Expanding the Use of Fruit-Bearing

Trees and Shrubs in Minneapolis Parks

ESPM 4041W Problem Solving for Environmental Change

University of Minnesota -

College of Food, Agricultural and

Natural Resource Sciences

Report 8/9

Prepared by:

Sydney Larson - Group Leader

Talula Pontuti - Group Liaison

Anna Crandall

Emily Schnaser

Allison Scott

December 6, 2018

Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................ 1

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5

Vision Statements ...................................................................................................... 7

Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................. 7

Methods ......................................................................................................................... 8

Site Description .......................................................................................................... 8

Research Techniques .............................................................................................. 10

Findings ....................................................................................................................... 12

Survey and Interview Findings.................................................................................. 12

Fruit-Bearing Tree and Shrub Suitability ................................................................... 14

Case Studies ............................................................................................................ 16

Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 18

Recommendation 1 – Create a brand to increase resident awareness ..................... 18

Recommendation 2 – Establish partnerships to encourage engagement ................. 19

Recommendation 3 – Strategically plant new fruit-bearing trees and shrubs ............ 21

Recommendation 4 – Develop a policy requiring garden action plans ...................... 23

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 25

References .................................................................................................................. 26

Appendices .................................................................................................................. 29

1

List of Figures

Figure 1. Parks managed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board relative to the State of

Minnesota in the United States.. ..................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2. Comparison of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs by necessary plot size, maintenance

requirements, cross-pollination, and hardiness. ............................................................................ 16

Figure 3. Framework for the proposed community garden action plan, including required plans

for planting, labor, distribution, and harvest. ................................................................................ 24

2

Acknowledgments

This project would not have been possible without the help and guidance of many garden

managers, public officials, and community garden members. First, we would like to thank the

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) for this collaboration opportunity. Specifically

Ralph Sievert, MPRB Director of Forestry, for his expertise and guidance. All local community

gardeners who participated in this research, especially those involved with FairShare Farm. We

have sincere gratitude for all the wonderful people that shared their professional experience

regarding the City of Minneapolis, community gardens, fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, and policy

with us through informational interviews: Angelina McDowell, Hannah Ramer, Tamara Downs

Schwei, Bridget Stulchy, and Jared Walhowe. Lastly, we would like to extend our thanks to the

University of Minnesota Twin Cities. We are deeply grateful for the support and instruction of

our professors Kristen C. Nelson, Gary Johnson, and teaching assistant James Ostlie.

3

Executive Summary

Recently, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) Department of Forestry decided

to explore ways to enhance the utilization of fruit-bearing trees by community members on park-

owned land. The project goal is to support park user involvement with fruit-bearing trees and

shrubs in order to promote awareness, engagement with park trees, and a more vibrant local food

system for the City of Minneapolis. The MPRB Department of Forestry is interested in a

comprehensive look at the community’s interests, perceptions, and potential liabilities related to

fruit-bearing trees. This information can support recommended best practices for how the

community should move forward and act upon these interests.

This report is the result of a partnership between the MPRB Department of Forestry and the

University of Minnesota undergraduate seniors of the Environmental Sciences, Policy, and

Management program. To complete this research, these student consultants administered surveys

to local community garden members to better understand perceptions of and preferences for fruit

trees; interviewed individuals, with expertise ranging from food policy to garden management;

examined how other cities address fruit-bearing trees and shrubs with programs, policies, and

management.

After careful consideration of the given objectives and research findings, the proposed

recommendations are as follows:

1) Create a stronger communication infrastructure surrounding existing fruit-bearing trees and

shrubs within the park system to improve utilization by the community. According to interview

responses and survey results, existing trees are underutilized and many people either do not

know that fruit trees in parks exist or that people can harvest from them. Increasing the

awareness of and education about these trees could increase use and add additional recreation

opportunities for park-goers. Signs, handouts, and online resources would be helpful additions to

the Minneapolis parks and have been beneficial in other locations, such as Portland, Oregon.

4

2) Facilitate events within the community around the fruit-bearing trees and shrubs to promote

education on how plantings should be maintained and utilized. There is an opportunity to

encourage knowledge sharing and community building through community events, school field

trips, and volunteer programs. This has been successfully done in Bloomington, Indiana. In

Minneapolis, there is potential for educational or recreational event themes such as tree care,

plant identification, or cooking classes.

3) Concentrate new plantings of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs together to improve access,

harvest, and recreation and learning opportunities. Survey results, case studies, and interviews all

suggested that planting new trees and shrubs in close proximity provides ease of accessibility and

encourages people to visit them for harvesting activities. Concentrated plantings are also

necessary for trees that require cross-pollination.

4) Require short and long-term management plans for gardens and liability insurance on MPRB

land, if gardeners wish to grow fruit-bearing trees or shrubs. These management strategies can be

reviewed and approved by the MPRB Department of Forestry in order to increase reliable

maintenance.

5

Introduction

Community gardens have gained national popularity for their ability to revitalize communities

and promote engagement with local food systems. In some cases, they have been shown to

alleviate issues of food accessibility, especially in urban areas (Wang, Qiu, & Swallow, 2015;

Brace et al. 2017). Within Minneapolis, there is a strong movement favoring expansion of the

local food system through community-based gardening initiatives. According to Minneapolis-

based nonprofit Gardening Matters, the number of community gardens in the Twin Cities metro

area more than tripled from 2009 to 2016, and as of March 2018, there were approximately 300

community gardens throughout Minneapolis (Prather, 2016; City of Minneapolis, 2018). With

this increase in community gardens, there has been growing interest in the incorporation of fruit-

bearing trees and shrubs. Previously, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB)

“molesting vegetation” law prohibited anyone that was not a Park Board employee from cutting

fruit or flowers from trees and shrubs on parkland, but this ordinance was officially changed on

November 29, 2017 (Pearson, 2018). As a result of this change, the general public is allowed to

harvest approved fruit and nut species, given that they are for personal rather than commercial

use. To address the interest and changed harvesting laws within Minneapolis, the MPRB

Department of Forestry would like more information regarding community interest and current

utilization of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs as well as best practices for their incorporation.

