders, Andrew Longhurst and Justin Ritchie Andrew Lon ghu rst is the New SUB en ga gement c oordinator and is in cha r ge of inte grati n g student ideas int o the design and mandate of the rooftop garden.  He provided a link between the go als of the new SUB stakeholde rs and th e student bod y. J usti n Ri t chie is the AMS sust ainabili t y coordinator. He is in char ge of comm unicati ng UBC sust ainabili t y poli cies, pr ocedures and ev ents and providi ng information on the ecolo gical impact of acti vit ies that happen in the SUB and the AMS . The rooftop ga rden is an in it ia ti ve to reduce th e environment al impact and incre ase the sust ainabili t y of the new SUB. J usti n served as a source of information  for the goals the AMS has fo r the roo f top gard en proje ct and of project  limi tations based on avail able fundin g. Both Andrew  and J usti n were contacted b y email, their names ,  and conta ct info obtained from the  LFS 450 tea chi ng te am.  2.3 Performed a literature review of past projects The LFS 450 tea chin g te am provided ac cess to past reports on the propose d rooftop gard en. Two reports were reviewed: a previous 450 group proje ct b y Amundson et al. (2 010) and a dir ected studi es report 7   b y McM ahen (2010 ). Th ese proje cts wer e revie w ed in ord er to det ermine where further rese arch was needed in terms of compos ing a mana gement plan fo r the ga rden.  2.4 Reviewed management of other gardens R esearch ed mana gement strate gies of other comm unit y and student run gar dens in order to opti ons and nec essi t ies in management.   For the reason that the new SU B rooftop ga rden has simi lar featur es to each st yl e of garden but diff er enti ates in terms of conte x t and goals, gardens wer e ex ami ned based on thei r successes in their respe cti ve contex ts.  The gard ens rese ar ched i ncluded the Orchard Gar den, the Universit y Nei ghbourhoods Association (UNA) community gardens, the Acadia community garden, other universities’ gardens (such as McGill Universit y, Trent Univer sit y, and Unive rsit y of Toronto), and muni cipal comm unit y garden guides (Be rman, 1997; Emerson, n.d.; City of Vancouv er, 2011).  In order to find communi ty ga rden resourc es, a goo gle search was condu cted f or “community garden resources Vancouver” and “community garden management”. The reasoni ng behind the ga rde ns sele cted fo r eval uati on are to foll ow: the Orcha rd gard en was selected fo r the reason th at it is a student run initi ati ve operati n g on UBC campus . Although it does not functi on like a comm unit y ga rden, it is run b y a group of volunt eer students who are int e rested in gro wing food and as such sh ares t his in comm on with the goals of the new SU B gar den. The UN A and Acad ia comm unit y gard ens oper ate on the UBC campus , with their prim ar y memb ers as residents of the ca mpus who are not ne cessa ril y stude nts.  This  differs from the SUB gard en in that it wil l serve on and of f - c ampus residents, bot h students and non - students of UBC.  Despit e these diff eren ce s, plot hol ders of the SUB gard en and these comm unit y gar dens will have sim il ar needs, tim e const raint s, and pro x im it y to the garden.  Rese ar ch of othe r universit y gardens su ch as thos e at McGil l, Trent and Universit y of Toront o was undertaken in ord er to un derstand how anoth er bo d y of students used m ana gem ent structures on oth er campus run ga rdens. The se specific u nive rsiti es were chos en be cause the y had alre ad y been partiall y resea rched b y McMah en (2010) in her report on th e proposed roo ftop gard e n. Other universiti es student ga rden s  face th e chall en ge of dec re ased student po pulation on campus during summer mont hs.  As su ch, thi s 8   resea rch provid ed opti ons for mana gem ent that can be empl o ye d on a univ ersit y campus as a studen t - run organiz ati on. Info rmati o n used from this rese arch included the foll owing: contracts and agre ements , esti mates of costs based on the siz e an d capa cit y of the gard en, tool s requi red, mana gement strate gi es throughout the summer, i deas for funding, educ ati onal components, food di stribut ion, food securit y and sust ainabili t y.  2.5 Determined essential components of community garden style management Once a compl ete ev aluation of potenti al mana gem ent strate gies was car ried out, it was evident that there were  sev er al essent ial elements requir ed in the mana gem ent of a com muni t y st yle, student - run ga rden. These included human mana gement posi ti ons, rules and ex pectations of th e garden and costs . From thi s, several steps were taken i n order to res ear ch the op ti ons for these essential elements withi n the realm of the UBC SUB garden.  In te rms of human man a gem ent posit ions, resear c h was carried out fo r a gard en coordin ator posit ion through UBC Work - S tudy, throu gh a full - ti me pai d posi ti on or through Dir ected Studies. First work stud y ga rden coo rdinator posit ions were investi gated be cause of th e relative su cc ess of this posi ti on at the Orcha rd Garden. Se condl y a full - t im e paid garden coordina tor posit ion that was not necessa ril y occupied b y a student was investi gated. This po sit ion was considered fo r the long - te rm comm it ment invol ved that would ensure ye a r - lon g garden man a ge ment, as found b y McGil l and Trent Uni versit y ga rden. Thirdl y a garden coordinator posit ion facil it ated through Di rect ed Studi es was investi gat ed in which one or two stude nts would have the opportun it y to gain ac ademi c cred it to create and implemen t a Rooftop Garden man a gem ent team. Stemmi ng f rom this, the mana gement of th e Rooftop Garden withi n the realm of AMS club styl e mana gement was investi gat ed.  Club mana gement was chosen becaus e it is a student - run init iative, which alread y has a gove rnanc e structure that resembl es that of a comm unit y g ard en. The requirements and criteria of an AMS club we re inv esti gated.   Rules, re gulations ,  and ex pectations of gard en use rs in other gard ens wer e also resea rch ed. From this a garden - user contra ct was put forwa rd that laid o ut rules, ex pectations and respo nsibi li ti es of plot - holders. 9   R ules for the gard en wer e based on the needs of the AMS and par ameters stemm ing from the ga rde n coordinator posit ion, and an ex ampl e contract fro m Acadia Communi t y Garden. Th e AMS ex pressed the need for a contr act for pl ot hol d ers and a coo rdina tor to oversee the op er ati ons of the gard en.  The contract was modeled after the Ac adia Communi t y Gard en contract wit h some ch an ges to meet specifics of the Rooftop Garden.  Th e Acadia Communi t y Gard en contract was used becaus e it is an e x ampl e of a co ntract that has been in used fo r a success ful comm unit y ga rden in a campus setti ng.  Costs to run a garden we re investi gated in terms o f how other ga rdens pa y for their input s. Estim ates were mad e of wh at costs will be for the Rooftop Garden dep endent on wh at t ype of mana gem ent posit ions were implemented. Cost esti mates were m ade bas ed on the siz e and functi on of the proposed Rooft op Garden. Estimates were based on other gardens’ experience, and tailored to the expected costs for the R ooftop Garden.  Garden suppl ies were assum ed to be mid - ran ge price beca use the quali t y of a tool makes a sig nificant dif fer ence in i ts longevit y (Berman, 19 97). Gard en suppl y costs were investi gat ed at ret ail store s. The quanti t y of supplies was  esti mated from the si z e of the garden, and  the  lifeti me s  of tool s were ba sed on warr anti es of the ex pecte d life of the  tool s.  