SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE GROW GARDENS

SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Undergraduate Thesis Project

Completed by: Kaitlin Powers Candidate for Bachelor of Environmental Studies Department of Environment and Resource Studies University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1 December 2010

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Urban agriculture is growing in prominence as a method of establishing sustainable food sources and helping to build sustainable communities. Urban agriculture is also recognized as potentially being a sustainable food source because of its documented capacity to assist, resolve, or manage many sustainable development challenges. Several academic research-based sources espouse that urban agriculture should be made a high priority in sustainable community initiatives because of its significant impact on local economies, socials systems, and ecosystems. In order to evaluate whether a community urban agriculture project is contributing to community sustainability, a sustainability assessment framework was developed. The sustainability framework is based on the Gibson et al. (2005) principles of sustainability: social-ecological system integrity, livelihood sufficiency and opportunity, intragenerational equity, intergenerational equity, resource maintenance and efficiency, social-ecological civility and democratic governance, precaution and adaptation, and immediate and long-term integration. Qualifying criteria for each of these principles were extracted from a literature review of the following topics: sustainable communities and urban development, urban agriculture, social ecological systems. Once established, this framework was applied to a community organization urban agriculture project in Kitchener, Ontario. The community urban agriculture project was assessed as being a social ecological system because of the direct relationship between human actors and the environment, as well as the complex interactions and flux of various components of the system, such its use of water resources. Results from the sustainability assessment were inconclusive since many criteria of the framework could not be adequately evaluated. This lack of conclusive data is due in part to the urban agriculture project being in early stages of development and partly due to a poor sustainability assessment framework design.

Thus, while not all of the assessment criteria could be adequately evaluated, the community agriculture project did not completely fail to meet any one of the sustainability assessment criteria. Recommendations for areas for further investigation include: increasing educational opportunities, reviewing resource management strategies, and developing social ecological system management goals and objectives for sustainable operations. In order to further refine the sustainability assessment framework so as to produce more conclusive results, a series of improvements have been recommended. For example, re-evaluating the qualifying criteria to ensure all criteria are well-defined and easily measurable. As well, it is recommended that when evaluating the sustainability of an urban agricultural project in its infancy, it might be more useful to complete an ecological footprint assessment or life-cycle analysis as the project is too immature to fully benefit from a full sustainability assessment.

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my gratitude to Joe Mancini for giving me the opportunity to work on this unique and innovative urban agriculture project and to The Working Centre staff and volunteers who helped make this project a success. As well, I would like to thank Susan Wismer for her guidance, encouragement, and extremely helpful feedback, all of which helped make this a positive experience for me. Lastly, I would like to thank Joanna Powers for reviewing my paper and helping me to get through the home stretch.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

TABLES AND FIGURES 4

INTRODUCTION 5

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES 6 URBAN AGRICULTURE 7

ASSESSING URBAN AGRICULTURE SUSTAINABILITY 8

SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 8 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 9

THE WORKING CENTRE CASE STUDY 12

BACKGROUND OF THE ORGANIZATION 12 LANCASTER GREENHOUSE PROJECT 12 THE WORKING CENTRE’S PROJECT AS A SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM 12

RESEARCH QUESTION 13

RESEARCH METHODS 14

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT 15

SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM INTEGRITY 15 LIVELIHOOD SUFFICIENCY AND OPPORTUNITY 18 INTRAGENERATIONAL EQUITY 19 INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY 20 RESOURCE MAINTENANCE AND EFFICIENCY 21 SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL CIVILITY AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 23 PRECAUTION AND ADAPTATION 23 IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM INTEGRATION 25

4

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26

REFERENCES 30

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 – Sustainability Assessment Framework 10 Table 2 – The Ten Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities 15 Figure 1 – Social Ecological System 8 Figure 2 – The Working Centre Project Social Ecological System 13 Figure 3 – Lancaster Greenhouse 22 Figure 4 – Grow Gardens 22

5

INTRODUCTION With increasing pressure and burden being placed on the earth, the question of how to live and grow sustainably without exhausting the Earth‟s systems and resources, is a pressing topic in academic research and cross-scale governance. There have been many approaches to examining sustainable development, and through this, several definitions of „sustainable development‟ have been generated. A prominently used definition of sustainable development was first published in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in its Brundtland Report, also known as Our Common Future (WCED, 1987): “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”.

(http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I) The broadness of this definition is further refined within the Brundtland Report as the document continues to outline critical objectives for sustainable development policies such as: conserving and enhancing the resources base, reorienting technology and managing risk, merging environment and economics in decision-making processes, reviving economic growth, changing the quality of growth, meeting essential needs for jobs, food energy, water and sanitation, as well as ensuring a sustainable level of population (Palmer, 1998). In the time elapsed since the Brundtland Report, other organizations and research groups have continued to further identify objectives for sustainable development. For example, Caring for the Earth, a publication which was created in 1991 by the joint efforts of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) identifies nine principles for sustainable living:

1. Respect and care for the community of life. 2. Improve the quality of human life. 3. Conserve the Earth‟s vitality and diversity. 4. Minimize the depletion of non-renewable resources. 5. Keep within the Earth‟s carrying capacity. 6. Change personal attitudes and practices. 7. Enable communities to care for their own environments. 8. Provide a national framework for integrating development and conservation. 9. Forge a global alliance.

(IUCN et al., 1991, p. 9-11) Each of these guidelines for sustainable development is far-reaching with multiple spatial and temporal scales. More recent research has agreed with the need to integrate economic, social, and ecological factors across several scales (Gallopin, 2003), but the question remains as to how can these principles of sustainable

6

development be implemented? One approach for implementing these principles is to apply them at a community scale. As recognized in Caring for the Earth (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991), communities need to be able to care for their own environments. Creating sustainable communities has been increasingly recognized as essential to sustainable development (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Roseland, 2005).

