Connecting Living and Learning about Sustainability: Installing an Edible Forest Garden in Campus Housing at The Evergreen State College

Item

Title

Eng Connecting Living and Learning about Sustainability: Installing an Edible Forest Garden in Campus Housing at The Evergreen State College

Date

2009

Creator

Eng Pyrooz, Natalie

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

CONNECTING LIVING AND LEARNING ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY:

INSTALLING AN EDIBLE FOREST GARDEN IN CAMPUS HOUSING
AT THE EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE

by

Natalie Pyrooz

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
November 2009



© 2009 by Natalie Pyrooz. All rights reserved.

ii










This
Thesis
for
the
Master
of
Environmental
Study
Degree





by





Natalie
Pyrooz







has
been
approved
for





The
Evergreen
State
College





by

















________________________

Frederica
Bowcutt,
Ph.D.

Member
of
the
Faculty,
The
Evergreen
State
College















________________________

Edward
A.
Whitesell,
Ph.D.

Member
of
the
Faculty,
The
Evergreen
State
College






























________________________

Timothy
Hohn

Member
of
the
Faculty,
Edmonds
Community
College


________________________

Date


iii

ABSTRACT

Connecting Living and Learning About Sustainability:
Installing an Edible Forest Garden in Housing
at The Evergreen State College
Natalie Pyrooz

Through gardening, people can attain closer contact with the land and natural environment. Higher education institutions have been initiating changes in their curriculum and operations reflecting their growing acceptance of the sustainability movement. Edible forest gardens offer a sustainable approach to landscape interaction, as
they are based on ecological principles while concurrently producing food. This case
study focuses on the installation of an edible forest garden in the residential area of
The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. It explores the questions: a) how can
edible forest gardens influence student learning about sustainability and food issues,
and b) can edible forest gardens be an important solution in a campus sustainability
plan?
Data was collected using interviews with the campus and greater community, and
with pre-and post-surveys collected from students in a participating class program.
Results indicate that edible forest gardening workshops positively affected students’ learning about sustainable food production. The addition of the garden to
the campus was seen as a sustainability project that addressed many of the campus’
sustainability goals, and encouraged both student and institutional learning opportunities through collaboration between students, faculty and staff. Edible forest
gardens were seen as addressing several sustainability issues, including: land use,
ecology, food systems, ethnobotany, and bioregional concepts. Perceived benefits of
the garden included: support of teaching and learning, further connecting students
to place, and establishing student feelings of ownership. It also serves as an example
of sustainable grounds maintenance. However, many challenges exist in establishing
perennial food producing gardens on campus, particularly in regards to continuity
and long-term maintenance, and require careful planning to address.

This study can serve as a model for other campuses seeking methods of actively
bringing sustainability into their grounds and operations as well as their curriculum.
It also demonstrates ways in which gardens can serve as a teaching tool at the higher
education level.

iv

CONTENTS

I. Introduction: An edible forest garden at the Evergreen State College . . . . . . . . 1
a. A case study at The Evergreen State College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
b. Chapter outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II.





The sustainability movement on college campuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
a. Campus sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
b. Gardens and campus sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
c. Sustainability at Evergreen: successes and struggles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
d. Edible forest gardens in a campus sustainability plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

IV.





Research methodology: a mixed-methods approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
a. Role as complete-member researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
b. Case study research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
c. Transcribing and coding qualitative data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
d. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

III. Edible forest gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
a. The ecology of edible forest gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
i. Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ii. Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
iii. Vertical layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
iv. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
v. Niches and ecological relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
vi. Discerning an edible forest garden from permaculture . . . . . . . . . . . 21
vii. Relationship to agroforestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
b. A brief history of forest gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
i. Tropical homegardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ii. Medieval Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
iii. Indigenous practices in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
c. Food Sustainability and edible forest gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
i. Food security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
ii. Food accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iii. Food distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iv. Food diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
v. Land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
vi. Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
d. Teaching with gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31



V. Findings: Student learning and campus community perspectives . . . . . . . . . 37
a. Edible forest gardens educating about sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
i. Sustainability education using edible forest gardens in the classroom . 39
ii. Direct impacts of forest gardening workshops on student learning . . . 42
b. Student reflections on the edible forest gardening workshop . . . . . . . . . 46
c. Independent study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
d. Edible forest gardens facilitating campus sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
i. Campus sustainability priorities and goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
ii. Required elements for projects bridging operations and student work . 54
iii. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
iv. Benefits of gardens on a college campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
v. Sustainability issues addressed by edible forest gardens . . . . . . . . . . 60
vi. Edible forest garden connections to teaching and learning . . . . . . . . . 61
vii. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
VI. Realizing sustainability through the lens of edible forest gardens . . . . . . . . . 65
a. Edible forest gardens, sustainability, and higher education . . . . . . . . . . . 65
b. Confronting additional challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
i. Resistance to aesthetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
ii. Resistance to perennials in home-based food production systems . . . . 71
iii. Edible forest gardening as a fad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
b. Beyond The Evergreen State College campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
c. Areas for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
d. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
VII. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix I: Food Place and Culture pre-survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Appendix II: Food Place and Culture post-survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Appendix III: Typical interview questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Appendix IV: Project outline and description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix V: Campus Land Use Committee project proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Appendix VI: Food Place and Culture course description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix VII: Workshop outline: Food Place and Culture program . . . . . . . . . . 98
Appendix VIII: Plant species list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Appendix IX: Planting plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Appendix X: Maintenance manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Map of Evergreen’s teaching gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1 Types of native plant distribution patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Patterns of native plant distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Vertical layers recognized in forest ecology and edible forest gardens . . . . . . 19
3.4 Food Miles Chart from Iowa study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.1 Pre- and post survey assessment of sustainability concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 Distribution of before and after student self-assessment of knowledge of
sustainability, food issues, and forest gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.3 Change in food purchasing habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.4 Change in local food purchasing habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.5 Change in organic food purchasing habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.6 Direct impacts of forest gardening workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.7 Direct impacts of forest gardening on students’ knowledge about
sustainability food issues, and growing food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.8 Project relationship with TESC learning foci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.9 Areas of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.10 Overview of interview responses by theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Selected list of differences between a typical farm or garden producing food
and an edible forest garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Plants common to medieval gardens and edible forest gardens . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 A comparison of locally grown and conventionally sourced food miles within
Iowa State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 The Evergreen State College Five Learning Foci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16
24
28
45

LIST OF PHOTOS

2.1 Seminar II Building at TESC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1 Before installation: looking southward from northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2 Morning of installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.3 Students engaging together at the workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.4 Class program working during garden installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.5 Students during workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

vii

AASHE
ACUPCC
CLUC
EFG
FAO
LEED
RAD
STARS
TESC
UNESCO

viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Association of Advancement for Sustainability in Higher Education
American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment
Campus Land Use Committee
Edible forest garden
Food and Agriculture Organization
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Residential and Dining Services
Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating Systeme
The Evergreen State College
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the support of many people this work could not have been accomplished.
I want to extend my gratitude to all of those who participated in this project: it has
strengthened me academically, in my personal growth, and will hopefully contribute
to research that will cultivate a greater sense of caring for the earth.
I would like to thank:

Michael Kelly, Pat Rasmussen, and Laura Donahue of Terra Commons
for sharing their knowledge and inviting me to participate in so many
aspects of their work, and for helping me to access tools and resources
as I embarked on this work;
the Campus Land Use Committee (CLUC) for approving the project;

the students of Food, Place, and Culture for enthusiastically participating in the installation;
Martha Rosemeyer, faculty for Food. Place, and Culture, for inviting me
into the classroom and sharing ideas and excitement;
Mark Lacina and Sharon Goodman of Residential and Dining Services
for the opportunity to develop myself, and the guidance and support
they’ve provided throughout this process, and for creating a graduate
student position to grow sustainability;
Sam Lanz and the Residential and Dining Services Grounds Crew, for
maintaining the garden and installing paths and drip irrigation;

Abigail Marshall, for enthusiastically engaging in a collaborative learning process, and for seeing this project forward as I move on;
Phred Swain-Sugarman for documenting the volunteer workshop in
film,
all volunteers who came to any of the work parties;

Halli Winstead, who has been a wonderful sustainabilabuddy and
incredibly special collaborator in growing sustainability at Evergreen
this year;
I want to thank each person who agreed to be interviewed; their
words and thoughts contributed insight into this process;

ix

my advisors, Frederica Bowcutt and Ted Whitesell, Members of the
Faculty at the Evergreen State College, and Tim Hohn, Professor at
Everett Community College, for their support, critique, and guidance
throughout the entire process. Each of you brought different but
essential knowledge to the table, and this work would not have come
together as thoroughly as it has without your assistance. I particularly
am indebted to Frederica’s dedication, creativity, and encouragement
as my primary advisor, and appreciate our countless conversations
which helped to shape this work;

Thanks to my brother, David Pyrooz, who is an inspiration through his
own dedicated research, my stepfather Jim Fish, for always believing
in me and being interested in my work, my mother, Marion Lafler, who
has always encouraged me to achieve even the highest of goals, and
my father, David Pyrooz, who I know would be so proud;
And most deserving of thanks is Jameson Honeycutt, who has experienced graduate school through me, listening to my excited highs and
feelings of discouragement, who cooked many dinners so that I could
continue working uninterrupted, and who has demonstrated his love
and dedication.



Chapter I | Introduction: An Edible Forest Garden at The
Evergreen State College
Gardening brings people closer to the land, through working the soil, observing

things grow, and reaping the rewards. It can also be a step in the movement towards
sustainability: not only does growing one’s own food reduce miles traveled between
food origin and consumption, it also teaches the gardener about the natural

environment. College campuses are rapidly advancing the forefront of sustainability
research and education, and have the opportunity to concurrently improve their

operations (Cortese 2003). As institutes of higher education make these changes to

their curricula and operations, they are compiling cohesive plans to determine their
pathways towards sustainability.

Edible forest gardens (EFGs) provide a unique opportunity to connect gardening

with sustainability in higher education. Most other studies have focused on gardens
in an educational context at the K-12 level, and typically feature annual vegetable
gardens (Civil 2007, Graham et al. 2005, Graham and Zidenberg-Cherr 2005,

Higgs and McMillan 2006, Morgan et al. 2009, Ozer 2007), though a few highlight
teaching gardens on college campuses (Hamilton 1999, Mkinne and Halfacre

2008, VanDerZanden and Cook 1999). Some college and university campuses
feature some sort of food production on their grounds (i.e. Oberlin College,

Sterling College, Warren Wilson College), and many have developed sustainable

landscaping plans and objectives (AASHE website, accessed September 22, 2009).

These plans often call for grounds to be managed to: minimize inputs and outputs,
eliminate or minimize pesticides, conserve water, highlight native species, include
species important for pollination, and/or create natural wetland or forest areas.

Edible forest gardens consist of diverse assemblages of primarily perennial food-



producing species. Defined by several vertical layers of plants performing multiple

ecosystem functions, edible forest gardens mimic forest systems and are largely selfmaintaining, while providing prime habitat features for wildlife.

The focus of this research is to determine whether edible forest gardens can result in
sustainability learning and living at both the institutional and the student scale.

My research focused on a two-part question: Can edible forest gardens on a college

campus facilitate sustainability (a) through teaching and learning with students both
in and out of the classroom, and (b) for the campus community, as a component of a
campus sustainability plan? I assert that EFGs in campus housing are an important
component of a campus sustainability plan. Gardens can create cross-institutional
relationships between campus groups, requiring collaboration and participation

with facility operations. Many challenges and opportunities arise when executing
a campus project, and the process of garden installation is enlightening for other
institutions incorporating gardens into their sustainability plan. The installation
process creates a hands-on learning experience that cultivates a deep sense of

meaning about food and place, raises awareness about sustainability issues in food
systems, and develops a sense of community.
A Case Study at The Evergreen State College

This case study is focused on the installation of an edible forest garden in the

housing area at The Evergreen State College campus, and its direct and indirect

effects on learning about sustainability. Evergreen is a unique campus, both in its
pedagogy and operations. However, it presents many of the same sustainability

challenges that are encountered in other college campuses as well as large-scale

institutions. The case study will provide insights to the importance of landscaping


with edible plants in a public setting, and the educational opportunities that occur
both within and outside of classroom learning.
Chapter Outline

Chapter 2 will review and critique the campus sustainability movement, in

particular as it pertains to the Evergreen State College. Next, Chapter 3 will consider
current literature and posit the importance of edible forest gardens as an ecological
alternative for growing food and grounds management. Chapter 4 discusses and

justifies methodology: I speak to the methods used to collect the data, further justify

the case study method, and outline my limitations. After that, Chapter 5 presents the
findings from the research. Lastly, Chapter 6 will open into discussion on what the
research means for the institution itself, as well as in a wider context.





Chapter II | The Sustainability Movement on College Campuses
Higher education has unique academic freedom and the critical
mass and diversity of skills to develop new ideas, to comment on
society and its challenges, and to engage in bold experimentation in
sustainable living.
Anthony Cortese 2003

Although colleges and universities are notoriously slow to create changes in

curriculum (Altbach 1974), these institutions are in a unique position to emerge as
leaders in the sustainability movement (Cortese 1992). There are several reasons
for this: they are centers of teaching, learning, and research and as a result they
have the potential to equip the next generation with skills and concepts for the

future (Cortese 2003). In addition to realized outcomes and educational process,

sustainability challenges the foundation upon which institutions of higher education
are built, and can be a catalyst for curricular and operational innovation (Corcoran
et al. 2004). Many campuses constitute an all-inclusive system: with food services,
housing, employment, and leisure (M’Gonigle and Starke 2006). Ranging in size
from less than 1,000 to over 40,000 students, colleges and universities have the

opportunity to confront a wide range of sustainability challenges at different scales.
Campus Sustainability
Several benchmarks have led to the increased acceptance and integration of

sustainability recognition in higher education (Wright 2002). In 1972, the Stockholm
Declaration recognized the interdependency between humans and the environment,

offering 24 principles to attain sustainability, including a clear message outlining the
need for environmental education (UNESCO 1972). However, it wasn’t until almost

20 years later, in 1990, that university administrators made their first commitment
to sustainability in higher education with the Talloires Declaration, asserting



the need for universities to assume a leadership role in advancing sustainability

(UNESCO 1990). Several other declarations were developed throughout the early

1990s and incorporated to various extents at universities around the world (Wright
2002). The Thessaloniki Declaration in 1997 became the first to argue the essential
place of sustainability learning within all disciplines, and clearly link ecological

sustainability with social responsibility (UNESCO 1997). The most recent higher

education sustainability objective is the American College and University Presidents
Climate Commitment, to which there are over 600 signators, focusing sustainability
efforts on the daunting task of addressing climate change (ACUPCC 2008).

In the last several years, sustainability has become a buzzword in higher education,
and an unprecedented number of schools are jumping on the bandwagon (AASHE
website, accessed April 17, 2009). The Association for the Advancement of

Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) consists of 647 member schools from
across the nation (480 four-year and graduate institutions, and 167 two-year

and community colleges). Demonstrating the still-growing movement, 21 new

members joined in February 2009, 12 in March 2009, and 11 in June 2009 (AASHE
website, accessed April 17, 2009). Prospective students often consider a campus’
sustainability efforts as they are make decisions about where to continue their
education: 66% of college applicants indicated that a college’s environmental

commitment weighed upon their decision-making in choosing a school (Princeton
Review 2008). Distinguishing a campus’ dedicated efforts at ecological and social
responsibility from one that is merely “greenwashing” to attract prospective

students (i.e. signing the declarations and not taking sincere action) can sometimes
be difficult.



However, comprehensive assessments are under development to measure

campus sustainability efforts. At the forefront is AASHE’s Sustainability Tracking,

Assessment, and Rating System (STARS), a tool to gauge campus’ progress in their

sustainability efforts. Since sustainability is a developing area of research, there had
been no tracking system to compare or rate progress in this area (AASHE website,
accessed April 17, 2009). By assigning credits, STARS generates a ‘report card’

of campus sustainability, evaluating three broad areas: education and research,
operations, and administration and finance. Within these categories, specific

areas examined include curriculum, faculty and staff development, buildings,

grounds, dining services, waste minimization, purchasing, transportation, planning,
affordability, and sustainability infrastructure (AASHE 2008). This comprehensive

tool was piloted by 66 colleges and universities, including Evergreen, in the United
States and Canada in 2008, and its revised version was released in April 2009.

Evergreen’s pilot assessment was coordinated by graduate student Kyle Murphy,

whose thesis concluded that not only did the tracking tool serve as a benchmark of
indicators for the school’s sustainability efforts, but also assisted in organizational
learning by the institution about sustainability (Murphy 2009).
Gardens and Campus Sustainability
Many colleges and universities are struggling to incorporate sustainability concepts
and operations into their institutional paradigm and communicate them across
distinctive populations of students, faculty, and staff (Sharp 2002). There are

several avenues through which sustainability can be incorporated into the campus

culture. These include: curricular integration to existing disciplines, operations and

facilities, dining, housing, recreation and student life, and at the administrative level
(Creighton 1999, M’Gonigle and Starke 2006). Each of these areas presents its own
suite of challenges. As this thesis will demonstrate, the addition of edible forest



gardens to campus grounds can both teach and demonstrate sustainability at several
of these intersections.

Gardens arise as one tactic in promoting sustainability practices in operations and
curriculum, and many schools are installing variously-themed gardens on their
grounds. Of 88 campuses that have submitted applications to AASHE’s Campus

Sustainability Leadership Awards, 43 of them highlight gardens (AASHE website,

accessed April 22, 2009). These include many types of gardens: native plant gardens,
rain gardens, rooftop gardens, organic gardens that provide food to the campus food
service provider, community gardens which are tended by students or community

members (AASHE website, accessed April 22, 2009). The functions served by these
gardens included food, demonstration and education, habitat or restoration value,
and reducing water use. Gardens typically were addressed within either campus
operations or student life, depending on who is responsible for caring for them.
Some spaces are maintained by grounds maintenance staff, whereas others are

cared for by student groups. Maintenance is one determining factor in assessing
the potential for teaching about sustainability through ongoing interaction with
the garden. Oberlin College has installed edible landscaping on the grounds of
their environmental building, which includes annual and perennial gardens

demonstrating the food capable of being produced in urban and suburban areas. At

Warren Wilson College, the landscaping crew and residents maintain a permaculture
garden for vegetables, fruits, and herbs by the EcoDorm.

Edible forest gardens, due to their holistic approach and design, do not fit into the

confines of a traditional academic discipline (Jacke and Toensmeier 2005). Rather,

when integrated into curricula, they can reach across multiple branches of learning.
The Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative, nationally recognized for working with


educators across disciplinary boundaries to bridge sustainability into curriculum,
recommends bringing sustainability into existing disciplines rather than define

disciplinary confines for the subject itself (The Washington Center for Improving

Undergraduate Education 2008). The Initiative’s philosophy is rooted in re-orienting
the curricula of majors, minors, and general education, designing interdisciplinary

curricula, and integrating community-based or service-learning opportunities into
existing courses (The Washington Center for Improving Undergraduate Education
2008). Because of their place-based nature, edible forest gardens are particularly

effective in communicating bioregional concepts. Since they are tangible, they can
create a hands-on learning experience.

Sustainability At The Evergreen State College: Successes and Struggles
The Evergreen State College (TESC or Evergreen) is widely considered a leader

in sustainability. Despite the recognition the campus has received, it is struggling

in determining how to proceed in developing a sustainability ethic, and become a

truly carbon neutral, zero-waste campus. There is not room in this work nor is it my
intent to comprehensively describe or assess Evergreen’s sustainability programs,

but providing a clear picture of some of the current highlights and challenges will set
the stage for understanding how edible forest gardens fit into the bigger picture of
sustainability on this campus.

A set of goals and strategies was outlined in 2006 to lead the campus towards

sustainability: while most are in progress, some are not on target to being met.

These include specific targets, i.e. “Increase local/organic food purchases to 40%
by 2010,” as well as broader approaches, for example, “Increase opportunities

for a practical education in sustainability.” A Climate Action Plan, compiled by a

collaboration of students, faculty, was completed and approved in summer 2009 and



submitted to the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment
(TESC 2009a). One of the goals included in the plan is to re-purpose designated

lawns and underutilized areas with forest and garden space. Edible forest gardens
established in some of these areas will further demonstrate commitment to
sustainability, and provide a link to the curriculum.