From thi s, the annual depre ciat ion rate was calculated to determi ne the annu al am ount that shou ld be set aside for tool repla cement and purchas e of supplies.  Additionally, t ypic al plot - holder fe es wer e investi gated to determi ne wh at would is a rea sonable amo unt to char ge plot - hold ers for a garden plot for on e yea r.  Potential funding sourc e s were also  investi gat ed based on the costs esti mated to start and maint ain a garden in order to supplement mone y avail able from plot - holder fees.     2.6 Performed a cost-benefit analysis of these management structures in order to evaluate how they could be best applied to meet the goals of the rooftop garden  From these consi derati on s, the advanta ges and disadvanta ges o f each  opti on were evaluated. Mana gem ent strat e gies were ev aluated in terms of their capa cit y to meet the goals laid out b y stakeho lders for the SUB rooftop gard en. This was done in ord er to ensure th at the goal s of ke y stakeholde rs wer e met and to promot e the overall su ccess of the rooftop g a rd en at UBC.  1 0   2.7 Composed our own management strategy based on our research that was tailored to the proposed rooftop garden at UBC  M ana gement strat e gies  consi dered the most fe asibl e  for  lon g - term man a ge ment of the SUB Roofto p Garden wer e re comm end ed  based on thi s anal ysis .  2.8 Evaluated the plan for indicators of success Upon compl eti on, thi s project was ev aluated usin g quali tative and quanti ta ti ve methods of anal ysis to compare the project obj e cti ves to the project out c omes.  This included:  a.  Evaluati ons for thorou gh ness and compl eten ess in the plan components thr ough comp arison with other gard en mana gemen t plans;  b.  Quanti tative anal ysis of the level of co rrespond en ce with the proje ct stakeh olders;  c.  P resenti ng the pl an for fe edback from stakeholde r s; and  d.  Evaluation of the number and quali t y of academi c sources and relev ant gard en ex ampl es on which the plan was based.  3.0 Findings and Outcomes 3.1 Demand for community garden space  T ab le 1 .  Char ac ter istics a nd de mand le vels o f co mmu nit y gar d ens a) in clo se pro xi mit y to UB C or b) cur r ently i n oper atio n on the UB C ca mp u s or on other Can ad ian univer sit y ca mp uses. Al l data was gat her ed via e mai l co r r esp o nd ence wit h gar d en c o o r d inato r s exce p t fo r  the UVI C gar d en, fo r whic h t he data wa s co llecte d fro m the officia l gar d en web site.  Garden Name Location Size Wait List: Availability: Other Notes: Arbutus Victory  Community Garden  East Blvd. 50 - 57th & 65 - 68th Avenues, Vancouver  41 plots  92  - anyone   Kitsilano Community Garden  6th Ave and Arbutus Street, Vancouver  4 2 plots  20 - 30  - anyone   Maple Community Garden  1900 Block West 6th Ave (north side), Vancouver  44  28  - anyone   Cypress Community Garden (Cooperative)  1800  Block West 6th Ave (north side), Vancouver  69  40  - anyone   Kerrisdale Community Garden   East Boulevard/Angus/60th (7599 Angus Dr), Vancouver  30  30  - anyone   NEU Garden  1st Ave & Wylie St, Vancouver  45  103  - anyone   Pine Community Garden  1600 & 1700 Block W 6th Ave (north side), Vancouver  92  178  - anyone   1 1     Demand for comm unit y ga rden spa ce on and arou nd UBC campus is gr eate r than the suppl y of garden plot s.  This was found from discussion wit h ga rden coo rdinators fro m other comm unit y ga rd ens (on UBC campus , withi n 15 km of campus , and other Canadian universi t y cam puses). Becaus e of this, we assum e that there will be a lar ge demand for Rooft op Garden plot s.   In cit y of Van couver, de mand is ver y high for co mm unit y garden sp ace.  Three Vancouv er ga rden s were consi dered, all of th em reported a greater de mand than there are plot s avail able.  Some some potential ga rdene rs repo rted havin g to wait sev eral ye ars fo r a plot (Kitsi lano Communi t y Gar den coo rdinator , personal communi cati on, March 28, 2012; Sar a Orchard, personal communi cati on, March 23, 2012 ).  Coordina tors from comm unit y gard ens affiliated with other Canadian univ ersiti es reported l evels of demand which eit he r ade quatel y m et or ex ceed ed ga rden spa ce suppl y. Uni versiti es that reported th e highest levels of demand were th ose had made the gard en space av ai lable to non - st udent facult y, staf f and comm unit y members. Th ese gard ens used a variet y of me asures in o rder to encoura ge student partici pati on and ensure comm it ment during summer mont hs, i ncludi ng en coura gin g gr oup ownership of plot s over indi vidual owner ship, lac k of lease fees fo r studen t gard ene rs, and the provi sion of rent - fr ee comm unal drop -University Neighborhood Association (UNA) Community Garden  University of British Columbia  40 plots  yes  - residents of UNA associated residence complexes   UMSU Community G arden University of Manitoba  2 - 3 acres  none - students, staff, faculty, community  - no individual plots - one large community plot (available as a drop - in site) Seager Complex Garden  University of Saskatchewan  4 0 plots  none (meets demand) - residence building lease holders  - main users are families  and international students UVIC Campus Community Garden  University of Victoria  90 (48 individual, the rest communal) 26 (9 students, 17 staff)  - students, staff, faculty as plotholders  - community volunteers - managed jointly through a club and an executive  garden team University of  Calgary  Campus Community Garden  University of Calgary  n/a  50 (20 students) students, staff, faculty, community  - most students work i n the rent- free communal plots  - non- students in leased plots; - run jointly through a club and an ‘Advisory Committee’ of non - students  1 2   in plots. Garden mana ge ment by a student - run clu b or through th e guidanc e of one or two coordinat ors wer e the most comm onl y repo rted st yles of mana geme nt structure .  3.2 Contacted key stakeholders  In discussi on with J usti n and Andre w, it was estab li shed there were six primar y go als for the Rooft op Garden sp ace on th e new SUB buil ding.   1.  Student focused The primar y goal o f the garden is to be a resour ce for stude nts — a resourc e as a plac e to get local an d nutrit ious food, to develop ga rdenin g and food pro cessi ng skill s.  Also a res ource to lea rn mana geme nt and leadership skill s whil e en ga gin g with the man a ge ment strate g y and planni ng ev ents.  The Garden will focus on making plot s accessi b le to students and tar get t hem to enga ge with it on all levels.  It will develop student comm unit y amon g plot - h olders and betw een plot - holders and the lar ger stu dent bod y.   2. Peer-to-peer learning through formal research and informal skill-sharing  The Rooftop Gard en will all ow for res ear ch proje c ts and studi es with in the ga rden.  Th e Gard en will facil it ate peer - t o - p eer lea rning fo rmall y th rou gh research, but also informally be tw een plot - holde rs.  A wide variet y of learnin g can t a ke place about growin g crops, prepa ring food, or livi ng more sust ainabl y in other wa ys.     3. Community building between and among students and non-students It is hoped that the garde n will foster a di verse co mm unit y among plot - hol ders throu gh lea rning, coll aborati on betwe en pl ot - holders, sharin g of pro duce, food pr epar ati on an d working to gether.  The Rooftop Garden is prima ril y a student - focused project, ho wever, the re is inter est in invol ving non - stud ent populations, such as facu lt y, kids that live on cam pus, and other residents on campus who wish to be invol ved in their neighbo urhood. The Garden also hopes to make conne cti ons to people in other foo d producti on projects on campus , such as the UBC Farm and the Orcha rd Ga r den.  