Developing Strategies to Promote Diversity in Food Garden Production : Action for Nature in a Changing Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity underpins the capacity of our food systems to sustain a massive amount of food production for the world’s population, without having to damage the diversity of animals, plants and microorganisms at genetic, species and ecosystem levels (FAO, 2019). In the context of UBC’s Vancouver campus, food systems biodiversity is an emerging topic in larger discussion of campus sustainability. In conjunction with UBC’s Climate Crisis in Urban Biodiversity (CCUB)’s mission to accelerate action for climate change and biodiversity loss, there was a need to gain an understanding of the UBC community’s perceptions of campus food biodiversity. Ultimately, our study aims to involve different actors in the campus food system to increase community action and engagement towards more biodiverse food garden production and culinary menu options within the UBC food system. Applying Community-Based Action Research principles, three main surveys were designed and distributed to students, community gardeners and chefs on campus. These surveys aim to comprehend the different elements of campus food biodiversity, including the challenges and barriers of increasing food diversity, consumption behaviors of students, and to identify the motivations for different groups to enhance food diversity. Through a series of primary and secondary data collection, the concept of campus food biodiversity was defined by merging the unique perspectives of students, chefs, and community gardeners at UBC. Our results show that students and chefs agree that UBC Food Services currently offers a diverse selection of foods, and community gardeners currently grow an average of 0-19 crops in their campus plots. However, participants identified that some of the main barriers to increasing their involvement in food biodiversity were developing peoples’ interest, limited time or access to space, and knowledge-related barriers. Participants commonly identified better marketing, building strong communication networks, and increasing opportunities to engage in events as potential strategies for overcoming these barriers. Community gardeners, students and chefs defined Campus Food Biodiversity (CFB) in terms of food, community and environment; and their perspectives were used to create a unifying holistic concept that will be used when creating our Food Systems Biodiversity Engagement Toolkit (FSBET). Identifying connections between the roles of community gardeners, chefs, and students on campus is necessary for envisioning what a biodiverse-friendly food system looks like, and how it can contribute to community resilience. Such an inclusive definition of campus food biodiversity has the potential to advance biodiversity initiatives by merging multiple perspectives and expanding the focus from food production to menu offerings and consumption practices. Based on our findings we came up with recommendations for our clients and other campus stakeholders to enhance culinary diversity and food garden diversity. Recommendations include establishing a biodiverse food profile and UBC Food Services marketing strategy, as well as a Seeds Lending Library biodiversity program and collaborative outreach strategy. Further, we have proposed some long-term goals that can be implemented in policy such as the Food Services Procurement Guidelines and the UBC Climate Action Plan 2030 currently in development. As research on food systems biodiversity is still in its early stages, there is a call for more research, monitoring and evaluation to be done to build on our findings and support the development of biodiversity-friendly strategies on campus. 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.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".