Evergreen has been the recipient of several awards in regards to the campus’

sustainability efforts. For example, the National Wildlife Federation considered

Evergreen to have an ‘exemplary’ sustainability program (NWF 2008). The Princeton
Review awarded Ev ergreen a 99 (on
a scale of 60-99) in its Green Rating

of colleges (Princeton Review 2009).
The college was one of the first

signatories to the President’s Climate
Commitment in 2007. Evergreen

hosts the first publicly funded LEED
Gold public building in Washington,
including green features such as

recycled wood floors, green roofs, and
passive solar designs (TESC website,

accessed October 2, 2009); purchases
100% chlorine-free recycled paper;

Photo 2.1 Seminar II Building at TESC.
and uses Green Seal approved cleaning The Seminar II building earned LEED gold
standard. This photo illustrates stormwater
products. The student-initiated Clean drainage that incorporates a themed
teaching Garden, and outdoor hallways
Energy Committee collects student
eliminating the need for additional lighting
and temperature control. Photo credit: Lara
fees to purchase green energy tags
Swimmer.
to offset 100% of campus energy use
10

with renewable energy sources and fund sustainability-related projects. The Organic
Farm on campus composts food waste from the campus housing area, and other

compostables collected across campus are taken to Silver Springs Organics, a local
composting facility.

While much progressive action is being taken and there is considerable good

publicity, there is room for critical assessment of Evergreen’s progress. For example,
the commercial compost program is laden with obstacles, and an established plan
for operation of this is still under construction. While 82% of residents claimed to
understand the recycling and composting systems on campus, 80% of materials

found in a campus waste audit were compostable or recyclable (Raab 2009, TESC

2009b). Evergreen is struggling to meet another large-scale goal of purchasing 40%

local and/or organic food; while the campus has reached approximately 33%, the last
7% is currently prohibitively expensive (Field notes 2009). The rural setting of the

campus presents a challenge in reducing its transportation-related carbon footprint.
Sustainability-themed student housing has yet to develop a successful program.

Evergreen supports a Sustainability Office, formed in 2008, that is situated within
the President’s Office, under the supervision of the Sustainability Director. A

Sustainability Council, consisting of faculty, staff, upper-level administration, and
student representatives, make campus-wide sustainability-oriented decisions.
Four working groups, focused on outlining and achieving goals related to food
sustainability, alternative transportation, energy, and waste reduction, consist
of faculty, staff, and students, who regularly attend Council meetings to report

progress and make recommendations. The interdisciplinary structure of Evergreen’s
curriculum favors integration of sustainability concepts. The 2008-09 catalog

highlights 19 full-time programs directly focused on sustainability studies, exploring

11

such varied disciplines as community planning, social justice, food and agriculture,
ecology, history and culture, policy, economics, and business (TESC website,
accessed April 22 2009).

The Greener Living Program seeks to instill an ethic of sustainability on the college
campus, and supports several programs engaging students through curricular and
extracurricular activities, and providing solutions to create a more sustainable

lifestyle. Situated primarily in campus housing, the program endeavors to create
a place for students to practice sustainability in their own lives. The campus

Residential and Dining Services (RAD, or RAD Services) at Evergreen includes

“Sustainability” in its mission statement, attempting to create meaningful space
for students to live sustainably. RAD Services engages a Sustainability Theme

House, partners with the Organic Farm to help residents compost, uses eco-friendly
materials in remodel projects and attempts to donate or recycle all materials, has
purchased electric vehicles for campus driving, utilizes Clear Stream recycling

from Thurston County Solid Waste, and uses a suite of certified green cleaning

products. They have created Kitchen Garden raised bed plots, collaborated with the
Community Gardens to organize seed planting workshops, and installed an edible
forest garden. To achieve these goals, they have created a student Sustainability
Coordinator position, which I filled in the 2008-09 academic year, to further

research and implement ways in which the campus could become more sustainable.
The edible forest garden installed in the spring of 2009 is the focus of this research.
Edible Forest Gardens in a Campus Sustainability Plan
In 2002, an arboretum plan was established and approved by the CLUC and the
faculty for the installation of eleven teaching gardens throughout the campus

core, in addition to the pre-existing Longhouse Ethnobotanical Garden initiated by
12

Figure 2.1 Map of Evergreen’s teaching gardens (Bowcutt 2008)

faculty member Marja Eloheimo (Bowcutt 2002). The plan was updated in 2008

and added to the current Campus Master Plan’s appendices (Bowcutt 2008). Goals

of these gardens are both social (educational value, aesthetics, celebrating cultural

diversity, fostering social justice) and environmental (promoting sustainable garden

13

design, reduction of water and energy use, improvement of wildlife habitat). Though
proposed and established prior to Evergreen’s formal foray into developing campus
sustainability measures, these gardens act as a step towards sustainability. Twelve
teaching gardens have now been established, and are a result of collaborative

partnerships between faculty, staff, students, alumni, various campus entities (i.e.
the Organic Farm, the Longhouse), and the greater community (Bowcutt 2008).

Partners outside the campus community include government agencies (the City of

Olympia, Washington Department of Transportation, Washington State University’s
cooperative extension program Native Plant Salvage), non-profit organizations, and
for-profit organizations. The gardens have several themes, including native plants,
ethnobotany, rain gardens, pollinator gardens, and roof gardens (Bowcutt 2008).

The edible forest garden theme complements that of the other gardens as it expands
the scope of teaching and learning to include edible foods in Evergreen’s Teaching
Gardens, while falling in line with the pre-established goals outlined above.

As Evergreen institutionalizes sustainability, the Climate Action Plan will outline
strategies for the next 10 years. Currently under development and review by the
Sustainability Council, the Climate Action Plan rigorously reviews the campus’

carbon footprint, establishing concrete steps to achieve carbon neutrality (TESC

2009a). The goal to re-purpose several lawn areas into edible or native forest will

reduce maintenance, particularly by greenhouse gas-intensive equipment like lawn
mowers and leaf blowers. It will also increae carbon sequestration and ecosystem
services, as well as create educational opportunities (TESC 2009a). The next

chapter looks more closely at what edible forest gardens have to offer, and how they
intimately connect to sustainability principles and practices.

14

Chapter III | Edible Forest Gardens

Conservation is a state of harmony between men and the land. By
land is meant all of the things on, over, or in the earth. Harmony with
land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish his right hand
and chop off his left. That is to say, you cannot love game and hate
predators; you cannot conserve the waters and waste the ranges; you
cannot build the forest and mine the farm. The land is one organism.

Aldo Leopold, Round River

This chapter will review literature on edible forest gardens, explaining their

principles, history, and connection to food sustainability, finishing with examples

of gardens as teaching tools. I will first describe what edible forest gardens are and

how their design philosophy concurs with forest ecology theory. Next, I’ll show how
land management similar to forest gardens has been used in various geographical
areas throughout history. Then I will briefly review some current challenges in
food sustainability, and link edible forest gardens as one solution considering

more sustainable food production. Lastly, I will indicate previous literature that
demonstrates how gardens have been used in teaching and learning.

Edible forest gardens are perennial polycultures of multipurpose plants (Jacke

and Toensmeier 2005). While the majority of the plants are edible, all plants in

the garden provide some sort of use: whether for food, medicine, culinary herbs,

or other purposes. These intentional ecosystems utilize forest ecology principles,
creating an environment that requires little maintenance and is largely self-

sustaining. Distinctly different from typical methods of growing food, edible forest
gardens are composed of diverse species thriving together, with several vertical
layers as in a forest system. Weaving an edible forest garden into the fabric of

15

a college campus offers a demonstration of this alternative edible ecosystem,
conveying sustainability concepts in both theory and practice.
The Ecology of Edible Forest Gardens
While the foundational concepts of edible forest garden design do mimic forest
structures and patterns, the form of a forest garden can widely vary depending

on factors such as: climate, geography, watering regime, soil, planting density, and
suite of selected species (Jacke and Toensmeier 2005, Whitefield 2002). Two key

distinguishing factors of a forest garden are (a) it is composed of primarily perennial
species in untilled soil, and (b) multiple plant species are interwoven rather than
segregated (Whitefield 2002). The structure of the garden can be wide-ranging

depending on the designer’s emphasis. For example, the Land Institute in Salina,
Kansas conducts extensive research in using perennial species as substitutes for

annual grassland crops in prairie ecosystems, (for example, Cox et al. 2006, Crews

2005, Glover 2005), demonstrating how the landscape can just as easily result in a

grassland as a woodland. Several elements of forest ecology are pervasive in edible

forest garden design: patterns, plant diversity, vertical structure, and soils (Jacke and
Table 3.1 Selected list of differences between a typical farm or garden producing food and
an edible forest garden
Conventional Farming / Gardening

Edible Forest Gardens

Single species typically in rows

Multiple species interspersed

Single layer

Multiple layers together

Primarily annual and some perennial plants Primarily perennial and some annual plants
Tylically cultivated species and hybrids
Requires inputs of fertilizer
Requires sun

Requires irrigation

Limited habitat for wildlife
16

Spectrum of fully native to fully cultivated
species composition
Primarily self-fertilizing
Sun to shade

Often drought tolerant

Many niche habitats for wildlife

Toensmeier 2005, Whitefield 2002). The principles used in forest gardening are

grounded in ecological studies of forest function, but are adapted to prioritize food
production. I’ll finish the section by distinguishing edible forest gardens from both
permaculture and agroforestry, which
share similar qualities.

Patterns. In contrast to rigid,

single-species rows of plants in

conventional agriculture or home
food gardening, EFGs attempt to

mimic ecosystem patterns. Species
within a forest form communities

based on a number of factors, such

as site conditions, plant propagation
and seed dispersal methods, water

regime, and disturbance frequency

(Barbour et al. 1999, Kimmins 2004).
Plant arrangement is seen both

at regular and irregular intervals,

and in clumps or patches, clusters,

drifts, or scattered. Benefits of plant

placement following these techniques
include increasing plant defense

against herbivory and disease, and

the reduction of competition between
individual plants attempting to

Figure 3.1 Types of distribution patterns.
occupy the same niche (Liebman 1995). (Jacke and Toensmeier 2005)

17

Figure 3.2 Two examples of species distribution. Left: multiple patterns are shown:
clusters, drifts, scatters; Right: several clumps of species. (Jacke and Toensmeier
2005)
Consequently, diverse plant communities flourishing in similar site conditions can

create alliances by promoting pollination interactions and building soil-based food
web relationships. The spatial distribution patterns used in EFG design attempt to
include community relationship patterns.

Diversity. Biodiversity contributes to ecosystem function, such as air and water

purification, nutrient cycling, soil building, carbon sequestration, as well as meeting

human needs, including crop pollination and providing natural resources (Chapin et
al. 1997, Groom et al. 2006). Edible forest gardens embrace biodiversity at various
hierarchical levels (genetic, species, and community) in an attempt to build a

functioning ecological system (Jacke and Toensmeier 2005). Diversity of plantings
encourages greater species richness of insects, birds, and other wildlife.

Vertical Layers. Forest systems exploit vertical space allowing multiple species to

overlap in the same horizontal spatial area. Beard (1973) establishes six primary

growth forms of terrestrial plants: trees, lianas/vines, shrubs, epiphytes, herbs, and
thallophytes, as shown in the top illustration of Figure 3.3. (Note: though the term
18

Figure 3.3 Above: Vertical layers recognized in forest ecology texts. (Beard 1973)
Below: vertical layers acknowledged in edible forest garden design texts. (Jacke and
Toensmeier 2005)

19

thallophyte is outdated, the designation of multiple vertical layers of co-existing

species has been useful and remains valid.) Adapting this to edible forest gardens,
Hart counts seven layers: canopy trees, understory trees, shrubs, perennial herbs,
groundcovers, vines, and an underground root zone. Whitefield (2002) simplifies
this to four: trees, shrubs, perennial herbs, and vines. The benefits of vertical

layering are numerous: (a) it encourages a higher yield in a comparable area by

occupying otherwise underutilized space (Soule and Piper 1991); (b) it promotes

diversity by employing multiple species to satisfy specific niches; and (c) the varied
structure creates wildlife habitat. Habitat structure has been found to be more

important than vegetation composition in maintaining native wildlife assemblages,
particularly in urban forest environments (Garden et al. 2007).

Soils. Conventional gardening and agricultural practices modify soil structure
with frequent tilling and chemical inputs, which disturbs the sub-soil system.

Petrochemical fertilizers require energy intensive production and are a contributor
of nitrate additions to the soil that then infiltrate and contaminate water systems.
Soil building in EFG design uses alternative approaches to fertilizers and tilling.
Reduction of tilling reduces potential for erosion, allows for the soil strata to

develop which enhances beneficial soil organisms, and encourages mycorrhizal

growth (Soule and Piper 1992). Substituting petrochemical fertilizers with compost
and mulch minimizes weeds and encourages mycorrhizae. Wood chip mulch

helps to improve soil structure, enhance gas transfer, enhance water infiltration
and retention, prevents erosion and compaction, and moderates temperature;
additionally it provides plant nutrients, suppresses pathogens, and enhances

beneficial organisms (Chalker-Scott 2007). Additionally, edible forest gardening

encourages the inclusion of nitrogen-fixers and “dynamic accumulators” to build soil
health (Jacke and Toensmeier 2005, Whitefield 2002).
20

Niches and ecological relationships. Species do not exist on their own in an

ecosystem: rather, they tend to have interactions that are beneficial to both species

(mutualism), beneficial to one species while not affecting the other (commensalism),
or beneficial to one species while harming the other (parasitic) (Barbour et al.

1999). Edible forest garden design attempts to use these laws in species selection

and placement: including nitrogen fixing plants to build the soil, utilizing companion
plants, and completing a comprehensive ecosystem assessment as a component of
developing a site development plan (Jacke and Toensmeier 2005).

Discerning an Edible Forest Garden from Permaculture. Permaculture is a system of
design that envelops all aspects of living, while edible forest gardening focuses only

on working with nature where we live to produce food (Mollison 1988). Edible forest
gardens can be seen as one part of permaculture, where permaculture addresses

a more holistic picture. I see forest gardens as a responsible, respectful method of
interacting with the earth: producing food while designing our surroundings in

alignment with nature. In my opinion, they have the potential to appeal to a wider

audience: the ideas are less radical, they are not difficult to implement, and they are
well grounded in ecological theory.

Relationship to Agroforestry. Agroforestry is defined by the International Council
for Research in Agroforestry as “a collective name for land-use systems and

technologies, where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc) are

deliberately used on the same land management unit as agricultural crops and/

or animals, either in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence. In

agroforestry systems there are both ecological and economical interactions between
the different components” (Lundgren 1982). The practice can be visualized in

21

systems as simple as grazing cattle underneath widely spaced trees. EFGs represent
one approach in creating an agroforestry system, weighing heavily on ecological
connections and the inclusion of a diverse array of species working together.

The foundation of edible forest garden design upon established ecological principles
illustrates not only how edible forest gardens can be a productive, practical, and

environmentally sound form of land management, but also how they can act as a
useful demonstration area when installed on a college campus.
A Brief History of Edible Forest Gardens
Forest gardening has existed for thousands of years, in practice if not in name. In the

following section I will outline (1) tropical “homegardens” and their influence on the

current edible forest gardening movement, (2) European medieval gardens and their
similarities to what we now call edible forest gardens, and (3) Native American land
management.

Tropical Homegardens. Hoogenbugge and Fresco (1993) define what are known

as ‘homegarden systems’ as “a small scale, supplementary food production system
by and for household members that mimics the natural, multi-layered ecosystem.”
Tropical regions boast a great number of homegardens, particularly in Kerala,

India and Java, Indonesia, as well as parts of Madagascar and Central America.

Many residents cultivate homegardens: 20-36% in Java (Christianty et al. 1986) to
upwards of 90% of households in areas of Sri Lanka (Verheij 1982). Homegardens
are not a complete source of food and other provisions but provide a source of

augmented income and a portion of nutritional requirements throughout multiple
seasons (Hoogenbugge and Fresco 1993).
22

Edible forest gardens and homegardens share many similarities; in particular,
minimal required maintenance and maximization of species diversity. The

maintenance required for homegardens varies considerably from approximately an
hour a week per hundred square meters up to about an hour a day (Hoogenbugge

and Fresco 1993). Incredibly diverse, gardens in Java have been reported to contain

up to 240 different species and subspecies per hectare (Bompard et al. 1980, Michon
et al. 1983). Innately experimental, crops in homegardens are planted at a much

higher density than in plantations or fields, and provide long-term and continuous

production of food throughout the year (Hoogenbugge and Fresco 1993, Kumar and
Nair 2004).

Edible forest garden pioneer Robert Hart was inspired by homegardens and

introduced the idea and practice to his native England. While most literature on
EFGs cites this as the basis for reintroduction, roots of EFGs also are evident in

historical land management practices throughout temperate areas, including his
native England.

Medieval Europe. Medieval landscapes in western Europe were heavily managed for
useful products, both in immediate surroundings as well as the extended environs.
While meat, fish, and grains provided primary sustenance for medieval peoples,
kitchen gardens supplied essential complementary nutritional requirements

(Harvey 1984, Pearson 1997). These kitchen gardens consisted of both annual

and perennial plant species. Some plants mentioned in the literature on medieval
European landscapes are also common in edible forest gardens (listed in Table

3.2). Hedges, or close set multi-species rows of bushes and small trees, typically
designated areas of land ownership, and served as a source for coppice growth

23

Table 3.2 Plants common to medieval
gardens and edible forest gardens
Apple

Fruit trees

Malus pumila

Apricot

Prunus americana

Pear

Pyrus communis

Quince

Cydonia oblinga

Cherry

Prunus spp.

Plum

Prunus domestica

Mulberry

Morus spp.

Medlar

Prunus persica

Fig

Ficus spp.

Vegetables, herbs, and greens

Artichoke

Cynara scolymus

Asparagus

Asparagus officinalis

Garlic

Allium sativum

Borage

Borago officinalis

Chive

Allium schoenoprasum

Skirret

Sium sisarum

Watercress

Nasturtium officinale

Onion

Allium cepa

Rose

Rosa spp.

Fennel

Foeniculum vulgare

Sage

Salvia officinalis

Lovage

Levisticum officinale

Thyme

Thymus officinalis

Mints

Mentha spp.

Wood Sorrel

Oxalis spp.

Burdock

Chestnut
Walnut

Almond

Hazelnut

Arcticum lappa
Nut trees

Castanea spp.
Juglans spp.
Prunus spp.

Corylus spp.

and timber as a well as a means to

segregate livestock and provide wildlife
habitat (Rackham 2002).

Wilder lands were consequently managed
primarily for wood products and animal

grazing. Many of the diverse native trees
would coppice (sprout from the stump)
or sucker (sprout from the root) when

cut down, providing long, straight, and

more useful shoots for basket and fence
making; this was a common practice in

woodland management (Rackham 2002).
When cut at such frequency (every few

years), the trees’ longevity is magnified
(Rackham 2002). In pastureland, trees
were pollarded (cut to coppice stools

approximately 10 feet off the ground) to
protect them from animal graze while
concurrently producing useful shoots

(Rackham 2002). Fields, grasslands, and
wet meadows were valuable resources

for grazing cattle and for hay (Rackham
2002).

Indigenous Practices in North America. Prior to the infusion of European culture to

North America, Native Americans blurred the line between gathering and agriculture
24

Photo 3.1 South Puget Sound Prairie landscape. Fire promotes the
native and edible camas (Camassia quamash). Photo credit: Frederica
Bowcutt.
by managing the land upon which they lived, through burning, harvesting, tilling,

girdling, pruning, sowing, and tending (Abrams and Nowacki 2008, Anderson 2005).

The landscape Europeans encountered upon arrival in the Americas was not pristine
or untouched, but instead managed by cultural practices ingrained in collective

myth, song, and dance resulting in cultural landscapes (Anderson 2005). Human

influence as such is referred to as anthropogenic forest or humanized forest (Nabhan
2008). I suggest this historic land management regime, in the form of edible forest
gardens, offers potential for solving some of today’s sustainability challenges, as
they recreate this interactive, human-ecosystem association.