Other co nnecti ons can also be made to those not pre vious l y en ga ged in sustainabil it y ini ti ati ves.  The Garden hop es to facil it ate 1 3   networkin g betwe en sust ainabili t y ini ti ati ves and food producti on on camp us, for all those intereste d  in being connected.     4. Outreach to non-garden populations and promoting awareness of food system and sustainability issues  The Gard en does not onl y want to tar get those alr ead y invol ved in sustaina bil it y ini ti ati ves, but also to enga ge those who ar e ne w to the concept of sust ai nable food s ystems and local food produ cti on.  The Gard en hopes to en ga ge a diversi t y of students, both wit h lot s of educati on about th ese iss ues, and no edu cat ion at all .  The Gard en hopes to enga ge thes e indi viduals through ev ents and creat ing a welcomin g, non - thr eatenin g environment.  The Garde n also hopes to raise awa reness of the importan ce of local food and th e cap acit y ou r cit ies have to produc e fo od.  It wil l be a mic rocos m of a food s ystem.     5. Enhancing the sustainability of the UBC food system and reducing the footprint of UBC buildings.     The Rooftop Gard en aim s to reduce the ecolo gic al footprint of the new SU B b y redu cin g storm  wat er overflow, reducin g buil ding he ati ng and cooli n g costs , increasin g air quali t y, a nd contribut ing to the local produce suppl y.  6. Cost neutral The Gard en shoul d not draw funds from the AMS , unless there are spe cial circumst anc es, such as large proje cts that can ap pl y to the sust ainabili t y fund.  Mana gement shoul d aim for cost re cover y, and an y addit ional funds be put back int o garden projects.   3.3 Reviewed other garden’s management strategies In reviewin g past reports about the new SU B Roof top Garden (M cMahen, 2010; Amundson et al. 2010), we used info rmati on about hum an resour ce s and financial info rmati on about mana gement str ate gies empl o yed at other ga rden s simi lar to the Rooftop Garden.   Trent Universit y and Mc Gill Universit y hav e full - ti me paid ga rden coo rdin ators that mana ge th e comm unit y gard ens.  Coordinators ar e paid throu gh unde r gradu ate student fees, or grants (McM ahe n, 2010).   1 4   The Orc h ard Garden on UBC campus is not a co mm unit y garden, rather it produces food for Agor a Café and is a le arnin g sp ace fo r the te achin g pro gram.  It is mana ged b y a work - stud y student, and i s overseen b y a boa rd of facult y membe rs.  Labour i s largel y ca rried out b y t he work - stud y student an d student volunt eers (McM ahen, 2010).  One of the recomm end ati ons from previous Rooft op Garden Repo rts was t o develop the capacit y fo r rooftop garde n work - stud y students wit hin the AM S . Sim ilar to the adviso r y comm it tee for the LFS Orcha rd Garden, a Rooftop Gard e n Advisor y Comm it tee s hould be formed.  This comm it tee will likel y hav e sim il ar compos it ion to the curre nt gard en comm it tee fo r the design phase, and can potentiall y transit ion fro m the ex ist ing comm it tee.  Muni cipal comm unit y ga rdens are t ypi call y lead by volunt ee rs that form an ex ecuti ve.  Often the group will form a not - for - profit or ganiz ati on.  This makes appl yin g for fun ding and gett ing donati o ns easier, and offe rs structur e to the leade rship.  The diver s e skill set that is brought to this st yle of m ana gem ent is embrac ed b y the gardeni ng comm unit y.  Most co mm unit y gardens sel ect t heir ex ecuti ves at an ann ual gen eral me eti ng th rou gh a democr ati c proc ess, all owing peopl e to resi gn and be nomi nated at the sa me tim e each ye ar (Berman, 1997 ; Emerson, n.d.; VCAN, 2008).  3.4 Determined key components to a management plan In reviewin g past Rooftop Garden reports and inv esti gati n g other garden m ana gement plans, the ke y components for a Gard en mana gement plan were determi ned.  Fi rstl y, a mana gement plan must cle arl y define the rol es and responsi bil it ies of the management —what t he man a ge ment shoul d accompl ish and how decisi ons are to be made.  The plan should also de fine the roles of indi vidu als to ensure all the res ponsi bil it ies are comp leted.  It shou ld includ e how these posi ti ons relate to one another.  A man a gement plan should include strategi es for tr anspar enc y an d transfer abil it y in mana gem ent.   Secondl y, it was found that a mana gement plan should include a bud get to ensure ther e are suffi cie nt funds for proje cts and ma int enance.  If fundin g be yo nd plot - holder l ease fees is required, the pl an shoul d include other sourc es of funds, such as grants or donors.  1 5       Thirdl y, it was found that most management plans inc lude a garden contract betw een plot - holders and mana gem ent, clea rl y comm unicati ng ex pectations of responsi bil it ies for both parti es.  Garden co ntracts are ve r y sim il ar, but are usuall y alt e red to the spe cific goals and poli cies of the gard en.   3.5 Projected cost estimates and funding sources Bec ause it is not being buil t b y a group of int e rest ed comm unit y membe rs, as are most muni cipal comm unit y gard ens, man agement posi ti ons must have some incenti ve.  Also, man y of the start - up costs that are si gnificant f or other comm unit y gardens are no t paid by the man a gers of the garden.  Rath er, the y are covered in the const ructi on of the Rooftop Gard e n and AMS insurance.  These include bed const ru cti on, compos t bins, a tool shed, irrigation install ati on, insurance, an d buil ding ma int enance.   Costs that need to be rec overed in the man a geme nt of the Rooftop Garden include costs of bu yin g tool s and ga rden suppl ies , maintenance of gard en i nfrastructur e (b eds, com post bins, tool replaceme nt, irrigation), comm unit y enga gement ini ti ati ves (ed ucati onal workshops and events, adve rtisement) an d comm unicati ons ,  and co mm unit y buil din g around the Garden.     Funding for thes e costs is avail able to the Rooftop Garden primaril y th rou gh membership fees.  Additi onal fu ndin g is avail able throu gh fund raisi ng events.  As an AMS c lub, there is funding avail able  to match fund ra isi ng effo rts of the club.  The mana gem ent team could appl y fo r grants, an d seek donors for ga rden suppl ies.  The AMS sust ainabili t y fund is also avail abl e for  one - ti me fundin g nee ds for projects.   Special ev ents and workshops could ch a rge a small admi ssi on fee to cover the cost of supp li es (eg. a cannin g wor kshop wou ld char ge to cov er the co st of food and equipm ent ).  Based on esti mates, the rooftop ga rden wil l ne ed $2,300 .00  in the first ye a r to purchase all the tools , and $975 .00  in subseque nt ye ars.  This is significantly less than McGill’s costs ( McMahon, 2010 ) because there is no paid posit ion in the mana gement str ate g y.  With 60 plot - holders pa yin g $15 .00 - $20 .00  per yea r, the Rooftop Garden would receiv e $900 .00 -  $120 0 .00  annuall y.  Costs for the first ye ar could be co vered b y fundraisi n g ef forts, and t he AMS club fund.  The AMS will match up to up to $450 .00 .  With club fees and $450 .00  fund - raised and $ 450 .00  from the club fu nd, the remainin g $200 .0 0 -  $500 .00  could be sou ght from 1 6   donors or the AMS sust ainabili t y fund.  Garden su ppl y stores h ave be en kn own to provide tools for sust ainabili t y and comm unit y ini ti ati ves ( Be rman , 1997; Emerson, n.d.).  