Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Producing Edible Landscapes in Seattle's Urban Forest, Mind Map 3,…
Producing Edible Landscapes in Seattle's Urban Forest
Definitions and Visions
Rural Forests
Producer of goods
Valued for: lumber, fireweood, maple syrup, food, wilderness qualities, etc.
Linked with activities associated with rural areas: agriculture, forestry, and livestock production.
Urban forests
Provider of services
Normative vision of many U.S. cities, reflective of a long-standing bias among urban foresters and planners against allowing actitivites associated with rural areas.
Valued for: house and business sites, urban recreation, and water quality.
Provider of services and producer of goods
Valued for: lumber, fireweood, maple syrup, food, wilderness qualities, house and business sites, urban recreation, water quality, etc..
Alternative vision of urban forests, more accurate historically and globally, reflective of food production as an important element of sustainable ecosystems.
Green infrastructure programs
Focus on: planting trees, restoring habitat, developing trails and greenways, stormwater management projects and food security projects. Include urban forests.
Aim to create sustainable urban ecosystems through the development of a dense network of open space, aisheds, watersheds, woodlands, wildlife habitat, parks, and other natural areas.
Never politically neutral --> sociopolitical power shapes dominant visions and affects the management, usage, appropriate activities, and utlimately, the configurations of projects.
Studying Seattle's Urban Forest: Goals and Methods
Goals
Explore how an alternative vision of urban forests (both providers of services and sources of goods) is emerging in Seattle.
Focus on the role of organized urban-based fruit harvesting groups as drivers of policy changes (e.g. types of products available in Seattle's green spaces).
Note other alternative visions (centered on the use of Seattle's forests for products other than fruits) that are beginning to circulate.
Methods
Review of the City of Seattle's policies, laws, regulations and planning documents related to urban forest management and urban agriculture from the mid-1990s to 2000.
Review of websites and reports about groups active in fruit harvesting or other types of gathering in Seattle's urban forest.
Semi-structured interviews conducted in 2010 with fifteen community gleaning organizations, urban forest conservation organizations, and with employees of the Seattle City Council and Seattle Departments of Neighborhoods, Planning and Development, Transporation, and Parks and Recreation.
Seattle's Planning Context
Geography, Population and Land Use
Location: on the shore of Puget Sound in western Washington State
Population of Seattle metropolitan area: 3.4 million people live in King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties.
Population of Seattle: 608,000 people --> largest population center within the metropolitan area
Poverty: 12% of Seattle population falls under the poverty line - especially households with children
Land area: 217 square km
Land use before Europeans settlement: salmon fishing, marine shellfish harvesting, and hunting and gathering of native edible plants (home to Coast Salish Native American communities).
Land use after Europeans settlement: dredging, leveling, logging and agriculture --> alteration of local ecologies
Land use nowadays: Urban industrial, commercial, and residential development
Plant Diversity
Long growing season, mild climate, average annual rainfall of 940 mm --> Favors the growth of diverse plant and fungal species (over 500 of each)
Before: Western hemlock, Western red cedar and Douglas-fir--> dominant species (typical of lowland marine forests in the Puget Sound area)
Now, in park lands: second growth hardwoods, such as Bigleaf maple and Red alder.
Now, in natural areas: non-native understory species, such as Himalayan blackberries, English ivy, and Scotch broom
Now, in streetscapes: 300 different species, such as trees of the genus Prunus, Acer, and Crataegus
Land Use Planning and Management
Guided by Seattle's Comprehensive Plan
Periodically updated to reflect changing views of how the city can meets its sustainable urban growth objectives
update before 2000: neighborhood planning and economic development elements; community gardens mentionned as important land use for the city to support
2000 update: environmental element
2008 update: sub-section on trees
2009 update: Resolution 31019, guiding framework for achieving urban food system sustainability
2010 update: Revision of land use code to expand opportunities for growing plants, farming and raising animals in the city
Urban Forest Management in Seattle
Following seven decades: limited expansion and maintenance of green space networks.
Early 1990s: Beginning of conceptualizing trees as infrastructure assets and essential elements of a sustainable urban ecosystem.
1903: Hiring of the Olmsted firm to design a network of treed boulevards, developed parks, playgrounds, and greenbelts. The ''Olmsted Vision'' and related system sought to balance aesthetic and recreational activities.