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Sustainable communities can be defined as fluctuating systems that are continuously adjusting to meet the social and economic needs of (its) residents while preserving the environment‟s ability to support it (Bridger and Luloff, 2001). This definition is very similar to the definition of sustainable development created by the WCED, however, Bridger and Luloff (2001) are applying the concept at a smaller spatial scale. Citing an explanation provided by a citizen interest group in Minnesota, Roseland (2005) provides a more thorough explanation:

[A sustainable community is] a community that uses its resources to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate resources are available for future generations. A sustainable community seeks a better quality of life for all its residents while maintaining nature‟s ability to function over time by minimizing waste, preventing pollution, promoting efficiency and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy. Decision-making in a sustainable community stems from a rich civic life and shared information among community members. A sustainable community resembles a living system in which human, natural and economic elements are interdependent and draw strength from each other. (p. 17)

These themes represent some of the recurring principles behind the conceptualization of sustainable communities. There are many ways to characterize sustainable communities but some of the most prominent principles and characteristics include: integrated resource planning, waste reduction and recycling, energy efficiency and alternative, renewable energy supplies, air quality, transportation planning and traffic management, land use planning, community economic development, housing and community development, urban agriculture and green space, quality of life, systems approach, multiple temporal and spatial scale management, local governance and policy, and the precautionary principle (Bailly, et al., 2000; Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Haughton & Hunter, 2003; Roseland, 2005). Implementing these components of sustainable communities can be daunting since most involve the restructuring of current systems, policies, social structures, and infrastructure (Haughton & Hunter, 2003). Haughton and Hunter (2003) suggest implementing local programs, such as recycling and waste management, to help

7

move communities towards sustainability. Deelstra & Girardet (2000) advocate that urban agriculture should be made a high priority in sustainable community initiatives because of its significant impact on local economies, social systems, and ecosystems.

URBAN AGRICULTURE

Urban agriculture refers to a local food system situated in an urban environment which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diverse selection of food and non-food products (Mougeot, 1999, p. 1). Urban agriculture locally procures human and material resources and in turn provides local products and services to the local urban environment (Mougeot, 1999). Urban agriculture has been viewed as a means of helping to alleviate urban poverty, as well as a method of reducing the ecological foot print of a community while simultaneously providing additional economic and social benefits (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Roseland, 2005). Additionally, while urban agriculture is not inherently sustainable, Roseland (2005) and Deelstra & Girardet (2000) suggest that urban agricultural activities can greatly contribute to community sustainability. Roseland (2005) defines sustainable food systems as a food system that “protects the land which produces the food; supports the local economy through local production; empowers communities through self-reliance, and gives them increased food system security; enhances community well-being through increased health, decreased illnesses; increases sense of community; and increases environmental health because of reduced transportation of food.” (p. 51). He also suggests that urban agriculture practices have the potential to provide a sustainable food system. Despite its potential to contribute to community sustainability, urban agriculture also has the potential to adversely impact communities. For example, there I the risk of contamination, especially with certain types of nutrient inputs and handling practices, as well as there being potential environmental health risks such as soil erosion and depletion of water bodies (Mougeot, 1999). Mougeot (2000) recommends that these risks be recognized but he acknowledges that they can be avoided if proper management practices are implemented. Despite the above risks, many urban agriculture projects exist today. It has been reported that approximately 800 million people worldwide are involved in urban agriculture and that urban agriculture employs approximately 150 million people full-time (Mougeot, 2000). The prominence of urban agriculture is growing because of its recognized capacity to assist, resolve, or manage many sustainable development challenges (Mougeot, 1999; Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Roseland, 2005; Capon & Blakely, 2007; Mason & Knowd, 2010).

8

ASSESSING URBAN AGRICULTURE SUSTAINABILITY

SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Since urban agriculture projects are not inherently sustainable food systems, it is important to assess whether or not such projects are achieving their potential to contribute to community sustainability. Assessing the sustainability of a project is complex since there are so many interacting variables and relationships. As such, a systems approach for analysis is often used because it recognizes complexity and acknowledges that not all variables and elements within the system are necessarily fully understood (Gibson et al., 2005; Walker & Salt, 2006). Urban agriculture projects are considered to be social ecological systems because of their prominent roles and relationships between humans and the environment. Gallopin (2003) defines a social ecological system (SES) as “any system composed of a societal (or human) component (subsystem) in interaction with an ecological (or biophysical) component” (p. 15). Social ecological systems can be urban or rural and can be defined at different temporal and spatial scales (Gallopin, 2003). Consquently, a social ecological system perspective is a useful approach to urban agriculture sustainability assessments. Figure 1 illustrates basic components of a SES and a few examples of possible interactions. SESs are complex systems, and as such, schematic diagrams are often much more intricate than the one below.

Social Ecological System

(SES)

EcologicalSocial

Economic

Jobs

Resource use

Health and

Safety

Equity

Volunteers

Recycling

Figure 1: Social Ecological System – schematic diagram of the three pillars of social ecological systems (social, ecological, and economic components) with examples of possible interactions. Figure by K. Powers, 2010.

9

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

A sustainability assessment framework is a tool used to inform, evaluate, and make decisions relating to the „sustainability‟ of a system by determining if the goals of a project are being achieved or not, or if certain affects are “desirable, acceptable or intolerable” (Gibson et al., 2005). As previously discussed, sustainability can take on many definitions and represent a variety of objectives creating challenges in developing standardized sustainability assessment frameworks. The Gibson et al. (2005) sustainability assessment principles is one attempt to create a comprehensive framework that is relevant to and effective within specific project contexts, such as urban agriculture projects. These sustainability assessment principles are of particular interest because they go beyond the three pillars of sustainability (social, ecological, and economic) to be more integrated and more fully addresses the sustainability of systems (Morrison-Saunders & Therivel, 2006). For this research project, a framework for an urban agriculture sustainability assessment has been developed following methods outlined by Simmons (2008). Additionally, Gibson‟s et al. (2005) sustainability assessment criteria were used as the backbone of the sustainability assessment framework with more specific indicators of whether the criteria are being fulfilled or not being extracted from relevant literature. Literature reviewed to help create the specific qualifying criteria for the framework could be categorized as follows: sustainable communities and urban development, urban agriculture, social ecological systems (Mougeot, 1999; Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Gallopin, 2003; Feenstra, 1997; Newman & Jennings, 2008; Haughton & Hunter, 2003; Roseland, 2005; Curwell et al. 2005). From these literature review categories, the framework criteria were selected based on meeting both of the below conditions:

i. Each criterion must be relevant to Gibson‟s et al. (2005) sustainability principles

ii. Each criterion must be recognized as an important component of sustainability or a recurring theme of sustainable urban agriculture in a minimum of 2 academic sources

Table 1 below details the criteria used to complete the sustainability assessment framework. The left column lists the principles identified by Gibson et al. (2005) and the right column indicates relevant criteria for an urban agriculture project. These qualifying criteria were extracted from relevant literature, as discussed above.