Minneapolis is located in southeastern Minnesota, U.S. The city has a population of

approximately 422,331 (US Census Bureau, 2017). Minneapolis was ranked as having the best

park system of the nation in 2017 with 97% of residents living within a 10-minute walking

distance of a park (City Profiles, 2018). MPRB is a semi-autonomous, independently elected

organization responsible for developing, maintaining, and governing Minneapolis parks

(Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 2018). Its vision statement for 2020 places emphasis

on values such as a sustainable, safe, equitable park system, as well as fostering a sense of

community.

Students within the Environmental Science, Policy, and Management major at the University of

Minnesota partnered with the MPRB Department of Forestry to assist in achieving their vision

6

through nine different, but interrelated projects on issues related to hammocking, greenspace

maintenance, engineered soils, emerald ash borer, debris from catastrophic events, outreach

program development, park use, park safety, and community gardens.

The particular focus of this project is community garden practice and policy. Many cities around

the United States have adopted policies related to the addition of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in

community gardens. Cities are interested in promoting fruit-bearing trees and shrubs because

these plants have the potential to contribute to positive community development when properly

managed (Hoffman & Doody, 2014). Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs can be a welcome addition

to public spaces as an interactive, aesthetically pleasing part of the landscape that also provides

supplementary nutrition to park users. In addition, they provide habitat for pollinators and

wildlife, while encouraging biodiversity. There are a variety of benefits from planting fruit trees,

and Minneapolis has begun to adopt guidelines and policies regarding them. In August 2017,

Minneapolis drafted a community garden policy as an implementation strategy for MPRB’s

Urban Agriculture Activity Plan. This policy draft outlined what a community garden is, how

sites are selected and designed, and explained the application process, insurance, and

maintenance requirements. The Urban Agriculture Activity Plan also outlines several intended

benefits with fruit tree incorporation such as building relationships within the community, create

educational opportunities, and equitable, local food sources. The policy did not explicitly outline

guidelines or best practices for fruit-bearing tree and shrub incorporation in community gardens

(Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 2017).

This study is intended to gather necessary feedback from community gardeners on preferences

pertaining to the addition of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs as well as the use of them in

community gardens within Minneapolis parks. With increased interest in fruit-bearing trees and

shrubs both locally and nationwide, moving forward it will be critical that the MPRB

Department of Forestry spend time considering the role fruit-bearing trees and shrubs have in

Minneapolis parkland and community gardens.

7

Vision Statements

Class Vision

These reports seek to work collaboratively with fellow students, the Minneapolis Park and

Recreation Board (MPRB) Department of Forestry, and community members to create

innovative and effective policies, tools, and experiences based on scientific research that can be

available to current and future generations. Solutions will be equitable and sustainable, aligning

with MPRB values while fostering a welcoming environment for all.

Group Vision

To assist Minneapolis in diversifying the local food system by providing options for the

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Department of Forestry to address the growing interest

in incorporating fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in parks and community gardens.

Goals and Objectives

The overarching goal of this project is to provide resources for the Minneapolis Park and

Recreation Board to make informed decisions on fruit-bearing tree and shrub incorporation and

corresponding policy. The main objectives are:

1. Design and pilot test a user survey tool and protocol in randomly-selected community

gardens in Minneapolis, Minnesota in order to identify perceptions and interest regarding

fruit-bearing trees and shrubs among gardeners,

2. Develop comparative case studies about other communities’ experiences with

incorporating fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in community gardens focused on perceived

and material liabilities,

3. Synthesize literature on the horticultural attributes of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs

appropriate for community gardens, and

4. Compile fruit tree and fruit-bearing shrub research and survey data to develop best

practices and provide explicit recommendations to the MPRB Department of Forestry for

use in future policy development and initiatives.

8

Methods

Site Description

The City of Minneapolis is located in Hennepin County, bordering the City of Saint Paul,

together known as the Twin Cities. Minneapolis is situated in the southeastern portion of the

state of Minnesota (Figure 1). The city has a population of approximately 422,331 (US Census

Bureau, 2017). Minneapolis is the largest city in the state of Minnesota. It neighbors the state

capital, St. Paul, and is surrounded by suburbs. The Twin Cities metropolitan area is the third-

largest economic center in the Midwest, containing about 3.6 million people (IHS Markit, 2017).

Dakota Sioux were early inhabitants of the region prior to exploration and settlement. European-

Americans started to settle on the land in 1849 and the village of Minneapolis was incorporated

in 1856. The city name is a mix of the Sioux word minne- meaning “water,” and the Greek polis

meaning “city.” The name is fitting, as the city contains numerous water resources, including 22

lakes and lagoons, the Mississippi River, wetlands, creeks, and waterfalls. After establishment in

the latter half of the 19th century, Minneapolis became a top producer of flour and a hub for the

lumber business (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018). Today, Minneapolis is a highly diversified

commercial, transportation, distribution, health care, financial, and industrial urban center. (City

of Minneapolis, 2018). Beyond industry, Minneapolis has a rich scene for arts and culture and

has a park system that has been called the best-designed, best-maintained, and best-financed in

America (Garvin, 2002). Outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, land use varies.

To the north and northeast, the land is mostly covered by water, wetlands, and forested areas.

The south and central portions of Minnesota are primarily agricultural lands (MPCA, n.d.).

Minneapolis is well known for its rather frigid, long winters and warm, pleasant summers. There

is significant variation in seasonality year to year. Minneapolis is located in USDA Hardiness

zone 4b, meaning that the average annual extreme minimum temperature is -25° to -20° F or -

31.7° to -28.9° C. The city averages 29 inches of precipitation per year. July is typically the

warmest month, with an average temperature of 72.5 F, and the coldest month is January with an

average temperature 12.4° F. A typical growing season usually lasts between late April and early

October, with an average of 158 frost-free days (gardens.org, n.d.).

9

Figure 1. Parks managed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board relative to the State of Minnesota in the United States. (Data source: Open Data Minneapolis, 2018).

There are nearly 300 community gardens throughout Minneapolis (City of Minneapolis, 2018).