Succession and disturbance are two primary concepts in edible forest gardening

theory, and were two staples of indigenous land management. Most vegetation types
in California are dependent on disturbance; fire adaptation in the flora predated

25

indigenous peoples and subsequently influenced land management practices

(Anderson 2005). Anthropogenic environmental disturbance is considered to be

the primary factor in keeping prairies and grasslands, berry shrubs, and fruit and

nut trees, from returning to closed-canopy forest in eastern North America (Abrams
and Nowacki 2008). Similarly, the Pacific Northwest bioregion, and the Puget Sound
and Willamette Valley subregions in particular, host prairie ecosystems maintained

by indigenous influence (Leopold and Boyd 1999, Norton 1979). Fire was regularly

used to tend the landscape: burning decreases fuel levels, thereby reducing the risk
of catastrophic fires. Also, low to moderate severity fires cycle nutrients back into

the soil and reduce insect and pathogen problems (Certini 2005). Fire also modifies
the forest structure, maintaining early to mid-seral stages which often bear many
useful species (Leopold and Boyd 1999, Norton 1979, Storm and Shebitz 2006).

Though fire is not a common maintenance regime used in edible forest gardening,
it does suggest scheduled disturbance. This is addressed through harvest and

intentional succession. Historically, several characteristics of harvesting affect

the surrounding ecosystem: the technology used, the season, the frequency and
intensity, and long-term patterning (Anderson 2005). Selective harvest and

transplanting can also lead to genetic modification over time (Anderson 2005).

Harvesting methods can encourage seed dispersal through the intentional spilling of
seeds during collection, as was often the case when collecting grain seeds. Tending
plants can increase their value, whereas leaving them completely alone leads to a

decline in ethnobotanical value. For example, hazelnuts, an important food source,

were burned to produce more nuts, and to encourage long straight shoots, useful for
basketry (Anderson 2005). Thus, EFGs have the potential to recognize bioregional
ethnobotanic histories and create cultural learning opportunities.
26

Food Sustainability and Edible Forest Gardens
One of the most pressing sustainability challenges we currently face is developing
sustainable food systems. I will not argue here that edible forest gardens can

completely replace our global sustenance requirements, but demonstrate how they

can serve as an alternative food production method and contribute to recreating our
mental model of feeding the planet.

Food Security. Much food is currently produced in monocultures on large farms. On
an international scale, this approach potential problems such as large-scale crop

failure and reliance on long-distance transportation. Edible forest gardens possess
greater resilience, are adapted to bioregional climates, and consist of diverse food
bearing species.

Food Accessibility. In the United States, it is estimated that 22 to 30 million people
are not able to acquire enough food to meet their nutritional needs (Poppendieck
1997). On private lands, fruit trees often produce more than a single family can

consume, and extra fruits can be donated to food banks. Public areas can support

these perennial, low-maintenance, resilient systems, with potential as an additional
source of food for low-income people. EFGs could provide more accessible food if
grown in public spaces.

Food Distribution. Urban agriculture and local food movements have arisen in

response to the great distances that now are common for food to travel before

being eaten. The term ‘food miles’ refers to the distance food travels from origin
to consumption, acting as an indicator of energy requirements, and therefore

contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (Pirog 2004). Several studies illuminate

the significant distance between food origin and consumption: as illustrated in Table

27

Table 3.3 A comparison of locally grown and conventionally sourced food miles within
Iowa State. WASD refers to Weighted Average Source Distance, and conveys a single
distance based on information combining source location, point of sale, and food
amount.
3.3, a study of 16 produce items in Iowa found the average distance traveled by the

majority of the items to be 1,484 miles, compared to 56 miles for locally grown (instate) produce (Pirog and Benjamin 2003). Similar studies in Chicago found that

the average food miles traveled for fresh produce to arrive at the Chicago Terminal

Market was 1,518 miles (Pirog et al. 2001), and in Maryland, the mean distance was
1,686 miles (Hora and Tick 2001). The percentage of food imported into the United
States is greatest for vegetables and fruits in the off-season, peaking in the months

of January, February and March at 600-700 million pounds (Putnam and Allshouse
28

2001). Imports have risen sharply: between 1977 and 1999, United States fruit
imports have grown from 17.6% to 33.6% (Putnam and Allshouse 2001).

Poor food distribution structure leads to increased food loss. Thirty percent of

food in the United States is thrown away each year: losses of cereals and grains are
over 10%, losses of fruits, vegetables and tubers are often greater than 25%, and
fish spoilage is estimated at 40% (Lundqvist et al. 2008, James 1986, FAO 1989,

Hanley 1991). Increasing food production within and near urban areas decreases

the distance it must be transported. Currently, over 700 million worldwide residents
acquire food from small plots converted from vacant yards, and this practice is

growing (FAO 2005). In Hanoi, Vietnam, 80% of fresh vegetables and 50% of poultry
and fish are grown in farms within or immediately adjacent to the city (de Bon

2006); in Caracas, Venezuela, microgardens in the barrios totaling 8,000 square

meters produce foods for residents (Bradley and Marulanda 2007). In temperate
climates, 44% of residents in Vancouver, Canada, report producing some of their
own produce (City Farmer 2002). Urban agriculture and near-urban farms have

the potential to supply a great amount of food to urban residents, with edible forest
gardens arising as one low-maintenance solution. College campuses often occupy

significant acreage, even in urban areas. The addition of edible forest gardens would
offer food to an increasing number of people while demonstrating the potential of
urban spaces in addressing food sustainability.

Food Diversity. Industrial scale agriculture has had a significant negative effect
on biological diversity, resulting in loss of both species diversity and genetic

resources. For example, only 20% of Mexico’s maize varieties, 10% of China’s wheat
varieties, and 15-20% of the USA’s varieties of apple, cabbage, field maize, pea,

and tomato are still available today (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002). Wild crop

29

relatives may contain important genes that can contribute to disease resistance and
climate change, but are in danger of being lost themselves as agriculture becomes
increasingly industrialized (Nellemann et al. 2009). A major tenet of edible forest
garden design is its emphasis on establishing a broad range of edible species in

the garden area, particularly an array of both native and hybridized cultivar and
heirloom species.

Land Use. Land degradation due to improper agricultural practices and

deforestation affects approximately 2 billion hectares of the world’s agricultural
land, resulting in net-loss of productivity due to soil salinization, nutrient

depletion, and erosion (Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch 1998). Conventional

agriculture has been a major contributor to loss of habitat for 38% of federally listed
endangered species (1,207 total) (Wilcove et al. 1998). Increasing urbanization

also decreases the amount of arable land available for agriculture (Nellemann et al.
2009) Edible forest gardens require little space, and can develop food-producing
systems for residents on as little as a tenth of an acre of land – a standard urban

lot. Learning to cooperate with our ecosystems in this manner is important as we
contend with poor land use practices that are degrading them.

Climate Change. In 1979, Cox and Atkins (1979) found it took 10 fossil fuel calories
to produce a single food calorie, a ratio that parallels our growing reliance on

fertilizers to increase productivity. Large-scale agricultural systems require fuel,
natural gas for fertilizer production, and irrigation – all of which contribute to

climate change. Additionally, the food distribution issues described above contribute
to carbon emissions. Anthropogenic climate change is an increasing concern for a

host of social justice and environmental reasons. In contrast, edible forest gardens
reduce food miles, sequester carbon, and require no petrochemical inputs.
30

Though food sustainability is a multifaceted and complicated issue, edible forest
gardens address many of the major concerns, and also offer a starting point for
discussion and investigation of developing a sustainable system.
Teaching with Gardens
Because of the interconnectedness of food within culture, science, and our longterm species survivability, getting students connected with food issues through
programs associated with a food forest garden in the housing area will impact

student understanding of sustainability. Several studies discuss effects of gardens in
an educational context, though there are few examples from higher education (Civil
2007, Graham et al. 2005, Graham and Zidenberg-Cherr 2005, Higgs and McMillan
2006, Mkinne and Halfacre 2008, Morgan et al. 2009, Ozer 2007, VandDerZanden

and Cook 1999). Teachers were found to use gardens to facilitate teaching with core

subjects: science, math, and language arts (Civil 2007, Graham and Zidenberg-Cherr
2005). Nutrition is also demonstrated to have been taught effectively through the
inclusion of on-campus gardens (Graham and Zidenberg-Cherr 2005, McAleese

and Rankin 2007). Gardens were seen as models for teaching sustainability at the
high school level in a case study of secondary schools (Higgs and McMillan 2006).
Because they align with food systems as well as ecological systems, Capra (1998)

identifies school gardens as beneficial for individuals and the community, teaching
ecological literacy and sustainability. At the higher education level, VanDerZanden
and Cook (1999) emphasize the various uses of a teaching garden at Oregon State
University, both as it augments coursework and contributes to student feelings

of ownership. Similarly, teaching gardens at the University of Tennessee support

several programs and offer opportunities for plant identification, photography, and

ethnobotanical use, garden design and maintenance, cataloging, and nature writing
(Hamilton 1999).

31

Many other colleges and universities support and use teaching gardens, often

maintaining curricular connections with agriculture and food production (including
kitchen gardens), restoration and habitat provision, and botany and plant science.

Fairhaven College at Western Washington University hosts four student-run garden
projects including community gardens, a market garden, an herb garden, and a

forest garden. The forest garden includes fruit trees and berry bushes. The extensive
University of Washington Botanical Gardens envisions its work as “an international
hub for plant science, information, teaching, and stewardship, …promoting an
educated, inspired, and engaged society dedicated to sustainable ecosystem

management” (University of Washington Botanical Gardens website, accessed July
20, 2009). Beck et al. (2002) found that when paired with informational signage,
web and/or print materials, and supplemented with workshops, demonstration

gardens have significant potential to change public perception about alternative
landscaping.

The literature presented above suggests that edible forest gardens provide a

sustainable approach to landscaping, and can be a useful tool for education. Edible

forest gardens provide food and promote healthy ecosystem practices. This style of

land management has been practiced around the world throughout history. Gardens
have also been used to supplement coursework at the K-12 and higher education

levels, with promising results. The findings presented in this thesis will build upon

this foundation to demonstrate how edible forest gardens are valuable in developing
sustainability education and operations at Evergreen.

32

Chapter IV | Research Methodology: A Mixed-Methods Approach
This chapter will provide details on my research approach in addressing whether

edible forest gardens can facilitate sustainability (a) through teaching and learning
with students in and out of the classroom, and (b) for the campus community as
a component of a campus sustainability plan. In considering the first part of the

question, I engaged a group of 48 students enrolled in a 16-credit program about

food systems and culture in an edible forest gardening workshop, using before and
after surveys, voluntary interviews, participant observation, and guided reflective
writing to collect data. Pre- and post-survey questions are included in Appendix
I and II, respectively. To gather data addressing the second part of the question,
I engaged in interviews and participant observation with key members of the

campus sustainability community, relevant community groups, student residents,

and interns, and volunteers (a total of 20 people). Typical interview questions are
included in Appendix III. The research was conducted from January to June 2009,

at The Evergreen State College. I worked with three student interns to develop the

project, each of whom was assigned specific tasks based on their backgrounds and
interests. A full project description is included in Appendix IV.
Role as Complete-Member Researcher
My employment responsibilities as a Graduate Sustainability Fellow and as project
coordinator, lead me to define my role in this research as equivalent to Adler and

Adler’s (1987) designation, “complete-member researcher.” Though fully involved
in campus sustainability issues due to my position, throughout the course of my
research I carefully stepped back from my immersion to reflect upon the data.

Because of my role on campus, I was able to be present in a number of situations,

33

such as Sustainability Council meetings, to observe how sustainability is considered
on the campus. As the project coordinator, I received unanticipated feedback from

students, faculty, and staff in regards to their perception of the project, which proved
valuable in assessing how far-reaching the project was, and about its effects on

those who were not immediately involved in the process, installation, or classroom
experience.

Case Study Research
My research design employs a case study framework of installing edible forest

gardens in residential housing at The Evergreen State College. It follows what Stake
(2000) defines as an instrumental case study, which focuses upon a case to make

inferences about a topic with a larger scope than the case itself. Because of the very
specific details of Evergreen’s institutional and academic structure, the lines are

somewhat blurred between its designation as an instrumental case study, and an

intrinsic case study (Stake 2000), which looks at a case in particular, in and of itself.
This case, though situated at Evergreen, does attempt to look beyond the impacts
only at Evergreen, and to generalize how edible forest gardens can educate about
sustainability on other campuses, and potentially outside of the academic world.

Based in Olympia, the capital of Washington State, The Evergreen State College is
a public school with an enrollment of approximately 4,000 students each year. A
progressive college using narrative evaluations instead of grades to document
student work and favoring full-time, interdisciplinary coursework over single

classes, a case study on this campus sheds insight into what alternative education
models (and the students and faculty drawn to this system) can support in terms
of sustainability. Despite its alternative pedagogy, the state-run campus is still

bureaucratic, which was evident at several junctions within the study. Therefore, this
34

case presents a campus and its community members who are at one point along a

continuum moving towards sustainability, and can raise awareness beyond the case
itself.

Transcribing and Coding Qualitative Data
Upon completing interviews with subjects, I immediately transcribed interview

data using a word processing program. Doing this shortly afterwards allowed me
to capture thoughts I was having in the moment. I used the “Comments” function
as I was transcribing, to make annotations, and in the process of coding. Upon
transcription and subsequent reviews of the texts, I identified categories, and

themes that fit within them. As I continued to refine my coding categories, I began to
recognize the more dominant and universal themes. I also coded open-ended survey
questions. Where it was applicable, I identified the most common words or phrases,
and conducted a count of how many students brought up a concept in these openended questions.
Limitations
This project does have several limitations. Many of them are due to the short

temporal nature of the thesis, as compared to the time it tales to establish and use
a perennial garden. The project timeline was primarily a limitation in assessing

long-term project impacts on student learning about sustainability and local food

issues. Research was conducted over a 6-month period, with three months allocated
to classroom learning assessment. Since the garden was being established, it was
not possible to assess students’ long-term development of understanding about

sustainability or food issues. Instead, I had to make a quick assessment of how this
could fit in with a class in this short period of time. Rather than focus on how an

established project of this sort can enhance learning about sustainability, the study

35

narrows in on how the installation process could act as a teaching tool, both for

volunteers as well as within a classroom setting. There is room for future study of
how this garden space may perform in the long term.

In regards to the breadth of the study, I was limited by working with only one course
with a population of 48 students. It would have been more advantageous to work
with multiple programs in order to further demonstrate the variety of curricular
connections that can be made with edible forest gardens. Therefore, the results

of the surveys include only the perspectives of students who were self-selected to

engage in a program about food and sustainability. This limitation is due, in part, to
the challenge of collaborating with multiple faculty members. While a number of

faculty expressed interest, the lack of time on both ends led to the full inclusion of
this one group of students.

There are limitations in the garden due to site conditions: it is shady and moist,

and it lacks exceptional soils. For this reason, I was limited in the scope of species

that are typically included in an idealized edible forest garden. Though presenting

logistical challenges, this approach demonstrates how to contend with difficult site
conditions.

36

Chapter V | Findings: Student Learning and Campus Community
Perspectives
In the following section I present and analyze my data. First I will present the data
collected from working with the class program, to address whether edible forest

gardens facilitate sustainability through teaching and learning with students both
in and out of the classroom. Next, I will present interview data that speak to the
contribution of edible forest gardens facilitating sustainability for the campus
community as a component of a campus sustainability plan. Then I will draw

connections that support the assertion that edible forest gardens are an important

component of a campus sustainability plan, and that they contribute to teaching and
learning in and out of the classroom.

Photo 5.1 Before installation: looking southwest with athletic fields in the
background. Photo credit: author.

37

Edible Forest Gardens Educating about Sustainability
To analyze effects of learning about edible forest gardening within the classroom,

I engaged students from the full-time, 16-credit program, Food, Place, and Culture
(course description included in Appendix VI). Forty-five students filled out a presurvey on their first day of class. During the second week of the term, I gave a

presentation covering elements of edible forest gardening and its relationship
to ecological theory, history and food sustainability. Immediately afterwards,

students participated in an installation workshop in which they planted primarily
dormant, sometimes bareroot, edible perennial species in a predetermined area

on the campus. The proposal to the Campus Land Use Committee and the complete

project description are included in Appendix IV and V, respectively; an outline of the
presentation and workshop are located in Appendix VII. Thirty students submitted
guided reflections upon completing the workshop. Six weeks later, the class

38

Photo 5.2 Morning of installation: plants placed, multiple piles of wood
mulch ready to be spread. Looking east from west edge of site. Photo
credit: author.

Photo 5.3 Students engaging together at the workshop. Photo
credit: Abigail Marshall

returned to the site and observed the garden, and I taught them about plant family
relationships and the functions of specific plants. Additionally, this provided them
the opportunity to see the plants once they had leafed-out and grown. Thirty-one

students responded to post-survey questions. I divided the data into (a) the effects
of the forest gardening workshop in combination with other classroom activities,
and (b) direct impacts of the forest gardening lecture and workshops. First I will

present and discuss the findings of sustainability education within the classroom.
Sustainability Education Using Edible Forest Gardens in the Classroom
In responses to pre- and post-surveys, students indicated an increase in their

knowledge about sustainability concepts, food issues, and forest gardening as

a result of both related course work and the edible forest gardening workshop.

This is shown in their self-assessment of knowledge of the above concepts, their
recognition of changes in food purchasing patterns, and in written responses
demonstrating their attitudes towards local/organic food and gardening.

39

Students, on average, began the quarter with some baseline understanding of

sustainability concepts (4.1 ± .23 on a scale of 1-7) and food issues (4.0 ± .2), which
increased throughout the term (sustainability to 5.0 ± .25, food issues to 5.3 ± .21).

Students’ knowledge of forest gardens changed more dramatically (from 2.0 ± .19 on
a scale of 1-7, to 4.5 ± .28), likely due to the relative unfamiliarity many students had
of the topic beforehand.

Figure 5.1 Pre- and post survey assessment of sustainability concepts

Looking at the distribution of students’ responses is even more revealing. Whereas
few students claimed to know a great deal (selecting a 6 or 7) about sustainability
(18%) or food issues (13%) in the pre-survey, almost half of students in the class

selected a 6 or 7 in regards to their knowledge in these areas (sustainability 42%,
food issues 45%) in the post-survey. In the pre-survey, 71% of students indicated
they had very little to no knowledge about forest gardening (selecting a 1 or 2),
while in the post-survey, no students made this claim.
40

41

Figure 5.2 Distribution of before and after student selfassessment of knowledge about sustainability, food issues, and
forest gardening.

Change in purchasing and eating behavior is

another indication of awareness of food issues,
though change of habits may materialize long

after awareness of the issue (Angehrn 2004). An
unanticipated result was that over half (55%)
of the students indicated they had changed

their eating and food purchasing habits since

the beginning of the class. With the exception
of one student crediting financial change and

two students citing that they moved as reasons Figure 5.3 Change in food
purchasing habits.
for their change, all other motives behind the
change were related to increased awareness

about food issues, choosing more local and/or organic foods, and education due to
their coursework.

When asked about their local and organic purchasing habits, students did not

demonstrate a great change in organic purchasing habits. However, as shown in

figures 5.4 and 5.5, respondents who declared that 50%+ of their food purchases

were locally grown increased from 8% in the pre-survey to 26% in the post-survey.
Direct impacts of Forest Gardening Workshops on Student Learning
To determine the role of the Edible Forest Gardening workshops on student learning
within the larger context of the class, students were asked to indicate to what extent

these workshops enhanced their learning of sustainability concepts, food issues, and
growing food. Additionally, Evergreen’s five learning foci were used to assess how

students’ knowledge developed in these capacities. The following section describes
42

Figure 5.4
Change in Local
Food Purchasing
Habits.

Figure 5.5
Change in Organic
Food Purchasing
Habits.

Figure 5.6
Direct Impacts of
Forest Gardening
Workshop.
Students’
assessment of
forest gardening
workshops’
direct impacts
on their
understanding of
a) sustainability
concepts, b) food
issues, and c)
growing food.

43

Figure 5.7 Direct impacts of forest gardening on students’ knowledge about
sustainability, food issues, and growing food. The pie graphs show distribution of
student answers on a scale of 1-7, with 7 indicating the greatest impacts.

the direct impacts of the workshops on both the specific concepts mentioned above
and the types of learning.

Figures 5.6 and 5.7 demonstrate how students perceived their experience with
the forest gardening workshops to have directly impacted their learning about
sustainability concepts, food issues, and growing food. The strongest impact

of the workshops was in regards to growing food. The pie graphs individually

demonstrate the impacts of the forest garden workshops on students’ knowledge

of the above issues. The workshops had less of an impact on sustainability than on
food issues, and had the greatest impact on students’ understanding of growing

food. Half of students (50%) indicated the workshops very significantly affected
their understanding of growing food (selecting a 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7), and

approximately one-third (32% and 29%) of students indicated a similar influence on
their knowledge of food issues and sustainability, respectively.

44

The Evergreen State College: Five Learning Foci
Interdisciplinary Study
Students learn to pull together ideas and concepts from many subject areas, which enables
them to tackle real-world issues in all their complexity.
Collaborative Learning
Students develop knowledge and skills through shared learning, rather than learning in
isolation and in competition with others.
Learning Across Significant Differences
Students learn to recognize, respect and bridge differences - critical skills in an
increasingly diverse world.

Personal Engagement
Students develop their capacities to judge, speak and act on the basis of their own
reasoned beliefs.

Linking Theory with Practical Applications
Students understand abstract theories by applying them to projects and activities and by
putting them into practice in real-world situations.

Table 5.1 TESC
5 Learning Foci
Figure 5.8
Project
relationship with
TESC learning
foci
Figure 5.9
Areas of
learning.
Student
reflections
indicated
their learning
was divided
primarily into
theoretical
learning
about forest
ecology and
forest gardens,
and practical
learning
on garden
installation
and planting

45

Students perceived their learning about edible forest gardening to relate to the five

learning foci at Evergreen, as illustrated in figure 5.8. There are strong links between
each of the five learning foci and the edible forest gardening workshops. Very few

students (10% or less) thought that the edible forest gardening workshops did not
address Evergreen’s learning foci in all areas except “Learning Across Significant

Differences.” Most students significantly (choosing a 5 or higher) saw the workshops
as impacting: interdisciplinary study (65%), collaborative learning (68%), personal
engagement (71%), and most notably, linking theory with practice (87%).

When asked how the workshops augmented the learning done within the context
of the class, a number of themes emerged. Students most appreciated that the

workshops were hands-on, and were a tactile example of the learning happening

within the classroom. They also indicated, to a lesser degree, that it helped them to
understand plants more, that it was an enjoyable educational experience, and that
they appreciated the on-campus opportunity to take action.

Student Reflections on the Edible Forest Gardening Workshop
In addition to pre- and post-surveys, 20 students filled out a reflections worksheet
upon completion of the first workshop. This was in an effort to capture the

immediate impacts of their learning, and how they thought, at that point, they could
integrate these concepts into future learning.

Students’ responses indicated that their learning was divided into theory about

edible forest gardening and forest ecology, and hands-on learning about planting and
the process of installing a garden. Forest ecology concepts (35% of responses) they
noted included: succession, nitrogen fixation by plants, plant diversity, and vertical

layering. There were a great variety of edible forest gardening concepts (60%) that
46

they took away with them. Their learning about planting (40%) indicated that they
were learning how to plant in general, or techniques that they did not know before
(how to determine the size/depth of the hole). In regards to a garden installation

process (45%), students were fascinated about the use of cardboard and mulch to
transform a landscape. Some selected excerpts:

Learning about edible forest gardens was fascinating. I would really
like to continue learning about it. It is such a great way of using your
backyard as a garden. The cardboard-mulch was also really intriguing.
I learned about how cool it is that plants can grow in layers and also
that alders are nitrogen fixers.

Because the workshop was in two parts, the first consisting of an indoor lecture on
the background of what we would be doing, followed by the workshop, it makes
sense that both parts of the workshop impacted their learning. Many students
indicated that the experience inspired them to learn more.

Surveyed students indicated that the workshop could be incorporated into their

future perspectives on food, place, and culture (the topic of their class program) in a
number of ways. Some excerpts:

Getting a hands-on experience with planting food is such an awesome,
visceral feeling and that will definitely affect my thoughts on food.
Its amazing to me how fun and fairly simple it can be to plan and plant
an edible forest garden and that it’s an excellent alternative source of
food.
I’m more inspired to grow plants and get involved in this community.
This is good info.

They primarily articulated a better understanding of plants, both edible and native,
an interest in creating their own space using this model in the future, and an
empowered perspective about growing food.

47

Photo 5.4 Above: Class program working during garden installation. Photo
credit: Abigail Marshall.

Photo 5.5 Below: Students during workshop. Photo credit Abigail Marshall.
48

In relationship to campus sustainability, the overriding theme was that students
have a great concern about vandalism and hope that the space is respected.

I think it’s a great step towards teaching about sustainability through a
hands-on, beautiful garden. It’s something unique that people can get
excited about.
I lived in “I Dorm” in 2004 when it was the first sustainability house
but we didn’t have the capabilities to do anything. So I am so happy
that things are in motion now, and I hope the Evergreen community
will be respectful.

Students saw the space as a food option, an example of sustainability, and a learning
opportunity.

Independent Study
Three students conducted independent study projects on edible forest gardens

during the process of planning the installation. The learning they demonstrated

reflected deeper understanding of the subject matter, and the potential for edible
forest gardens to serve as a teaching tool.

Abigail Marshall worked with me during the site design, and completed significant
work on site analysis and plant selection. Combining grounded theory with the

practice of taking observations, examining soils, planning the garden space, doing
outreach, installing the garden, and then caring for the garden greatly impacted

Abi, who worked most closely with me on the project. She attributes a lot of this to
the hands-on experience, as well as working independently. She described being

challenged, more than merely academically, but also in growing as a lifelong-learner:
But then, in not having a structured time for when I was supposed to
be doing it and when I wasn’t, it was easy to make this project connect
to other things I was doing in my life, which was the Environmental
Resource Center1, and it made the ties between this project and

1 The Environmental Resource Center is a student environmental advocacy organization at Evergreen.

49

everything else all that much more apparent. The idea of connecting a
community, and being connected to your food source: those are things
that - you don’t have a set block of time that you’re going to do those
things, they’re just things that you live.

While she was initially interested in the hands-on aspect of the work, the

background study that was required through readings and research facilitated her

investigative skills as well as developing her understanding of botany, ecology, and
food systems. She recalls:

I didn’t even really know what an edible forest garden was before I
started this project, and I started reading about it, and the first clue
that I got, I think, was in opening up the textbook and they didn’t even
really say the word “plant” for the first hundred pages. It was 100%
ideology behind it. … I started reading more and realized that it was
so much more than just what you can see and what you’re physically
doing.

At the beginning of the quarter she had a strong interest in but demonstrated

little understanding of plant family relationships; at the end of the project she was
reciting the genera of the plants installed, their site requirements, and edible/
medicinal properties.

Sarah Betcher involved herself in the soils analysis and in creating an outline
for a walking tour. She managed communication with the soils lab, collected
samples, and interpreted results. Rebecca Swain-Sugarman undertook a

documentary film project in an effort to involve herself in the edible forest

garden project. Enrolled in a media-focused full-time program, she concentrated
her independent film project on the edible forest garden. She filmed students

during the volunteer installation day seeking connections between community,

edible forest gardens, sustainability, and volunteer work. Her short documentary
(available at www.evergreen.edu/rad/sustainability/edibleforestgarden.htm)

sharpened her media skills while further developing Evergreen’s sustainability

message. At a film screening highlighting her class’ work, Rebecca’s documentary
50

generated excitement, a great amount of applause, and many questions. Some

students who had participated in the installation were in attendance, and her work

further initiated discussion and debate about gardening, community and place, food,
and campus sustainability. Her teacher expressed interest in submitting a copy to

the campus library. In addition to reflecting Rebecca’s good work and technical skill
development in the film medium, this example demonstrates how the process of

installing edible forest gardens can communicate a sustainability message in both
theory and practice.

Edible forest gardening workshops effectively educated students about

sustainability, food issues, and edible forest gardening in this study. Additionally,
students asserted they had made changes in food purchasing habits. The EFG

component itself had direct impacts on student learning about sustainability, food
issues, and growing food, and maintained strong links with four of Evergreen’s

five learning foci. Student reflections indicated they had learned both theory and
practical knowledge about growing plants, and embodied knowledge that they
would like to carry with them.

Edible Forest Gardens Facilitating Campus Sustainability
The second part of my research inquiry asks whether edible forest gardens can
facilitate sustainability on a college campus. I used semi-structured interviews

to collect qualitative data from students, student group coordinators, community

members involved with edible forest gardens, faculty, and members of the campus
who maintain an interest or due to their position on the campus have an effect on
sustainability decisions. I focused on six categories:

1) What are considered important campus sustainability goals?
51

Figure 5.10 Overview of interview responses by theme
Category

Theme

Campus
Sustainability
Goals (n=10)

Include sustainability in curriculum

20

Realize changes in campus operations

50

Important
Elements for
Projects Bridging
Operations and
Student Work
(n=10)
Challanges
(n=11)

Benefits of
Gardens on a
College Campus
(n=14)
Sustainability
Issues addressed
by edible forest
gardens (n=14)
How forest
gardens can
connect to
teaching and
learning (n=15)

52

Effectively communicate sustainability concepts
Foster a sustainability ethic

Encourage alternative transportation
Focus on sustainable food

Collaboration and compromise

Administrative support of student work

Cultivate positive student-staff relationships
Development of a clear plan

Maintain an openness for experimentation

% of Respondents
60
60
10
10
50
50
40
20
20

Ensuring long-term continuity

100

Supports teaching and learning

60

Student project follow through

Potential for garden to be unsuccessful

Establishes opportunity for long-term study
Fosters student feeling of ownership
Communicates concept of place

Illustrates low maintenance approach
Offers a model for success
Land use
Ecology

Food systems

Bioregional concepts
Ethnobotany

Aid in curriculum integration

Provide experiential and service learning
opportunity
Help students link theory to practice

Support students’ personal growth and
development

50
40
53
47
60
33
20
79
79
64
64
43
80
80
47
47

2) What are required elements for successful projects bridging campus
operations and student work?

3) What are the challenges of installing an edible forest garden on a college
campus?

4) What are benefits of gardens on campuses?

5) What sustainability issues do edible forest gardens address?

6) How do edible forest gardens connect to a campus’ primary focus of teaching
and learning?

Campus Sustainability Priorities and Goals
In order to assess whether edible forest gardens are important to a campus

sustainability plan, I assessed the campus’ established sustainability priorities

and goals. Interview respondents most strongly referred to communication and
messaging about sustainability (60%), and establishing a sustainability ethic

(60%) as campus priorities. Communication and messaging refers to broadcasting
sustainability concepts and information to all campus community members. As
Director of Residential and Dining Services and Sustainability Council member

Sharon Goodman states, “I think that if you just keep messaging, people will begin

to question before they do things. And you want to get people to think about, well,

‘what questions should I be asking before I do that’.” Communication and messaging
were closely linked to establishing a sustainability ethic. Sharon continues, “Its
about changing the culture so people have the consciousness to think about

[sustainability] and social justice issues – so its not just cool to carry your mug or its
not just cool to be sustainable.”

Strengthening sustainability within the curriculum was only mentioned by 20%
of respondents as a priority in campus sustainability, and I attribute this to the

53

lack of faculty representatives in my interview pool. As College President Les

Purce summarizes, “The first thing that’s important, if you’re going to sustain an

intensity, and a commitment to issues of climate change and sustainability–it has

to be built into the educational curriculum.” An interim report by the Sustainability
Task Force in 2006 echoes Purce’s comment, naming “Establish a curricular

pathway in sustainability” and “Increase opportunities for a practical education
in sustainability” as two of nine key strategies in leading towards a sustainable

campus future. Other goals and priorities were related to developing a sustainable

infrastructure with campus grounds and buildings (50%), transportation (10%) and
food (10%).

Required Elements for Projects Bridging Operations and Student Work
The process of garden installation and establishing long-term care for a perennial
garden space raised many questions about how to best collaborate on campus

projects that span students and staff. Primarily a student-initiated and coordinated

project, the site would have to be adopted by permanent staff in order for the garden

to persist after current students have moved on. A college or university’s educational
mission can sometimes impose a non-traditional context for staff who are central in
its operations, which provides unique opportunities and challenges in developing
sustainable practices.

Half (50%) of the interviewees saw a strong need for student and staff collaboration
and compromise. Director of Facilities, Paul Smith, describes how this has arisen
in his Facilities department in the past in both successful and unsuccessful
partnerships:

54

We’ve gotten a couple of students on Independent Learning Contracts
that have melded very easily with what we were working on, so they
were able to take their time and talent and make it easier for us to get
the work done. And that’s not always the case because the students
have their vision of what they want to do and oftentimes, its not
diametrically opposed, but its not one of those things that we were
moving along doing, and they don’t want to change their idea. If we
could get them to look at some of the things we have going and to see
potentially yes, what do you need from the student, what do you need
from me and get that partnership, it would probably be beneficial to
us all.

When students can adjust their visions to address the direct needs of the campus,
it is easier for college staff to develop a working relationship that provides more
resources and further supports the student project.

The acquisition of appropriate resources for students to achieve sustainability

projects on campus was also a dominant theme that arose for 50% of respondents.
From the administrative perspective, Les Purce notes, “We try to get out of their

way in terms of giving them access to the best equipment and ways to think about

it; I think that’s what you do.” A lack of support from the administrative side can be
difficult for student coordinators, as Sierra Wagner describes when her request to

build a toolshed for a similar garden on campus was not approved, “I felt like it was
so defeating, and so against the purpose of that school and against the purpose of

that program. So that was a big challenge.” Access to resources, whether it is money,
information, or equipment, contributes to the success of a campus student project.
Other resonating themes included the development of positive student staff
relationships (40%), and creating a well-laid out plan (20%). Allowing

experimentation was echoed as an important factor to consider in supporting

student projects (20%), interestingly, by both administrative respondents from
55

Residential and Dining Services. Assistant Director of Residential and Dining
Services in Charge of Facilities, Mark Lacina explains:

As I continued to work here, I realized that, we’re an education center,
we’re supposed to be out front, we’re not supposed to be following,
we’re supposed to be leading, we’re supposed to be experimenting
and trying things: things that may not work. Its okay if they may not
work here, whereas in the small business world, if they don’t work,
it could mean the end of a company. This is the place where this
experimentation should go on.

I attribute this greater embrace of an experimental attitude in the Residential and
Dining Services department to its heavy reliance on student workers, as it is a
largely student-run establishment.
Challenges
To develop a successful model of an edible forest garden on a college campus, it
is good to have an idea of the most prevalent challenges one might encounter.

Creating continuity for a long-term project in a transitory student environment was

overwhelmingly (100%) noted as the largest challenge to consider. Because students
are so transitory, and the curriculum at Evergreen changes yearly, it is a challenge
to ensure the future student body will retain a strong interest in the project.

Incorporating the garden into an ongoing program can help to combat this. “Well,
I think the most important thing would be if you could talk to faculty as including
this on a scheduled program,” faculty member Martha Rosemeyer suggests. The
staff turnover at Residential and Dining Services Facilities also complicates the

establishment of continuity, as student grounds lead Sam Lanz states: “I’ll be here

a couple more years. I might not be working for Housing. If nobody steps up to take
on that responsibility, projects just fizzle out.” Defining the edible forest garden as
a priority for the Grounds workers, and providing them with resources for proper
maintenance, can help to minimize this problem.
56

Also noted was the potential problem of lack of student project follow through (50%).
This came up when subjects considered the future of the forest garden as well as in
describing experiences with past student projects. Academics and extracurricular

activities compete for student attention. As Goodman remarks, “I think the problem
is that they get so wrapped into their academics that they have to pick and choose
what they can do. They might like that there’s a garden there, and they have other
priorities. If they have to do it for class, then they’ll do it.” However, even when

student-initiated and maintained projects are a part of an academic program or an
independent learning contract, they can run into problems. Paul Smith observes,

“Once they’re finished with a program, they don’t have any interest.” He continues,

mentioning a few exceptions: “We have had a couple students who, even after they

were finished with the program, they continued with it. In fact, one of the students
graduated and was back in the fall to help. That, to me, is what it takes.” While this

expectation may be extreme, I would assert that Smith’s main point is that a student
should have the proper advising to complete a project within the scope of the class
program. When their work affects others in the campus community, they should
have a certain level of maturity and respect so as not to leave the burden upon
permanent staff to adopt on top of their existing duties.

Another challenge arising as a theme is the potential for the garden to be

unsuccessful (40%). Contributing factors could include: high mortality rates, bad

drainage, vandalism, lack of proper maintenance, and improper planting procedures
leading to plant mortality due to high variability in volunteers’ understanding of

planting. Despite this being perceived as a challenge by some, it is also important
to recognize the instructional value of an unsuccessful project. The fear of failure
should not become too cumbersome to student creativity and drive. Adequate

57

guidance from instructors helps students to further their education and develop
themselves whether the project ultimately fails or succeeds.
Benefits of Gardens on a College Campus
Though overcoming the challenges stated above requires thought and planning,

the resulting benefits are likely to outweigh them. Many (60%) respondents voiced
teaching and learning as a benefit of installing an edible forest garden on a college
campus. While the value of curricular integration was noted and will be expanded
upon below in the section about connecting gardens to teaching and learning, the
garden sited in campus housing adds to its capability to reach a broader range of
students. Mark Lacina reflects:

They’re going to learn from it, and it’s the whole idea of the
interconnected educational approach that I think we have in RAD,
and that is: you learn by studying, but you also learn by doing, and
the connection of the two. You learn by living, also; they’re not these
separate things: you go into the classroom, or you go into your
bedroom, or to the Organic Farm. It’s the fact that they all can live and
breathe together and in my estimation the best way to learn. [The
edible forest garden] could become even a laboratory of sorts.

By incorporating tangible learning opportunities within the student residential area, it
can transform living space into another avenue that enriches the student experience.
Three concept-based benefits were noted by a number of participants. First,

approximately half (53%) touched upon the garden conveying long-term ideas. The

project is seen as sparking ideas that students can take with them throughout their
college career and into their future livelihoods. This is important in a world where
so many of the things that young people encounter are about instant gratification.
For those who participate in this sort of project planting perennial species is very

important. As Sam Lanz explains, “Being able to set something up that you know is
going to be there in 20 years is really cool too. I can plant a tree and when I come
58

back it will be big and old.” Developing a student feeling of ownership was a benefit
raised by approximately half (47%) of subjects. This feeling of ownership is noted
in particular for this garden because (a) the garden creates an opportunity to link
food-bearing species with one’s place of residence, and (b) student workers and

Sustainability Housing share the opportunity to maintain the space. Student buy-in
is being supported by Evergreen Residential and Dining Services, who has offered

ongoing financial support and the willingness to task appropriate student workers
(the grounds crew, for example) with maintenance.

Many subjects (60%) also viewed the installation of an edible forest garden as

an opportunity to communicate concepts of “place”. Place is a complex conceptual

construction about the landscape and built environment around oneself (Gallagher
1994). Instead of merely viewing campus housing as temporary living with little

to no attachment, gardens can contribute to making the living area more inviting,
and encourage students to interact with their home at a greater level. Goodman

explains, “I think the nice thing is that it makes a good gesture to the community

that this is someone’s home and not just somebody’s place that they temporarily
live [in].” Additionally, residents of campus housing tend to be younger, to have

not lived away from home, and thereby are in a unique position as they craft their
ideas of independent living and how their community and surroundings fit into
their worldviews.

Some (33%) mentioned the practical benefits of the garden requiring less

maintenance and inputs in the long-term. If successful, a few subjects (20%) saw
that this project could serve as a model for success for other similar projects

throughout campus. This is particularly useful as the Climate Action Plan for the

campus includes a requirement for “Re-Greening” some lawns and bare spaces that

59

exist on the campus grounds, with a goal to begin planning for the reallocation of

these spaces in the 2009-10 academic year, with installation to occur in 2010-11.
Sustainability Issues Addressed by Edible Forest Gardens
Edible forest gardens encompass concepts that span many disciplines, both

practically and academically. They are addressed more completely in the literature

review in Chapter 3. Subjects had varying knowledge of what edible forest gardens
are, the theory behind them, and familiarity in experiencing them. Most subjects
(79%) saw the garden as addressing sustainability issues associated with land

use and ecology. Land use was seen as particularly important with this particular
site, both because campus Housing had been debating what to do with the area,
and because of its anticipated potential in raising residents’ awareness of their

surroundings. Therefore, the garden connects with land use issues (1) in that it is
physically changing the land in that place, and (2) it has the potential to develop

students’ curiosity about land development theory. Ecology was a resounding theme
as this type of gardening is intended to flourish within its environment, providing
habitat and creating food at the same time.

The two sustainability issues that subjects mentioned with the next degree of

frequency (64%) were food systems and bioregional concepts. In linking the garden
with food systems, subjects drew connections with students observing how food

plants grow, learning about perennial food plants, seasonality, food miles, producing
food in place, and nutrition. Subjects saw the garden connecting with bioregional

concepts in that it questions our mode of food production where we live. Aramark
Sustainability Intern, Halli Winstead, explains, “You wouldn’t find all those plants
there in one place,” even though a number of plants included are native.
60

The other main sustainability issue addressed by the forest garden noted by

almost half of respondents (43%) was its relationship to ethnobotany. Ethnobotany
addresses the social justice aspect of sustainability through the preservation of

indigenous culture; also, retaining historical knowledge about the values of native
plants makes an important contribution to developing a sustainable future. The

inclusion of a high proportion of species traditionally used by Native Americans in

the Pacific Northwest allows for cultural and ethnobotanical curricular connections.
This connection was introduced in the Food, Place, Culture program, and Nate, a

student from the class, describes, “[The edible forest garden workshops] went along
with some of the Northwest tribes and the type of gardening they did, to propagate
particular native plants here. They would grow them similarly to a forest garden,

because they were in the wild, and would help the plant proliferate. … I think overall
it’s probably not a new phenomenon, its something we’ve rediscovered we can do.”
Edible Forest Garden Connections to Teaching and Learning
Above, I’ve established a number of pathways for disciplinary integration of edible

forest gardens into the curriculum, and that edible forest gardens can shed light on
several pervasive themes within the broad concept of sustainability. Additionally,

I’ve shown how both the subjects interviewed and the college as a whole as stated
in its literature value the marriage of sustainability concepts with the curriculum.

Now I will look more specifically at how the establishment of edible forest gardens
contributes to a higher learning institution’s teaching approach. How can they

connect to a particular curriculum to provide experiential learning opportunities
that help students link theory and practice while supporting their growth and
development as community members?

61

Most (80%) subjects saw direct curricular connections between edible forest

gardens and academic goals. There was a large variation in what were seen as
ways for the garden to connect with the curriculum. They can work into the
curriculum both by setting an example of disciplinary concepts (i.e. botany,

ecology, soils, wildlife and habitat, agroecology, ethnobotany, food and nutrition,
land use and planning, permaculture studies, sustainability studies) and by

creating a place for learning scientific research methods, particularly in ecology or
environmental analysis (i.e. measuring plant growth and survival, effects of light,
shade and moisture).

The value of edible forest gardens to experiential learning was recognized by most
(80%) subjects. In particular, student responses iterated their appreciation and

acknowledgement for this type of learning through hands-on work. Student and
Community Gardens co-coordinator Colin Bartlett asserts:

I think having the beauty and the advantage of a fruit and vegetable
garden, in some ways even over a purely native garden or a flower
garden, is its interactivity, because you’re reaching in there, and
plucking these fruits, it gives you a greater sense of place. It’s a
landscape you interact with, not a landscape you just walk through.

Interview responses indicating the potential for experiential learning are
reinforced by the survey results from students who were enrolled in the
participating class program.

Putting theory into practice is one of Evergreen’s five learning foci, and it is also

a concept that was seen by almost half of interview subjects (47%) as a valuable

contribution of the forest garden. This, also, was strongly echoed by students in the
Food, Place, and Culture program, both in interviews and survey responses.
62

Almost half (47%) identified that edible forest gardens in the Housing area could
contribute to student growth and development, both academically and personally.
Since the garden will be largely student-coordinated and maintained, this offers

opportunities for leadership as well as research skill development. The potential for
independent contracts and internship learning opportunities also provides unique
prospects for motivated students to grow.
Discussion
The above section details my findings about how edible forest gardens facilitate

sustainability at The Evergreen State College. The qualitative data demonstrate the

complexity institutions are faced with when making decisions about how to “green”
their operations. The collaborative responses indicate the strength of potential
benefits of the addition of edible forest gardens to the campus, that they are in
line with the campus sustainability goals, and that the practical and curricular
opportunities outweigh the challenges.

Evergreen’s sustainability goals include communication and messaging, establishing
a sustainability ethic, establishing a curricular pathway in sustainability, and

improving operations. Edible forest gardens in the housing area offer a valuable
teaching and learning experience, invite residents to make connections with
bioregional concepts and a sense of place, and in theory will require less

maintenance in the long-term. With proper signs identifying plants and explaining

the concept, the gardens also closely fall in line with Evergreen’s communication and
messaging goals.

Many challenges were noted in executing a student-initiated garden installation

project. The largest of these is the assurance of long-term continuity of a permanent

63

space in a transitory student environment. Several elements were also seen as

necessary in projects that involved both staff and students: mainly collaboration and
compromise, and the garnering of administrative support. The development of a
clear plan on the students’ part is also vital.

Despite these challenges, many benefits and opportunities emerged: the opportunity
for long-term studies, the cultivation of student “ownership” on campus, and the
opportunities for teaching and learning in multiple disciplines. Sustainability-

related issues that forest gardens address include: land-use, ecology, food systems,
ethnobotany, and bioregional concepts. Edible forest gardens on a college campus
offer an opportunity for students to combine theory and practice, and provide
experiential learning opportunities.

64

Chapter VI | Realizing Sustainability through the Lens of Edible
Forest Gardens
To conclude, in this chapter I synthesize and expand upon information presented
throughout the thesis, and situate the new research within the context of other

work. I’ll also make recommendations on how to incorporate this work into practice,
and suggest areas of future research.

Edible Forest Gardens, Sustainability, and Higher Education
This study investigated whether the installation of an edible forest garden could
facilitate sustainability knowledge in higher education, and if it is an important
component of a campus sustainability plan. Whereas several studies note links

between gardening and education in the K-12 learning environment, few address
them within the context of sustainability and higher education. Edible forest

gardening is an alternative approach in considering food production, offering an

ecologically rooted approach attempting to maintain ecosystem function and create
habitat.

Results of the study demonstrate the contribution of edible forest gardens as they

pertain to sustainability in higher education. Before- and after-surveys and guided
reflection responses demonstrate that learning about forest gardens helped to
develop students’ understanding of sustainability concepts, particularly about

food issues and growing foods. The integration of the garden into the curriculum
strongly addresses the college’s learning foci. Qualitative interviews resulted in

several themes emerging, which addressed six categories. To synthesize: edible

forest gardens on a college campus foster teaching and learning both in classroom
theory and in hands-on work; they touch upon several disciplinary topics; they

65

offer opportunities for long-term study and help to cultivate student ownership and
sense of place; and they both act to spread the campus message of sustainability
and demonstrate sustainable practices. Corresponding with Evergreen’s

sustainability goals, edible forest gardens can serve as a valuable component of the
campus’ sustainability efforts (TESC Sustainability Task Force 2006, TESC 2009a).

Additionally, installing and maintaining edible forest gardens require collaboration
between students and staff, presenting challenges and educational opportunities.

Teaching about edible forest gardens supports students learning how to link theory
to practice, a skill needed for addressing sustainability issues in meaningful ways.
Students in the Food Place and Culture program found the workshops to enhance

their learning in four broad areas: planting, edible forest gardening concepts, garden
installation process, and forest ecology concepts. Edible forest gardening relies

on a foundational understanding of complex relationships between plants, soils,
mycorrhizae, herbivores and pollinators (Jacke and Toensmeier 2005, Kimmins

2004, Liebman 1995, Soule and Piper 1992, Whitefield 2002). Therefore, there is

significant opportunity to educate about ecological principles, integrating these into
student perspectives on sustainability. Simultaneously providing a food option, the

garden leads the observer to critically analyze our current modes of food production,
and consider alternative modes of growing food. The service-learning component of
the installation can help students to cultivate a sense of personal responsibility and
environmental citizenship; the hands-on work providing a sense of satisfaction and
translation of theoretical principles authentically realized (Newman 2008).
The work done by students engaging in independent study resulted in a

transformative experience. Abigail Marshall demonstrated significant educational

and personal growth, both academically and in terms of project organization. While
66

I coordinated the project, the outreach and networking she accomplished was only
possible due to her immersion and depth of understanding of concepts inherent

in edible forest gardening: two examples include a brochure she authored, and a

cookbook detailing edible properties of the plants included. She volunteered with a

local non-profit that installs forest gardens, furthering her knowledge on the subject
and establishing community connections.

Communicating concepts of place and fostering the student feeling of ownership
were two themes that arose as benefits of the garden. Because the gardens are

situated within the housing area, they modify what students experience as their

home – often their first independent living situation. Those who become active in

their living environment can not only assemble a more coherent understanding of

the bioregion, but also develop a greater sense of ownership of their residence. The
garden has the potential to encourage residents to think about the meaning of a

place. While students will not be able to truly feed themselves from the area, they

will have the opportunity to taste native and unusual fruits, observe plant growth,
and draw connections to the foods they consume. Those who participated in the

installation had the opportunity to draw deeper connections with community, which
in a sense is an extension of their natural surroundings. Interaction between the

students and their current bioregion through research and coursework can benefit

the community while contributing to students’ academic and personal development
(Keen and Baldwin 2004, Mkinne and Halfacre 2008).

Ownership is enhanced when students are allowed to make their own choices

reflecting their interests (Mkinne and Halfacre 2008, VanDerZanden and Cook

1999). Many opportunities exist for future students to realize their visions in the
space: adding plants, building trellises, pruning, weeding, and harvesting will all

67

invite student participation. Incorporating new student input while maintaining an
established plan will be important, as others have commented how other gardens

on campus (Demeter’s Garden, for example) suffer when new student coordinators
want to revision the space (Field notes 2009).

It is critical for any long-term student project to be supported both from the student
and administrative levels. Inspired, impassioned students often need guidance to
develop their ideas into a tangible reality. Having a detailed plan, being willing to
make compromises, and making appropriate connections helped to secure this

support from the start. Perseverance is also invaluable: when my initial grant was

not funded, I sought donations, requested funding from the Residential and Dining
Services department, and wrote a second grant which was successful. Funding

projects can take considerable effort from students to seek out and apply for funds,

and the college or university to ensure that there are monetary resources available.
The challenge of creating continuity will be unique in each situation. In this case,

some positive events occurred which should counter potential problems. Over the

summer of 2009, I was in close communication with the grounds crew, who worked

to install a trail and a drip irrigation system. This integrated the garden further with

typical work duties associated with their responsibilities. In fall 2009, a student who
matriculated through the Food, Place, and Culture class and was very excited about

the garden was hired for the Grounds Lead position. Another participant of the class
was transferred to the grounds crew and charged with a sustainability-oriented
focus. Abigail Marshall, mentioned above for her independent work with the

project, is at the time of this writing in a paid Sustainability Coordinator position for
Residential and Dining Services, allowing her to oversee some of the management

of the space. These three key individuals will likely carry on their passion and care
68

for the space due to their enhanced feeling of ownership about it. I would like to see
this develop into a cascading effect, in which they involve other students, thereby
cultivating even longer-term interest in the space.

Overall, Residential and Dining Services provided a positive, supportive atmosphere
for student project experimentation. When needed, RAD provided personnel

and financial resources. Additionally, the smaller organizational framework of

the satellite campus department allowed greater freedom for me to develop the

project. Residential and Dining Services’ institutional structure places a high degree
of confidence in student work and student development. If operating within the
context of the greater campus, I would have encountered a greater diversity of

challenges and less supportive departments. Others who have worked to establish

gardens in the main part of campus have expressed struggles in developing a proper
maintenance plan in collaboration with the Facilities department on campus.

Additionally, the site I developed in RAD was already identified as a place to modify;
therefore, my ideas were typically seen as an improvement to the existing site. On

the other hand, potential sites on the main part of campus invited controversy and
resistance from the beginning.

The positive outlook for integration of the space into the fabric of the campus

extends beyond Residential and Dining Services. Faculty members have expressed
interest in integrating the garden into future coursework. Students independent

of this project are in the initial stages of establishing forest gardens at the campus
childcare center, using this case as a springboard for structural organization and

maintenance regime. Evergreen’s Climate Action Plan seeks to repurpose several
lawns, and initial plans for their design will begin in the 2009-10 academic year;

69

this project exhibits a strategy for achieving sustainable grounds management that
integrates significant student involvement and academic growth.
Confronting Additional Challenges
Several potential challenges could be encountered in the future. Some may not
appreciate the aesthetic of a low maintenance garden. Also, annual gardeners

may have a difficult time recognizing the benefits of a perennial food garden, or

dismiss forest gardens as a fad. Others may consider that hands-on learning is not
appropriate for college level education. I’ll discuss these additional challenges in
light of the other material presented within the thesis.

Resistance to Aesthetic. As the garden matures, its less tidy appearance as compared
to a highly maintained garden or lawn may cause some to consider it an eyesore.
Beck et al. (2002) found sustainability and aesthetics to be opposed in subjects’
perceptions of gardens, but that people responded positively to informational

materials. I highly recommend ample educational materials to be available via the
web, and on-site. For this garden, placard signs were placed by 50 different plant

species and varieties, and there are plans for an interpretive panel to be placed in

the garden. The signs can discuss the benefits of low-maintenance and native species
food gardening, and how it reflects a different aesthetic. A website features studentresearched information on each plant species, a cookbook, and a guided walking
tour.

Likewise, I recommend a thorough maintenance plan. While edible forest gardening
and permaculture principles often boast “low-maintenance” as a benefit, this is

not the same as “no-maintenance”. The installation of the drip system highlights
a method of minimizing water and energy use while exhibiting a labor-efficient
70

process for landscape maintenance. It is important that whoever is in charge of

maintaining the space has an understanding of and access to resources detailing
particular requirements by specific plants as necessary, as well as resources or
knowledge on maintaining a drip irrigation system.

Resistance to Perennials in Home-Based Food Production Systems. Resistance to

an edible forest garden may arise among annual gardeners. Food demand typically
favors conventional crops: this is reflected in the species composition of our

farmland and annual gardens, and in the dominant subject matter constituting

ecological agricultural curriculum (Nelleman et al. 2009). Perennial food crops are

not a component in the regularly taught ecological agriculture program at Evergreen.
The concept at this time could not pervade or substitute for our conventional
agricultural system. Employing an ecologically sound, food-bearing, locally

sustaining system at an institutional level is not yet on the horizon, but encouraging
the cultivation of a new frame of mind regarding our landscape is pertinent as we
encounter sustainability challenges.

Edible Forest Gardening as a Fad. Critics could assert that edible forest gardening,

or sustainability itself, are passing fads. I addressed sustainability and its growing
presence on college campuses in Chapter 2, and demonstrated with data from
student interviews how edible forest gardens offer a connection to campus

sustainability and, in particular, how they support teaching and learning. But what

about edible forest gardens themselves? Are they a gardening technique currently in
vogue that will be forgotten in a few years?

The definition of edible forest gardens is flexible enough to include a wide range of
edible landscapes based on ecological principles (Hart 1991, Jackson 2002). It has

71

been adapted from its ideal to a heavily shaded, high-moisture area at Evergreen.
Forests have been managed by humans over millennia, and food production

based on ecological principles is a method of maintaining forest function and

biodiversity (McNeely 2004). As we make amends with our surroundings and

develop restoration plans while confronting challenges with sustainable food issues,
edible forest gardening arises as a sensible solution. It is only a part of a greater

solution in developing sustainable campuses within sustainable societies. There are
tradeoffs as one designs for maximum food yield, minimal maintenance, or native
area restoration goals. As demonstrated throughout history in Chapter 3, edible

forest gardens have been realized in many areas of the globe, adapted to tropical
and temperate climates, native and cultivated species. Though newly introduced

under the guise of edible forest gardening, this relationship is embedded in place as
traditional ecological knowledge.

Beyond the Evergreen State College Campus
Working in the sustainability field at an institutional level presents a suite of

uncharted struggles. Identifying and analyzing successful campus sustainability

projects contributes to this relatively new field. Hundreds of campuses are authoring
Climate Action Plans and contending with how they will meet their sustainability
goals; currently, there are few guiding models (ACUPCC 2009). Because of the

adaptability of edible forest gardens to site dimensions, soil conditions, and climate,
practically any campus can include an edible forest garden on its grounds. This
case study demonstrates what worked at Evergreen, why it worked, who acted

as key players in supporting it, an outline of the process, and plans for the future.
Similar volunteer-driven garden establishment projects present comparable

challenges (Mkinne and Halfacre 2008). While each institution varies, this process
72

can be translated to other colleges and universities on their own route towards
sustainability.

Tangible experiences highlighting the educational material from the classroom

can positively influence student learning, particularly in regards to the concept

of sustainability (Alvarez and Rogers 2006, Hamilton 1999). Sited on campus as
a demonstration and teaching opportunity, the garden offers outdoor learning

benefits without necessitating a field trip. Surveys indicated students’ appreciation
for hands-on experiences complementing classroom learning. Without incurring
the financial cost, paperwork requirements, travel time or carbon emissions to

arrive at a field destination, on-site edible forest gardens provide a number of the
advantages that an educator may seek in organizing such a trip. Some examples

include: botanical illustration, ecological monitoring or instrument demonstration,
ethnobotanical demonstration, plant identification, nature writing, ecological art

discussions, and sustainable design examples. The garden also provides a place to
teach about place and bioregional topics, and sustainable grounds management.

Because the garden is situated on a college campus, there is great potential for the
concept of edible forest gardening to be contagious. The student body consists of
young people from across the nation and from varied backgrounds who are at a

transformational period in cultivating their ideas and life journeys. Exposure to the

idea of edible forest gardening is something they can bring back to their hometown,

and share with their families and friends. Student responses in surveys indicate that
though many of them can’t currently implement a forest garden of their own, they

have amassed tools for the future, and gained an aesthetic for managing a landscape
for beauty, food, and wildlife.

73

Though most directly applicable to other campuses, the findings here indicate that
edible forest gardens, as a sustainable approach to grounds management, can be
generalized to private and other public lands. Directly applicable to the current

advances in the urban agriculture and local foods movement, public understanding
of edible forest gardens as a sustainable solution can lead to them being integrated
into policy of managing public land such as parks or community gardens. This

gardening approach also would appeal to property owners who are interested in
growing a percentage of their own foods but cannot allocate the time or energy
required to maintain an annual vegetable garden.
Areas for future research
The work of this thesis raises many questions. Recommended areas for future

research are twofold. First of all, additional work should be conducted on college

campuses to assess the relationships between gardens and sustainability education.
How does the Evergreen model compare to that of other institutions? Secondly,
the research lays a foundation for future work to be conducted at this site. One

of the greatest limitations of research was the time frame: the current work begs
further investigation on the longer-term effects of an edible forest garden on

student learning in the areas of environmental education and sustainability. The
perspectives and responses of future residents who are less connected to the

installation process would provide additional insight. Research could also focus

on quantitative changes in resource use (i.e. water savings with drip irrigation),

quantifying food production in the mature garden, or focus on ecological community
studies. More research is needed about species interactions in agroforestry systems
(Jose et al. 2004). The site could be monitored for changes in moisture regime, soil
chemistry, or insect community composition. Class programs in multiple areas of
74

study (i.e. botany, forestry, food systems, ethnobotany, biology, ecology, psychology,
sustainability studies) might be involved over an extended period of time.
Conclusion
Edible forest gardens are a valuable addition to the housing area of The Evergreen
State College campus. Contributing to student learning while exemplifying a

sustainability solution, the project transcends multiple disciplines while building
community and improving ecosystem function. As Evergreen implements

its Climate Action Plan, it should ensure the addition of edible forest gardens
throughout the campus core, particularly where student involvement can be

encouraged. This thesis demonstrates the benefits of the installation of edible forest
gardens on a college campus, addresses and confronts potential obstacles, and
provides a model for moving forward.

Other schools promoting sustainability efforts can use this project and process
as a template when considering how to manage their grounds using a method

that enriches ecological habitat while simultaneously offering food to the campus
community. In considering the bigger picture, it is the way we as humans interact

with the biotic and abiotic factors surrounding us that will determine the long-term
balance of our coexistence with the planet. Edible forest gardens seek to employ
ecological design paradigms to promote a healthy balance between human and
ecosystem needs. The effects of converting more land area into multifunctional

space can transform the way we envision urban and suburban areas as we develop
sustainable societies.

75

76

References

AASHE. 2008b. Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS) for
Colleges and Universities: Version 0.5. Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education. Lexington, Kentucky. 118 pp.

AASHE. “Sustainable landscaping.” Website for the Association for the Advancement
of Sustainability in Higher Education. Accessed September 29, 2009. www.
aashe.org.
AASHE. “AASHE Membership.” Website for the Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education. Accessed April 17, 2009. www.aashe.org.

AASHE. “Campus Sustainability Leadership Awards.” Website for the Association for
the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. Accessed April 22,
2009. www.aashe.org.
Abrams MD, Nowacki G. 2008. Native Americans as active and passive promoters
of mast and fruit trees in eastern North America. The Holocene 18(7):11231137.

ACUPCC. “President’s climate commitment and climate action planning.” Website for
the Association of College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment.
Accessed September 28, 2009. www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org
Adler PA, Adler A. 1987. Membership roles in field research. Newbury Park,
California: Sage.

Altbach PG. 1974. Comparative university reform. In: Altback PG editor. University
Reform.. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Books. p. 1-14.
Alvarez A, Rogers J. 2006. Going “out there”: learning about sustainability in place.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7:176-188.

Anderson MK. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the
management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley, California: University
of California Press. 526 pp.
Angehrn, A. 2004. Learning-by-playing: bridging the knowing-doing gap in urban
communities. In: Bounfour A, Edbinsson L, editors. 2005. Intellectual capital
for communities. Burlington, Massachusetts: Elsevier. p. 299-316.

Barbour M, Burk J, Pitts W, Gilliam F, Schwartz M. 1999. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. 3rd
ed. Menlo Park, California: Benjamin Cummings. 649 pp.
77

Beard JS. 1973. The physiognomic approach. In: Whittaker RH, editor. Ordination
and Classification of Communities. Part 5, Handbook of Vegetation Science.
The Hague: W. Junk b.v. Publishers. p. 355-386.
Beck TB, Heimlich JE, Quigley MF. 2002. Gardeners’ perceptions of the aesthetics,
manageability, and sustainability of residential landscapes. Applied
Environmental Education and Communication 1:163-172.

Bompard JM, Ducatillion C, Hecketsweiler P, Michon G. 1980. A traditional
agricultural system: village, forest gardens in West Java. Montpellier, France:
University of Montpellier.
Bowcutt F. 2002. Imagine a Greener Future:An Arboretum Draft Plan for the
Evergreen State College. Unpublished Report. Olympia, WA: The Evergreen
State College.
Bowcutt F. 2008. Appedix O: Imagine a Greener Future: An Arboretum Plan for
the Evergreen State College. In: The Evergreen State College Master Plan.
Olympia, Washington: The Evergreen State College. p. 275-318.

Brown, Katharine H. and Anne Carter. 2003. Urban Agriculture and Community
Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban
Fringe. Community Food Security Coalition, Venice, California.
Bradley P, Marulanda C. 2007. A Study on microgardens that help reduce global
poverty and hunger. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS) 742:115-123.

Capra F. 1998. Ecology, Systems Thinking, and Project-Based Learning. Sixth Annual
Conference on Project-Based Learning. San Francisco, California: Center for
Ecoliteracy.
Certini G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia
143(1):1-10.

Chalker-Scott L. 2007. Impact of mulches on landscape plants and the environment
- a review. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 25(4):239–249

Chapin FS III, Walker BH, Hobbs RJ, Hooper DU, Lawton JH, Sala OE, Tilman D. 1997.
Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277:500-504.

Christianty L, Abdoellah OS, Marten GG, Iskandar J. 1986. Traditional agroforestry
in west Java: the pekerangan (homegarden) and kebun-talun (annualperennial rotation) cropping system. In: Marten GG, editor. 1986. Traditional
agriculture in southeast Asia. Boulder, Colorado: Westview. p. 132-158.
78

City Farmer. 2002. 44% of Vancouver households grow food. Canada’s Office of
Urban Agriculture. Accessed May 4, 2009. www.cityfarmer.org.

Civil NM. 2007. Building on community knowledge: an avenue to equity in
mathematics education. In: Nasir, N, Cobb P, editors. Improving access to
mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom. New York, New York:
Teachers College Press.

Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ, editors. 2004. Higher education and the challenge of
sustainability: problematics, promise, and practice. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers. 355 pp.
Cortese AD. 1992. Education for an environmentally sustainable future: A priority
for environmental protection. Environmental Science and Technology
26(6):1108-1114.
Cortese AD. 2003. The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable
future. Planning for Higher Education 3:15-22.

Cox GW, Atkins MS. 1979. Agricultural ecology: an analysis of world food production.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: WH Freeman & Co.

Cox TS, Glover JD, Van Tassel DL, Cox CM, DeHaan LR. 2006. Prospects for developing
perennial grains. BioScience 56(8):649-659.
Creighton SH. 1999. Greening the ivory tower: improving the track record of
universities, colleges, and other institutions. London: MIT Press. 337 pp.

Crews TE. 2005. Perennial crops and endogenous nutrient supplies. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems 20(1): 25-37.

de Bon H. 2006. Dry and aquatic peri-urban and urban horticulture in Hanoi,
Vietnam. In: van Veenhuizen R, editor. Cities farming for the future
– urban agriculture for green and productive cities. Phillipines: ETC-Urban
Agriculture. p. 338-339.

FAO. 1989. Prevention of post-harvest food losses: fruits, vegetables, and root crops.
Rome: FAO Newsroom.
FAO. 2005. Farming in urban areas can boost food security. FAO Newsroom, Rome.

Garden JG, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, Jones DN. 2007. Habitat structure is more
important than vegetation composition for local-level management of native
terrestrial reptile and small mammal species living in urban remnants: A case
study from Brisbane, Australia. Australian Ecology 32:669-685.

79

Gallagher W. 1994. The power of place: how our surroundings shape our thoughts,
emotions, and actions. New York: Poseidon Press. 240 pp.

Glover JD. 2005. The necessity and possibility of perennial grain production systems.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20(1):1-4.
Graham H, Beall, DL, Lussier, M, McLaughlin P, Zidenberg-Cherr, S. 2005. Use of
school gardens in academic instruction. Journal of Nutrition Education
Behavior 37:147-151.

Graham H, Zidenberg-Cherr S. 2005. California teachers perceive school gardens as
an effective nutritional tool to promote healthful eating habits. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association. 105: 1797-1800.

Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carrol CR. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology. 3rd edition.
Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. 779 pp.
Groombridge B, Jenkins MD. 2002. World atlas of biodiversity: Earth’s living
resources in the 21st century. Cambridge, United Kingdom: UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Center. 340 pp.
Hanley M.L. 1991. After the harvest. World Development 4(1): 25-27.

Hamilton SL. 1999. The roles of the University of Tennessee gardens in a public
horticulture teaching program. Horticultural Technology. 9(4): 552-556.

Hart, RA. 1991. Forest gardening. Totnes, Devon, United Kingdom: Green Books.
Harvey JR. 1984. Vegetables in the middle ages. Garden History 12(2):89-99.

Higgs AL, McMillan VM. 2006. Teaching through modeling: four schools’ experiences
in sustainability education. The Journal of Environmental Education
38(1):40-53.

Hoogerbrugge ID, Fresco LO. 1993. Homegarden systems: agricultural characteristics
and challenges. London: Sustainable Agriculture Programme, International
Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Hora M, Tick J. 2001. From farm to table: making the connection in the mid-Atlantic
food system. Washington, DC: Capital Area Food Bank.
Jacke D, Toensmeier E. 2005. Edible forest gardens: ecological vision and theory for
temperate climate Ppermaculture. Volumes I and II. White River Junction,
Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
80

Jackson W. 2002. Natural systems agriculture: a radical alternative. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 88: 111-117.

James,D.G. 1986. The prospects for fish for the malnourished. Food and Nutrition
12(2):20-30.
Jose S, Gillespie AR, Pallardy SG. 2004. Interspecific interactions in temperate
agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 61:237-255.

Keen C, Baldwin E. 2004. Students promoting economic development and
environmental sustainability: an analysis of the impact of involvement in
a community-based research and service learning program. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 5:384-394.

Kimmins JP. 2004. Forest Ecology: A Foundation for Sustainable Forest Management
and Environmental Ethics in Forestry. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson Education, Inc. 611 pp.
Kumar BM, Nair PKR. 2004. The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agroforestry
Systems 61:135-152.

Leopold EB, Boyd R. 1999. An ecological history of old prairie areas in southwestern
Washington. In: Boyd R. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest.
Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. p. 139-163.
Liebman M. 1995. Polyculture cropping systems. In: Altieri M, editor. Agroecology:
The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, 2nd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press. p. 205-218.
Lundgren BO. 1982. What is Agroforestry? Agroforestry Systems 1(1):7–12.

Lundqvist J, de Fraiture C, Molden D. 2008. Saving water: from field to fork – curbing
losses and wastage in the food chain. SIWI Policy Brief. Stockholm, Sweden:
Stockholm International Water Group.
McAleese JD, Rankin LL. 2007. Garden-based nutrition affects fruit and vegetable
consumption in sixth-grade adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association 107:662-665.
McNeely JA. 2004. Nature vs. nurture: managing relationships between forests,
agroforestry and wild biodiversity. Agroforestry Systems 61:155-165.
M’Gonigle M, Starke J. 2006. Planet U: sustaining the world, reinventing the
university. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. 270 pp.

81

Michon G, Bompard JM, Hecketsweiler P, Ducatillion C. 1983. Tropical forest
architectural analysis as applied to agroforests in the humid tropics: the
example of traditional village-agroforests in West Java. Agroforestry Systems
1:117-129.

Mkinne KL, Halfacre AC. 2008. “Growing” a campus native species garden: sustaining
volunteer-driven sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 9:147-156.
Mollison B. 1988. Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual. Tyalgum, Australia: Tagari
Publications. 575 pp.

Morgan SC, Hamilton SL, Bentley ML, Myrie S. 2009. Environmental education in
botanic gardens: exploring Brooklyn botanic garden’s Project Green Reach.
The Journal of Environmental Education 40(4):35-52.
Murphy K. 2009. Evaluating the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating
System (STARS) at The Evergreen State College [Masters thesis]. Olympia,
WA: The Evergreen State College. 179 pp.

Nabhan G. 2008. Where our food comes from: retracing Nikolay Vavilov’s quest to
end famine. Washington: Island Press. 214 pp.

NWF. 2008. Campus environment 2008—a national report card on sustainability
in higher education: trends and new developments in college and university
leadership, academics, and operations. National Wildlife Federation and
Princeton Survey Research Associates International. 136 pp.
Nellemann C, MacDevette M, Manders T, Eickhout B, Svihus B, Prins AG, Kaltenborn
BP, editors. 2009. The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role
in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United
Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal. 104 pp. www.grida.no
Newman J. 2008. Service learning as an expression of ethics. New Directions for
Higher Education 142:17-24.

Norton H. 1979. The association between anthropogenic prairies and important
food plants in western Washington. Northwest Anthropological Research
Notes 13(2):175-200.

Ozer EJ. 2006. The effects of school gardens on students and schools:
conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development.
Health Education and Behavior 34:846-864.
Pearson KL. 1997. Nutrition and the early medieval diet. Speculum 72(1): 1-32.
82

Pinstrup-Andersen P, Pandya-Lorch R. 1998. Food security and sustainable use of
natural resources: a 2020 vision. Ecological Economics 26(1):1-10.

Pirog R. 2004. Food miles: a simple metaphor to contrast local and global food
systems. Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, Dietetic Practice Group of the
American Dietetic Association. 5 pp.
Pirog R, Benjamin A. 2003. Checking the food odometer: comparing food miles for
local versus conventional produce sales to Iowa institutions. Ames, Iowa:
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University. 8 pp.
Pirog R, Van Pelt T, Enshayan K, Cook E. 2001. Food, fuel, and freeways: An Iowa
perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas
emissions. Ames, Iowa: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa
State University.

Princeton Review. 2008. Best 368 Colleges, 2009 Edition. Princeton Review. 832 pp.
Putnam, J, Allshouse J. 2001. Imports’ share of US diet rises in late 1990s. Global
Food Trade 24(3):15-22.

Poppendieck J. 1997. The USA: hunger in the land of plenty. In: Riches G, editor. First
world hunger. New York: St. Martin Press. p. 134-164.

Raab L. 2009. Greener RecycleManiacs participate in national competition. Olympia,
WA: MESsages: The Newsletter of the Graduate Program on the Environment,
The Evergreeen State College.
Rackham O. 2002. The medieval countryside of England: botany and archaeology. In
Howe J, Wolfe M, editors. Inventing medieval landscapes: senses of place in
western Europe. Gainesville, FL: The University Press of Florida. p. 13-32.
Sharp L. 2002. Green campuses: the road from little victories to systematic
transformation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
3(2):128–145.
Soule JD, Piper JK. 1992. Farming in Nature’s Image: An Ecological Approach to
Agriculture. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 286 pp.

Stake R. 2000. ‘Case Studies’. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of Qualitative
Research. 2nd Edition. California: Sage Publications.

Storm L, Shebitz D. 2006. Evaluating the purpose, extent, and ecological restoration
applications of indigenous burning practices in southwestern Washington.
Ecological Restoration 24(4):256-268.

83

TESC. 2009a. Climate action plan: carbon neutrality in 2020. Draft. Olympia,
Washington: The Evergreen State College.

TESC. 2009b. 2009 ACUHO-I/EBI Resident Study – unpublished data. Olympia,
Washington: The Evergreen State College.

TESC. “The Evergreen State College Fall 2008 – Spring 2009 Course Catalog.” The
Evergreen State College. Accessed April 22, 2009. www.evergreen.edu/
catalog/2008-09/.
TESC. “The Seminar II Building.” The Evergreen State College. Accessed
October 2, 2009. www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/evergreenstories/
SeminarIIBuilding.

TESC Sustainability Task Force. 2006. Sustainable Evergreen: Evergreen’s vision for
a sustainable future - interim report. The Evergreen State College. Available
online: www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/interimreport.htm
UNESCO. 1972. The Stockholm Declaration. Stockholm: UNESCO. Available online:
www.unesco.org/iau/sd/sd_declarations
UNESCO. 1990. The Talloires Declaration. Gland: UNESCO. Available online:
www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires
UNESCO. 1997. Thessaloniki Declaration. Gland: UNESCO. Available online:
www.unesco.org/iau/sd/sd_declarations

University of Washington Botanical Gardens. “UWBG About Us – Frequently Asked
Questions.” University of Washington Botanical Gardens. Accessed July 20,
2009. depts.washington.edu/urbhort

VanDerZanden AM, Cook T. 1999. A multifunctional horticulture teaching garden at
Oregon State University. Horticulture Technology 9(4):549-551

Verheij E. 1982. Homegardening in the Matara district. Temperate fruits in Numara
Eliya district; report of a visit to Sri Lanka from 22 to 28 of August 1982. LH,
Wageningen.
The Washington Center for Improving Undergraduate Education. 2008. Building
concepts of sustainability into undergraduate curriculum. Olympia,
Washington: Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative, The Evergreen State
College.

Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. 1998. Quantifying threats to
imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607-616.
84

Whitefield P. 2002. How to Make a Forest Garden. 2nd Edition. White River Junction,
Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. 160 pp.
Wright TSA. 2002. Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in
higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Eduation.
3(3): 203-220.

85

86

Appendix I

Food Place and Culture Pre-Survey
This questionnaire was used with students in the interdisciplinary program Food Place and
Culture. 48 students filled this out in the first week of class, before their experience in the garden.
On a scale of 1-7 (7 is high) assess your current understanding of sustainability issues.
On a scale of 1-7 (7 is high) assess your current understanding of food issues.
On a scale of 1-7 (7 is high) assess your current understanding of edible forest gardening.
Indicate up to three places you typically shop for your groceries, and prioritize (1
indicates you shop there most, 3 the least of your shopping habits)
___ Co-op
___ Locally Owned Market (i.e. Thriftway)
___ Farmer’s Market (in season)
___ Discount Market (i.e. Grocery Outlet)
___ Grocery Store (i.e. Safeway, Top Foods, Alberson’s)
___ Supermarket/Superstore (i.e. Wal-Mart, Costco)
___ Corner store (i.e. Handy Pantry, gas stations)
___ Other (please note)
Indicate the number of meals each week you typically eat…
___ At the Greenery.
___ Other on campus food options (i.e. the Market, Sem II Café)
___ Campus-run student café (Flaming Eggplant)
___ Fast food (McDonald’s, Jack-in-the-box)
___ Low-budget restaurants (<$8/entree)
___ Mid-range restaurants ($8-15/entree)
___ Expensive restaurants (>$15/entrée)
___ At home.
___ Potlucks.

Define local in your own terms or understanding as it applies to food.
Estimate…
What percentage of food that you eat is local?
0-15 15-25 25-50 50-75 75+
What percentage of food that you eat is organic?
0-15 15-25 25-50 50-75 75+
In how many meals each week do you eat meat?
0
1-3
4-6
7-10 10+

How many months (or years) have you lived in the Pacific Northwest? Do you feel a
developing sense of place with the bioregion here? How does this compare to where you
have previously lived (if you have recently moved to the PNW)?
Describe your attentiveness to food origin and whether food is organically grown?

What does a garden mean to you? Are you planning to grow a garden this year? If so, will
you grow any fruits or vegetables? Why or why not?
87

Appendix II

Food Place and Culture Post-Survey
This questionnaire was used with students in the interdisciplinary program Food Place and
Culture. 31 students filled this out in the seventh week of class, after their experience in the
garden.
On a scale of 1-7 (7 is high) assess your current understanding of sustainability issues.
On a scale of 1-7 (7 is high) assess your current understanding of food issues.
On a scale of 1-7 (7 is high) assess your current understanding of edible forest gardening.
Indicate up to three places you typically shop for your groceries, and prioritize (1
indicates you shop there most, 3 the least of your shopping habits)
___ Co-op
___ Locally Owned Market (i.e. Thriftway)
___ Farmer’s Market (in season)
___ Discount Market (i.e. Grocery Outlet)
___ Grocery Store (i.e. Safeway, Top Foods, Alberson’s)
___ Supermarket/Superstore (i.e. Wal-Mart, Costco)
___ Corner store (i.e. Handy Pantry, gas stations)
___ Other (please note)
Indicate the number of meals each week you typically eat…
___ At the Greenery.
___ Other on campus food options (i.e. the Market, Sem II Café)
___ Campus-run student café (Flaming Eggplant)
___ Fast food (McDonald’s, Jack-in-the-box)
___ Low-budget restaurants (<$8/entree)
___ Mid-range restaurants ($8-15/entree)
___ Expensive restaurants (>$15/entrée)
___ At home.
___ Potlucks.

Define local in your own terms or understanding as it applies to food.
Estimate…
What percentage of food that you eat is local?
0-15 15-25 25-50 50-75 75+
What percentage of food that you eat is organic?
0-15 15-25 25-50 50-75 75+
In how many meals each week do you eat meat?
0
1-3
4-6
7-10 10+

How many months (or years) have you lived in the Pacific Northwest? Do you feel a
developing sense of place with the bioregion here? How does this compare to where you
have previously lived (if you have recently moved to the PNW)?
Describe your attentiveness to food origin and whether food is organically grown?
Have your shopping or eating habits changed over the past 2 months? (circle one)
Why or why not?
88

Yes/No

What does a garden mean to you? Have your ideas of gardening changed in the last two
months?

Have you changed your plans regarding growing a garden this year? i.e., if you did not plan
one, have you changed your mind? If you had planned to grow something, have you changed
your perspective on what to include?
Do you think you will return to this garden in the future?
Why or why not?