The AM S will cover the cost of const ructi on of beds, compos t bins, a tool shed, irri gati on installation, insurance, and on going buil ding maintenanc e.  Garden mana gement will co ver the cost of pu rchasin g and maintaining a tool suppl y, maintenance of gard en struct ures includi n g irri gati on, and educati on/communi cati o n ini ti ati ves such as even ts and workshops.     We resear ched othe r man agement structur es requir ed for the suc cess of th e garden.  Th ese include a garden coo rdina tor throu gh dire cted studi es, work - stud y posi ti ons ,  or a pai d  posi ti on.   The McGil l Universit y rooftop garde n funds a permanent ye ar - round full - ti me coordinator of th e garden. In addit ion to thi s the y hir e a summer student for the gro wing s eason. As such the operati n g costs of the garden are an a ddit ional $30,000 for wages on top of the cost of materials and other start - up costs (McMah e n, 2010). Their fundin g for thi s posi ti on comes from a variet y of sourc es but is prim aril y given b y grants. T rent Universit y also hires a full -ti me gard en coo rdinat or. Funds ar e coll ect ed from a $1.50 under gr aduate st udent f ee tot all in g ~$10, 000 (McMahen, 2010 ).  The LFS Orchard Gard e n is coordinated b y a wo r k - stud y student who is fu nded by th e UBC farm and whose wages are subsi diz ed by UBC work - stud y. Di ffic ult ies ha ve been encount ered b y the LFS Orchard Garden in keepin g enou gh volunt ee rs for the summ er growin g se ason. Addit ionall y, fr equent turnover in coordi nators due to the nature of the work - stud y pro gram h ave caused a lack in consist e nc y. Th er e ar e seve ral rul es  that appl y to wo rk - stud y whi ch are l aid out as follows :   A  work - stud y student must be a domesti c student   T he empl o ye r must be a UBC facult y or staff me mber with a UBC pa yroll account   T he empl o ye r wil l be rei mbursed $9 .00 /hour that the work - stud y student works, but the empl o ye r must cover the rem ainder of the pa y wage .  Work - stud y students are t ypi cal l y paid $16.00/ hour.   A work - stud y student enr oll ed in the summer program must meet the foll owing criteria:  1 7   o be enroll ed in at le ast 6 credit s  o work a max im um of  20 hours/week fo r a tot al of 300 hours  o compl ete their 300 hours between Ma y1st and Au gust 31st   A  work - stud y student enr oll ed in the winter pro gra m must meet the foll owing criteria:  o be enroll ed in at le ast 9 credit s  o work a max im um of 10 hours/week fo r a to tal of 300 hours  o compl ete their 300 hours between Septemb er 1st and April 30th  A directed studi es studen t coordinator would man age the ga rden in ex chan ge for credit re ceived through the dir ected stud ies program. A dir ected studi es student must complete 80 hours of voluntee r work in order to gain the credit re quired for the course. Th e y must also report to a supervisor/m entor who ov ersees their volunt eer hours.  3.6 AMS garden club style management vs. student management board   Incorpor ati on of an Alma Mater Societ y (AMS ) ga rden club would provide the rooftop gard en with a pre - det ermined mana ge ment structure. All AMS clubs are required to foll ow the specific stru cture and guidelines provid ed b y the AMS and the Student Admi nist rati ve Comm ission (SAC). This includes the creati on of a club consti t uti on, a budget plan, and a one - ye ar plan.   A n alt ernati ve to an AM S gard en club could be a student management boa rd. This woul d be a mana gement boa rd comp osed of student volunteer s int erested in gard ening. The number of man a ge ment posi ti ons would be dependent upon the number of volunt e ers interested in participati ng in the m ana gement board. The mor e volunt e ers that becom e invol ved , the lighter the workload would be for indi viduals on the mana gement boa rd.  3.7 Rules and Plot-holder Contract Agreement  I t was cle ar that plot - hol ders would  need to si gn a lease contr act that out li ned the rules of the gard en and that would help the garden coo rdinator man a ge conflicts withi n the gar den.  T he con clusi on was made that plot - holders would need to agr ee to be on cam pus ye ar - round to care fo r their plot .  This would include 1 8   the summ er semester wh en man y students would be awa y.  In orde r to ens ure that as man y students as possi ble wil l be able to use the gard en, plot - ho lder s will not be guar anteed t he same plot the foll owin g ye a r.   Due to the timi ng of the growin g se ason, the contra ct wil l begin  M ar ch 1st and plot - holders wil l  lease their plot for a full calen dar yea r.  Due to the nee d for a s ystem of ensurin g that plot - holders are ca ring fo r their plot s, it was decide d that a system of che cking in and out of the gard en would be needed.  Bas ed on the plans of the AMS , the Rooftop Garden will contain a tool shed.  A rule ma y ne ed to be included in t he contract about the us e of the tools and for them to remain in the Rooftop Ga rden ar ea.   T he contra ct from Acadi a Park Comm unit y Gard en was reviewed for an y ex ampl e rules; in the following pa ra gr aph the rules that ma y be useful for the Rooftop Gard en ar e listed.  Their contr ac t included a rule about plot - holders fo rfeit ing th eir plot  prior to the end of the year.  In cl uded in this was the fact t hat plot -holders could choose or find another resident to ta ke over the plot .  The re was a rule in cluded about each plot - holder contrib uti ng four hours of volunt ee r time for the maint en ance of comm on areas.  Acadia Park plot - holders are requir ed to remove all items from their plot before passi ng i t on to the nex t gardene r.  This includes trell isi ng, post s, and an y other items.  Any struct ur es on the ed ges of plot s that ma y be imp osing on a nei ghbourin g plot are not allowed.  Growin g ma rijuana or other ille gal subs tances in the Acadia Pa rk ga rden is prohibit ed.  Plot - holders mus t agree to o nl y use environmentall y friendl y fe rtili z ers, pest and weed control measures.  In ord er to respe ct fami li es living ne arb y, ga rdenin g can onl y take pl ace betwe en 8:00am and sunset in the Acadi a Park garden.  Wate ring is done by plot - holde rs only fo r their own plot s and running water cannot be left unatt ende d.   S ince the student coordin ator would likel y be start ing their proj ect in Septe mber or Januar y, appli cati ons could be begin prior to the beginni ng of the semester.  Applica nts woul d need to fill out an appli cati on form and hav e it returned to the coordi n ator prior to the appli c ati on deadli ne .  3.8 Outcomes  T he main ex pected outco me for thi s project is a st udent - run comm unit y - ga rden - st yl e mana gement plan that is cost - neutral and invol ves peer - t o - p eer educati on. The garden m ana gement plan is ex pect ed to 1 9   propose mana gement pri maril y b y students, wit h students taking up mana gement posi ti ons and participati ng in gard enin g acti vit ies. The garden m ana gem ent plan is ex pected to be cost neutral, per formi n g an accurat e anal ysis of the costs of ru nning the ga rden and offs ett ing them with an affor dable student plot - holder fee. Furthermo re the ga rden mana gement structur e is ex pected to be secu re, sta ble and ef ficient in its operati on, taking int o ac count all posi ti ons that are required i n the mana gement of a comm unit y garden and ho w those posi ti ons will be fil led.  4.0 Discussion 4.1 Garden Coordinator   A full - ti me paid garden coordinator would provide the rooftop gard en with a long - t erm mana ger wh o would be comm it ted to overseein g the op erati ons of the gard en and ens u re that it was run in a smoo th and efficient mann er. This op ti on would maintain consi stenc y in the man a geme nt b y red ucin g turnover caused b y alt ernati n g students. Disa dvanta ges to this opti on are primaril y the cost of funding a year - round posi ti on. As evi denced b y both the M cGill and Trent Unive rsity ga rdens, the costs of hiring a full - ti me coordinat or are high and funding sou rces can be variable. Giv en the mandate of th e roofto p ga rden to be cost - neutr al in its operati ons, the opti on is likel y not feasibl e for th e UBC SUB roo ftop gard e n.    