The readings this week focused on strategies planners can use to assess their community's food environments. Community assessments are "activities to systematically collect and disseminate information on selected community characteristics so that community leaders and agencies may devise appropriate strategies to improve their localities" (Pothukuchi). A community food assessment (CFA) thus focuses solely on food as the "community characteristic." CFAs can be conducted by both planners and by community groups, and a variety of methods can be used to complete them. I think CFAs lend themselves well to citizen participation, if not citizens completing the entire project themselves. Who better to assess a food landscape than the people who navigate and depend on it day by day? A citizen-driven CFA would likely work best at the neighborhood scale, which is the scale most people remain at for everyday food needs. Furthermore, as this week's readings point out, CFAs currently operate under the assumption that the local community is the major unit of solution to food system problems. An individual neighborhood is unable to shake the entire global food system, but can have a real impact on its surrounding community. A citizen-led CFA would likely be more comprehensive and relevant, addressing the community's real needs, in contrast to what a planner (who is perhaps unfamiliar with the community) perceives those needs to be.
Although CFAs can be completed through a variety of methods, in my opinion, mapping is the most salient visualization and analytical tool. Several of the readings, including most notably the "Understanding and Measuring Food Environments" reading, show the impact that even a basic map can have on understanding a community's food landscape. Quite honestly, I think mapping and GIS in particular has come a long way since these articles were written. For instance, participatory mapping can be a strong community-building and assessment tool. Participatory mapping is essentially when several people contribute to the same map or several maps of the same region through a data sharing service, often online. OpenStreetMap, where users can input information about roads and streets they are familiar with, is one example. OSM has been particularly useful in regions of the world where little road data is available, including in large refugee camps. Esri, the company that produces ArcGIS, has a phone app called Collector where users can record data using their smartphones. Individuals participating in a CFA could use Collector to record the locations of food stores, restaurants, emergency food services, and other "traditional" sources of food that planners may be familiar with, but could also use it to record less-known sources of food such as small community gardens, fruit-bearing trees, or even generous churches or community organizations. I like Collector because it is really hands-on and easy to use, but communities that are in dire need of a CFA may also be poorer communities where individuals do not have access to smartphones or the Internet. In this case, paper maps can be an equitable and powerful tool as well. A large, blank map of a community could be set up in a central location, and individuals could record the very same locations addressed above. A paper map in a central location also has the added bonus of being more visible in the community.
Participatory mapping is my favorite current trend in public participation and citizen-driven planning. Many of the mapping technologies are purposefully designed for "laypeople" so that everyone can use them. For communities that simply lack the technology, paper maps can be used for the same purpose. What aspect of creating a CFA do you find the most interesting? Would this change depending on if a citizen or a planner were creating the CFA?
Wow, I had never known about those apps, nor thought about how useful they could be! That's a really interesting and creative way to map food within an area; and I appreciate you acknowledging how this is most likely not helpful for cases where residents can't afford a smart phone.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I like most about a CFA is the autonomy it can give a community. You noted that the readings discussed how CFAs likely won't change the global food system, yet the have the ability to change a community which we saw in those 9 cases. It allows the residents to feel more in control of their environment, more a part of the community, and more likely to make a difference in addressing the needs of their neighborhood. I think that the autonomy felt is universal to both the people of the community as well as the planners, yet it may be more significant and impactful to the former.
Taylor, I like the connection you made here with CFA's and participatory mapping. Indeed, a CFA created by citizens in a neighborhood would be highly valuable. I like how you address that not everyone would have access to the Collector app and that you can still do participatory mapping with a physcial paper map. In the right context, I would almost argue a physical map might be the most beneficial if the community has the time for it.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, as you mentioned, this would really work best at the neighborhood scale. Perhaps to get the best CFA available, planners and citizens have different roles at the different scales. Citizens should probably be in charge in leading a CFA in a neighborhood as the planners learn from the local knowledge of these citizens. In a municipal scale, planners should be in charge of conducting the CFA, creating focus groups and holding meetings with neighborhood representatives. I believe both planners and citizens should be involved with one another in each scale, but to be the most effective, each scale should be spearheaded by either the citizens or planners.