10

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

Social-Ecological System (SES) Integrity

Does the SES meet community needs? Does the SES reduce the ecological

footprint of the community? Does the SES promote increased

environmental awareness of the community?

Are there ecologically sound production and distribution practices?

Is human safety, health, and well-being embraced and promoted by the SES?

Livelihood Sufficiency and Opportunity

Is the system breaking even or profitable? Is community capacity for self-reliance

increased? Are job/volunteer positions created?

Intragenerational Equity Do community members have equal opportunity to participate?

Are there any negative impacts on any specific sectors of society?

Intergenerational Equity Are the land-use practices sustainable in the long-term or will natural resources be exhausted?

Are there any long-term negative impacts on the community and urban ecology caused by the SES?

Resource Maintenance and Efficiency

Is there recycling of nutrients and waste materials? (closed system versus open system)

Is water managed efficiently to reduce waste?

Are energy sources sustainable and used efficiently?

Is the area of land used efficiently?

Social-Ecological Civility and Democratic Governance

Are local actors engaged in the SES decision-making process?

Are educational opportunities available to and accessible for community members?

Does the SES exhibit a respect for the intrinsic value of all of life?

Are relationships with local food policy organizations created/strengthened?

Precaution and Adaptation Are there marketable products to generate revenue and reduce/eliminate reliance on

11

public/private donations? Are adaptive management principles

integrated into the SES? Are the impacts of SES recognized across

spatial and time scales? (regional to global, short to long term)

Is natural, social, and economic variety encouraged to enhance SES resilience?

Immediate and Long-Term Integration

Are there environmental goals included in the SES objectives and is progress towards sustainability assessed?

Have local tolerances been identified so they are no exceeded?

Table 1. Sustainability Assessment Framework: the left column lists the principles identified by Gibson et al. (2005) and the right column indicates relevant criteria for an urban agriculture project.

Another commonly used sustainability assessment criterion is biodiversity. Biodiversity was not included as a criterion in this assessment framework because an assumption was made that the land used for urban agriculture would be developed or derelict land that is currently lacking biodiversity (so urban agriculture practices would not decrease the biodiversity). Additionally, an assumption was made that an increase in biodiversity would not be a driving purpose behind an urban agriculture project (even though an urban agriculture project may likely result in a biodiversity increase). Nevertheless, biodiversity was not completely excluded from the framework since under the principle Precaution and Adaptation the criterion of, “Is natural, social, and economic variety encouraged to enhance SES resilience?”, incorporates the concept of biodiversity. Although there is a greater emphasis on system resilience rather than biodiversity, biodiversity is addressed by encouraging natural variety. Thus, biodiversity, specifically, was not directly included as a pressing qualifying criteria in the urban agriculture context despite its importance to sustainability and was only addressed implicitly in the above criterion.

12

THE WORKING CENTRE CASE STUDY

BACKGROUND OF THE ORGANIZATION

The Working Centre is a non-profit community organization located in Kitchener, Ontario. Established in 1982, The Working Centre has developed and implemented numerous community programs such as employment counseling, computer recycling, the sale of secondhand housewares, and books stores. A recent undertaking of The Working Centre is an urban agriculture project which has been designed to provide local fresh greens year round. This project exemplifies an integrated social ecological system that has the potential to make positive contributions to community sustainability.

LANCASTER GREENHOUSE PROJECT

The Working Centre‟s urban agriculture project (The Lancaster Greenhouse Project) is located in downtown Kitchener, a short walk from the organization‟s main buildings. A greenhouse was constructed on property owned by The Working Centre, which is also home to the organization‟s organic herb gardens. The greenhouse was designed to house 4 hydroponic units that are used to grow microgreens, a nutritionally-rich young green which is harvested approximately 10 days following germination (Franks & Richardson, 2009). Within the greenhouse, an intricate systems design has been created by The Working Centre to reduce waste, maximize social resources and opportunities as well as conserve budgetary resources and potentially generate revenue.

THE WORKING CENTRE’S PROJECT AS A SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM

The Working Centre‟s Grow Garden and Lancaster Greenhouse urban agriculture project exemplifies a social ecological system because of the direct relationship between human actors and the environment as well as the complex interactions and flux of various dynamic components of the system. Diagram 2 represents the various social/human and environmental/biophysical components of this dynamic social ecological system as well as their interactions.

13

The Working Centre SES

Grow Gardens

Lancaster

Greenhouse

MauritaÕs Kitchen

Queen Street

Commons Cafe

Staff

Volunteers

Community

Members

Seed

Water

Electricity

Solar

Energy Herbal

Products

Microgreens

Education

Skill-building

Water

Crop

Residues

Soil

Products

Sales

Health

Well-being

Energy

Flow

Economic

Development

Adaptive Management

RESEARCH QUESTION The Grow Garden and Lancaster Greenhouse SES is a unique and innovative urban agriculture project, but is it contributing to community sustainability by providing secure and sustainable food source? To answer this question a sustainability assessment was conducted to determine how the SES may, or may not contribute to community sustainability and to determine in what ways the system could be improved.

Figure 2: The Working Centre SES – schematic diagram of ecological and societal components of The Working Centre SES and interactions between these components. Figure by K. Powers, 2010.