The purpose of existing gardens is to increase access to healthy food, serve as an educational

tool, and to build community. Various groups operate community gardens throughout

Minneapolis, including community centers, schools, churches, and nonprofit organizations.

About one-fifth of the gardens are on vacant city-owned lots while others were established on

private land or parkland. Many types of land agreements exist depending on the landowners,

location, and intended use. Minneapolis community gardens range in size, from just a few raised

beds to multiple blocks. Garden membership ranges from 2 to 40 or more. Practices related to

garden structure and food distribution differ at each site (City of Minneapolis, 2018). Some

Minneapolis community gardens plant fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, while others do not. In

addition to community gardens, fruit-bearing trees and shrubs have been planted on Minneapolis

parkland.

10

Research Techniques

Research for this project was conducted between September-November 2018. For an initial

understanding of the topic, literature regarding fruit-bearing trees and shrubs was collected and

synthesized. Information about Minneapolis’ community gardens and the urban agriculture

system was gathered from websites and public documents to better understand current efforts. In-

person interviews were conducted with three key informants, individuals with prominent

involvement or knowledge of the Minneapolis food system, to fill gaps in our understanding.

Researchers also attended relevant events during the study period, including a vote by MPRB

commissioners approving a Minneapolis community garden policy.

First, research was conducted on the incorporation of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in a

purposeful sample of similarly-sized metropolitan areas, including Portland, Oregon, Seattle,

Washington and Salt Lake City, Utah, in order to form case studies. Research specifically

targeted instances of fruit tree policy, considering both successes and failures. Case studies

served as a tool to inform best practices for Minneapolis to effectively incorporate fruit-bearing

trees and shrubs into city initiatives and policy. To aid the formation of specific plant

recommendations, horticultural research was conducted on fruit-bearing trees and shrubs to

identify those suitable for growing in Minneapolis. Maintenance and space requirements, time to

maturity, harvesting times, potential uses, and hardiness were considered (University of

Minnesota Extension 2018).

Semi-structured in-person interviews with Minneapolis community garden leaders were

requested via email to 25 community gardens in total. Follow-up phone calls with gardens that

had not responded were completed within one week. The five interviews conducted aided the

collection of information about specific gardens, such as their location, size, infrastructure,

number of users, any required participation fees, and current gardening practices and policies

(Appendix A). Community garden leaders contacted for an interview were also requested to

share a survey with their garden member email list or identify a time for researchers to

administer a survey to gardeners in-person, such as an event for the garden members. The survey

created was designed to gather additional narratives from the garden members’ perspective

(Appendix B). The survey contained questions pertaining to the given member’s garden,

11

perceptions, and habits regarding the incorporation of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs to their

specific garden, and thoughts on their presence in MPRB parks. The interview and survey were

designed to offer preliminary findings and show qualitative patterns on the interest and

feasibility of incorporating fruit-bearing trees and shrubs into community gardens and

Minneapolis parks. Seventeen survey responses were gathered. Survey data was compiled from

both paper and Google Forms questionnaires. Responses were aggregated to show frequencies

and similarities in answers (Appendix C). Research informed the creation of recommendations

for the MPRB Department of Forestry regarding the incorporation of fruit-bearing trees and

shrubs into future policy and initiatives.

The study was limited by research techniques. The use of a survey limited eligible participants to

those that were over the age of 18 and literate in English. Some community gardens in

Minneapolis initially contacted to participate in the project, like the Korean Service Center, were

comprised almost entirely of non-English speaking members (Korean Service Center, 2018).

This study was also limited by the time of year during which it was conducted. October 2018

was unusually rainy and cold. Many gardeners had cleaned up their plots for the winter and

would not be visiting the garden site until the following spring. Study participants were not

easily recruited at the end of the growing season because much of community garden activity

had ceased throughout Minneapolis.

12

Findings

Survey and Interview Findings

Through pilot surveys and interviews, it was found that there is interest in fruit trees within

Minneapolis parks. Despite this interest, there is little awareness of the existence of fruit trees in

parks. Less than half of surveyed gardeners were aware of fruit trees in the parks and

approximately half knew the fruit could be harvested. Jared Walhowe, a graduate student at the

University of Minnesota who has extensive experience regarding fruit trees, mentioned in his

interview that although there are hundreds of fruit trees throughout Minneapolis, without

community group involvement there remains a lack of awareness and the trees are neither

harvested nor maintained. Tamara Downs-Schwei, the Local Food Policy Coordinator for the

City of Minneapolis, also indicated in her interview that community involvement is key to a

successful planting. She theorized that when a community plants a fruit tree, it is utilized because

the community knows about it. However, when the park board staff plant a tree, there is likely

less knowledge of its existence and therefore less utilization.

Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in Minneapolis parks and community gardens can offer

educational opportunities for current and new gardeners as well as the surrounding community.

Multiple surveyed gardeners and interviewed informants mentioned this as a component of fruit

tree incorporation. For example, Jared Walhowe’s garden projects were almost exclusively

created in partnership with educational institutions such as schools and churches that used fruit

trees as an educational tool for the students. However, fruit-bearing trees and shrubs are not ideal

for all gardens, and in some cases not even allowed. Major considerations impacting site

suitability for fruit trees in Minneapolis are land agreements, funds, and maintenance

requirements. For example, gardens located on city land are slated for development and the city

can take back the land at any time, making fruit trees to permanent of an inclusion for the garden

(T. Downs Schwei, personal communication, October 25, 2018). Parks are protected and

arguably a better option as an area to incorporate fruit-bearing trees and shrubs. Money can be a

barrier to fruit-bearing tree and shrub incorporation as well. FairShare Farm garden members

said they would not have their apple trees if they would not have been donated, partially due to

13

associated costs. Some gardens are very small and have low membership. In these cases, there is

not space nor labor capacity to host fruit trees in the garden.

Related to maintenance, surveys found that current gardeners tend to have had previous

experience maintaining fruit-bearing trees and shrubs and are willing to volunteer time to

maintain them if they are in their specific community garden or the gardener can join a

community group focusing on fruit tree maintenance. In the survey, when gardeners were asked

if fruit tree incorporation would alter their current practices, they did not anticipate any negative

changes with labor requirements or other gardening practices.

“I believe it would be a nice addition to getting more fresh fruits to the community

as well as learning more about the care of these plants. I also believe it would be

very beneficial to the bees in our garden.”

-Cleveland Neighborhood Garden

“[Changes] likely would depend on the garden. In small spaces, the shade could

create conflict. In large spaces, there is an advantage of perennial crops and

alternatives to vegetable gardens. Trees would require pruning and gardeners may

not have this knowledge. Also depends on location/wildlife. I need to use a bird net

to keep squirrels from taking literally every apple. This may be an issue unless there

are many trees.”

-50th Street Triangle Garden

“If we added more perennial fruits we'd have better ground cover year round and

might have more early season yields. Practices wouldn't really change since we

garden communally.”

-FairShare Farm

14

Fruit-Bearing Tree and Shrub Suitability

While each type of fruit-bearing tree and shrub is different, many share similar traits and care

requirements. In general, fruit trees that are capable of being grown in Minnesota require soil

that is well-drained and slightly acidic. The trees require full sun, and dwarf varieties can be

expected to produce fruit within 3-5 years (University of Minnesota Extension 2018). Certain

varieties of fruits are better suited to different uses, and it may be appropriate to consider user

preferences when selecting a specific cultivar of fruit. For example, some cultivars of cherry,

such as the Northstar cherry are popular for baking, but not for eating freshly picked due to their

sour taste. The most popular fruit types amongst surveyed individuals are detailed below.

Assume all trees listed are dwarf varieties.

Apples

• Require well-drained, slightly acidic soil. At least two varieties are needed for fruit

production, though one variety of apple can be a crabapple.

• There are a wide variety of apple cultivars that have a range of uses, flavors, and peak

ripeness. Apples were the most desired fruit amongst surveyed gardeners and interested parties.

While apples can readily be grown in Minnesota, they have a higher maintenance requirement in

comparison to other fruit trees.

Pears

• Require well-drained, slightly acidic soil. At least two varieties of tree are suggested for

optimal fruit yield. Fire Blight is the most common disease in pear trees in Minnesota.

• Because pear trees are not as common as other types of trees, they are less

susceptible to insect problems. They also require less maintenance than other tree types, although

they do require more space and grow taller.

Plums, Peaches & Apricots

• Require well-drained, slightly acidic soil. There are some self-pollinating varieties, but

most require other trees in order to pollinate.

• These trees produce beautiful and fragrant blossoms in the spring, and there are several

15

varieties that can tolerate Minnesota winters, but a late frost can mean no fruit for the entire

season. Excessively cold temperatures in winter can also damage young trees, and wrapping the

tree trunk to protect it is recommended.

Cherries

• Require well-drained, slightly acidic soil. Some varieties require multiple trees for

pollination, while there are some that are self-pollinating (Appendix D).

• Cherries were popular amongst surveyed individuals. The trees tend to be slightly

smaller than most other fruit trees, and still highly productive. Most varieties that can be grown

in Minnesota are best for baking or preserves rather than fresh eating. If left unharvested,

cherries can be perceived as “messier” than other fruit trees.

Berries (Blueberries, Blackberries, Raspberries)

There are several types of berries that can easily be grown and thrive in Minnesota.

Fruit-bearing shrubs are quick to grow and begin producing fruit 1-3 years after planting. They

also require less space than trees. Some varieties are self-pollinating, while others are not

(Appendix D). Like fruit trees, most berries require well-drained, slightly acidic soil, with the

exception of blueberries.

• Blueberries as a special case, require highly acidic soil. Most soils will need to be treated

to lower pH in order to be suitable for blueberry bushes.

Maintenance requirements specific to each type of fruit-bearing tree or shrub should be

individually evaluated before planting (Figure 2).

16

Figure 2. Comparison of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs by necessary plot size, maintenance requirements,

cross-pollination, and hardiness (Data Source: University of Minnesota Extension, 2018).

Case Studies

Portland Fruit Tree Project

The Portland Fruit Tree Project was started in 2006 as a response to people noticing how much

fruit was falling from trees and going to waste in North/Northeast Portland. The project began as

a way to bring neighbors together to gather this food and make it available to people, especially

to help address economic issues and a lack of healthy food access facing many in the area. The

project has since expanded to include a wide array of programs, including five successful

community orchards. One key factor in the success of these orchards has been community

partnerships, with each orchard having at least one partner group and several other supporting

organizations, including food distribution, arborists, education, and harvesting partnerships. The

Portland Fruit Tree Project also offers tree care educational resources such as guides and contact

information for people who need hands-on help (“Portland Fruit Tree Project”, 2018).

17

Bloomington, Indiana Community Orchard

The Bloomington Community Orchard began in 2010 as a result of an undergraduate’s senior

project. Instead of a community garden, they created an orchard. It currently contains the

following fruit trees: Apple, crabapple, pear, plum, cherry, peach, persimmon and quince. The

orchard also includes stone pine and hazelnut trees as well as several types of berry bushes

including serviceberry, bayberry, blackberry, blueberry, currants, elderberry, goji berry,

gooseberry, raspberry, sea buckthorn, and strawberries. There are also grapes, an herb garden,

beehives, and a mushroom bed. Cultivars were chosen based on availability and local climate.

Volunteers were given an acre of land in a park, along with a $2,000 grant. Once the first fruit

began to ripen, the question was raised about who gets the produce harvested, and this question

was opened for public discussion. The discussion resulted in new ideas for utilizing the harvest

and bolstering community involvement. It resulted in programs for school education, outreach,

and gatherings where people could enjoy the produce, such as a “shortcake bar” when certain

fruits were at their peak (“Bloomington Community Orchard”, 2018).

18

Recommendations

Based on findings from interviews and pilot surveys, four recommendations were developed as

suggestions for the MPRB Department of Forestry in the implementation of new fruit-bearing

trees and shrubs and related policies and initiatives. Recommendations include creating a

“brand,” strategically concentrating plantings, establishing partnerships, and enacting policy to

standardize fruit-bearing tree and shrub integration. These recommendations would encourage

awareness and engagement surrounding existing fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, as well as future

plantings. In addition, the following guidelines will promote proper maintenance and care

provided to trees while ensuring minimal waste of fruit. Each recommendation is described in

detail below. Together, the recommendations will help the MPRB Department of Forestry

advance towards their mission, vision, and goals.

Recommendation 1 – Create a brand to increase resident

awareness

The MPRB Department of Forestry has planted more than 1,000 fruit trees within the park

system that can be harvested by the public. However, findings from the interviews, discussions

with employees of the MPRB Department of Forestry, and survey results revealed a lack of

awareness and use by the public. If this initial pilot study information is extrapolated, existing

fruit trees are not being utilized to their full potential.

To increase the use and accessibility of these trees and shrubs as a recreational activity,

communication must be improved. It is suggested that the MPRB Department of Forestry design

a social structure around the existing fruit trees that can extend to future plantings. There is an

opportunity to create a concentrated space with an identity that catalyzes engagement. This

branding could emerge in the form of interactive online maps and clear signage (Appendix E).

Study findings illustrated that many people are interested in expanding the fruit tree system in

Minneapolis parks. Of those surveyed, nearly all participants expressed interest in the addition of

more fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, with one participant saying they should be placed

“everywhere practical.” While many people are interested in fruit trees within Minneapolis

19

parks, there is very little awareness. Fewer than half of those surveyed knew that these trees

existed, and only 50% knew that fruit was able to be harvested in Minneapolis parks. Survey

results suggested that the main barrier to access is the lack of communication. Providing online

maps and physical markers identifying trees in parks will be a huge step in addressing this lack

of awareness. Physical markers could include information on tree types, harvesting processes, or

what to do with harvested fruit (Appendix E) and additional information about the specific tree

and program could be accessed online if the visitor wishes to learn more. Maps of the fruit trees

should be made available as a result of survey findings: when survey participants were asked if

an interactive map of fruit tree locations in Minneapolis parks would encourage one to harvest

fruit, 87.5% of participants responded yes. To further engage the community, upcoming events

related to the fruit-bearing trees and shrubs could be advertised at the park and throughout the

city. Creating a brand for the MPRB Department of Forestry fruit trees would be a major first

step for increasing public awareness. Action toward effective communication is vital because

who benefits is largely dependent on the quality of engagement efforts.

Some potential challenges with creating a brand are the cost of signage and required labor to put

up and maintain the signs across the city. There are thousands of fruit trees within the parks so

creating signage for all of them is costly and at times unnecessary. Signage could be placed in

busier parks and walkways with fruit-bearing trees and shrubs to raise awareness. This strategy

could also encourage park patrons to seek out less popular areas with fruit trees if these sites

become too heavily harvested. Creating and maintaining additional web pages and brochures

also requires time dedication in addition to the MPRB Department of Forestry’s current work.

Hiring a Forestry Outreach Coordinator to handle these tasks and others proposed in the other

recommendations would be worth considering.

Recommendation 2 – Establish partnerships to encourage

engagement

A complex network of people and processes make up the Minneapolis food system. Currently,

there are many resources available for people interested in urban agriculture and many efforts to

incorporate local food sources, but there is a disconnect between these resources and dedication

20

to promoting them. The MPRB Department of Forestry has an opportunity to partner with local

businesses and community groups to help facilitate the utilization of these resources. More

concentrated partnerships surrounding urban agriculture could build and strengthen relationships

in the gardening community while spreading awareness of fruit trees within MPRB parks. As

mentioned in the case studies, the Portland Fruit Tree Project exemplifies the use of partnerships

to build community and expand the reach of an organization. Events to consider may include

educating users about when to harvest from different trees or shrubs or what to do with the fruit

after harvesting (cooking, canning, fermenting, etc.). Proper tree maintenance practices would

also be a beneficial topic to cover in community events. This way, community members

interested in engaging more with local food sources are equipped with knowledge and tools to

utilize the fruit responsibly and more frequently. Out of all survey respondents, 87.5% had

previous experience maintaining fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, and about 70% were interested in

community groups working with fruit trees. Creating a platform for knowledgeable and new

gardeners to engage in practical training would benefit the fruit trees throughout the parks.

Partnerships will provide more of a social structure surrounding fruit-bearing trees and shrubs.

These partnerships have the potential to unite people and organizations that hold varied expertise

to help work towards similar goals and objectives. For example, Dangerous Man Brewing

Company and other local breweries have partnered with Minneapolis arborists to create the non-

profit organization Brewing a Better Forest and their Adopt-a-Tree program (J. Walhowe,

personal communication, October 22, 2018). The Adopt-a-Tree program gives Minneapolis

residents the opportunity to select a tree to water throughout the growing season in exchange for

a free drink from a participating brewery. Participants select a tree from an online map and fill

out an application online. Then, they receive text reminders when their selected tree needs water.

It is suggested to apply a related program for fruit trees throughout Minneapolis to ensure

residents are aware of new plantings and that the trees receive proper maintenance (Brewing a

Better Forest, n.d.).

There is potential for the MPRB Department of Forestry to partner with the University of

Minnesota Extension for consultation on tree planting and maintenance with the community.

Though the MPRB Department of Forestry is knowledgeable on this topic, the University of

21

Minnesota can provide expertise developed from years of research and experimentation. The

University of Minnesota Extension seeks to build a stronger Minnesota through the discovery of

science-based solutions and delivery of practical education and engagement efforts. This

program is a partnership between the university, state, federal, and county governments to

provide scientific knowledge and expertise to the public (University of Minnesota Extension,

n.d.). Further engagement with the University of Minnesota Extension would help the MPRB

Department of Forestry prepare for species adaptations that may become necessary as a result of

changes in local climate. They can assist parks and gardens in the management of pests and

diseases by offering insight on species that are susceptible to blights.

Despite the potential, a partnership facilitator would be needed to foster and maintain the

proposed partnerships. This role could be an additional task assigned to a current MPRB

Department of Forestry employee or MPRB could hire an additional employee, such as a

Forestry Outreach Coordinator. Partnerships would be most beneficial with businesses like

breweries and other local shops that are willing to offer coupons, discounts, or gifts as incentives

to the public for a tree adoption or similar program. A partnership could increase public

awareness about the businesses and encourage positive public relations.

