Blog #9 Team Prompts

Students: Cate Adams, Emma Clopton, Isabelle Spirk, and Julie Wright

• What are the common personal goals within the members of your team, and how can you leverage those goals to build collaboration?

One common goal within the members is learning sustainable living practices that can be applied to concepts such as urban agriculture and community engagement, and we can collaborate within this goal by applying our shared knowledge about sustainability to the park and by sharing our vision with community partners. Many members of the team are interested in building professional skills and gaining research experience. As we develop these skills, we can use them to better shape how we approach building a network between Lehigh and Southside Bethlehem. 

1. Emma: Expand our network virtually and professionally, increase on-site engagement, learn how to close the connection gap between Lehigh and the South Bethlehem community, establish ourselves as a place for urban agriculture education and research. 
2. Julie: Learn effective research practices in social research, build connections between Lehigh University and Southside Bethlehem, learn sustainable living practices and how to apply them to different projects and opportunities.
3. Isabelle: Build teamwork and collaboration skills, work in a leadership position, expand professional network, and gain research experience.
4. Cate: Expand business and professional knowledge, work towards making business more sustainable, further develop leadership/initiative and collaboration skills, gain experience in branding/expanding a project.

• What are the common project goals within the members of your team, and how can you leverage those goals to make progress?

Our team wants to create a regenerative backyard perennial whole systems design that can be mimicked in neighboring residents and communities to combat food insecurity and encourage living inter-connectively within our local ecosystems. We have the tools, the space, and the connections to effectively move our project goals along. We can leverage these goals to make progress by engaging with residents and learning more about the land we are working with in order to best understand how we can use this land to serve our community and use principles of permaculture and whole systems design. We can additionally engage other Lehigh students who are interested in learning about permaculture and working on permaculture to help spread the principles of permaculture and help Lehigh students understand how they can work with and for the Southside Bethlehem community.

• What are some biases that might become a barrier to your project goals?

1. 1. Projection Bias, False Consensus Effect, and Confirmation Bias: One of the goals of the park is to increase education about permaculture.  Although it is important to keep this goal in mind, it is also important to recognize that “permaculture” existed in practice long before the term was first coined in academia in the late 1970s.  Projection bias or the false consensus effect might occur if we fail to recognize local knowledge of the land and if residents perceive our efforts as a form of erasure.  Confirmation bias can occur if we only look to academic sources on permaculture from recent decades. 
   2. The Ikea or Sunk Cost Effect: This kind of bias may occur, for example, if we invest resources into improving the park (finishing the tool shed, growing plants, etc.) and run into problems that are difficult to pivot around.  We could get stuck in our initial way of executing a project and become blind to finding other solutions.
   3. The Planning Fallacy: The planning fallacy is easy to run into while gardening because we have to work within growing seasons.  Underestimating how much time we actually have to start growing plants while the weather conditions are right (and planning for this) will inevitably happen, especially because we are a new team, who do not have experience growing things on this land.

1. What type of decision-making system will you use and why? 

There are several potentially strong decision-making systems we can implement at the permaculture park. However, the system is highly dependent on several factors including the size of our park, the overall goals and objectives, resources available, etc. We currently follow two decision-making systems that align with the values of permaculture: One decision-making system we already implement is holistic decision-making, in which we consider the long-term impacts of the decisions made on the park’s ecological, social, and economic structures. This is to encourage the concept of seeing everything we do as interconnected, aligning with the ethics and principles of permaculture. Secondly, we use systems thinking which involves the understanding of how all aspects of the park work in a whole systems design. A change in one part will linearly impact another feature of the park. Systems thinking is essential in analyzing the park as a whole and considering how our decisions impact the entire park’s system and functionality.

As our project goal is looking towards reclaiming civic agency, it is important that the SSPP team considers the use of participatory decision-making. This system involves our stakeholders, local Bethlehem community members and organizations, Lehigh University, etc. It is important that we learn about the controversial land we are working on and how to structure it to best serve the community as a safe and yielding green space. Participatory decision-making includes everyone’s ideas, concerns, and overarching opinions that are crucial in the growth of our project.

Blog #8 Team Prompts

 

Students: Cate Adams, Emma Clopton, Isabelle Spirk, and Julie Wright

1. Identify FIVE specific things in your slides that you could have done differently.

1. We could have started the project a few days sooner. It felt as though when the deadline got closer, we seemed to rush. Perhaps having a few extra days would have helped us confidence and preparation wise. 
2. We had a lot of strong talking points, however it would have been good to sit down together and make them perhaps more coherent. With the scores we received, we may have faulted with full descriptions of what our goals were. 
3. We could have included slides addressing potential challenges we anticipate.
4. We could have included pictures from specific partnership events.
5. We could have included more details of the work of past teams including pictures of the work on the tool shed and herb spiral.

 

2. Identify FIVE specific ways in which you could have delivered your presentation better.

1. We could have delivered the presentation better by emphasizing the value of partnership and how both parties will genuinely benefit from our project. 
2. We could have spent more time discussing what our project actually is and what it will accomplish.
3. We could have provided more descriptive presentation screens. It seems as though the feedback indicates that there was still some questioning on what permaculture and civic agency is; perhaps it would have been better to provide better visuals and written descriptions for people to absorb what we were stating.
4. We could have further emphasized the connection between our project and the broader social situations it exists in, such as lack of civic agency and social power, in order to properly and effectively convey how our project can be useful to Southside Bethlehem and what we can do to ensure that it is.
5. We could have further explained our step-by-step process for meeting our goals throughout the year, as well as solutions as to how we can ensure the partnerships that will be made will stick and be passed down for years to come. It seems as though there was not a clear understanding of our intended plan and we may have come off more uncertain in going about our vision. 

3. Identify FIVE specific ways you could have built your credibility further.

1. 1. We could have built our credibility further by elaborating more on the progress of past permaculture teams, further clarifying where we currently are in our own team’s progress. 
   2. We could have created a timeline for smaller, broken-down next steps for the project to show that we are sure about where our project is going to go next and how it is going to expand. 
   3. We could have built our credibility further by recognizing conferences, meetings, and connections previous teams had made in the past as well as what we are attending and engaging in. 
   4. We could have emphasized the impact Southside Permaculture Park has made thus far on the Bethlehem community and how we will improve and expand impact over the course of the next year. 
   5. We could have emphasized the partnerships that the park has built thus far more (Natural Builders Guild, etc.).

 

4. Identify FIVE specific questions that you could have answered better.  What was the question, how did you respond, how should you have responded?​​

1. What sort of community engagement events are you planning within this space? 
   1. We definitely hesitated with this question at first. Our team has not fully come up with a definite or more fully planned idea for on-site community engagement. However, we did mention that past teams have held a booth at the Bethlehem Farmers’ Market, attended conferences and meetings. We have only dipped into community meetings, especially since it is still winter and it would be more difficult to get on-site activities together in the cold. 
   2. We should have just sat down and come up with several solutions to confidently explain ways we can immerse the park into the southside community better. 
2. How does the work of the SSPP lower levels of food insecurity? 
   1. In our response, we mentioned our engagement at the Bethlehem Farmers’ Market where we gave out food. Mostly just mentioned that it is a model permaculture park and that we will work with the community so they can learn from the ethics and practices of regenerative agriculture in a perennial backyard design system. We also mentioned that we are planning to grow more high-yield crops to be able to provide for the community more. 
   2. We should have emphasized our plans for events such as maybe considering pop-up shops or harvesting events on-site. We also could have mentioned the potential of conducting community research here, where we can learn what the community needs and truly the level of food insecurity that is occurring around the park. We could have mentioned expanding community engagement, making the website and social media page much more accessible, user-friendly, and educational. This is so we can educate the community how they can best grow their own regenerative gardens.
3. How much can actually be grown in the park?
   1. We were unsure exactly how much could be grown in the park, so we just provided an estimate.  We told the referees that only a limited amount could be grown in the park due to the small size of the plot of land.
   2. Although what we told the referees was true, we should have been prepared, so we could have provided a more specific answer.  We should have reviewed past year’s yields, so we could have more fully answered the question.
4. How does the SSPP differ from the community garden already established by Afros in Nature on the greenway where they also hold public performances?
   1. We definitely hesitated with this question since we were more unfamiliar with the community garden that the referee mentioned. We only really knew about our partnership with Afros in Nature from previous fellows. We mostly just tried to quickly move on from the question. 
   2. We think it is really important that we learn about our partners, what they are doing, their mission, and exactly what engagement occurred between SSPP and them. It is important to make sure we can confidently explain everything we present, even the minor details. 
5. Do you have channels set up to communicate with residents regularly or is it just whoever you see at these meetings? 
   1. We did a really good job confidently responding to this question. We mentioned that we intend on utilizing our website, social media, and other marketing outlets to communicate with community members, as well as people who are interested in permaculture practices as a whole. We mentioned that we intend to make brochures about the park as well as send them via mail or little flyers to make ourselves much more present in the community. 
   2. We could have expanded on our timeline for getting brochures out/ other forms of communication. We gave a lot of solutions, but did not mention the way we would really implement those ideas for a successful impact.