1994: Establishment of an Urban Forest Coalition to coordinate tree-related programs across the city departments responsible for protecting or managing trees and other vegetation. Allocation of funds to support forest restoration activities in the city's parks.
1892: Creation of the first comprehensive proposal to manage a system of urban forests.
mid-1990s-2004: Implementation of numerous urban green space improvement programs. Initially focused on park restoration and street-tree plantings, but now include conversion of impervious road edges to pervious surfaces so as to improve stormwater drainage.
Nowadays: urban forests are managed by Seattle's Urban Forest Management Plan.
Seattle's Urban Forest - Commissions and Departments Visions
Urban Forestry Commission
Providers of services
Reflected in Seattle's 2007 Urban Forest Management Plan: developped on an ecosystem analysis using the CityGreen software (estimates the monetary value of urban trees and green spaces without the inclusion of social, cultural, and economic values derived from urban forest products).
Parks and Recreation Department
Providers of services
Historically reflected in the section 12.070 of Seattle's Park and Recreation Code: states that only proper authority may remove, destroy, mutilate or deface any shrub, tree, plant or flower in parks.
However, anti-production orientation is changing: 73 public community gardens are located in parks; recent efforts seek to restore heritage fruit orchards or establish new public orchards (e.g. Seattle Parks Fruit Tree Stewardship project).
Seattle Department of Transportation
Providers of services
Reflected in the Urban forestry program, putting street trees maintenance responsibilities in the hand of authorities.
Reflected in the street use provisions of the Seattle Municipal Code (15.42.050): states that only approuved species can be planted on street planting strips (excluding apple, cherries, and pears trees).
Seattle Department of Neighborhoods
Providers of services and producers of goods
Historically: providers of environmental services --> reflected in trees and funding provided for neighborhood street-tree plantings and urban geening projects.
Recently: producers of goods --> reflected in the Tree Fun program with Earthcorps (a pilot project to help meet the city's tree canopy goals) + Beacon Food Forest grants.
Ultimate vision: Urban forests as providers of services rather than producers of goods
Food Forests (AGR172)
Definitions
Perennial polyculture of multipurpose plants
Growing food that mimics natural ecosystems, creating natural habitats for insects, wildlife, ect. while also creating a yield of medicinal herbs, food, fuel, natrual fertilizers, and fodder.
Sustainable food growing system using perennial plants, mushrooms, bushes, trees, and animals
The 7 Layers of a Forest Garden
Herbaceous Layer
Rhizosphere (Root crops)
Shrub Layer (Currants & berries)
Soil Surface (Ground cover crops)
Low Tree Layer (Dwarf fruit trees)
Canopy (Large fruit & nut trees)
Vertical Layer (Climbers, vines)
Benefits and Related Permaculture Principles
Greater biodiversity
PP: Use & Value Diversity
High yield (if designed properly)
PP: Obtain a yield
Low maintenance
PP: Energy planning
The 6 Elements of Permaculture Guilds
Deep rooted plants
Reppellers (pest management)
Pollinator plants
Mulchers
Nitrogen fixers
Suppressors
Normalizing Edible Landscapes in Seattle
Roots
1970s: Seattle City Council authorized the Parks and Recreation Department to develop a community garden program on city-owned vacant lots.
Projects Developed
P-Patches Program
System of city-owned community gardens that aims to promote access to healthy, organic and culturally appropriate foods to Seattle residents.
Lettuce Link
Provides low-income families in Seattle with fresh and organic produce and seeds, as well as gardening information. Led to the emergence of Seattle's fruit gleaning milieu.
Community Fruit Tree Harvest
City-wide ''fruit sharing'' program in which fruit that goes un-harvested is picked and delivered to food providers serving city residents in need.
Gather It!
Guide to organizing urban fruit tree harvests.
City Fruit
Program that promotes the cultivation of fruit in urban landscapes, builds community and protects the climate through various sponsorship, guides, and a fruit mapping project.
Outcome
Contribute to debates that have brought about changes to policy governing public green space use.
Seattle Parks and Recreation Department recognize fruit production as a legitimate management objective for wooded areas and developed parks.
Foster dialogue between food policy and urban forestry advocates, and further blur perceptual boundaries between wild and cultivated areas.