14

RESEARCH METHODS The sustainability framework previously described was used to assess the Lancaster Greenhouse social ecological system‟s sustainability. In-depth knowledge of the system and its functioning was gained through firsthand experience working in the greenhouse so as to accurately represent. Each of the sustainability framework‟s principles and qualifying criteria were examined to determine to what level those indicators were met. For some criteria, such as „does the SES reduce the ecological footprint of the community‟, not enough information was available to confidently conclude whether or not the criteria were met. In these instances recommendations for further investigation were provided. As well, it should be noted that the Lancaster Greenhouse project is still in its early stages of development so not all components of the system have been implemented. This early stage of development has limited the amount of information that could be collected and consequently the depth of the sustainability analysis.

15

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Social-Ecological System Integrity

Does the SES meet community needs?

The concept of community needs can be approached from many perspectives ranging from basic human needs to more idealistic concepts of sustainability. One perspective on the sustainability end of the spectrum is the Melbourne Principles. These principles were developed at an international charrette sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Table 2 outlines The Ten Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities, which represents a variety of community needs. Based on this outline of community needs, the Grow Garden and Lancaster Greenhouse SES fulfills several community needs. For example, the SES encourages individual empowerment through skill-building while it also reduces the ecological footprint of the community by producing local food. Nonetheless, the integrity of this assessment criteria would be greatly improved if a definition of community needs was agreed upon by a group of local stakeholders. This more contextually accurate definition would allow for better assessment as to whether the SES was filling an essential niche in the community or not.

The 10 Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities

1. Vision Provide a long-term vision for cities based on sustainability, intergenerational, social, economic, and political equity; and their individuality.

2. Economy and Society Achieve long-term economic and social security.

3. Biodiversity Recognize the intrinsic value of biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and protect and restore them.

4. Ecological Footprints Enable communities to minimize their ecological footprints. 5. Model Cities on Ecosystems

Build on the characteristics of ecosystems in the development and nurturing of healthy and sustainable cities.

6. Sense of Place Recognize and build on the distinctive characteristics of cities including their human and cultural values, history, and natural systems.

7. Empowerment Empower people and foster participation.

8. Partnerships Expand and enable cooperative networks to work toward a common, sustainable future.

9. Sustainable Production and Consumption

Promote sustainable production and consumption through appropriate use of environmentally sound technologies and effective demand management.

10. Governance and Hope

Enable continual improvement based on accountability, transparency, and good governance.

(Newman & Jennings, 2008) Table 2 – The 10 Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities as developed at the international charette sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. The charette was hosted in Melbourne, Austrailia in 2002.

16

Does the SES reduce the ecological footprint of the community?

Ecological footprint analysis is a tool for determining the various environmental impacts of different lifestyles, infrastructure, land use, consumption patterns as well as other social systems and practices of a population (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Newman & Jennings, 2008). As such ,ecological footprint analysis helps prioritize potential actions that can be taken to help reduce the environmental impact of the population (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Newman & Jennings, 2008). Deelstra & Girardet (2000) stress the substantial influence food supply has on the ecological footprint of a city, making it a key consideration for sustainable development. It is well known that importing food greatly increases the environmental impact of a city because of the fossil fuels required to transport the food, let alone the agricultural and processing practices of the place of origin (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000: Newman & Jennings, 2008). By minimizing transportation distances, local food sources significantly reduce the ecological footprint of a city in comparison to imported food (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000). With this understanding of agricultural transportation issues, it can be concluded that the urban agriculture component of the Lancaster Greenhouse project does not negatively affect the ecological footprint of the community because of its proximity to place of consumption and low input of resources to grow the crops. Nevertheless, since the project only fulfills a small market demand at this time, the greenhouse‟s overall impact on the entire community‟s footprint may be negligible. A further consideration of this viewpoint is that even though the SES may have a negligible impact on the community‟s footprint, it may be influential in the start-up of similar projects for a greater overall shift from imported food to local food. Due to the limited scope of this study, a full ecological footprint analysis of the entire SES could not be conducted. There are other factors of ecological footprint analysis that could be positively influenced by the Lancaster Greenhouse project, such as waste management, but these issues are beyond the realm of this study. For future examinations of the sustainability of the SES, there are many footprint analysis tools available online such as those provided by the Global Footprint Network (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/, 2010).

Does the SES promote increased environmental awareness of the community? Currently the Lancaster Greenhouse SES does not promote increased environmental awareness because of a lack of educational opportunities for community members. The Working Centre plans to integrate a volunteer program with the project and educational material (poster) at its café, Queen Street

17

Commons. These initiatives would lead to increased environmental awareness within the community as long as the Working Centre communicated the relationships between the components of this project and the impact this approach has on the environment in contrast to more conventional methods. In order to promote increased environmental awareness, it is important that the greenhouse coordinator communicates these relationships to the volunteers and that this information is presented clearly in the café. Are there ecologically sound production and distribution practices?

The Grow Gardens component of the SES is a natural, organic herbal garden, relying mostly on rainwater and nutrients in the soil. In times of draught, the gardens are irrigated but this is kept to a minimum. Wastewater from the hydroponic system is also used to irrigate some of the flowerbeds to reduce the reliance on freshwater to irrigate. The hydroponic system located in the greenhouse has relatively low resource inputs compared to convention greenhouse operating systems. First of all, since the climate is not controlled (i.e. no humidity control system), there are low energy inputs. In fact, the only energy used is the electricity required to run a timer and pump; the pump is on for a maximum of 30 minutes per day. Secondly, the hydroponic system (single unit) does not require much water resources since the water is recycled in the system for approximately one week and then used in Grow Gardens. The quantity of water used in a week is approximately 100L, which is enough to keep the burlap growing media saturated and keep the pump running properly as well as enough to compensate for any evaporation. A third input to hydroponic system are nutrients. Approximately 3 tablespoons of CropKing‟s nutrient mix, Hydro-gro, is used per week. The environmental impacts of the manufacturing or mining of this fertilizer is unknown and would require further examination which is beyond the feasible scope of this project. Thus ,even though a minimal amount of fertilizer is used for this project, it is important to recognize that there may be potential negative environmental impacts related to the use of fertilizer. Conducting a life-cycle analysis (LCA) of this product would help identify and quantify any burdens placed on the environment; however, LCA can be challenging to conduct due to time commitments, high cost, data confidentiality, and setting appropriate boundaries for the study (Joshi, 2000; Roy et al., 2009). If a LCA were conducted by The Working Centre or associates, it would be more useful to first complete the study for the microgreens since multiple components of the GROW Gardens system would be included in the analysis, along with the fertilizer. Nevertheless, due to the challenges of completing an LCA, possible impacts of the fertilizer cannot be determined at this time. The criteria of being „ecologically sound‟ also needs to be defined in order to determine whether the SES‟s production practices meet this criterion. Since