A garden coordinator fac il it ated through work - stud y would provid e mana gement of the rooftop ga rden b y a stud ent, wit h wages subs idi z ed by the UBC work - stud y pro gra m. This would be sim il ar to the garden coo rdinator posit ion of the LFS Orchard Garden. Some ben efits to thi s option includes the lower cost to the AMS in coming up with funding fo r wa ges. Wit h UBC work - stud y s ubsi diz ing wages the cos t to the AMS would be much lower. Addit ionall y it woul d make sure the garden wa s student run which is in keeping with the goals of th e roof top gard en. Disadv anta ge s include the work term restrictions which redu ce consi stenc y amon g gard e n coordinators. The LFS Orcha rd gard en stru ggled with maint aini ng consi stenc y in mana gement structu r e be cause of th e fr equent turn over of coo rdinators.   A  directed studi es posi ti on is the third opti on for facil it ati ng a garden coord inator. This opt ion would not be paid, but the student would have the option to gain credit from their work in mana gin g the  ga rden. The 2 0   benefits to thi s option are that it is facil it ated by st udents and is cost - neutral . It would all ow for a stu dent who is dedicated to the mana gement of the garden, fo r the credit rec eived from putt ing in 80 hours of wor k over 3 mont hs. Disadvan tages include the fa ct that it may promot e the same inco nsis tenc y as the work - stud y posi ti on being that it is course - bas ed and the refo r e turnover could be fr equ ent from term to term. Th ere could be a possi bil it y of a y ear long (Septembe r until April ) directed studi es fo r 6 credit s which would allo w for more consi stenc y. Additi onall y, more th an one dir ected studi es student cou ld be involved in coordinati ng the ga rden se en as no fundin g is requi red fo r wa ges.  4.2 AMS club style management The incorpor ati on of an AMS gard en club would require the creati on of a club consti tut ion, a budget plan, and a one - yea r plan . The club consti tut ion would provide the gard en with specific ex ecuti ve posit ions, filled by students that vol unteer bas ed on their int e rest i n gardenin g. Th ese ex ecuti ve posi ti ons would include a club president, a vice - p resident, a tre asure r and an publi c relations and outreach office r. The bud get plan would provide the gard e n with a frame work to plan out the income and co sts of a functi oning r ooft op ga rden, as well as club membe rs hip and events. The on e - ye a r plan would provide the garden with a pro gra m of acti vit ies and events, pla nned enou gh ah ead of ti me to gain p articipati on through event promot ions.  The implementation of a student managemen t boa rd would requir e less of an ini ti al workload compared to an AMS gar den club. Howev er, wit h out the comm it ments and structure invol ved in an AMS club, vol unteer students ma y resi gn due to bus y s chedules or a dec reas e in int erest. Furthe r ch all en ges are presented b y the conflicti ng timi ng of th e growin g season with school seme ster timi ng -  the hei ght of the gro wing s eason oc curs when the least num ber of students are pr esent on campus . Efforts to ensure and maintain student commi tment and investm ent in the  garden will be critical towards the suc cess of th is project.  A full descriptio n of how a club - st yl e mana gemen t structure will facil it ate the garden obj ecti ves is included below in Table 2.  2 1   T ab le 2  Go als of roo fto p gar den and ma na ge ment strateg ies  4.3 Rules and Plot-holder Contract Agreement A major obstacle in deci ding when to b egin the le ase yea r of the plots is the fact that the growin g season and the school ye ar do not coincide.  Man y students do not live on campus in the summer mont hs, which is the majorit y of the  growin g season.  A solut ion is to have plot - holders agr ee that the y woul d be on or near campus throu gho ut the ye ar to care for the ir plot .  Init iall y it se eme d natural to have to plots turned over on Januar y 1st, but this was replac ed with the idea of havin g the plots become av ail able to the nex t plot -holders on March 1st.  This woul d all ow spring and summer crops to be st arted earl y and all ow for cold -season crops to be us ed all winter.   Recordin g plot - holders at tendance in the garden co uld be in the form of a si mpl e writ ten log fo r signin g in and out or a co mpu ter s ystem wh ere plo t - holders would use a car d to swipe in and out.  There ma y be some iss ues with pape rs goin g missi ng with a writ ten log, but compute r s ystem would dep end on the Goal Management strategy Student focused  Student - run  Democrati c bod y of students  Priorit y given to student plot - holders  Peer - t o - pe er learnin g  Mana gement duti es will include:  -           workshop and eve nt coordinator will plan educati onal events for gard en members  -           comm unicati ons ex ecuti ve will facil it ate net working between plot - holders  Fosters communi t y  Mana gement duti es will include:  -           workshop and eve nt coordinator will plan social events for ga rden membe rs and non - members  -           comm unicati ons ex ecuti ve will facil it ate networking between plot - holders  Outreach and promot in g awar eness  Mana gement duti es will include:  -           horticult ure ex ecu ti ve will maintain demons trati on plot s  -           site mana ger will ensure inform ati ve sign a ge is posted  -           comm unicati ons ex ecuti ve will publi s h blog post in gs  Enhancin g sust ainabili t y of UBC food consum pti on  Food producti on on campus by students, for stude nts  2 2   avail abil it y of this t yp e of system to the AMS .  Plot - holders would need to receiv e a ke y or a combi nati on to the tool shed, and it is possi ble that a deposi t ma y be requir ed for a  ke y in o rder to ensur e the y are re turned at the end of the year.  It would also be necess ar y fo r all tool s to remain in the Rooftop Gard en ar ea to ensu re the y do not go missi ng.  Based on th e Acadia Par k Garden contra ct, it see med benefici al to include a rule about plot - holders who wish to give up their plot prior to the end of the contra ct.  It ma y not b e feasibl e for the plot - hol der to be the one respon sibl e fo r fi nding a replac ement.  If there is an appli cant wait l ist the nex t plot - holder shoul d be someone from this list.  The Rooftop Gard en will have comm on ar eas with planters that wil l need to be maintained and thi s could be accompl ished by each plot - holder havin g to contribut e a certain amou nt of time to complete thi s maint enance.  Th e amount of time requir ed per plot - holde r would depend on the amount of plot - holders and the amo unt of tasks that need to be accompl ished.  The ru les of removi n g all item s from plot s before the end of th e year, not having stru ctu res that block other plot s, not growin g ille gal plant s, and onl y usin g environmental l y fri endl y fertili z ers and pest control methods would all be highl y appli cab le and suit able rules for the Roo fto p Garden.  