Yes/Maybe/No

Are you interested in caring for this garden in your tenure at Evergreen?
Why or why not?

Yes/Maybe/No

What are your thoughts on returning to the gardens now after your experience in helping
to plant?
Did learning about edible forest gardens directly impact your understanding of:
(1 is not at all, 7 is a whole lot)
Sustainability
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Food Issues
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Growing Food/Plants 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Have the workshops with the forest gardens addressed any of Evergreen’s 5 learning foci?
(1 is not at all, 7 is a whole lot)
Interdisciplinary Study
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Collaborative Learning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Learning Across Significant Differences 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Personal Engagement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Linking Theory with Practice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
How have the workshops with the forest gardens augmented your classroom learning
experience?

89

Appendix III

Typical Interview Questions
This list incorporates most questions selected for semi-structured interviews. Each interview
emphasized the unique inputs of person I was talking with, and I did not hesitate to use followup questions that are not listed here.
How did you hear about forest gardening?
Why did you install a food forest garden?
What are some of the joys and challenges of your garden?
What does it mean to you to have a sense of place?
In your opinion, how does participation in a community gardening project affect your sense
of place?
How long have you lived in the area? Do you feel a developing sense of place with the
bioregion here?
How does this compare to where you have previously lived (if a student who has recently
moved to the PNW).
Have your perceptions changed in regards to food systems since the installation of your
garden?
What do you see as potential challenges, as well as positive results of the installation of the
gardens in the Housing area?
Tell me your thoughts about gardening with edible perennial plants.
Why did you get involved with the Edible Forest Gardens project?
Has it changed your perception of food origin? Food systems? Gardening?
Do you plan to do anything differently as a result of your involvement with the project?
How does your organization work to increase awareness or understanding of environmental
or sustainability issues?
What are some of the joys and challenges of your work?

90

Appendix IV

Project Outline and Description
Many of the project details were eliminated from the body of the thesis as they distracted from
the focus of the research. This appendix provides additional details of the plan and process.
Project Outline: Installing Edible Forest Gardens in Housing at TESC
1) Garden installation: project timeline, outline, logistics
a. Institutional process
b. Garden design
c. Creating maintenance plan
d. Designing educational materials
2) Experiential or Service Learning Education
a. Student interns
b. Class program
c. Volunteers
3) Campus and community partnerships
a. Community Gardens
b. Developing Ecological Agricultural Practices Student Group
c. Organic Farm
d. Terra Commons
e. Thurston Conservation District
f. Residential and Dining Services

Project Description and Details

Garden installation: project timeline, outline, logistics
The first part of the process largely consisted of project management work. As the current
Sustainability Coordinator for RAD Services, I undertook the process of attaining campus
approval for installation of a garden, researching plants to include, assessing site drainage
and light availability, ordering soils tests, developing garden layout and design, arranging
for all materials required to do the garden installation (soil, mulch, cardboard, plants,
mushroom inoculant, tools).

Institutional process
In order to do a garden installation in an institutional setting, I first explored how this
process occurs in the campus setting at TESC. I worked with students, faculty, operational
staff, RAD Services facilities, and got a proposal approved by the Campus Land Use
Committee (CLUC) to install the garden. I also navigated funding opportunities and sought
out donations for materials.

Garden design
Initial responsibilities included conducting an assessment of current site conditions. This
included observation of existing plant species, observation of drainage patterns, soils tests
in field and lab, and observations of the use of the site. I did this in collaboration with an
undergraduate student intern throughout Winter Quarter 2009.
Based on results from the site assessment, we determined that the site is part-to-full shade,
with mesic-to-hydric soils that in some areas have poor drainage. As is true of native Pacific
Northwest soils, the soil is acidic, and is low in phosphorus and nitrogen in some areas.

91

The garden design was developed in an effort to pick the most appropriate and diverse
plants for the existing site, rather than seek extensive modifications to the soil or the light
availability. Although this presented a design challenge, it allowed the focus to incorporate
more native plant species, and to allow this space to further demonstrate the potential
that exists in a shady site with poor drainage. Plant species were chosen based on edibility,
adaptability to site conditions, availability at local nurseries specializing in native and edible
perennial plant species (Native Plant Salvage Project, Sound Native Plants, Stellaria Nursery,
and Burnt Ridge Nursery). Due to the nature of the above limitations, an extensive suite of
berries was selected, while limited varieties of perennial vegetables, tubers, and fruit trees
were incorporated.
Creating maintenance plan
One of the main problems I encountered was considering the long-term maintenance
for this garden. Since it is a transitory student environment with a lack of long-term
institutional memory, there is potential for varying interest in the long term due to the
variance of student body. For this reason, I drew up a plan to distribute the responsibilities
between varying student organizations on campus. This plan includes four critical
stakeholders: the RAD Services Grounds Crew, students living in Sustainability Themed
Housing, the Sustainability Intern, and a network of campus and community groups.
Each group will play a critical role, but this network should provide internal checks and
balances so that if one group is not carrying out their part, another can take over to provide
instruction and maintenance for the garden in that period of time.

The RAD Services Sustainability intern position is in a period of evolution, as it is currently a
new position at TESC. Although this creates some challenges in that there is little structure
at this point, it provides the opportunity to charge this position with coordinating the key
players who will be contributing to the garden’s future. Although I have an active interest
in this project, I understand that my successor may not, and that this person may merely
ensure that the workshops occur and that this program continues.
The RAD Services Grounds Crew, currently in charge of maintaining the grounds in the
Housing area, will be charged with upkeep of the area. The current lead, Sam Lantz,
has taken an active interest in assisting with the installation of the garden. Grounds
maintenance staff brought mulch and installed the drip irrigation system for the site. They
will ensure that the area does not become trashy, overgrown, and depending on their
interest, can serve as a voice in the choices that will be made in the gardens. They also will
take care of the watering, particularly in the first three years. They are the familiar face that
students will see acting in these areas.

Students living in Sustainability Themed Housing will have the opportunity to opt-in to a
group that maintains the garden space. They will have the opportunity to opt in to caring for
the garden and harvesting its goods. They will do the weeding, the replanting, the sowing,
and the trimming / pruning.
The last piece of the network consists of other campus and community groups. To create a
learning environment and to help students who may have very little experience in caring
for plants, community groups will be invited to give workshops on topics that will enhance
the students’ ability to care for and make informed decisions about the future of the garden.
Groups will give an annual workshop unless they have the interest and capacity to do more.
92

This will provide students with the tools to make the garden a living space for learning. It
will also provide the workshop leaders with direct contact with interested students on our
campus, increasing recognition, possibly leading to internships, student collaboration, etc.

Designing educational materials
In order to provide structure and guidance for future caretakers, I laid out several
documents to create that would include exhaustive but easily accessible information about
the species included on the site. This includes: species profiles of all species currently
included, a list of potential future actions that can or should be taken in caring for the
garden, a maintenance manual that includes a timeline for how to care for the garden
throughout the seasons, and an interpretive walk. These documents are all uploaded and
available to current students and the wider public on the Residential and Dining Services
Sustainability website.

Educational opportunities
There were several opportunities to create educational opportunities throughout the
creation of the garden, as well as in laying out a plan for it serving as a demonstration in
the future. I worked with three student interns, the full-time class program Food, Place, and
Culture, (50 students), and volunteers.
Student Interns
At Evergreen, students have the ability to gain course credit for participating in an
internship. This allowed for students to independently take charge of work to design and
install the garden. Three students engaged in this manner throughout Winter and Spring
2009 academic quarters.

In the winter quarter of 2009, undergraduate Abi Marshall outlined a 12-credit internship
project to help with site assessment and design, and creation of outreach and education
materials. In the spring of 2009, Abi continued her work in the spring through an internship
component of the program Living in the Sacred Garden, actively participating in leading
garden installation, and completing development of education materials.
Two students, Sarah Betcher, and Kaliegh Phillips did 4-credit internship projects
developing education materials. Sarah developed an interpretive walk and was the primary
liaison to the Thurston Conservation District regarding soils testing, and Kaliegh designed
plant profiles.
This process allowed these students to work independently and learn about edible forest
gardens while narrowing in on their interests. They had an intimate opportunity to engage
in and fulfill specific project needs.

Class program
The program Food, Place, and Culture participated in a workshop co-hosted by Natalie
Pyrooz, Residential and Dining Services Sustainability Coordinator and Michael Kelly, of
Terra Commons. The workshop occurred during the second week of the quarter, and began
with a class presentation, and then lab time where students learned species and plant uses,
and planted up a section of the garden. Students returned to the garden in the latter part of
the quarter to observe its development.
Volunteers

93

Volunteers were an integral part of the planting process. The Center for Community Based
Learning and Action helped to recruit volunteers. Most of them attended for the day of
the garden installation only. One student, Rebecca Swain-Sugarman, conducted video
documentation of the event.

Campus and community partnerships
Campus groups that will be involved are Demeter’s Garden, Community Gardens, and the
Environmental Resource Center. Demeter’s Garden is a permaculture garden located at
the Organic Farm. This is the direct outlet for the campus group Developing Ecological
Agricultural Practices. Their interests and values are closely aligned with that of the forest
gardens in housing. The primary differences are that the Housing forest gardens are located
in the residential area, and that while the housing forest gardens are currently composed
primarily of shade species, Demeter’s Garden has a higher amount of sun and is managed
more intensely as a food producing space. They will work with the Sustainability Intern
to organize workshops that benefit both spaces, and will help to educate students from
Sustainability Themed Housing to best care for the space. Community Gardens is a student
group that provides gardening spaces to the campus community at the Organic Farm. They
will provide seeds and supplies for the students to maintain the garden space.
Community groups involved include the non-profit, Terra Commons, and Thurston
Conservation District. Terra Commons is a local group that installs edible forest gardens
in Thurston County and other areas of western Washington. They will invite students who
have opted-in to care for the garden to their workshops, and provide workshops on-site at
the garden space. Thurston Conservation District has assisted with soils testing and will
provide a once-yearly teach-in about soils at the site.

94

Appendix V

Campus Land Use Committee Project Proposal
Part of navigating the institutional process included approval from the Campus Land Use
Committee to permanently alter public space on campus grounds. The following is the
presented proposal.
Project Description
This project plans to develop two edible forest demonstration gardens at The Evergreen
State College; one on the main campus and one on lower campus. A map indicating
proposed areas is included as a separate attachment. The project will be facilitated by a
graduate student and core group of students, and will work with community and campus
groups that advocate sustainable food systems and community gardens. The purpose of the
project is to raise awareness of our food systems, create a place for local, perennial, organic
food to be grown in the campus core, and to engage students through action.

The students will collaborate with each other and with Terra Commons to develop a
planting design throughout the months of January and February. They will conduct physical
alteration of the site in March. The site on upper campus currently is covered with ivy. Ivy
removal will be the first step, and upon removal ivy will be left to dry and die at the Lewis
Road site on a sheet of plastic (to keep it from rooting), and then composted. Then, students
will heavily sheet mulch the site with several layers of cardboard, followed by several inches
of topsoil. The site on lower campus will be sheet mulched as well. Then the plants and drip
irrigation will be installed.
Timeline
Project planning and design December 2008 - February 2009
Site preparation and planting March 2009

Consistency with Evergreen’s Academic Mission
Evergreen’s core teaching values are well-represented in this project:
Interdisciplinary study is inescapable when almost any environmental issue is
addressed. Agriculture/agroecology, forest ecology, edible landscaping, community
action, and environmental education are five distinct areas of learning that will be
bridged, and other disciplines will likely be incorporated as needed into this complex
undertaking.
Collaborative learning will be essential in this project. The planning and installation of
gardens on a college campus is a task that will require shared visions and compromise,
and will invite many hands.
Learning across significant differences is unavoidable when bridging gaps between
students, staff, administration, and varied campus organizations. The research
component of the project seeks to evaluate experiential learning not only by students,
but also that of the larger campus community.
Personal engagement occurs naturally when people are involved in creation, when
they are given a sense of ownership and when a space is created for interaction
and community development. Also, the establishment of living things invites the
cultivator to return to the roots they set into the ground, not only physically, but also
metaphorically.
95

Linking theory with practical applications is achieved in this project as we begin with
addressing the intricate issue of food security, and our end result is a young forest
garden.

Suitability with Criteria for Campus Land Use
This project will connect with the Teaching Gardens that are developed in several areas
of campus and are written into the Campus Master Plan. The area by Lab II is one that is
covered in ivy and will be replaced with productive species. The area in Housing by the HCC
receives little sunlight, and some of it is very wet, and it does not maintain conventional
grass well. This plot will be planted primarily with shade loving and wet-tolerant species.
Potential Environmental Impacts
Over time (3-5 years +), these gardens will increase wildlife habitat for birds in the areas
where they exist. No serious negative environmental impacts are anticipated.

Health and Safety Issues
There is potential for food-bearing plants to rot if not harvested in time. The problem will be
averted through partnerships with student or community groups such as the EverGleaners,
the Sustainability House, and RAD Facilities Grounds.
Ongoing Maintenance Plan
An ongoing maintenance plan is currently under development and will be one of the
priorities for discussion among the student group. Maintenance should be minimal, and a
specific plan will be developed as the project unfolds. A drip irrigation system is planned
to minimize maintenance and watering. Possible plans include developing a partnership
with a community group to do weeding and clean-up in concert with their goal of
raising community awareness, working with a student group on campus, working with
Sustainability House (the living/learning residential community sponsored by Residential
and Dining Services), or developing a plan that works both with Facilities staff and students.
RAD Facilities is committed to the long-term development of this project.
The other long-term plan we will be addressing is how the food will be used. Possibilities
include incorporating into an academic program, donating to charity, and being an informal
resource for the campus community.

96

Appendix VI

Food, Place, and Culture Course Description
The Evergreen State College offers 16-credit interdisciplinary courses. The following provides
an outline of the focus of the class that participated in the edible forest gardening workshops.
Faculty: Martha Rosemeyer agricultural ecology, Zoltan Grossman geography, Native
American studies
Major areas of study include: political economy, geography, food, culture, Native American
and traditional food and agriculture.
Class Standing: This all-level program accepts up to 25% freshmen as well as supporting
and encouraging those ready for advanced work.

Food is a central element in social exchange and definition of self and community. Perhaps
even more than language, food is a marker of identity and culture. How have particular
regional and national cuisines been shaped by local and global geography and history? For
example, what was Italian food before the tomato’s arrival from the Americas? How are local
food traditions being endangered by globalization?
We will begin the quarter with an overview of the evolution of early humans and the history
of food procurement, including the relatively recent development of agriculture. We will
study the food gathering, cultivation practices and rights of indigenous and land-based
peoples of North America and the Pacific Rim. This component will include introductory
ethnobotany and field work aimed at beginning to recognize native plants of the Pacific
Northwest. We will also investigate the interaction of people with their landscape through
visits to local tribes and immigrant communities. Students will examine the scientific basis
of various modes of traditional food preparation and preservation, including fermentation.
By focusing on a few case studies, we will dissect the notion of regional cuisine, which
initially develops within the context of a distinct place with unique edible plants, animals,
and spices, as well as its cultural perspectives. We will consider the Columbian Exchange,
the dislocation of plants and animals following this encounter of Europe with the Americas,
and its profound impact on ecological systems in both areas. We will further examine the
consequences of colonialism in restructuring local food systems for the markets of Empire,
and in “internationalizing” food, as in Indian curry in England. We will study how migration
has changed the flavor of national identities, an example of which is how salsa has replaced
ketchup as the most popular condiment in the United States.

Finally, we will look at the impact of globalization and the structure of regional economies
on food, such as the effects of free-trade agreements on farmers and consumers. We will
investigate how climate change is disrupting plant and animal habitats important in food
procurement and cultural survival. We will consider alternative models capable of providing
local food security, self-sufficiency and a stronger connection to place.
Credits: 16 per quarter
Enrollment: 48
Program is preparatory for careers and future studies in geography, culture, food, native
plants and political economy.
Planning Units: Programs for Freshmen, Environmental Studies, Native American and
World Indigenous Peoples’ Studies, Scientific Inquiry

97

Appendix VII

Workshop Outline – Food Place and Culture
Part I: 1 hour classroom presentation and discussion

Presentation Outline:
i. Edible Forest Gardening Definition
ii. Purpose
a. Population, food miles, land use, water inputs, chemicals
iii. Gardening in vs. like the forest
iv. History
a. Tropics, Native PNW cultures, temperate climates
v. Forest Ecology Basics
a. Vegetation Layers
b. Vegetation Density
c. Soils
d. Patterning
e. Diversity
f. Succession
g. Ethnobotany
vi. Gardens and Food at Evergreen
vii. Site Specific Design
viii. Desired Species
ix. Overview of Workshop
x. Continuing Opportunities

Part II: Installation Workshop
The 50-student class was broken into two groups, with one participating in the morning and
the other in the afternoon. The alternate group participated in a lab workshop about plant/
flower parts.
i.

Site Orientation
a. Soil
b. Moisture
c. Plant Identification
ii. How to Plant and Sheet Mulch: Explanation and Demonstration
iii. Students work in small groups of 2-4 in designated areas with placed plants.

98

Applendix VIII

Complete species list of plants in the edible forest garden. Numbers correspond with garden
design map in Appendix X.
Native Species
Genus

Species

Common Name

Camassia

quamash

3

Campanula

Rotundifolia

4

Cornus

canadensis

Camas

5

Corylus

cornuta

6

Fragaria

virginiana

7

Fragaria

vesca

8

Gaultheria

shallon

9

Heracleum

maximum

51

Lilium

columbianum

49

Mahonia

aquifolium

10

Malus

fusca

11

Oxalis

oregona

12

Ribes

lacustre

13

Ribes

sanguineum

14

Rosa

nutkana

15

Rubus

spectabilis

16

Rubus

parviflorus

17

Rubus

leucodermis

18

Sambucus

racemosa

19

Scutellaria

lateriflora

20

Urtica

dioica

21

Vaccinium

parvifolium

22

Vaccinium

ovatum

23

Vaccinium

membranaceum

24

Valeriana

sitchensis

25

Viburnum

opulus

26

Viola

sempervirens

27

Viola

adunca

1
2

50

Asarum
Brodiaea

caudatum
coronaria

Wild Ginger

Harvest Brodieae
Harebell

Bunchberry

Beaked Hazelnut
Wild Strawberry

Woodland Strawberry
Salal

Cow parsnip
Tiger Lily

Tall Oregon Grape

Oregon Crabapple
Redwood Sorrel

Swamp Gooseberry

Red Flowering Currant
Nootka Rose

Salmonberry

Thimbleberry

Black-cap Raspberry
Red Elderberry
Blue Skullcap

Stinging Nettle

Red Huckelberry

Evergreen Huckleberry
Thin-leaf Huckleberry
Sitka Valerian

American Cranberry
Evergreen Violet

Early Blue Violet

99

Cultivated Species
Genus

Species

Common Name

30

Akebia

quinata

31

Akebia

quinata

Purple Rose Akebia

33

Amelanchier alnifolia

34

28
29

100

Actinidia
Actinidia

purpurea
arguta

32

Amelanchier alnifolia
Aronia

melanocarpa

35

Camellia

sinensis

36

Elaeagnus

multiflora

37

Gaultheria

procumbens

38

Gunnera

tinctoria

39

Ribes

oxyacanthoides

40

Ribes

rubrum

41

Ribes

sativum

42

Ribes

uva-crispa

43

Rubus

calycinoides

44

Sambucus

canadensis

45

Sambucus

nigra

46

Sambucus

nigra

47

Vaccinium

angustifolium

48

Vaccinium

corymbosum

Ken’s Red Kiwi

Meyer’s Hardy Kiwi
Shiro Bana Akebia

Smokey Serviceberry
Regent Serviceberry

Iriquois Beauty Aronia
Sochi Tea

Sweet Scarlet Goumi
Wintergreen
Gunnera

Jahn’s Prairie Gooseberry
Rovada Red Currant

White Imperial Currant
Invicta Gooseberry

Emerald Carpet Raspberry
Nova Elderberry

Thundercloud Elderberry
John Elderberry

Burgandy Low Bush
Chandler

sh

erberry

oseberry
ant
urrant
ry
aspberry

umi

iwi
ia
ia
erry
rry
ronia

rry

eberry
erry

erry

rry
rrant

e
le

erry

1

5

1

22

18

11

22

11

17

11
11
11
4
4

4

9

19

43

19

34

43

9

24

41

43

18

18

20

43

5

45

50*

15

20

49

51

39

10

15

26-27*

10

31
38

30

38
46

38

38

28

Ramps bed

35

33

25

38

20

5

14

39

37

40

44

* indicates that there are several of this species in the area

22

1

36

11

43

42

43

43

32

Planting Map and Species List

5

26-27*

14

25

24

8

38
47

Edible Forest Garden by the HCC

25

25

15

M

M

22

34

M

5

13

6*
6*

25

15

13

5
25

25

1

5

1

1

25

15

5

6

rs
iva

6
6

t
cul
rr y

6

17
13

e
pb
Ras
7*
6*

25

12
12

15

13

17
16
17

29

16

29*

18

25

5

21

s
ltivar
rry cu
*
6* 7

48

be
Rasp
27
2
27*
50* 3

15

38

4

34

Appendix IX: Planting Plan

101

Applendix VIII

Maintenance Manual
This document was created as a working document to be provided to future caretakers of the
garden. It outlines the vision in which the space was created, discusses a planting plan, suggests
seasonal strategies to care for a perennial garden, and designates responsibilities to different
groups. It also includes a list of community group partnerships and resources.