18

„ecologically sound‟ is a subjective sustainability criterion, a definition would need to be generated to reflect the goals and objectives of The Working Centre and stakeholder groups. For these reasons, a definition is not forthcoming. Due to the proximity of The Working Centre‟s garden and greenhouse to its main site on Queen Street, the distribution practices of this SES are extremely sustainable. The microgreens and other SES products (i.e. Grow Gardens herbal products) are transported by foot in reusable containers between the site where they are grown to the location where they are sold. Although a definition of „ecologically sound‟ does not exist for this context, the most sustainable distribution practice is already being implemented; therefore, the assumption is made that it is ecologically sound. Is human safety, health, and well-being embraced and promoted by the SES?

The SES reflects the values and culture of The Working Centre, which is built upon human safety, health, and well-being. The Working Centre promotes an egalitarian culture which values respect, relationship-building, selflessness, and skill-building (The Working Centre, 2010a). All of these values weave together in an effort to create a self-empowered, resilient, and healthy culture. As well, with an egalitarian organizational structure, each employee is empowered to help keep work conditions safe for staff and volunteers and the organization as a whole has an ethic to encourage the well-being of its members.

Livelihood Sufficiency and Opportunity

Is the system breaking even or profitable? Staff members at The Working Centre have reviewed expenditures and revenues of the Lancaster SES and found that the system can financially break even and even has the potential to be profitable (Mancini, 2010). At this time, however, the project is still in its early stages so exact values are not available. Are job/volunteer positions created?

Based on the above-mentioned review, the SES can support one full-time employee position (Mancini, 2010). As well, there are multiple opportunities to engage several volunteers with greenhouse activities, Grow Garden maintenance, and herbal product production. Is community capacity for self-reliance increased?

Local urban agriculture projects inherently increase community self-reliance because they reduce the community‟s need to import food. This SES, however, further

19

increases self-reliance by providing skill-building opportunities to volunteers. As well, Grow Gardens produces a variety of local herbal products, from tea to soap, which helps to stimulate the community‟s economy and further increases the community‟s self-reliance.

Intragenerational Equity

Do community members have equal opportunity to participate? The Working Centre promotes equal opportunities for community members to participate in its programs and projects. In this context, equal opportunities means that each person or sector of society has the same opportunity to participate in The Working Centre‟s program‟s and will not by discriminated against or excluded based on their age, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or nationality. Volunteer positions at The Working Centre are filled by a diverse range of community members and many partnerships have been forged between English as a Second Language programs and mental health organizations to ensure all sectors of society have the opportunity to participate. Are there any negative impacts on any specific sectors of society?

To answer this question more accurately a definition of „negative impact‟ would need to be assigned. In order to define „negative impact‟, there needs to be a reference point from where one can deem something to be positive or negative. Is it based on the organization‟s values? Or possible alternative uses of the resources going into the SES? For the purposes of this assessment a general approach of „no harm done‟ (in reference to the pre- versus post- SES state of the community and resources) has been taken to reflect whether or not there were any negative impacts. This criterion, however, should be reevaluated as Working Centre and community sustainability goals are identified. At this point in the project, there are no obvious or known negative impacts on any specific sectors of society; however, there may be some limitations. For instance, Grow Gardens has plants that may act as allergens to some people, making it uncomfortable for those people to work with the plants. As well, the greenhouse and garden site do not have a wheelchair accessible washroom, which may limit some community members from participating at that site, although there are other opportunities to get involved at other Working Centre locations. Lastly, there are physically demanding tasks that need to be done in the gardens and greenhouse that may require greater physical health than some community members possess. There are, however, multiple alternative tasks that can be done if a community member wants to get involved. One potential negative impact of the SES would be the construction of the greenhouse on fertile land that could have been used to expand the organic herb

20

gardens. On the one hand, a greater quantity of herbs could be produced during the growing season and there would be less water runoff, but are the herbs needed? Conversely, the greenhouse provides year-round greens at higher yields than a traditional herb garden, but the greenhouse has been built on fertile soil and results in water runoff. Principles of ecological footprint analysis would favor the greenhouse as long as it was productive and not sitting dormant (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000). As such, the greenhouse would arguably be the better option if a rainwater collection system was integrated. With rainwater collection, not only would the greenhouse space be productive year-round, but the runoff water from the greenhouse and garage roofs could be used to irrigate the herb gardens.

Intergenerational Equity

Are the land-use practices sustainable in the long-term or will natural resources be exhausted?

The raw natural resources used in the SES are water and soil. Soil is conserved by maintaining a ground cover and by using mulch. Nutrients are replenished by leaving a litter layer over winter but the soil could benefit from a composting program. Water from the municipal water supply is also used in the SES in conservative proportions. As mentioned, approximately 100L of water is used per week in the greenhouse, which is then recycled in the garden. The garden is only supplemented with additional municipally-supplied water in times of draught. Although the amount of water used by the SES is conservative, Waterloo Region is experiencing a variety of water resource challenges, which may result in the SES having to adapt to changing resource availability such as by planting drought resistant plants and using collected rainwater in the greenhouse. Nevertheless, it is not likely that either soil or water resources would become depleted by this SES as long as appropriate conservation methods continue to be practiced. Are there any long-term negative impacts on the community and urban ecology

caused by the SES?

Similar to the intragenerational concerns, a definition and reference point for „negative impacts‟ needs to be identified to properly address this question. Nonetheless, as with short-term concerns, no component of the SES has been identified at this time as negatively influencing the community or urban ecology in the long-term. Literature suggests that an SES is more likely to positively influence the community and urban ecology by promoting environmental stewardship and community self-reliance, with limited or no negative impact (Roseland, 2000).

