Seeds and the city: a review of municipal home food gardening programs in Canada in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Home food gardening surged in popularity among Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Retail garden centers reported record profits in 2020 and 2021, and a cross-national survey revealed that 51% of Canadians grew at least one vegetable or fruit at home in 2020, with a significant portion being new to home food production. This widespread adoption occurred across various regions of Canada, indicating a national trend. Governments at all levels sought ways to support the well-being of Canadians during this period, and municipal food gardening programs emerged as a creative response. While academic literature extensively explores community gardens and their benefits (increased food security, community cohesion, and health improvements), home food gardening has received less attention, particularly in a Canadian context. This study addresses this gap by evaluating Canadian municipal gardening programs that supported residents in home food production and assessing their success in key food policy areas.

Existing literature focuses heavily on community gardens, highlighting their positive impacts on food security, food literacy, community engagement, and physical and mental health. These gardens are increasingly recognized as a key component of urban planning. However, research on home food gardening in Canada is limited, partly due to the challenges in identifying home gardeners and the diversity of garden types. Previous studies, mostly conducted before the pandemic, provide valuable insights into the motivations and habits of gardeners but may not fully reflect the current context. While some global overviews exist, they lack the specificity needed to inform local policies and programs. Small-scale studies conducted in select North American cities offer some data but predate the pandemic's impact.

This study analyzed urban agricultural policies and programs from 702 Canadian municipalities, focusing on those with populations of at least 2000 residents to ensure a manageable dataset. Municipalities were identified using various sources, including provincial websites, satellite imagery (Google Maps), and Statistics Canada data. Search terms in English and French were used to find municipal home food gardening programs on official websites and through online searches. A municipality was included if it launched or modified a program in 2020, provided funding or in-kind services, and limited participation to residents. Programs offering only compost or solely administered by library systems were excluded. Four municipalities with robust programs (Montréal, Brampton, Halifax, and Victoria) were contacted for interviews with staff and/or council members, providing additional details and internal documents. The qualitative data from interviews and policy documents were then thematically analyzed.

Out of 702 municipalities, only 19 (2.7% in 2020, dropping to 1.7% in 2021) had active municipal home food gardening programs in 2020. The study highlights four case studies: * **Montréal:** A program run by Cultiver Montréal, a non-profit, with municipal funding, distributed seeds and seedlings. The exact number of households reached was unclear. * **Brampton:** The largest program, the Backyard Garden Program, provided kits to 6000 households. Participants were selected on a first-come, first-served basis and were encouraged to donate surplus produce to food banks. * **Halifax:** The Food Gardening @ Home program offered different types of kits based on residents' needs (seed packets, gardening kits, and container gardens), targeted at food-insecure residents, and distributed through emergency food aid providers. * **Victoria:** Get Growing, Victoria!, distributed materials to 5537 households. Victoria's favorable climate allowed for two cohorts and a longer growing season. Twelve of the 19 municipalities cited increased food security as a program goal, but only Halifax explicitly limited participation to food-insecure households. Victoria also prioritized vulnerable residents, and a significant portion of their participants self-identified as negatively impacted by the pandemic. These programs collectively produced substantial amounts of food, although precise calculations of yields were not possible. Many programs also promoted community connection, despite the inherent limitations of home gardening for fostering social interaction. Municipal partnerships with non-profit organizations played a crucial role in program delivery and cost-effectiveness.

The study's findings demonstrate that municipal home food gardening programs offer a valuable response to both food insecurity and the social and emotional challenges associated with the pandemic. While many municipalities cited food security as a goal, the approach varied significantly, with some programs effectively targeting vulnerable populations and others having more general objectives. The success of programs like Brampton's and Victoria's highlights the potential for significant food production and community engagement. The reliance on partnerships with non-profit organizations illustrates how municipalities can leverage existing community resources to enhance the impact of their initiatives. The varying degrees of success also underscore the importance of program design and targeting specific needs. The digital divide, language barriers, and limited access to outdoor space are identified as significant barriers to inclusivity. The study suggests that future programs should address these challenges proactively.

Municipal home food gardening programs proved to be effective responses to the pandemic, offering immediate benefits to residents in terms of food security, community building, and social well-being. Municipalities should consider implementing these programs annually, enhancing their inclusivity by accounting for the digital divide, language barriers, and diverse housing situations. Future research could focus on a broader range of municipalities, including those with smaller populations and rural contexts, and explore long-term impacts on food security and community development.

The study's limitations include the exclusion of municipalities with populations under 2000, which restricts generalizability to smaller communities and rural areas. Data on program costs were not consistently available, hindering a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. The reliance on publicly available data might have overlooked some programs in smaller municipalities. Finally, the study does not account for the long-term effects of the programs beyond the initial 2020 implementation.