PLOT BY PLOT: DEVELOPING AN EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE VARIOUS GROWERS IN THE DC-MARYLAND-VIRGINIA REGION

Abstract

There is currently a gap in the realm of urban agriculture that supports urban agriculturalists to the same extent as rural agriculturalists. Currently, most technical assistance falls onto the shoulders of individual Extension Agents to aid urban growers in their efforts. This in turn leads to inconsistent technical support, often tied to a person and not a specific position or programming. Furthermore, this results in inconsistent programming that does not reflect the needs of the many different urban growers.This thesis explored the various urban agriculturalists of the DC-Maryland-Virginia (DMV) region to better understand who they are as individuals (i.e. archetypes), how they operate their growing sites (i.e. typologies). By bringing together those two components, a foundation for an educational framework could be created for technical assistance providers to utilize. This would result in a unified approach to technical assistance, providing common language and guided approaches. An exploratory mixed methods design was used, with an initial qualitative analysis of 12 interviews set up the basis for a survey analysis of 26 survey respondents. These results would create a finalized educational framework for the various urban agriculturalists in the DMV. This thesis was conducted into four phases: interviewing, surveying, analysis, and development. The interviews of Phase 1 discussed archetypes and used both urban growers and urban agriculture experts as the sample populations. This allowed for multi-perspective ground truthing to the archetype analysis. The survey of Phase 1 conducted ground truthing to the found archetypes with a different but larger sample size of just the urban growers population, and also explored the related themes to urban agriculture and how it relates to typologies of operations. Phase 3 examined the archetypes and typologies separately, and together in similar groupings. Finally, Phase 4 developed a foundation for an educational framework for urban growers that placed liked-group archetypes and typologies into similar approaches. Past research from other contexts on archetypes (from Campbell et al., (2023)) and typologies (from Jansma et al., (2024)) was replicated in the DMV during Phase 1 and Phase 2. The three main archetypes from Campbell et al. (2023) –The Business-Minded, The Leaner, and The Visionary –were all seen in the area. Additionally, a new archetype –the Self-Determined Agroecologist –was created to adjust for individuals who factor in the local food systems resilience into their growing motivations. Only five of the six main typologies from Jansma et al. (2024) were seen in the DMV. This included The Community Park, The DIY Garden/Farm, The Community Garden, The Social Farm, and The Urban Far; the Zero-Acreage Farm was not seen. The Community Garden, the Social Farm, and The Urban Farm were the most prevalent operational styles. The finalized educational framework created four approaches to urban agriculture in the DMV: “Exposure to Urban Agriculture Approach” (The Leaners and The DIY Garden/Farm) “Community and Green Space Approach” (The Visionaries with The Community Gardens), “Food System & Food Security Approach” (The Self-Determined Agroecologists with The Social Farms), and “Business Planning & Land Tenure Approach” (The Business-Minded with The Urban Farms). The Business-Minded often paired with the Urban Farm, were larger, required more formal labor, and grew food to sell it to others. The Visionaries often paired with the Community Garden, having mid-sized operations, relied heavily on themselves and volunteer labor, and grew to feed themselves. Finally, the Self-Determined Agroecologists often paired Social Farms, were in peri-urban/suburban areas, relied on the most varying degrees of labor inputs, and grew food to donate to others and supplement their nutritional needs. The Learners were not explored as they did not represent themselves in the survey and may need further research to explain this lack of presence. The Phase 2 interview results showed that The Learners were already supported group of urban agriculturalists, and appeared to be satisfied with the current technical support means. The other operational styles (Community The Park, The DIY Garden/Farm, and The Zero-Acreage Farm) also had low representation in the survey but need more research to be fully understood. Further research that explores the distance and pathways between each of the approaches would be beneficial in expanding the framework as well.