21

Resource Maintenance and Efficiency

Is there recycling of nutrients and waste materials? (closed system versus open

system) The Working Centre has designed the Lancaster Greenhouse project and SES to be a closed-loop system in an effort to reduce the amount of waste materials and promote the recycling of resources. For instance, as will be detailed in the forthcoming section of this analysis, The Working Centre plans to install a biodiesel-fuelled hot water radiation system to heat the greenhouse over the winter. For this part of the project, waste grape seeds from the Niagara wine-making region will be used to manufacture the biodiesel to run the hot water radiation system. The waste glycerin from biodiesel production will be used to make soap. Additionally, as previously mentioned, wastewater from the hydroponic system is currently used to irrigate the garden and plant debris is composted and reused in the garden. Is water managed efficiently to reduce waste?

Water is used conservatively in both Grow Gardens and the greenhouse. To reiterate from above, wastewater from the hydroponic system is used in the gardens and even wastewater from cleaning is reused to irrigate areas of the garden that are not being used for herbs. The water management of this SES could be improved by collecting rainwater runoff from the greenhouse and residential house on-site so less municipal water is required. Are energy sources sustainable and used efficiently?

Presently the only energy source used is electricity to run a clock-timer and pump. Electricity is supplied through the municipal grid. Minimal electricity is used since the power draw is light for the timer and the pump is only on for a maximum of 30 minutes per day. The long-term plan for the SES includes a biodiesel hot water radiation system. A biodiesel reactor would be procured so The Working Centre can produce its own biodiesel. This fuel would then be used to run a hot water radiation system to heat the greenhouse from late Fall to early Spring. A full sustainability analysis of this biodiesel-hot water radiation energy system could not be conducted due to the limited scope of this study and the unavailability of information pertaining to the biodiesel reactor. Thus, within the current limitations of the project, energy is being used efficiently. While there are alternative energy sources that may be more sustainable, other sources are perhaps not feasible for the SES due to budget constraints and relatively low energy needs and costs (such as installing solar panels on the garage roof (Figure 3, far right)).

22

Is the area of land used efficiently?

The SES property is approximately 127 m2 and it contains a residential house, garage/workshop, and 3m by 7m greenhouse. Apart from a driveway and pathways, the remainder of the property is vegetated with a combination of more natural vegetation, organic herb garden beds, and composting areas. The land is used efficiently to allow for a diversity of uses and maximize production.

Figure 3: Lancaster Greenhouse – This image shows how the greenhouse is attached to the garage/workshop structure (to the right). Photo by K. Powers, 2010.

Figure 4: Grow Gardens – Image of the Grow Gardens location on a residential property. As illustrated, most of the front of the property has been converted to gardens without inhibiting residential uses. Photo by K. Powers, 2010.

23

Social-Ecological Civility and Democratic Governance

Are local actors engaged in the SES decision-making process? Since the SES is in its early stage of development a full social network has not yet been developed making it impossible to sufficiently answer this question at this time. The Working Centre promotes an egalitarian organizational structure that values feedback from all community members. Nevertheless, the organization could engage additional stakeholders, such as by forging relationships with „buy local‟ food advocates Are educational opportunities available to and accessible for community

members? Volunteer positions and educational media have not yet been developed for the SES but The Working Centre plans to provide learning opportunities through volunteer positions and display an informative poster in Queen Street Commons Café. Each of these learning platforms will be accessible to community members. Does the SES exhibit a respect for the intrinsic value of all of life?

The Working Centre created the SES with a value and respect for all life and resources. For example, a forward-thinking perspective was taken in designing this SES to make it sustainable and to address social, ecological, and economic challenges faced by the community. Although the organization does not outwardly state that it aims to demonstrate a respect for the intrinsic value of all of life, this value is inherently reflected in the SES design and organization‟s culture. Are relationships with local food policy organizations created/strengthened?

Relationships have yet to be developed with local food policy organizations. A Working Centre staff member attended a regional food policy table talk meeting to share ideas on local food initiatives but much more can be done to develop relationships with food policy organizations as the SES grows.

Precaution and Adaptation

Are there marketable products to generate revenue and reduce/eliminate reliance

on public/private donations? For several years now Grow Gardens has been producing products that are sold in Queen Street Commons Café. 2010 is the inaugural year for the greenhouse operation and the selling of microgreens in the café. All of these products have been

24

selling well in the café and the microgreens have been showing promising potential for economic growth (Mancini, 2010). It is currently unknown whether the SES can generate enough revenue to be profitable, data collected thus far indicates that they system should be self-sustaining (Mancini, 2010). Are adaptive management principles integrated into the SES?

Adaptive management is a complex systems approach to managing social ecological systems (Walker & Salt, 2006). Adaptive management principles include: combining established scientific knowledge with local expertise, testing different management strategies, the recognition of the unpredictability of system dynamics as well as responding to system feedback (Walker & Salt, 2006; Newman & Jennings, 2008). The SES has intuitively, as opposed to intentionally, integrated adaptive management principles into its operation. For instance, research was conducted on operating a greenhouse to produce microgreens and local knowledge was applied so that operational practices met site-specific needs. As well, in instances in which troubleshooting became necessary, multiple approaches were tested to find the best solution. The operation of the greenhouse has been adaptive to the dynamic nature of the system and changing climate conditions that greatly influence microgreen growth. Additionally, an initial assumption was made that microgreen production in a greenhouse lacking climate control would be unpredictable and therefore adaptations to its operation would be made as the system changed and responded differently to daily and seasonal climate changes. Even though it was not a project specific goal to undertake an adaptive management approach, it has been necessary in order to successfully run this SES. Are the impacts of SES recognized across spatial and time scales? (regional to

global, short to long term) At this time the impacts of the SES are not recognized across spatial and time scales since not all components of the SES have been implemented (i.e. biodiesel hot water radiation, or volunteer involvement). The Working Centre has a vision for the SES and its potential contribution to sustainable community development but its influence and impacts on the community cannot be determined until the system is more fully in place. Is natural, social, and economic variety encouraged to enhance SES resilience?

