Lessons learned ily adapted by other researchers and community groups. The tools can be ●● Every neighborhood is unique and differespecially useful for assessing internal ent. This highlights the importance of operations, local food systems, users of community-engaged research which, existing tools, and more particular appliby working with local partners, responds cations like working with food retailers. to those differences and creates re- ●● Our approach filled a clear gap for search that is useful for locals. community partners by address●● Existing research methods were often ing their specific needs, focusing on more useful than the data they genercase-by-case support, and short-term ated. Often, community partners wanted goals. The strategy of combining small to know something that was not available amounts of funding with resources availin the literature, however, certain tools able to researchers (access to literature, such as surveys and management tools databases, and time to host discussions) were already available, which were then was a positive way to approach commuadapted. Existing data from surveys and nity-researcher partnerships, as commumapping, e.g. on a city-level, was often nity groups often lack funding, time, and not as useful for community partners as knowledge of preceding research initiapreviously thought. Instead, they used the tives that could help them better detertools and modified them for their own purmine their needs and capacities. Similarposes. Further, because of the temporary ly, organizations often need someone to nature of many research initiatives, data talk to, and benefit from networking and management can be intermittent and daknowledge of city-wide efforts which retabases difficult to access. This highlights searchers can provide. the need to focus on sharing and gen- ●● When local partners are given funding, erating tools just as much as data itself, resources, and time, they can come up as these can be used more readily by with creative solutions. This highlights community groups. the need for nimble community-en●● Despite the differences between congaged research with stable resourctexts, the tools created can be reades and funding.
Community-based research
38
Local food systems ●● When it comes to improving local food security, attention is often paid to food banks, gardens, and other community efforts. However, other stakeholders, such as food retailers and family-owned businesses are often neglected as part of the solution. Many issues that shape food insecurity remain unaddressed by community organizations, such as involving minorities, businesses, or local farmers. ●● That said, food retailers were often much more difficult to engage with, survey, or find reliable databases on their locations. ●● More generally, the barriers that communities face in improving local food systems may be more due to the administrative and public management systems that shape community organizations. For example, this could include funding sources or silos between municipalities. ●● In Montreal, there is a growing awareness by decision-makers of the main issues of food insecurity, but much more remains to be done. Neighborhood food security networks are essential interlocutors. Researchers can help to facilitate collaboration at local and regional levels.