Seattle Department of Neighborhood discovered that fruit trees can be used as incentives for city dwellers to plant trees in private yards.
Gathering in Urban Forests: Reasons not to Exclude it
Adersely impacts lower-income and food-insecure individuals who may use urban forests products to meet some of their nutritional and medicinal needs
Reduces the urgency for land managers to avoid using toxic herbicides and other chemicals in vegetation management
Criminalizes what are often otherwise benign gathering activities occurring on public land
Fails to create incentives for gatherer to become involved in broader urban forest stewardship initiatives
Creates confusion about what kinds of plant material are acceptable to remove (invasive, tree fruits, berries) and who can do so
Other examples of edible landscapes
Victory gardens (AGR204)
Parks that turned over to food production to aid the war effort
Lafayette Greens, Detroit (Matchar, 2020)
Urban garden & public green space where visitors can watch live music, enjoy local art installations & take community yoga classes. Volunteers can take produce home; the rest goes to local food banks
Gary Comer Youth Center, Chicago (Matchar, 2020)
24-inch layer of dirt on a roof irrigated by collected rainwater where students from the youth horticultural program tend fruits & vegetables which are used for culinary classes & served in the cafeteria
Atlanta City Council (Matchar, 2020)
Planting fruit and nut trees on seven acres in the city (part of a project to ensure 85% of residents are within half a mile of fresh food), all free for the picking
Fallen Fruit, Los Angeles (Matchar, 2020)
Artists collective plants fruit trees in urban places, with the idea they will be nurtered & harvested by the public
George Washington Carver Edible Park, Asheville, North Carolina (Matchar, 2020)
Multi-layered canopy of fruit & nut trees along with edible ground cover (e.g., strawberry plants), all free for the picking
Edible Park, Iskandar Puteri, Malaysia (Matchar, 2020)
Five-acre oasis of fruit trees, vegetables and herbs. Visitors can drop by for organic cooking classes or purchase produce
Incredible Edible Todmorden, UK (Matchar, 2020)
Non-profit organization plants fruit trees and herb and vegetable gardens all over the community free for everyone to harvest
Local exemples (Sherbrooke, Qc)
Forêt nourricière, École Jean 23 Sherbrroke - (“Un Jardin Nourricier Pour Se Rencontrer Dans Le Quartier”)
Creates space for community to gather, and Learning space for students
Campus Nourricier - Université de Sherbrooke in partnership with REVE nourricier (“Campus Nourricier - Développement Durable - Université de Sherbrooke”)
Recreating a bond between human and nature; Promote urban agriculture; Food security for student and community; Research space for university students.
Links to External References
Matchar, E. (2020, November 16) Are 'Edible Landscapes' the Future of Public Parks?. Smithsonian Magazine.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/are-edible-landscapes-future-public-parks-180976291/
Newman, J. & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as sustainable ecosystems: principles and practices. Ecological Restoration, 26(3), 274–276.
https://doi.org/10.3368/er.26.3.274
“Campus Nourricier - Développement Durable - Université de Sherbrooke.” Www.usherbrooke.ca, www.usherbrooke.ca/developpement-durable/campus/campus-nourricier. Accessed 18 Oct. 2023.
“Un Jardin Nourricier Pour Se Rencontrer Dans Le Quartier.” ISDC, isdcsherbrooke.ca/projets/un-jardin-nourricier-pour-se-rencontrer-dans-le-quartier/. Accessed 18 Oct. 2023.
Biodiversity Promotion & Impacts (Reading #5 & AGR 204)
Cultural (rebuilding real connections between city dwellers & living world)
Spiritual
Recreational
Aesthetic
Inspirational
Educational
Communal
Symbolic
Environmental
Heat regulation
Detoxification
Supporting pollinators & birds
Biosphere reserve
Reduced resources use & waste production
Assist & support growing rare & endangered species; Creation of dynamic reserve (Ephemeral reserves, Ecological fallow, Mid-succession reserves). E.g. Tommy Thompson park, Toronto)
Water recycling
Mitigate climate
Economic
Job opportunities
Development of new techniques
Reduce use of cooling
Wildland estimate worth 30 trillions dollars annually (Newman, 2008)
Mind Map 3
Èvemarie Durant, Gabrielle Dame, Phillip Haggerty & Zachary Thibeault