Recommendation 3 – Strategically plant new fruit-bearing trees

and shrubs

Minneapolis already has many fruit trees in parks. The first and second recommendations

suggest ways to improve the quantity and quality of the services provided by existing trees. We

suggest that these efforts be the primary focus before planting new fruit trees. If and when the

Department of Forestry decides to plant additional fruit-bearing trees and shrubs there are

various strategies to consider. Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs will have a higher likelihood of

utilization if they are concentrated and take into account public preferences and species

suitability for growing in Minneapolis. Through analysis of fruit-bearing tree and shrub

programs in other cities we discovered some noteworthy trends. Often, projects with a

concentrated area of trees, such as the Bloomington Indiana Community Orchard and the

Portland Fruit Project Community Orchards, were perceived to have high public engagement and

22

more active ties than planting programs with fewer fruit trees over a larger area. Survey

responses from Minneapolis community gardeners indicated an interest in seeing fruit trees

lining accessible walkways, with one participant suggesting that foresters “designate a stretch of

walking path as a harvest path and create a unique experience.” One challenge in strategic

planting is the trees planted prior. Since many fruit trees have already been planted sporadically,

future trees would have to be planned around these or possibly in conjunction. From the findings,

it seems new fruit-bearing tree and shrub plantings would be best utilized if concentrated in

small, accessible clusters or along walkways. Concentrated plantings have the potential to make

maintenance, harvesting, and community engagement easier to manage.

Based on horticultural research, the most suitable varieties for Minneapolis from those preferred

by gardeners were apples, cherries, pears, blueberries, and raspberries (Appendix D).

We recommend focusing resources on planting fruit varieties that were preferred by the

gardeners, and also on the types of fruit that are easily recognizable to individuals who may not

have gardening experience. For example, although apple trees are among the more resource

intensive fruits, they are overwhelmingly the most popular amongst surveyed individuals and

gardens. Apples are also easily recognizable and familiar to most people. Conversely, although

some interest in gooseberries appeared among surveyed individuals, and gooseberries can be

grown in Minneapolis, a gooseberry bush may be less recognizable and possibly less utilized as a

result. To promote fruits like gooseberries, the Department of Forestry would need an

educational campaign, such as a “New Fruit Hunt.”

Pesticides are another consideration for fruit-bearing tree and shrub plantings. One concern

raised during this study was the possibility of pesticide contamination of fruit. While a pesticide

may not be directly applied to fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, there is the possibility of nearby

applications contaminating the fruit, and this may influence public perceptions of safety.

Managing pesticide use may involve adjusting the MPRB Department of Forestry tree

maintenance practices to avoid these types of situations.

23

Another concern related to equity is that fruit-bearing trees and shrubs will not be accessible to

all. New plantings could avoid incorporations that privatize public space or restrict harvesters to

a designated group.

Recommendation 4 – Develop a policy requiring garden action

plans

To encourage proper fruit-bearing tree and shrub practices, we propose requiring all community

gardens located on parkland to create an action plan before the establishment of any fruit-bearing

trees and shrubs (Figure 3). This plan would ask the community garden to provide project details

for planting, labor, harvest, and distribution. Key planting information includes where trees will

be planted, what types and how many of each type of tree or shrub will be planted, and

associated costs. Rationales for tree choice could be optional but are preferred. Research and

surveys revealed that fruit-bearing trees and shrubs often require substantial labor hours and

maintenance. The action plan should have an estimate of required labor hours for each tree type

and list specific parties or individuals responsible for maintenance throughout the year.

Harvesting information for the plan would include when harvesting will take place for each

species along with how harvesting tasks will be divided among members, if applicable. Gardens

should also have a plan for fruit distribution that identifies who the produce will go to and how it

will be distributed. It may also be helpful to ask gardens in what areas they would benefit from

assistance and what opportunities they see for collaboration. For example, those interested in

growing trees may have little to no experience with maintenance and would, therefore, benefit

from a maintenance workshop to attend. Including these questions as a part of the plan will

highlight key ways in which partnerships could be utilized to enhance gardens and orchards.

Upon completion of the action plan, approval would be granted by the MPRB Department of

Forestry (or responsible party) if requirements are met. The MPRB Department of Forestry could

assist the garden in their fruit-bearing tree or shrub projects if appropriate. Keeping track of these

action plans and holding gardens accountable will be a challenge. This will require a level of

communication and trust established with each garden that will take an effort to maintain.

24

Though the community gardens with fruit-bearing trees and shrubs will have more upfront work,

having a predetermined plan for a garden will increase the likelihood of trees being properly

taken care of, promote equitable distribution, and reduce concerns of waste. For example, Saint

Paul community garden policy requires that “All food production projects must submit an annual

report.... [that] shall include number of plots/trees, number of gardeners, events, and partners

who receive food” (Saint Paul Parks and Recreation, 2014). This practice could be applied to

future fruit-bearing tree and shrub plantings by the MPRB Department of Forestry.

Figure 3. Framework for the proposed community garden action plan, including required plans for planting,

labor, distribution, and harvest (2018).

25

Conclusion

This project was a collaboration with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB)

Department of Forestry, aiming to provide recommendations for addressing the growing interest

in incorporating fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in Minneapolis parks and community gardens. To

do this, we developed comparative case studies on other communities’ experiences incorporating

fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, conducted horticultural research on fruit tree varieties most

suitable for the region, interviewed key informants and designed and piloted a user survey tool to

identify perceptions of and interest in fruit-bearing trees and shrubs among community

gardeners. The survey and protocol can be built out for a more comprehensive future study.

It was found that fruit-bearing trees and shrubs have great potential for Minneapolis parks.