The Working Centre encourages social variety through its staffing, volunteer opportunities, and community programs. The SES will have volunteer opportunities to help support its operation as it grows, helping to engage community participation. The SES produces a variety of products that contribute to its economic variety (i.e. Grow Garden products and microgreens); however, they all depend on a hospitable

25

climate for plant growth. If there is a hostile growing season then there could be a substantial economic loss in the SES for which The Working Centre may have to compensate. Thus, the SES, on its own, is not especially economically resilient. Natural variety is not specifically encouraged to enhance the SES. Grow Gardens selects plants for the exterior gardens that are suitable for making herbal products rather than selecting plants to increase biodiversity. A variety of plants have been established in grow gardens but not with the intention of increasing system resilience. In the future, it is worth identifying native species that have adapted to local site conditions and that could also be used for herbal products as a way of potentially increasing exterior garden resilience and biodiversity. Several varieties of microgreens are grown in the greenhouse that are suitable for a southern Ontario climate and that have culinary appeal; however, they are grown in an artificial environment so natural variety cannot be achieved here without human intervention. Beyond growing a selection of crops that are suitable for various greenhouse climate conditions and providing various colours and flavors of crops for culinary use, increasing biodiversity has not been a priority for Grow Garden‟s greenhouse operations. Increasing natural variety is an important component of increasing a SES‟s resilience (Walker & Salt, 2006), but does it really influence the resilience of an artificial system such as the hydroponic unit? Climate control and pest management have been emphasized as being important for hydroponic system resilience while crop biodiversity has been less critical apart from growing crops that are suitable for the greenhouse temperature and humidity ranges (CropKing, 2010; Pilkington, 2010). Further investigation is required to determine whether natural variety is an influential component of a hydroponic system‟s resilience or if there are alternative methods for increasing resilience beyond those mentioned. The benefit of increasing natural variety is namely increased system resilience (SITE ME). Disturbances to this type of system, however, are short lived due to the short life cycle of the plants (~10-14 days) or this type of system

Immediate and Long-Term Integration

Are there environmental goals included in the SES objectives and is progress towards sustainability assessed?

The Grow Gardens and Lancaster Greenhouse SES does not have defined environmental goals and objectives other than to use resources efficiently and reduce, if not eliminate, waste. Since The Working Centre has a loose organizational structure and avoids unnecessary bureaucracy, specific SES objectives have not been openly defined by the organization and there is no review process to assess its

26

progress towards sustainability. Have local tolerances been identified so they are not exceeded?

Local tolerances applicable to the SES have not been identified. The term „local tolerances‟ is quite vague and could refer to a large array of economic, ecological, and social variables. Consequently, a possible approach to identifying tolerances would be to further develop the intragenerational and intergenerational equity sections of the SES sustainability assessment. Each of these sections discuss possible negative impacts of the SES and from these negative impacts it might be possible where local tolerances might exist.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The sustainability assessment of the Grow Garden and Lancaster Greenhouse SES has revealed several ways in which the SES contributes to community, as well as several components that could be improved or further developed. The assessment has also identified numerous unanswered questions and several weaknesses in the framework itself, such as a vagueness of terminology which prevented a discrete analysis of the SES. Specific improvements to be made to the sustainability assessment framework include:

Define „ecologically sound‟ for the SES context and reflect the sustainability goals and objectives of The Working Centre and community. In this context, a suggested definition could be „preserving or enhancing the natural environment and its resources and mitigating any potential anthropogenic negative impacts‟.

Have qualifying criteria that are more specific and less vague to generate more concrete results. For instance, instead of asking, „Does the SES meet community needs‟, address specific needs (i.e. food security) that are appropriate to the community and to the system being assessed.

Provide better definitions of terms and concepts to make criteria more clear and accessible to evaluators. As mentioned, „ecologically sound‟ should be defined as well as „community needs‟ and „negative impacts‟. Appropriate definitions for these terms should be developed by a group of local stakeholders so that these definitions are contextually accurate and reflect The Working Centre‟s environmental ethic, the community‟s environmental policy, and academic applications of these terms.

Narrow the scope of the sustainability assessment to a smaller scale if conducting the assessment in the early stages of the project or wait until the system is more fully developed so that more specific data is available. Since this is the first year of production, there were several test crops, resulting in a

27

lack of representative data (i.e. total crop yields per month, energy and water resource use etc.). Although production plans have been set for next year, it is not possible to accurately predict how that data will compare to this year‟s.

Refine the framework to make it shorter and more concise so assessment is more practical for organizations that want to evaluate their own community projects. To thoroughly investigate each criterion as outlined in this project would require too many resources to be practical; therefore, the framework needs to be made more accessible and user-friendly to organizations.

In the end, many challenges were encountered while using this sustainability framework. For example, methods for selecting qualifying criteria for Gibson‟s (2005) principles are biased since they were partially selected subjectively by their ability to fit within, and be significant to, the urban agriculture context. Additionally, it was challenging to apply this framework to an urban agriculture project that has only had one growing season. Without the full project being implemented, a lack of data prevented many questions from being answered. As previously mentioned, the sustainability framework proposed in this study would not be practical for organizations with limited resources since the framework requires a substantial time and monetary commitment to assess each principle and criterion. Perhaps, if completing a sustainability assessment for a project in its early stages, closer attention should be paid to using criteria that are more easily evaluated or at least can be evaluated using limited resources. Alternatively, it might be more useful to begin with an ecological footprint assessment or life cycle analysis until the SES has more fully matured because each of these frameworks for evaluation have well-defined, quantifiable variables to measure (Joshi, 2000; Global Footprint Network, 2010). As well, each of these frameworks have alternative models to help make their assessment less time-demanding and more cost efficient, while still providing constructive results (Joshi, 2000; Global Footprint Network, 2010). Despite challenges in reaching conclusive results, concrete recommendations have been provided to help create more specific goals and promote certain actions to help the SES move forward in a sustainable direction. The recommendations have been grouped into the following categories: Education, Resource Management, as well as SES Management and Networking. These headings are used to reflect recurring issues in need of attention across the 7 principles of the framework, rather than the principles themselves. Recommendations Education:

Ensure staff promote environmental awareness and provide education through volunteer activities;

Allow environmental awareness to be more at the forefront and encourage staff to champion environmental stewardship;

28

Implement volunteer program for community education and skill-building opportunities;

Provide multi-media educational conduits such as a poster display in Queen Street Commons Café, a webpage on The Working Centre website, or workshops.