These rules would all ow for easier tr ansit ions between ye ars and good relations betwe en fell ow plot - holders whil e keepin g the garden as environm entall y responsi ble as possi ble.  There ma y nee d to be tim e restrictions imposed on the garden ba sed on the hours of the SUB.  Dep ending on wh at t ype of irri gati on is implemented in the gard en there ma y need to be rule s about waterin g of plots.  A rule about not having runnin g water le ft unatt ended m a y be useful to avoid wat er wasta ge.  5.0 Stakeholder Recommendations  Foll owing evaluation of the findi ngs, it is bene fici al to organiz e the practi c al steps of establi shing and mana ging th e comm unit y ga rden int o two secti ons :  a)  a time - specific ph ased ap proach of acti on to establ ish and then annuall y ma int ain the ga rden; and  b)  a set of recomm ended ge neral ga rden pr acti ces.  2 3   5.1 Pre-garden Completion  In the ye a rs leadin g up to the projected compl eti on date of 2014 fo r the new SUB, furthe r res ear ch shoul d be conducted to ensure that the rooftop co mm unit y garden compl etel y ful fills its objecti ve of being a comm unit y - buil ding, edu cati onal, and sustainabil it y - p romoti ng compon ent of campus . The refo re, fr om this point forward the UBC S eed s Pro gram should init iate studi es with future LFS 450 students which fo cus on the coll aborati ve and co mm unit y - buil din g potent ial of the gard en. Are as for future resea rch ma y in clude:  a)  The cr eati on of a campus - wide garden board whic h would all ow repr esenta ti ves from all the gard ens on campus to interact an d coll aborate. This woul d eli mi nate redundan cies in the campus gard en movement and all ow for a more unified, efficie nt, and influential presen ce of gardens in the UBC system.  b)  M ethods of ex ploi ti ng the full educati onal pot enti al of the gard en. Fo r ex ampl e, through ga rden workshop planning, disp l a ys, tours, and demons tra ti ons – target ed at bot h plot - holders and non -ga rden use rs.  c)  The cr eati on of blo g or social network sit e which wo uld bot h promot e the ga rden and act as a platform for plot - holders and other ga rden stakeho lders to comm unicate an d buil d relations hips.  d)  The re cordin g of reporta ble metrics of garden fun cti on for inclusi on in the UBC Sustainabil it y Report.  5.2 Preparation for Garden Opening In the tim e period immediatel y prio r to the compl e ti on and opening of th e rooftop ga rden, certain acti ons shoul d be taken t o ini ti ate gard en mana ge ment. The AMS or the UBC Seeds Of fice shoul d approach the various fa cult ies on campus with  the proposals for one or sever al direct ed studies posit ions to act as garden coo rdinators. Alte rnati vel y, i f monetar y res traint s allow, the work st ud y of fice ma y be appro a ched with sim il ar proposals for work stud y posi ti ons. In order to en coura ge int e rdis cipl inar y invol vem en t in the rooftop garde n, it is reco mm ended that mul ti ple facult ies be off er ed the op portunit y to pla y a rol e in garden 2 4   mana gement. For ex ampl e, a partn ership betwe en the facult ies of Land and Food S ystems and Com merce has the potenti al to lead to a broader scope of consi de rati ons and ex pertise wit hin the mana gement stru cture of the garden.   Once the coo rdinators have been chos en, their immediate tasks will be to begin work on their own specific garden man agement plan and on th e establi shment of an AMS garden club.  5.3 Annual Garden Management  Once the roo ftop gard en has been est abli shed, the mana gement responsi bil it ies wil l flow on an annu al cyc le throu gh a gard en coordinator, club ex ecuti v e, and gen eral club mem ber structur e, a s illust rate d below in figur e 2.    Directed Studies/Work Study Student(s) Faculty Advisor/Supervisor Club Executive President Vice President Secretary Treasurer PR/Outreach General Club Members • Advertising  • Organization of events • Blog coordinator • General maintenance of common areas, equipment, etc.  • Carry out events/workshops/tours  • Update blog and outreach literature  • Provide general gardening advice to plotholders  • Mentor non - club volunteers  • Establish club  AMS • General building maintenance • Monetary support of club  • Manage club budget  • Manage garden equipment inventory  • Record garden metrics for reporting • Provide meeting agendas and minutes • Record lease contracts • Provide guidance and resources to student leader(s) The directed studies/work study student should lead club operations until the club is well-established • Co- chair club operations with president • Volunteer coordinator  • Oversee club operation • Call general meetings 2 5   Fig ur e 2 T he ma nage me nt s tru ctur e of the roo fto p gar d en, wi th resp o nsib il ities di vid ed a mo ng t he var io u s leve ls of ma na ge me nt .   It is important to note the gen eral stru cture of this mana gement team – with responsi bil it y filterin g down from a garden coor dinator who is in direct contact wit h the AMS and a facult y adviso r, to an ex ecuti ve club team, and finall y to gen eral club members . It is recommended that in the initial years of the club’s ex ist ence, coordinator po sit ions should be held b y directed studi es students due to their cost - e fficien c y and the rigid cost const raint s of the cost - neutr al gard e n budget. Be cause th e dir ected stu dies students will work under dire ct supervisi on of facult y adviso rs and in alignment with the AMS , it will be ensured that the coordinati on of the garde n will be ground ed in sound reason and in ali gnme nt wit h AMS objecti ves. Once the garden matu res after several ye ars of ex ist ence, ex perience and knowle dge will be gained in regards to mone y man a gement. At t his period of time, if it is deemed feasibl e bas ed on a bett er unde rstandin g of club budget fu ncti oning, it ma y be possi ble to of fer paid posit ions for ga rden co ordinators, potenti all y thr ough the work stud y pro gram.  5.4 Recommendations for General Club Function  In order to ensu re that th e rooftop gard en meets all its goals and ex pected outcomes, sever al recomm endati ons re gardi ng gen eral club functi on are included below. Thes e recomm end ati ons conc ern ga rden plot avail abil it y, plot appli cati on procedur e, and contr acts for plot holders.  Plot availability: Bec ause this gard en is meant student - c entred and student - driven, it is reco mm ended that the gard en pr ioriti z e student involvement in all aspects of the garden fun cti on. Plot s assignment shoul d priorit iz e students first and foremo st. However, rese arch ha s shown that lack of stud ent commi tm ent in other univers it y student ga rdens has led  t o problems with untende d plot s. Therefor e, to ens ure that the ga rden is as functi onal as poss ibl e, it would be beneficial to en coura ge fle x ibili t y in the roles that students ma y pla y in the garden. For ex ampl e, thi s ma y be achieved throu gh encou r agin g gr o up ownership of plots and by makin g av ail able 2 6   an adequ ate suppl y of co mm unal drop - in plots where students are free to v olunt eer as often as the y please. Furthermo re, plot s shoul d be made av ail able to other UBC campus membe rs, such as facult y and sta ff, as  well as to other comm uni t y members and resid ents in order to ensur e there i s adequate demand for th e garden and to facil it ate interdisci pli nar y and mul ti - gener ati onal learnin g and int er ac ti on.  Application Process:  St udents interested i n appl yin g for a pl ot in the  SUB Rooftop Ga rden will be requir ed to complete an appli cati on form and sub mi t it to the AMS .  