Action related to fruit trees will be most successful if there are communication and branding that

raise awareness of existing fruit trees. Embracing technology and signage will help connect

people to the land and each other. Fostering partnerships that promote engagement can enhance

the value that fruit-bearing trees and shrubs bring to the community. Strategic plantings and

adoption of a policy specific to fruit-bearing trees and shrubs will increase utilization of these

food sources and mitigate common concerns. In this way, the MPRB Department of Forestry can

help foster safe spaces that meet diverse community needs. The recommendations are designed

to help the MPRB Department of Forestry appropriately address the issue of fruit-bearing trees

and shrubs while working toward their vision and goals. The proposed action will further help

MPRB advance towards their mission to maintain, improve, and enhance natural resources,

parkland, and recreational opportunities for current and future generations.

26

References

Bloomington Community Orchard. (2018). About. Retrieved October 2018, from

http://www.bloomingtoncommunityorchard.org/site/about/

Brace, A., Braunstein, N., Finkelstein, B. N., & Beall, D. (2017). Promoting Healthy Food

Access in an Urban Food Desert in a Baltimore City Neighborhood. Food Studies: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 7(4), 17-30.

Brewing a Better Forest. (2018). Brewing a Better Forest. Retrieved November, 2018, from

http://www.brewingabetterforest.com/

City of Minneapolis. (2018). Minneapolismn.gov. Retrieved October 2018, from

http://minneapolismn.gov/sustainability/homegrown/WCMS1P-129871

City Profiles. (2018). Retrieved October 4, 2018, from

https://parkscore.tpl.org/city.php?city=Minneapolis#sm.00016upmq51dp0f0prklf4l

Kubrql

Encyclopedia Britannica (2018, October 25). Minneapolis. Retrieved November, 2018, from

https://www.britannica.com/place/Minneapolis

Gardening Matters. (2018). Find a Garden. Retrieved October, 2018, from

https://www.gardeningmatters.org/find-garden

Garvin, Alexander (2002, June 19). The American City: What Works, What Doesn't (2 ed.).

McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-07-137367-8.

Hoffman, A. J., Doody, S., 2014. Build a fruit tree orchard and they will come: creating

an eco-identity via community gardening activities. Community Development

Journal, 50: 104-120.

IHS Markit (2017, September). U.S. Market Economies. Retrieved November 22, 2018. PDF.

Korean Service Center. (2018). About Us - Community Peace Gardens. Retrieved

October, 2018, from https://sites.google.com/site/commpeacegarden/about

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. (2017, August 8). Draft Community Garden

Policy. Retrieved September, 2018, from

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/_asset/2h6ck9/urban_ag_draft_community_ga

Rden_policy.pdf

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. (2018). Leadership and Structure. Retrieved

27

October, 2018, from

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/about_us/leadership_and_structure/

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, (n.d.). Mission, Vision & Values. Retrieved

September, 2018 from

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/about_us/mission_vision__values/

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), (n.d.). The threats to Minnesota’s rivers and

streams. Retrieved November, 2018, from

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/threats-minnesotas-rivers-and-streams

Open Data Minneapolis. (2018). http://opendata.minneapolismn.gov/

Pearson, Erica. (2018, June 15). Minneapolis’ new foraging rules

Star Tribune. Retrieved November, 2018 from

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-new-foraging-rules/485675061/

Portland Fruit Tree Project, (2018). About. Retrieved October, 2018, from

http://www.portlandfruit.org/about/

Prather, S. (2016, September 3). Community Gardens more than triple in Twin Cities.

Star Tribune. Retrieved September, 2018 from

http://www.startribune.com/community-gardens-more-than-triple-in-twin-cities/39

2254821/

Saint Paul Parks and Recreation (2014, October 25). Community Food Production on Park

Property [PDF File]. Retrieved November, 2018 from

https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Parks%20%26%20Recreation/

Community%20Food%20Production%20Policy.pdf

Southeast Como Improvement Association. (2018). FairShare Farm. Retrieved October,

2018, from https://secomo.org/fairshare/

University of Minnesota Extension (n.d.). About Extension. Retrieved November, 2018, from

https://extension.umn.edu/about-extension#work

University of Minnesota Extension. (2018). Fruit. Retrieved November, 2018, from

https://extension.umn.edu/find-plants/fruit

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Minneapolis city, Minnesota. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/minneapoliscityminnesota/PST045217

Walhowe, J. (2018, October 22). Personal Interview.

28

Wang, H., Qiu, F., & Swallow, B. (2014). Can community gardens and farmers markets

relieve food desert problems? A study of Edmonton, Canada. Applied

Geography, 55, 127-137.

When to Plant Vegetables in Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2018,

from https://garden.org/apps/calendar/?q=Minneapolis

Yard and Garden. (2018). Retrieved November 6, 2018, from

https://extension.umn.edu/yard-and-garden#plants

29

Appendices

Appendix A. Garden Leader Interview Guiding Questions Appendix B. Garden Member Survey Questionnaire

Appendix C. Aggregate Survey Data

Appendix D. Selection of Climate Appropriate Fruit-Bearing Tree and Shrub Cultivars

Appendix E. Sample Fruit Tree Sign

30

Appendix A. Garden Leader Interview Guiding Questions

Perceptions of Fruit-bearing Trees and Shrubs in Community Gardens

We are interested in learning more about the preferences and perceptions of community garden

leaders regarding the addition of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs into Minneapolis community gardens.

Your input will help guide recommendations for the community garden policy.

General Information

In what year was the garden established?

How long have you been a garden leader?

Who owns the land that the garden is on? What is the land agreement?

How many garden plots are there? How many people were enrolled and had a plot in 2018?

How has the participation changed over time?

Garden Practices

How do you decide what food is grown in the garden?

How is the garden divided? (individual plots, group plots?)

Is there a preference requirement to plant organically?

Are there opportunities to incorporate more shared garden space onto your allotted land?

Are there any “best practices” or policies regarding pesticide use? Are there any other policies in place?

How would you describe the maintenance requirement of the garden?

Are there any perennials in the community garden now? Are these in shared spaces or personal spaces?

How is the harvest distributed (if relevant)?

Do you feel that fruit-bearing trees or shrubs would benefit this garden? Why or why not? If yes, what

trees or shrubs would the garden be most interested in?