Resource Management:

Instigate composting practices;

Install rain barrels for rainwater collection (from house, greenhouse, and garage) to reduce reliance on municipal water supply;

Research the fertilizer used in the hydroponic system to investigate if there is a more sustainable alternative;

Inventory plant species to determine which are most drought tolerant and investigate if there are drought tolerant plants that could be added to Grow Gardens and used for herbal products;

Review renewable energy options (such as solar panels on the garage or Bullfrog power) and possible corresponding grants or funding sources for implementation.

SES Management and Networking:

Develop specific goals/targets for the SES to better assess how it contributes to community sustainability;

Identify reference points to gauge whether certain components of the SES have a positive or negative impact on social, ecological, and economic aspects of the community;

Liaise with local food policy organizations and actors to build relationships within the community and strengthen the local food movement;

Develop a contingency plan in case there is a poor growing season resulting in poor production and consequently reduced revenue;

Create a review process to assess progress towards sustainability. A further recommendation in creating a sustainability assessment framework relates to the establishment of the framework criteria itself. Using the Gibson (2005) principles as the backbone of the sustainability assessment framework was useful as a foundation to ensure various aspects of sustainability were represented in the framework (beyond social, ecological, and economic pillars (Morrison-Saunders & Therivel, 2006). It was challenging, however, to provide conclusive results by assessing the qualifying criteria since there were many restraints such as time, financial resources, and unavailability of data. Many of the conclusions and recommendations made were already established practices at The Working Centre, demonstrating that conducting the assessment at this early stage in the project did not help contribute new knowledge. The results could be used to help prioritize which parts of the project should be implemented in a given timeframe, but under the premise that community sustainability is a driving force behind the development of the project. Nevertheless, the above recommendations are mere suggestions and

29

are not meant to be interpreted as a rigid to-do list. It is important not to compromise the flexibility and adaptability that The Working Centre thrives upon. The Working Centre has created a unique SES that has the benefits of year-round soil-less local food production along with seasonal soil-grown herbs that contribute to urban biodiversity, nutrient cycling, and reduced storm water runoff. Although there are many questions that remain to be answered from the sustainability assessment of this SES, it is important to evaluate whether urban development and projects, such as this one, contribute to community sustainability; this project has begun to do just that. As stressed by Deelstra & Girardet (2000), “There can be no sustainable world without sustainable cities”.

30

References

Bailly, A. S., Brun, P., Lawrence, R. J., & Rey, M. C. (Eds.). (2000). Socially sustainable cities: Principles and

practices. London: Economica Ltd.

Bridger, J. C., & Luloff, A. E. (2001). Building the sustainable community: Is social capital the answer?

Sociological Inquiry, 71(4), 458-472.

Capon, A. G., & Blakely, E. J. (2007). Checklist for healthy and sustainable communities. New South Wales

Public Health Bulleting, 18(4), 51-54.

CropKing. (2010). Microgreens: Grower's manual No. 5th Edition). Lodi, OH: CropKing.

Curwell, S., Deakin, M., & Symes, M. (Eds.). (2005). Sustainable urban development. London: Routledge.

Deelstra, T., & Girardet, H. (2000). Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. Resource Centre on Urban

Agriculture and Food Security,

Feenstra, G. W. (1997). Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative

Agriculture, 12, 28-36.

Franks, E., & Richardson, J. (2009). Microgreens: A guide to growing nutrient-packed greens. Layton, Utah:

Gibbs Smith.

Gallopin, G. (2003). A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development No. Project

NET/00/063). Santiago de Chile: United Nations.

Gibson, R. B., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., Tansey, J., & Whitelaw, G. (2005). Sustainability assessment. London:

Earthscan.

31

Global Footprint Network. (2010). Advancing the science of sustainability. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/

Haughton, G., & Hunter, C. (2003). Guiding principles for sustainable urban development. Sustainable cities

(pp. 200). London: Routledge.

IUCN, UNEP, & WWF. (1991). Caring for the earth: A strategy for sustainable living. Gland, Switzerland:

Jointly published by IUCN/UNEP/WWF.

Joshi, S. (2000). Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input-output techniques. Journal of

Industrial Ecology, 2(2-3), 95-120.

Mancini, J. (2010). GROW garden greenhouse (Personal Communication). Kitchener, Ontario: The Working

Centre.

Morrison-Saunders, A., & Therivel, R. (2006). Sustainability integration and assessment. Journal of

Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(3), 281-298.

Mougeot, L. J. A. (1999). Urban agricultre: Definition, presence, potentials and risks No. Cities Feeding

People Report 31). La Habana, Cuba: Government of Canada: International Development Research

Centre.

Newman, P., & Jennings, I. (2008). Chapter 5: Modeling cities on ecosystems. Cities as sustainable ecosystems

(pp. 92-180-181, 239). Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Palmer, J. A. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice progress, and promise.

New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Pilkington, L. J., Messelink, G., van Lenteren, J. C., & Le Mottee, K. (2010). Protected biological control -

biological pest management in the greenhouse industry. Biological Control, 53(3), 216-220.

32

Roseland, M. (2000). Sustainable community development: Integrating environmental, economic, and social

objectives. Progress in Planning, 54(2), 73-132.

Roseland, M. (2005). Toward sustainable communities. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., et al. (2009). A review of life cycle

assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering, 90(1), 1-10.

Simmons, L. V. (2008). Moving towards agroecosystem sustainability: Safe vegetable production in vietnam.

(Master of Arts in Geography, University of Waterloo).

The Working Centre. (2010a). Ideas and influences. Retrieved October 23, 2010a, from

http://www.theworkingcentre.org/wscd/ideas/ideas.html

Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world.

Washington D.C.: Island Press.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Retrieved

October 21, 2010, from http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm