403 Intervention Logic Final

Download 403 Intervention Logic Final

Post on 22-Jan-2018




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ol><li> 1. Initiative Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Main Goal Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions Risks Risks Risks Risks Intervention Logic Analysis 1 Quality food is readily available at a low price. Large scale, industrial food production takes place at designated sites, selected for climate, fertility and land use value. Food production is cheaper. Quantity demands are met. Quality is consistent and more easily controlled. Mass production and associated economies of scale lead to savings. Single location supply means natural disasters such as storms can wipe out entire crops. Also, the agricultural practice of monoculture has increased susceptibility to disease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture Significant volumes of food can be produced utilising otherwise unused area, such as rooftops. A year-round garden can produce 5 kilos of food per square metre from an intensive vegetable garden; double that for hydrponic systems. www.baylocalize.org www.cityfarmer.org/roofthesis Small scale mixed production cannot rival large scale production for quantity. Monoculture is only one method of farming. The intensity of this method of producton often depends heavily on chemical inputs (fertilisers, herbicides and peticides), with land integrity quickly being exhausted. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture Therefore the main risk with monoculture is recognising value beyond short term mass production. Quality is based on uniform output and standardised results. It means the same thing to all people. The real value of quality food is recognised and appreciated. People cannot be assumed to value the same things with their food. Local production, ethical production, organic production, flavour, price, appearance etc. have sliding scales of value for individuals. Uniform output does not need to be the goal for producers. The unique production characteristics of an individual growing areas is appreciated in boutique wine production. This same appreciation could extend into the production of our food, giving our plates and our palates a little bit of heart and soul. Food security refers to the availability of food and ones access to it. A household is considered food secure when its occupants do not live in hunger or fear of starvation. However globally, the number of people who are overweight has surpassed the number who are undernour- ished en.wikipedia.org How we eat has changed. There is a risk of family meal times and genuinely nutritious food being surpassed by mindless overconsumption and nutritionally empty junk. </li><li> 2. Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions Risks Risks Risks Risks Intervention Logic Analysis 2 Initiative Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Main Goal Urban populations have improved diets and surroundings, whilst contributing positively to the environment. Urban rooftops are utilised for highly localised food production. Locally produced food is fresher, tastier and healthier. Locally produced food has a greatly reduced carbon footprint. Additional benefits from roof top gardens include: building insulation, improved air quality, and storm water runoff control. By virtually eliminating transportation, the total amount of carbon output attributable to rooftop food production is low. Site, microclimate, humidity and soil are suitable for a diverse range of food production. Freshness- robbing transportation and storage is no longer necessary. Building insulation, improved air quality, and storm water runoff control are free consequences of creating roof top gardens. Will people actually eat the local produce, and leave their air conditioned cars and offices to enjoy the improved air and aes- thetics? The ratio of environmental benefits to costs is assumed to be positive. A great deal of energy and additional materials may be required to successfully grow a diverse range of produce in challenging environments. Productivity may still be relatively low compared with well selected traditional horticultural sites, and produce may be of a lesser quality. Freshness benefits will be available for home gardeners, however larger scale commercial production may still depend on standard storage methods to release seasonal crops gradually to the market. Transportation will be over smaller distances, however handling levels could remain unchanged. Every foodstuff has a carbon footprint, however this is often confused with food miles. Food miles are simply the distance the product has travelled to get to you. www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/food-miles Rooftop gardening materials, equipment and tools, not to mention horticultural chemicals, all contribute to overall carbon footprint. Additionally, these materials will probably have significant transportation requirements to reach their urban destinations. In order to generate additional benefits, installation of roof top gar- dens must be on a significant scale, both as a percentage of an indi- vidual building area, and in terms of uptake in the urban area. Initial investment, standards and planning, and ongoing maintenance and review will be required to gain these potential benefits. Governmental backing of the vision is essential for enhancing uptake, by giving incentive to developers and assistance to non-for-profits. www.greenroofs.com/archives/gf_oct03.htm, www.ishs.org/news/?p=154, greenroofs.wordpress.com Lack of time, giving up favourite foods and willpower are the most frequently mentioned difficulties for not following nutritional advice. It is not easy or attractive to change to current diets. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Meanwhile weather, lack of time and of course habit all prevent people from venturing outside. Results from typical cost benefit analyses are subjective. In particular, they involve putting a value on the environment, often causing great controversy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit_analysis </li></ol>