Understanding and managing the impacts of transience in student-led university food gardens

University student-led food gardens are increasingly used to facilitate learning fostering prosustainability attitude and behaviour change. However, they are led by a transient student population, which impacts how they operate and the benefits they provide. This study undertakes the first explicit and empirical inquiry into how students’ transience impacts student-led food gardens, and how these impacts might be addressed to maximise the gardens’ benefits. I investigated this through an action research study, using a quantitative systematic literature review to assess the benefits of ‘sustainable university community gardens’ (a proxy for ‘student-led food gardens’) and take stock of what is already known about the impacts of students’ transience on these gardens. I used a case study of the United Kingdom’s National Union of Students’ Student Eats student-led food growing scheme to understand how transience impacts the participation dynamics of the student-led food gardens, and the ways in which they are vulnerable to students’ transience, drawing on interviews, participatory workshops, photovoice, a fishbowl discussion, and a research diary. This data was used to create a causal loop diagram and assess the vulnerability of the gardens using Biggs et al.’s (2012; 2015c) resilience principles. I found the student-led food gardens operated in a vulnerable state because of the impacts of students’ transience. Paradoxically, transience both increased and decreased problematic participation, while exacerbating friction and power asymmetries between students and staff, underrepresentation of longterm stakeholders, lack of monitoring slow variables, and a lack of tolerance to ambiguity and uncertainty. In spite of this vulnerability, evidence suggested the gardens provided opportunities for building sustainability competencies. Actions were taken to address the negative impacts of students’ transience and build resilience into the gardens. These fed into the recommendation that a portfolio of strategies is needed to address the immediate challenges of problematic participation, and build social-ecological memory in the gardens

The problems, promise and pragmatism of community food growing:Introduction to Special Issue: 'Critical Foodscapes'

Alongside associated forms of socially and politically conscious food production, community food growing is routinely connected to a wide range of social and environmental benefits. However, robust evidence in support of these associations remains scant, and while the conversation has shifted in recent years to take account of the sometimes unintended or negative aspects of these activities, no consensus has been reached about how such forms of food growing should adapt to new conditions, or be scaled up to maximize their positive impacts. A July 2016 conference was organized to address this strategic shortfall. This themed issue presents the papers resulting from the conference

Understanding transience and participation in university student-led food gardens

In an increasingly mobile world, transience is becoming the norm. Sustainable community food initiatives, therefore, must organise to withstand high turnover of volunteers. Using a case study of the United Kingdom’s National Union of Students’ food growing scheme in universities, this paper aims to map the causes and effects of short-term, irregular, and low participation using a causal loop diagram to understand how to mitigate their negative impacts and improve participation. Data was gathered through interviews, workshops, photovoice, a fishbowl discussion, and a reflective diary. We found three amplifying feedback loops increasing short-term, irregular and low participation, their causes, and their impacts. These feedback loops were precariously buffered by a continuous in-flow of new potential participants each academic year. We also found that the stakeholders of these gardens conceptualised time akin to both temporary and permanent organisations, and these differing conceptualisations were a source of tension. Furthermore, although ‘organisational amnesia’ was a problem, the gardens were still learningful spaces. We recommend both upstream and downstream solutions are implemented to buffer the impacts of transience and suggest that university and students’ union staff could play a crucial and subtle supporting role