Blog #7: Team Prompts

 

Students: Cate Adams, Emma Clopton, Isabelle Spirk, and Julie Wright 

 

FROM LAST WEEK: 

2. What is the Total Available Market and Total Addressable Market for your product or service?

Our total available market are residents in urban settings that lack environmental and land agency, and as a byproduct, as lack food security.

 

The total addressable market the Southside Permaculture Park will reach are the Southside Bethlehem community members who are without environmental agency, land agency, and food security. 

 

THIS WEEK: 

1. Identify three different primary stakeholders on your project, and come up with a list of 10 distinct questions you would ask each of them. Remember the aspirational / emotional /functional categories of needs and desires and try to find a balance of questions that might give you information in each of those areas. 

 

Lehigh University 

1. How can we better serve the southside Bethlehem community? 
2. How can we encourage more widespread campus sustainability and integration of whole systems design?
3. What risks are you concerned with or concerned with associating with while engaging with this project?
4. What are the goals and expectations you have for the park?
5. What is your role in the permaculture park project?
6. Why did Lehigh University first approve establishing the permaculture park?
7. How does the university imagine the park in ten years?
8. In what ways does the university see the park as beneficial?
9. How do you see the park meeting the needs of the university?
10. What are common goals the park shares with the university?

 

Southside Residents 

1. What types of purposes, if any, do you imagine a community garden could serve? 
2. What types of crops would you like to be seen grown that align with the cultures of the community? 
3. What are your goals and expectations for this project?
4. In 10 years, where do you envision this park being? How would you like it to best serve your community?
5. Who do you think would benefit the most from having an urban, regenerative green space?
6. How, if at all, has the park served you in the past?
7. What is one thing you want most out of a community park?
8. What does having green space in an urban setting mean to you?
9. What are the greatest sources of community engagement that you participate in?
10. What challenges do you see hindering community engagement with the park?

 

Community Partnerships 

1. What is your role in this project?
2. What are important factors you envision would steer the success of this project?
3. Are you concerned about potential risks with this project?
4. Why do you think it is important to be engaged with the park?
5. How can we make our partnership mutually beneficial?
6. What does a successful partnership look like to you?
7. How can we make this partnership sustainable?
8. What does regenerative agriculture mean to you?
9. How did you discover the Southside Permaculture Park?
10. What would make you want to continue engagement with the park?

 

2. Identify all of the key customers for your product/service/creation/solution. List specific ways that you will ensure that your product will meet their aspirational, emotional, and functional needs and desires. 

 

The key customer for our project would be the Southside Bethlehem community. Currently, we are working to design a more interactive business model for the park, encouraging more involvement by really reaching out to the community. We have considered the demographics of the region and how what we grow can best support and nourish the array of cultures nestled throughout the city. By growing predominantly organic, self-regulating and high-yielding crops, we will be able to impact the community on a larger scale.

 

Another key customer of the Southside Permaculture Park is Lehigh University.  The park will meet Lehigh’s needs by pushing an environmental initiative and being an emblem of sustainability, both things Lehigh values as the university highlights sustainability in their strategic plan and their climate action strategy.  By practicing regenerative agriculture and implementing whole systems designs, the park works towards these goals.   

 

3. Articulate your value propositions for each of your customer segments (using the format presented in class).

For the Southside Bethlehem community who lack access to green space and fresh, nutritious food, the Southside Permaculture Park will grow organic, high-yield crops within its community garden space that will increase food security and environmental agency. 

 

For Lehigh University who seeks sustainability efforts as outlined in the university’s strategic plan, the Southside Permaculture Park utilizes a whole systems design while working towards zero-waste productivity that creates a sustainable park, and therefore, a sustainable university initiative.