EDIBLE FOREST GARDEN by the HOUSING COMMUNITY CENTER:
A MAINTENANCE MANUAL
Updated: September 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.



II.




III.








IV.



IV.



V.
VI.

102

Philosophy of Maintenance
a.
Vision
b.
Goals
c.
Challenges
Designation of Responsibilities
a.
Sustainability Coordinator
b.
Grounds crew
c.
Sustainability Housing and other residents
d.
Partnerships with campus and community groups
General guide to tending a perennial garden
a.
Overview
b.
Seasonal Guide
c.
Trees
d.
Shrubs
e.
Perennial herbaceous plants
f.
Groundcovers
g.
Vines
h.
Undesired Species
Site conditions
a.
Hydrology
b.
Soil
c.
Light availability
Suggestions and resources for future additions
a.
Additional plant species
b.
Fungus
c.
Succession
Species-specific Information
Suggested resources

VISION
We want a forest garden because…
…It will foster a deeper connection to “place”

…It will encourage interaction between people and their surrounding
environment.
…It will help build community: specifically, the community of students living in
nearby housing, but also the wider community of Evergreen and anyone who is
interested in a more ecologically-harmonious way of life.
…It will heal the land!!!
…It will be a rich and diverse area of food-bearing species (of roots, shoots,
greens, nuts, fruits, and mushrooms) demonstrating a new and different
method of landscaping, providing solace, enhancing wildlife habitat
…It will offer a variety of local, sustainably-grown food and other ethnobotanical
products for students.
…It will provide the opportunity to learn about forest ecology, ethnobotany, food
systems, and perennial food sources.
…It will give lower campus a place to provide wildlife habitat as well as a place
for students to enjoy, relax, and tend to.
…It will be an accessible place for students to actively take part in creating their
community.
…It will add aesthetic beauty to the area.
…It will continue to be cared for and appreciated, and evolve over time.

We envision…
…A multilayered, interconnected web of plant species

…The opportunity to provide multi-functionality by un-developing an area that
currently does not serve much purpose
…an increased array of outdoor social spaces through the creation of outdoor
rooms and the opportunity for students to learn about tending land through
tending them

Goals for this garden will be achieved if…
…the garden matures and is sustained over time
…students enjoy the space

…students and the community learn about perennial gardens and food systems
…we see an increase in bird abundance and diversity
...the community is able to use the things the garden produces
…there is broad participation in the creation and care for the garden.

103

PLAN
Species Selection
Use of native and cultivated species. Because most resources are native and
because the site is wet and shady, incorporating a high degree of native species
will be a primary focus. Native species will thrive as they have co-evolved with
the existing landscape. Many also produce edible and medicinal products that
are important and often forgotten. The exquisite flavor of salmonberries and
thimbleberries is not found in stores amidst strawberries shipped from California.
Concurrently we will explore cultivated species that have the potential to grow well
under the site conditions that are available from regional nurseries. We will search
for exotics which will best fill niches and are high yielding and provide desirable and
unique food products.
Site adaptation. Species were chosen to adapt to the site rather than amending the
site to allow for desired species. No major earthwork will be conducted; if trees are
removed it will be in accordance with selective harvesting and cutting. We will be
amending the soil on the site with woodchips, topsoil, and compost, and have drip
irrigation installed for summer drought watering.
Desired crops and uses
Types of foods. fruits, nuts, berries, shoots, leaves, herbs, flowers, mushrooms.
There are many native berry plants that will do well so it will have an emphasis on
berries.
Amount of processing. Most berries are accessible by all to be eaten during a
walk through the garden. However, some foods (including berries, i.e. elderberry)
produced will require processing in order to acquire a favorable flavor, or in some
cases, to be edible.
Time of Harvest. The species in the garden will have the ability to produce some
sort of edible products between March and November.

Landscape Patterns
Site Description. The site is primarily a shady forest landscape. The southern
areas and areas by the trail appear to stay waterlogged longer than other areas.
There is patchy southern sun nearest the walkway, and less canopy cover on the
northern edge. The soils on the south end appear to be deeper and more conducive
to planting, but are acidic and lack nitrogen. The soils on the north end appear to
be more compact and composed of clay, but more closely resemble garden soil
chemistry. (see soil tests).
Suggested Design Patterns - Site Patterns. Site repair (5), Outdoor Living Room
(6), Water Use Zones (8). (see Jacke and Toensmeier 2005)
Suggested Design Patterns - Garden Patterns. Mature forest gardens (15),
Gaps and Clearings (16 – minimally: mainly on northern and southern edge),
Forest Gardens in the Woods (17 – primarily, due to existence of current trees),
Forest Edges (20 – mainly by path, soccer field create edge habitat). (see Jacke and
Toensmeier 2005)
104

CHALLENGES
Long Term Site Issues.
Transience: The space is in use year round but it is not a year-round residence for
any particular group. There will be a challenge to create a sense of continuity within
a system that is transitional. Since the space is not occupied during the summer
by as high a density of students, and some plants mature at that time, summer
harvesting is something to bear in mind as well.
Vandalism: Because this is a public space with over 1,000 bodies moving through
and around it each day, there is potential for vandalism, both intentional and
accidental.
Communication. Telling the story of the site and why it exists will help to deter
intentional destruction. Consequences for acts of defacement around campus should
help to deter would-be vandals. Established paths and maturation of plants should
minimize unintended trampling.

105

DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
To address transience in the student body, while concurrently encouraging them to
be engaged with the space, the care of the garden will have responsibilities fall into
the hands of multiple entities.

Residential and Dining Services Sustainability Coordinator
This position can be as involved as it chooses to in facilitating workshops,
educational tours, and integrating the space into other campus curriculum. At
minimum, this position is responsible for:
✧
Establishing and maintaining contact with all other involved parties to
provide oversight, maintaining and furthering institutional memory through
a record of documentation.
✧
Updating the website with new student work and other resources and
information.
✧
Reporting to RAD professional staff regarding problems, successes, and
opportunities.

Residential and Dining Services Grounds Crew
These student workers are in charge of garden maintenance and ensuring that
the plants continue to thrive. The Grounds Crew is a vital part of making this a
successful project because they will be integrating with the space on a regular basis
as a part of their job duties. The Grounds Crew Lead will be in communication
with the Sustainability Coordinator to align goals and plan for short and long-term
changes. Primary responsibilities include:
✧
Install and maintain drip irrigation system
✧
Ensure that the plants get adequate moisture in the summer during the first
3-5 years.
✧
Remove the drip system if desired afterwards
✧
Remove weeds and invasive species
✧
Create and maintain paths as needed
✧
Cut back dead material in the fall as needed
✧
Pruning of trees, shrubs
✧
Annual sheet mulching in first few years to build soil structure
✧
Optional activities as outlined in student projects below

106

Sustainability Housing, Sustainability Housing RA, and other residents
This is an interactive garden with numerous opportunities for education,
engagement, enjoyment. Students can do independent work or tie the garden into
other coursework. The Sustainability Intern will develop structure for residents to
opt-in to a garden program. Harvesting more sensitive species (camas and other root
crops, young shoots, and less abundant plants) should take place in a coordinated
effort grounded in an understanding of how this will affect the health of the site.
Suggested activities for student participation include:
✧
Weeding non-desired species
✧
Sheet-mulching
✧
Harvesting berries, nuts
✧
Cooking or recipe demonstration workshops
✧
“Putting the garden to bed” work days
✧
Building benches
✧
Building trellises
✧
Mushroom Inoculation
✧
Planting additional plants
✧
Propagating plants from existing specimens
✧
Researching additional species
✧
Working with Demeter’s Garden
Campus and Community Group Partnerships
A number of campus and community groups expressed interest in the creation of
this space and are available as resources in developing it further, and for educating
students in how to care for it and what it has to offer. They are all great resources
and below discusses their relationship to the garden. These groups include:
✧
Terra Commons. A local non-profit that installs edible forest gardens in
Thurston County and western Washington. They will provide workshops for our
site and accept interns to work with them. Their website has extensive resources
listed, and they also can help locate hard-to-find plants. www.oly-wa.us/Terra/
✧
Thurston Conservation District. Had our soil tests sent to the lab for us.
They will do this annually for ~$50 for 3 sites. They also have some funding
for outreach and education, and can come and do workshops on soil health
and structure if we are interested and get this set up. It would be very
interesting to track the changes in soil over the years to monitor if there are
differences. www.thurstoncd.com/
✧
Native Plant Salvage Project. Donated a number of salvaged plants to our
cause. They do plant salvages each year in the winter. It is a good way to begin
to learn native plants, and about planting, transplanting, and growth. They
probably cannot do workshops, but may be willing to donate again, especially if
we have volunteers continue to work with them. www.nativeplantsalvage.org/
✧
Sound Native Plants. They are the largest native plant nursery in our area,
and serve primarily restoration projects. They donated a number of plants,
and we purchased some from them as well. They have the largest selection of
species. www.soundnativeplants.com

107

✧

✧

✧
✧

✧

✧
✧

108

Stellaria Nursery. A small upstart nursery formed by recent Greener
grads in 2009, Stellaria is specializing in providing native plants to retail
purchasers. They do much of their own propagation, and are very interested
in ethnobotanical use. We purchased plants from them too. Their prices tend
to be higher than Sound Native Plants because they target a retail market, but
as a young business with a good cause and ethics, they are worth supporting.
They have a booth at the Farmer’s Market.
Raintree Nursery. Specialize in edible perennials. Have a large donation
day in early June, when they clear out cold storage. We received a number of
plants from them. If arranging this be sure to have the time and space to pot
everything up! Great resource if you have questions about edible perennials.
www.raintreenursery.com/
Burnt Ridge Nursery. Specialize in edible perennials. Knowledgable
resource. Have a table at the Farmer’s Market, so you can pick things up and
avoid shipping fees. www.burntridgenursery.com/
Teaching Gardens. The edible forest garden is an addition to the established
Teaching Gardens on campus that feature pollinator gardens, prairie
gardens, and rooftop gardens, and more. Coordinating with them is a great
opportunity to bring people from upper campus down here to learn about
what we’re doing.
Demeter’s Garden. Our ‘sister’ garden on campus, situated at the Organic
Farm. Abides by permaculture methods, and includes annuals and perennials.
Enjoys more sunny space, and can therefore grow a slightly different suite
of species. Under direction of Developing Ecological Agricultural Practices
(DEAP) coordinator, this next year it will be Amanda. With similar missions it
will be good to coordinate work parties and work days, generate excitement
by the HCC due to higher traffic, get these students also out to Demeter’s
garden to help it flourish. www.evergreen.edu/cell/demetersgarden
Organic Farm. Great resource and knowledge base. Source for wood chips,
tools (if we continue to return them clean and quickly), leaders or partners
for workshops. www.evergreen.edu/cell/organicfarm
Community Gardens. Will provide seeds, soil. Mods garden coordinated
by Colin Bartlett, co-coordinator for Community gardens. Source for
collaboration across the student body, gearing students with similar interests
to the versatile spaces we offer on campus. www.evergreen.edu/cell/
communitygarden

GENERAL GUIDE
A perennial garden assumes a different rhythm than an annual garden. One does not
need to dig and sow seeds each year. As the garden matures, it requires less work aside
from intended disturbance. As the shrubs and herbaceous perennial species establish
themselves, they will take up more space, and eventually fill in the areas that are bare
right now. It is easy to overplant a perennial space if one does not account correctly for
these plants at their zenith. Other plants will begin to self-sow as the wind or the birds
take their seed, and will begin appearing in other parts of the garden.

✧

✧

✧

✧

Winter: Sleeping. In the winter all but the evergreens drop their leaves and
take a break from photosynthesis. However, as early as January you can begin
to see buds forming on the barren twigs, giving hope and premonition of the
life that is waiting.
Spring: Awakening. Here the buds break into new leaves. It is the time to
harvest shoots of goatsbeard, salmonberry, and waterleaf. It is good to do an
early weeding, being careful to know the weeds from the tiny young perennials
that are reemerging from their sleep. The mid-late spring is a good time to
sheet-mulch, because at this point just about everything has come up. Planting
in early spring, March and April, is good, because there is still plentiful rain to
help establish roots, and it is generally after most of the hard frosts.
Summer: Thriving. As the heat moves in, things begin to flower and fruit. The
berries ripen in succession: salmonberry, elderberry, strawberry, blackberry,
raspberry, currant. The main thing to watch out for is things drying up,
especially while young plants are attempting to establish themselves.
Autumn: Retreating. With the frosts, things begin to drop their leaves and
ready for the winter cold. At this point, larger fruits and nuts have developed,
like kiwi, apples, and hazelnuts. Things will need to be cleaned up, dead
growth cut back and composted or laid down to mulch. Fall is a good time
to put new plants in the ground, so they can establish and break dormancy
when spring comes without disturbance.

A Guide to Maintenance by Plant Structure
Trees require little maintenance. Some fruit trees require pruning, and a pruning
guide should be referenced to do it correctly. Other pre-established trees (the
maples and alders) in this site may benefit from pruning so as to allow more light
into the center of the garden space. One can think about establishing a controlled
succession by felling carefully chosen trees, especially if one is considering
inoculating a stump.
Shrubs will require some cutting and being pruned back after they begin
establishing themselves and taking over. Cutting the tops off of them will help them
to bush out rather than become tall, therefore making berries more accessible. Deer
browse, if not too heavy, can actually enhance shrub growth. Some shrubs grow
much better and produce higher yields if they are cut way back. Check references
before hacking away too hard.

109

Perennial herbaceous plants completely senesce at the end of the fall, and reemerge in the spring. They can begin to grow pretty large after a few years, but do
not develop any woody growth. Although they are mostly fairly hardy, when weeding
in the early spring you will want to be careful not to pull them out! (However,
they typically will have a more developed root structure and will not come out so
easily; even so, damaging the first growth can stunt the plant for the duration of the
season).
Ground covers are low growing, and some are herbaceous while others are
evergreen or woody. While some of them can take some foot traffic, be careful not
to trample them! Some of these may benefit, as they grow, from being transplanted
to various areas of the garden to help them proliferate. Groundcovers suppress the
growth of weeds, but some weeds will persist and will need to be pulled.
Vines do best if they have a trellis or some other upright structure to grow up.
Some of them need to be cut back in order to fruit. For kiwis, look up specific kiwi
information.
Undesired species will be removed or suppressed organically without chemical
inputs. The two primary methods used will be suppression by sheet mulching, and
hand pulling. Sheet mulching refers to laying down 3-4 layers of cardboard and
covering this with at least 2 inches of wood chip mulch. This is preferred for large
areas of weeds that need to be covered, or plants such as grass that form a large mat
and whose removal would result in the loss of a good amount of soil. Hand pulling is
preferable when the undesired species are in close proximity to the desired plants. It
is important to be able to correctly identify the weeds as well as the desired plants,
and to be careful not to pull out things that are desired.

110

SITE CONDITIONS
Hydrology. Much of the site is very wet throughout the rainy season. Drainage is
hindered in some areas by thick clay soil that renders some areas impermeable. After
heavy rains there are puddles that persist for a week or longer, and after very heavy
rains areas of the site are partially flooded. In the spring the site retains moisture due
to its shade. In the summer the area closest to the sidewalk is most prone to drying
out.
Soil. Soil tests were performed by the Thurston Conservation District. We performed
three tests: one in the alder stand in the corner nearest the smoking section, a second
near the large maple on the north side of the path, and a third by the cedars on the
west end of the site. Each of them had profiles that varied signficantly, with the
“maple” sample having chemical qualities most resembling garden soil. There appears
to be a very high clay content in the soil, and drainage is poor, particularly in the
northern parts of the site and on both sides of the main path. Soil is deepest and most
closely resembling a loam near the cedars.
Light availability. Due to canopy cover from alders and maples, in the late spring
through early fall the center of the site is shady. The area next to the sidewalk gets the
best sunlight, and plants that require part sun can survive here. Other ‘edge’ areas,
the south side next to the HCC, the northernmost area that borders the grass and F
Building, tend to have a part-shade light availability throughout some of the summer.
The alder and maple trees can be pruned to allow more light into the area.

111

PLANT ADDITIONS
Suggestions and resources for future plant additions
The garden as it was planted was intended to be a beginning, and for the campus
community to be able to engage in it as it grows, changes, and evolves into maturity.
Student residents and student workers are encouraged to incorporate the garden
into their learning, and to add to it. This next section outlines some additions to seek
out that meet site requirements.
Additional Plant Species
These were evaluated and for whatever reason they did not make it into the site yet:
either it was difficult to find a source, or they were not available during the window
of time that we were doing the installation, or etc. Check ‘em out!
Low Oregon Grape
Black huckleberry (have a plant sign for this one!)
Siberian Miner’s lettuce
Yerba buena
Blue elderberry
Superhardy kiwi (we have two males in the Mods, one could be transplanted)
(these both died)
Chinese magnolia vine (this was planted and died)
Good King Henry
Mitsuba
Osha
Sweet cicely
Fuki
Yarrow
Rosemary
Rhubarb
Jostaberry
Rosa rugosa (may be able to transplant from Mods)
Bamboos (do your research and make sure its not a spreading variety)
Check out cool cultivar varieties from Raintree Nursery or Burnt Ridge Nursery;
these below are typically pretty resilient in shady, seasonally wet environments:
Currants
Gooseberries
Jostaberries
Hazelnuts
Elderberries
Cranberries
Blueberries
Blackberries
Raspberries
Serviceberries
Kiwis
112

Fungus
Mushrooms are a delightful addition to a forest garden! They provide a source of
protein, and also help keep the soil healthy. They are particularly suited for this site
because of its high moisture and shade content. Fungi Perfecti is local and a great
source for bringing mushrooms into the garden.
You can incorporate fungus into the garden in multiple ways.
✧
Mushroom plug spawn. Inoculate logs with mushroom spawn that can be
placed vertically throughout the garden.
✧
MycoGrow. A slurry that can be added to planting holes upon putting in the
plants, or added later to the base of a plant. The mycorrhizae connects with
the root system of the plant and encourages its growth. These are not edible
(although non-toxic) but will greatly enhance the quality of existing and
additional plants.
Some varieties we’ve considered and are interestsed in:
Shittakes
Morels
Reishi
Lion’s Mane
Chicken of the Woods

Succession
Succession refers to the concept that ecosystems are not in a stable state
environment, and that they are always prone to change. A typical forest succession
model will refer to pioneer species, which come in after an area has been disturbed.
Pioneer species are typically annuals, and do not require high inputs of nutrients.
Indeed, many of them actually help to bring nutrients into the soil.

Species-specific Information
An excel sheet detailing specifics on included species is available. It would be useful
to develop species-specific maintenance plans in the future if we have the resources.
Additional Resources
Edible Forest Gardens by Dave Jacke and Eric Toensmeier
How to Make an Edible Forest Garden by Patrick Whitefield
www.edibleforestgardens.com

113

Media

pyrooz_nMES2009.pdf