The appli cati ons will begin to be rec eived the first Monda y of Januar y and th e deadli ne for appli cati on will be Januar y 31st .  Once all app li cati o ns ha ve been rec ei ved, plot s could  be aw arded based on a lotter y s ystem  with student appli cati ons taking priorit y .  Students and other members of the UBC co mm unit y are invi ted to appl y.  Indivi duals or grou ps ma y appl y.  Applicant s who do not receive a plot wil l be placed on a wait ing list.  Mana gement will conta ct applicants who ar e recei ving a plot by Februa r y 15th.    Plot Holders Contract Agreement:  Once a ppli c ants have bee n award ed a plot t he y wil l be required to si gn a p lo t - holders Contract Agreement and r eturn it t o the AMS with pa yment prior to March 1st.  A co p y of the  Agre ement will be returned to p lot - holders o nce it has been countersi gned b y th e AMS.  The Agreement will be vali d from March 1st – Februa r y 28t h. The plot award ed will not be gu a rante ed t he foll owing ye ar an d p lot - holders mus t reappl y in orde r to be eli gibl e fo r a plot the foll o wing ye ar.   A sampl e con tract agr eement has b een included in the Appendix .   By signin g the Agre eme nt, p lot - holders agre e to be able to care for their plot yea r rou nd, includin g during summer s emester.  Plot - holders will be req uired to sign in when th e y are ga rdenin g to ke ep a record of their att endanc e for m ana gem ent.  The AMS ma y be int erested in ke epin g track of th e produc e bein g harvested fro m the gard e n, and in thi s case p lot - h olders will be requir ed to weigh th eir produc e and record its weight after it has been harvested.    2 7    P lot s need to be kept of over grown weeds and gar bage.  If plots are cl earl y not being cared for it is management’s discretion to award the plot to the nex t applicant on the wait ing list.   Mana gement sh ould be required to give the p lot - holder a warnin g and a chance to cl ean up their pl ot prior to it being aw ard ed to an other appli c ant.  The previous p lot - holder will not have their plot fe e ret u rned to them should this occur.  Plot - holders ma y de cide to give up their plot prior to the end of the year sh ould the y choos e; howev er, the y will forfeit their plot fee.  Mana gement will aw ard the plot to the nex t applicant on the wait ing list.   P lot - ho lders mus t agre e t o provide one hour a mont h of work in order to maint ain the comm on area s of the gard en.  This wil l be monit ored by m ana ge ment to ensure all ne cess ar y maintenan ce is bein g d one as well to ensure that all p lo t - holders are participati n g.   P rior to the end of the year, p lot - holders mus t rem ove all items from their plot before  it is passed ove r to the nex t plot - holder.  P lot - holders may use stakes and trellises as long as they don’t interfere with other plot s.  Management ma y ask p lot - holders to remo ve an y items if the y ar e i mpos ing on other plot s.  Plot -holders mus t agree to onl y use environmentall y fri endl y amendments, fe rtili z ers, and pest control.  The gro wing of an y ille gal pl ants will be strictl y prohi bit ed.    P lot - holders will receive a  ke y or a combi nati on to the tool shed on the Rooftop Garden. Tools that are prop ert y of the AMS must remain on the Rooftop Garden at all tim es. Plot - holders will be respon sibl e for the waterin g of th eir own plot and will not be all owed to leave running wa t er unatt ended for ex tende d periods of time.  Gardenin g ma y onl y take pl ace betwee n the hours of the SU B.  Sustainability Reportables:  T he new SU B Rooftop Garden will provide impro ved sust ainabili t y to UBC campus and minim iz e the ecol o gical footp rint of p lot - holders invo lved in the garden.  The Rooftop Garden will contribute to UBC’s W ater Acti on Plan by har vesti ng rainwat er in orde r to irrigate crops. This wil l make more effi cient use of water b y the Rooftop Gar den and minim iz e the amount of water that ma y be wasted.  Th e Rooftop Garden will also be implementi ng a compos ti ng s ystem in its operati ons.  This wil l reduce th e wastes produc ed by the garden and provide a cyc li cal app roach to sust aini ng nutrient lev els in the garden soil.  The plot - holders 2 8   of the  Rooftop Gard en wil l be prohibi ted from using non - environmentall y friendl y pesti cides and herbicides.  The pl ants gr own on the Rooftop Gard en will also help to reduc e greenhous e gas emi ssi ons of the SUB buil ding b y usin g carbon diox ide for plan t growth and  the amount of crops produ ced from the ga rden could b e measur e d.  The Rooftop Gard en will also provide students involved wit h real worl d sust ainabili t y ex perience.  6.0 Scenario Evaluation 6.1 Comparison of Objectives and Results  In order to ev aluate the s uccess of this report, sev eral ev aluation tests wer e performed to compar e the project result s with the stated project obj e cti ves. These objecti ve and evalu ati on techniques ar e summariz ed below in  Table 3.  T ab le 3  Summar y of pro j ec t ob j ec tives and eval uati o n tec h n iq ues fo r anal yzi n g succ ess o f achiev in g pro j ec t ob jectives.  Project Objective Evaluation Result 1. Creat e a communi t y gar den - st yl e mana ge ment plan  · eval uat e for thoroughness and relevance by:  compar i ng our plan wit h other communi t y gar den mana ge ment plans  · taki ng note of uni que boundari es and charac teri st i cs of UBC syst em  · achi eved  2. Achi eve stakeholder needs and goals  · eval uat e our level of cor responde nce wit h proj ec t stakehol der s  · prese nt findi ngs to st akehol der s for feedbac k  · eval uat e the extent to which our mana gement plan priori ti zed and achi eved the st akeholders' goal s/nee ds  · achi eved  · prese nt ed to Andy Longhur st for feedbac k  · woul d benef it from furt her and on -goi ng cons ul tati ons with mul ti ple st akeholders  3. Be rel evant  and engagi ng towar ds and among st udents  · eval uat e our plan in comp ar ison to other suc cessf ul uni ver sit y communi t y gar dens  · quant if y the number of peer - t o - pee r educ at i on oppor tunit ies creat ed thr ough our plan  · requir es addi ti onal res ear ch  · woul d benef i t from a student feedbac k sur vey to conf ir m st udent inter est  4. Mini mi ze mana ge ment and res our ce requi r ement s  · Deter mi ne whet her the plan is cost - neut r al  · Quant if y the amount of resour ces and mana ge ment that woul d be requi r ed for the gar den to oper ate in compar i son to other gar den mana ge ment st yl es  · Achieved  · Budget wil l be subj ect to fut ure modi f i cat i ons as gar den is est abli shed and cost s/ i ncomes are mor e compl et el y under st ood  5. Pre sent a crit ica l st udy of communi t y gar dens  · Eval uat e the number and quali t y of academi c sour ces and other gar den exampl es on which conc lusions wer e bas ed  · achi eved  2 9   F oll owing thes e evalu ati ons and a pres entation to LFS 450 and And y Lon ghurst, thi s project was deemed thorou gh, compl ete and critical. As menti oned previous l y in the recomm endati ons, further resear ch regardin g peer - t o - pee r ed ucati onal opportuni ti es and the conducti on of stud ent feedb ack surv e y will add to the educati onal compon e nt of the comm unit y ga rd en plan and will furthe r confirm student interest in the garden. Furthe rmore, on - goin g consul tations with the AMS and other ga rde n stakeholders will all ow the plan to be conti nuall y modi fie d to meet as man y of the stakeholder goals as poss ibl e. The cost - neutr al bu dget wil l require some modi fic ati ons as the gard en comes i nto ex ist ence and curr entl y unknown costs and in c omes are bett er understood.  