31

Appendix B. Garden Member Survey Questionnaire

Perceptions of Fruit-bearing Trees and Shrubs in Community Gardens

We are interested in learning more about the preferences and perceptions of community garden users and members about the

addition of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs into Minneapolis community gardens. Your input will guide recommendations for

Minneapolis community garden policy.

This survey will take 10 - 15 minutes. For each question select, circle, or write your answer(s) in the space provided. There is space

to provide additional comments at the end of the survey. You are free to not answer questions or withdraw at any time. The records

of this study will be kept private.

Your perceptions and preferences about fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in community gardens...

(1) Would you like to see the addition of fruiting perennials (for example apples, pears, cherries, blackberries, etc.) into your

community garden? Circle one: (Yes / No)

(2) Do you think the benefits of fruit-bearing trees or shrubs outweigh the benefits of other foods that are currently grown? Circle

one: (Yes / No)

(3) Do you have experience maintaining/caring for fruit-bearing trees or shrubs? Circle one: (Yes / No)

If [Yes], which species?

(4) How would the addition of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs alter current gardening practices?

(5) What potential drawbacks or issues could occur with incorporating fruit-bearing trees or shrubs into the community garden

space? Are there any liabilities?

(6) How would you want to see produce distributed?

o First come first serve

o Free for all

o According to labor hours

o Other: ______

(7) Would you be open to growing additional food to be distributed to low-income areas with minimal healthy food access? Circle

one: (Yes / No)

If [Yes], how much time/labor would you be willing to offer?

(8) Would fruit-bearing trees or shrubs improve the garden? Circle one: (Yes / No)

Let’s consider the future of fruit trees in Minneapolis parks…

Awareness & Harvesting Habits

(9) Are you aware of fruit trees in Minneapolis parks? Circle one: (Yes / No)

(10) How important are fruit trees within Minneapolis parks? Circle level of importance:

32

Very Important 1 2 3 4 5 Unimportant

(11) Did you know that fruit from trees in Minneapolis parks can be harvested and taken by park patrons? Circle one: (Yes / No)

(12) Do you harvest fruit/edible plants from Minneapolis parks? Circle one: (Yes / No)

o If [Yes], how often? How much? _____________________________________

o What do you harvest? _____________________________________________

Fruit Tree Maintenance

(13) Are you interested in groups focused specifically on the maintenance and harvest of fruit trees? (Yes / No)

o Would you volunteer to help with tree maintenance? (Yes / No)

o If [Yes], how many hours a month? ______ hours

Future of Fruit Trees in Minneapolis Parks

(14) Would an interactive map of fruit tree locations in Minneapolis parks encourage you to harvest? Circle one: (Yes / No)

(15) Do you want to see more fruit-bearing trees or shrubs in Minneapolis parks? Circle one: (Yes / No)

o If [Yes], where? __________________________________________________

o What types of fruiting trees or shrubs would you like to see planted?

Additional comments

Provide any additional comments regarding fruit-bearing trees and shrubs below:

General Questions

(16) What garden are you associated with?

Name: _____________________

(17) How long have you been involved?

_____ Years

(18) How would you categorize your involvement? Select

one option.

o Frequent

o Somewhat frequent

o Occasional

o Rare

(19) What year were you born? ______

(20) What is your gender?_________

(21) What is your race or ethnicity?

Check all that apply:

o White

o Hispanic, Latino or Spanish

o Black or African American

o Asian

o American Indian or Alaska Native

o Middle Eastern or North African

o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

o Other _____________

33

Appendix C. Aggregate Survey Data

Aggregate survey data, due to size, is included in a separate file and shared with MPRB

Department of Forestry staff.

34

Appendix D. Selection of Climate Appropriate Fruit-Bearing

Tree and Shrub Cultivars

Tree Species

Cross-pollination

needs

Peak Harvesting

Times Taste Best Use

Blueberries

North Country July

"Wild berry

flavor"

NorthBlue July

Cooking,

eating

Rubel Blueberry

Not required, but cross-

pollination will produce

better yields Mid-summer Tart Eating, baking

Bluecrop

Blueberry

Not required, but cross-

pollination will produce

better yields July

Somewhat

tart

Preserves,

eating, baking

Apples

McIntosh Mid-season Sweet Eating, baking

Honeycrisp

Late September-

Early October

Crisp, tart,

sweet Eating

Haralson October Tart Pies

Fireside Mid-October Sweet

Lodi Apple

Cross-pollinate with

Early harvest or Red

Johnathan July-August Sweet, tart

Sauces, pies,

filling

Early Harvest

Pollinate with Lodi,

Red Johnathan, Red

Delicious Early Fall Juicy, tart Baking, fresh

Red Delicious

Yellow Delicious, Red

Johnathan, Early

Harvest

Late September-

Early October Sweet Eating

Red Johnathan

Yellow Delicious, Red

Delicious, Early

Harvest

Mid-September-

mid-October Sweet, juicy

Eating,

cooking,

baking

35

Raspberries

September

Everbearing

Raspberry Not needed

Small crop in June,

then September

until frost Juicy, tart

Eating,

preserves, pies,

freezing

Heritage

Everbearing

Raspberry Not needed

July, then

September until

frost

Extra sweet,

juicy

Eating,

canning,

freezing

Apricots

Moorpark Apricot

Not needed, but two

species provide a better

crop

Late July- Late

August Sweet

Eating,

canning, drying

Blackberries

Arapaho

Blackberry Not needed Early-mid June

Jams, syrups,

eating

Pears

Kieffer Pear

Not needed, but two

species provide better

crop

Mid-September-

mid-October Crisp, juicy

Eating,

canning,

baking

Cherries

North Star Sour cherry Pies

Nanking Cherry

Needs multiple trees for

pollination July-August Tart, tangy Pies, preserves

Montmorency

Cherry Not needed Late June

Rich, tart,

tangy Pies

Early Richmond

Cherry Not needed June Sour cherry Pies, preserves

Plums

Black Ice Pollinate with Waneta Late summer Sweet

Mount Royal Self-pollinating Mid-late August

Eating,

preserves

Waneta Requires pollinator Sweet, juicy

36

Appendix E. Sample Fruit Tree Sign

37