It does grow on trees: Comfort Azubuko on food forests in public space

“It doesn’t grow on trees, you know!” Many complaints about the use of valuable resources begin with that statement. Some fruits and edible resources, however, do grow on trees. Environmental justice worker and UCLA doctoral student Comfort Azubuko would like to see more fruit trees in public spaces, and she outlines her proposal in this June 2018 essay on the Earth Focus blog of KCET.

Azubuko, “Edible city: Privileging tree aesthetics misses opportunity to feed our urban food supply”

 

1. Trees are beautiful, no doubt about it; they make streets and neighborhoods much more attractive and livable. Azubuko argues, however, that city planners should consider factors beyond a tree’s beauty when selecting species for planting. What are the other factors that Azubuko describes? Is her argument persuasive? Why or why not?
2. While asserting that “food forests” in urban public spaces offer “an important opportunity,” Azubuko also discusses the resistance faced by proposals to create those spaces. What are the objections that people raise? Why might people oppose the plans? How well and how fairly does Azubuko explain the resistance? Explain your reasoning and point to specific examples from the text to support your response.
3. As part of her They Say, Azubuko mentions an organization, Fallen Fruit, and a well-known “gangsta gardener,” Ron Finley. How well does her discussion of these two sources contribute to her argument? Why do you think so? Would you have liked more information about them? Less? Why? Explain your reasoning. You may want to consult Chapter 2 of your text for more information about summarizing sources effectively.
4. Azubuko argues passionately for food forests in public spaces, yet she reveals doubts and reservations that she herself had about picking fruit from a tree on the public parkway. What about you? If you encountered ripe fruit in a public space, would you pick some? Why or why not? Would you go out of your way to find such a resource? Why or why not? Write an essay in which you address these questions and use your own responses to argue for or against the planting of climate-appropriate food resources on public land in your community.

Comments

[Patrick Huegel]

While I agree with the Azubuko she has a lot to argue against to convince people this is a good idea. One of the many concerns about this issue is the fact that free food trees could attract unwanted guest in high end neighborhoods. The article has an example of this, "by residents' fears that publicly accessible fruit will attract unwelcome visitors, including homeless people whose presence is often rejected by neighbors."(Azubuko). As well as the effect of how healthy this would be. a main concern of mine personally is is this sanitary. because L.A where this is intended to happen is very air polluted. Azubuko states, "As city dwellers, we usually assume that food must be sanctioned as edible by a vendor or government authority in order to qualify as legitimate"(Azubuko). And another small reason is it could potentially hurt small businesses.

[Sevinj Mirzatagi]

I enjoyed reading this article because I always wondered, what if every started to plan more fruit and edible trees, would that help the starving population? Some problems addressed is pests and maintaining the edible trees, but I believe if a community came together and handled these small issues, it can help solve larger issues, like hungry people.

[yunhuwang]

I appreciate this idea, but I think its ability to implement is relatively low. The planting of fruit trees in public areas is not the same as the large-scale planting of orchards. Planting in public areas requires a lot of manpower and material resources to complete, which will result in waste. And the fruit trees are not fruitful all year round. This results in the waste of either no one picking up during the mature season or too many people coming to pick up and cause confusion. This will result in bad results.

[Lawrence Bethea]

I agree with Azubuko. I agree with the fact she has a huge point in here argument that food trees should be free especially in big urban city's like L.A, New York, Philadelphia, etc. This could even help the obesity problem because natural foods and fruits would be more accessible to the community. But, then again it could be a bad idea for the community to have them because people from other communities would come around and maybe they’ll start taking others people food and fruits without asking it could be a lot of wrong and a lot of rights at the same time.

[Hannah]

In this article they talk about thinking about other circumstances other than a trees beauty before planting it. I think that they should consider if this tree can grow something such as a fruit or nut so people of the community can freely pick in eat it, then the tree is more beneficial in more than one way. If I found a tree with fruit on it in a public place I would pick it if I was hungry and needed a snack or if I was thirsty. I wouldn't go out of my way to find this resource but some people might if they is their only source of food in their community. This is where the question of if this really is worth it planting a tree that grows fruit because some people might take advantage of it, but I think it is a terrific idea and can only make a community a place.

[ShengZhou]

I believe that changing the city’s trees can bring more benefits to people. According to Azubuko’s essay “Edible city: Privileging tree aesthetics misses the opportunity to feed our urban food supply.” The edible city talks about the city plant fruit tree, and the fruit became people’s food. Azubuko writes the edible city is an idea that can balance people’s food and city’s decoration. People think the city trees main function is for the city decoration. When people plant the trees, they never think that the tress will boring anther benefits. In fact, some tree’s fruit feed animals, and these can help people to change the environment. First, the Moreton Bay fig trees feed some bird. The Moreton Bay fig trees are an Australia tree. People move the trees to Southern California because the trees are beautiful. They never consider the trees’ fruit will feed animals. However, the trees’ fruit is obvious benefits for animals. If people can plant more fruit trees, these will grant the benefits. Second, “Endless Orchard” is a great idea for the city. “Endless Orchard” promotes that people plant more fruit trees in the city., and the trees’ fruits will become clear and natural food for people. The trees will become a public orchard and people can share the orchard, so the city still has trees decoration, and people get natural food. There are distinct benefits for the people and animals. Therefore, the city should change the city’s trees. Moreover, the city trees’ law is a bigger hold-back for the “Endless Orchard.” In 2015, Los Angeles City allows people to plant fruit trees in the public parkways. Even though the city allows people to plant trees, the trees have a size request. If the size exceeds the city limited, people will cost about $400 to apply for a permit. Also, the city requests the fruit type, which is people cannot plant any type of fruit trees. The city limited the tress’ size and type is the bigger hold-back.

[Ethan Lamm]

Changing public spaces for more practical use would benefit not just humans, but the environment. Currently in America, most trees planted in public areas are non-fruit-bearing, and planted for aesthetic purposes only. They provide shade, but not much else. The article, "Edible City: Privileging Tree Aesthetics Misses Opportunity to Feed Our Urban Food Supply", discusses the benefits of planting fruit-bearing trees in public spaces, and replacing the ones that are there with more fruit-bearing trees. The article argues that these trees would still provide shade and prevent erosion, but on top of this they would provide a better food supply in urban areas. I agree, and have always liked the idea of urban improvement. Urban improvement to me does not just mean improving infrastructure, it also means improving environment and living conditions. The article also discusses allowing such fruit-bearing trees to be planted on privately owned land, due to many cities (such as Los Angeles) not allowing such trees to be planted between the sidewalk and the road. As much as I agree that this land can be used for the trees, I also see why the city may disagree. Tree roots may become a problem in the future. An example is in Wilmington, North Carolina, where I used to live. Many roads had oak trees planted on them a long time ago to provide shade. However, now that the trees have matured and grown, the roots are breaking the road apart, which is costly to repair and can cause traffic issues. Food is a valuable resource to humans, so why would we plant so many trees without purpose? Turning the world into an infinite orchard has its benefits, and could be a key step into the future for the people of America.

[niki phan]

In “Edible City: Privilege Tree Aesthetics Misses Opportunity to Feed Our Urban Food Supply,” Azubuko argues that it would be beneficial to everyone if the city considers replacing non-edible plants with edible plants. The article states that the main reason for flora in Urban cities is to provide shade, decoration, and erosion control. Azubuko considers how edible flora could positively affect Urban cities, such as, providing a better food supply; however, the author also argues how having an unregulated food supply may bring unwanted visitors such as homeless people. I agree the general idea seems to be a excellent opportunity to improve food supply without removing the primary purposes of the flora; however, the possibility of this idea appears very unlikely. Not only would it take a lot of money and convincing for these plans to actually work, but there are very few positive aspects the go along with this idea as well. Although the trees will produce more food, who is to say anyone will eat the food that the trees will provide. The article states people may believe that the fruit from the trees could possibly be poisoned. It’s true what they say, don't take food from strangers... or random trees in the middle of a city.

[Dakota Vallone]

In “Edible City: Privilege Tree Aesthetics Misses Opportunity to Feed Our Urban Food Supply,” Azubuko identifies how the city of Los Angeles has many types of trees. The issue being that they are all for aesthetic purposes, rather than planting trees that could benefit the city's population. For instance, planting edible fruit trees. Azubuko states that 20 years ago was the best time to plant trees, and the second best time is now. This topic raises the question of what would happen if we were to do so? Could the idea of planting trees for food versus aesthetic help the population?