6.2 Successes and Challenges The most chall en gin g po rtion of this project was t o creat e an effe cti ve man agement structur e. It was difficult to balance the ri gid cost constr aint s of a cost - neutral bud get wit h the benefit that a lon g - ter m gard en coordinator would provid e. T he moneta r y boundar ies of the rooftop ga rden s ystem were mad e even more limi ti ng by the unc ertaint y that result s from predic ti ng a bud get fo r an op er ati on that is sti ll several ye a rs in the future. Man y of the costs and incomes will likel y need to be estab li she d through simpl e trial an d error in the garden’s first years of existence. As a result, it was necessary to make a compromise between the garden’s need for stable and highly committed management and cost - cons traint s. This was success f ull y achieved b y opti n g fo r unpaid but highl y comm it ted directed stud y student s as coordinators in the i nit ial years of the garden’s operation. Another chall en ge stem med from the difficult y i n receivi n g responses fro m other garden coordinat ors via email surve y; howev er thi s was succ essfull y overcome b y contacti n g a large number of local an d Canadian universit y com muni t y gardens. Thus, alt hough sev eral gardens fail ed to respond to email queries, because a lar ge scope of gardens were contacted both in the Vancouver vi cini t y a nd at othe r Canadia n universit ies, the response was stil l adequate to pro ject the amount of deman d that the SUB rooftop garden would ex perience.  3 0   Finall y, a thi rd chall en ge arose from the novel and highl y contex t - specific nature of this proje ct -  there has never been a garden associat ed with the AMS and therefo re the re is no preced ent in the UBC system on which a new plan can be founded. Furt hermore, an y second ar y resear ch or liter ature sour ces were not able to be appli ed dir ectl y to this proje ct due to thei r differ ent contex ts, stakeholders and obje cts . Therefo re, futu re LFS 45 0 groups would b enefit fr om taking int o consi der ati on thi s project and using it as a foundati on for improvem ents and more resea rch; and by takin g pa rticular note of the unique ch ara ct e risti cs and const raint s of the UBC system.  7.0 Works Cited  Amundson, B., Ghani, J ., Sz eto, P., Shen, J ., Ho, N., Shi , X., Tang, X., Br ugge r, L., Burnett , T. & Wang, H. (2010). Business Proposal for the New SUB Rooftop Garden . UBC SEEDS Student Report.  htt ps:/ /circle.ubc.ca/hand le/2429/30034 .   Berm an, L. (1997). Mont h - b y - Mont h in the Comm unit y Gard en: Yea r On e. In How Does Our Garden Grow? A Guide to Community Garden Success . Fo odS hare Toronto.  htt p:/ /www.foodshare.net /t oolbox _mont h01.htm .   Cit y of Van couve r. (201 1). Community Garden Resources . Retriev ed Apri l 3 2012.  htt p:/ /vancouver.ca/com msvcs/s ocialplanning/i nit iatives/foodpolic y/proje c ts/ gard enresou rce.htm #d esign .   Emerson, B. (n.d.) From Neglected Parcels to Community Gardens: A Handbook . Wasatch Comm unit y Gardens. Salt Lak e Cit y, UT.  htt p:/ /wasatchga rdens.or g/files/i ma ges/F romNe gl ectedPar celsToC omm unit yGa rdens.P DF .   McMahen, K. (2010). Design, Vegetation, and Management Plan for the New UBC AMS Student Union Building Rooftop Garden . UBC SEEDS Stud ent Report.  htt ps:/ /circle.ubc.c a/handle/2429/ 34060 .   Orr, D. (2005 ). Place and Pedago g y. In M. Stone, Z. Barlo w, & F. Kapra, Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World (pp. 85 - 94) . Sierra Club Books.   Twiss, J ., Dickinso n, J ., Dum a, S., Kleinm an, T., Paulsen, H., & Ril veria, L. (2003 ). Comm unit y Gardens: Lessons le arn ed from Ca li fornia healt h y cit ies and comm unit ies. American Journal of Public Health , 1435 - 1438.   Vancouve r Comm unit y Agriculture Network (V CAN). (2008). Growing Community Gardens ,  a guide to farming food in Vancouver. http:/ /vcan.ca/wp - con tent/upl oads/20 08/10/ cg - guide - lo wres.pdf .   3 1           Media Release  UBC Food System Project   April 2012 Project Title:  Campus Greenscaping: Management of the First    Rooftop Garden at UBC Vancouver  Description: T he new UBC Student Union Bui ldi ng, whi ch is schedul ed for compl eti on in 2014, will feat ur e a Rooft op Garden.  The Rooft op Gar den will cont ai n 166 squar e met er s of food crop producti on ar ea and also a common ar ea for al l 3 2   st ude nts to enj oy thi s out door spac e.  This UBC Food Syst ems Proj ect wil l cr eate a mana ge ment plan that will focus on a communi t y gar den styl e of mana ge ment .  This will mean that st udent s can lease a plot for a fee in the garden to grow food for thei r own consu mpt i on.  This proj ect will recommend a mana ge ment plan that wil l invol ve part ici pation of st udents and communi t y member s in wor kshops where gar dener s will be able to lear n ski l ls from each other . Thi s wil l hel p to educat e gar dener s on how to gar den sustai n ably and increa se their food secur it y through produci ng thei r own food whi l e reducing their ecol ogi cal footpri nt .  This gar den will hel p to provi de growi ng spa ce for student s and communi t y me mber s in Vancouver wher e communi t y gar dens have long wai tl ists.  Quote “The new UBC SUB Rooftop Garden – Where you can play Far mV il le in real life! ”   9.0 Appendix  UBC SUB ROOFTOP GARDEN PLOTHOLDERS CONTRACT AGREEMENT 20XX   1.  P lot s will be leased for a one (1) year period begin ning Mar ch 1st, 20XX.  Plot - holder must agr ee to be in the campus area ye ar round to care for the pl ot (includi ng summer se mester).  2.  There will be no gu arant ee Plot - holder will rec eiv e the same plot the foll o wing ye ar and cur rent Plot -holder  must reappl y to be consi dered fo r a plot t he following ye ar.  3.  P lot s mus t be maint ained and kept fr ee of rubbish and visibl y over grown weeds.  Plot - holde r  will be required to si gn in when working in the garden to keep record of att endan c e for ga rden man a gement .  4.  The UBC SU B Rooftop Garden will keep r e cor d of produce grown.  Plot - holder  will be requir ed to weigh produc e and recor d its weight aft er harvest.  5.  If plots are clearly not being cared for, it is garden management’s discretion to award the plot to another appli c ant on the wait list.  Garden mana gement w il l be requir ed to provide the P lot - holder with a warnin g prior to awardin g the plot to someone else.  Annu al plot fee s will not be reim bursed shoul d thi s occur.  6.  S hould Plot - holder choose to give up th eir plot bef ore the end of the year it will be  passed to the nex t appli cant on the wait in g list.  Annual plot fees will not be reim bursed shoul d thi s occur.  7.  P lot - holder must provide one (1) hour per month of work to maint ain publ ic areas of the UBC SUB Rooftop Garden.   8.  P lot - holder are responsi ble fo r removi n g all mate r ials (stakes, trell ises, etc. ) befor e pas sin g on their plot to the nex t P lot - holder.  3 3   9.  Garden man a gement rese rves the ri ght to ask the P lot - holder to remove an y structures that ma y be imposi ng on other plot s.  10.  Growin g of ille gal subs ta nce s is prohibi ted.  11.  Onl y the us e of environm entall y friendl y fe rtili z ers, amendments, pesti cides , and herbicides will be permitt ed.  12.  Gardenin g ma y onl y tak e place durin g  the hou rs of the SUB.  13.  P lot - ho lder  will receive a key to the tool shed.  To ols are prope rt y of the AMS and must remain on the UBC SUB Rooftop Garden.   14.  R unning wate r is not to be left unattended for ex te nded periods of time.       


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