A research paper done by Racheal Loopstra and Valerie Tarasuk (2013) showed the results of a study in which 371 low-income families were interviewed in order to find out what their relationship with community gardens, community kitchens and Good Food Boxes were. Loopstra and Tarasuk (2013) wanted to discover why, or why nor these families were involved in these three types of programs listed.
In the discussion, the questionnaire format used to communicate with the families was critiqued because it limited the questions asked and as aresult may have allowed families to oversimplify their answers (Loopstra, Tarasuk 58). A more in-depth study and questionnaire would allow participants to speak more, and get deeper into what factors were preventing them from choosing to use food programs (Loopstra, Tarasuk 58). This would give policy makers and those researching food insecurity a better idea of what would be appealing, since, as it stands the study did not promote ideas that could spark better solutions.
I believe that the main problem at the end of the day is the impression that we all need for money to survive in a city. We live in a consumer society, surrounded by stores and building, and so to see the possibility of self sustainability as a solution is difficult. We do not see the land surrounding us as an income generator, at least for the greater majority of city dwellers. As well, I feel like it seems a bit ironic to tell the poorest city dwellers to grow their own food, as if we were suggesting for them to revert to the olden days when the peasants were always the ones living off the land. And although I say this, I also believe in the possible success of community gardens, but I think that in order for them to become successful and helpful to lower class citizens they have to become much more accessible and better funded.
Community programs are limited in funding and as a result are often run by volunteers (Loopstra Tarasuk 58). Therefore they suggest time, dedication and effort to be placed in their existence and use, concepts that could create an inclusive feel to the programs and make outsiders feel deterred by the idea, especially those who would not have time or energy to contribute much. The study shows that the participating low income population may have an issue participating due to a high percentage of single parents (almost half of the studies families), chronic health conditions and work (Loopstra, Tarasu 58).
Unfortunately, the study did not appear to ask for suggestions on what could be improved for families who did use community gardens and the Good Food Box Program and suggestions that might convince people to participate in community food programs. A deeper study into the reasons why they do not go would be very helpful.
By asking for suggestions, low-income families would be given the opportunity and power to change their living situations for the better, since they would know what is needed most. It would be a positive change, instead of what is commonly done; the government imposing what they believe would be good for the citizens, and as a result, having the upper hand by being able to blame the citizens for not using the programs provided for them.
Yet, for all this people need time and energy, all of which is easily taken up by the need for immediate money and food. It is a circular cycle that could be changed if the government was willing, or pushed to change some of the obstacles preventing low-income families from becoming as successful as they would like to be.
Loopstra, R and Tarasuk, V. 2013. Perspectives on Community Gardens, Kitchens and the Good Food Box Program in a Community-based Sample of Low-income Families. Canadian Journal of Public Health, January/Febuary,55-59.