Completed in partial fulfillment of Planning 500: Comparative Perspectives on Planning History and Futures. Report Conducted by UBC School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) graduate students.

Problems and Purpose

This case analyzes the use of Photovoice through the Food Systems Labs’ research on people’s relationship to food assets in the City of Vancouver. Their project produced an academic article titled “A Citizen Science and Photovoice Approach to Food Asset Mapping and Food Systems Planning”, detailing their research method and a book, “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience: A Citizen Science and Photovoice Food Asset Project,” with the photos and captions produced by the study’s participants.

What is Photovoice?

Photovoice is a community-based participatory research method (CBPR) pioneered by public health professor Dr. Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris, a former Ford Foundation Program Officer, in the 1990s. It allows participants to capture their perspective through photography, showing both needs and assets. The concept has roots in documentary photography during the Great Depression when the United States Farm Security Administration hired photographers to capture everyday people and their struggle (e.g. “Migrant Mother” by Dorothea Lange). It is ideologically inspired by Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which argued that the image is one way of contemplating and revealing sociopolitical dynamics, and draws upon Feminist Research Theory, which seeks to deconstruct inherent gender dynamics in academic research (Wang & Burris, 1997).

“Migrant Mother” (Dorothea Lange, 1936)

This method assumes that the participant has the most access and insight into themselves and their community. Participants tend to come from communities that are not typically given a voice in dominant institutions of power, a consideration that distinguishes Photovoice from simple photography. Photovoice, thus, provides access to spaces that researchers typically would be excluded from. In effect, Photovoice transforms the ‘participant’ into the ‘researcher’ and the ‘institutional researcher’ into a ‘facilitator.’ In order to ensure that participants are adequately prepared to participate in the Photovoice process, participants are trained on research ethics, camera use, and how bias manifests itself in photography. Once participants are trained and photographs are taken, the participants will usually gather for a group discussion with each other or an individual discussion with a facilitator to discuss the meaning of their photographs and select which ones to publish (Castleden et al., 2008; Wang & Burris, 1997). Participants also write text to accompany their photographs, which provides extra communicative power at the publication or exhibition stage (Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016).

Since its inception, Photovoice has been used in many contexts, from substance use, to food in schools, to breast cancer, to homelessness, to disability (Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016; Seitz & Orsini, 2022). Specifics of the method are often modified to be context-specific to a given community or participant group. One example of this is the research conducted by Castelden et al. (2008), which was co-authored by the Huu-ay-aht Nation and intended for Indigenous communities. To best suit the needs of the community, the duration of the project was shifted to a six-month period and included a potluck celebration at the time of the photo release.

The Photovoice methodology has been applied across a wide breadth of fields, including healthcare, social and community development and climate change. One notable example is the Heart Healthy Hoods project (Gullón et al., 2019), which examines how neighbourhood characteristics, such as access to green spaces, walkability, food environments, and social resources, affect cardiovascular and overall health outcomes in Madrid, Spain.

A follow-up study (Budig et al., 2018) took this further by examining the potential of Photovoice process itself to create empowerment and social change. They found positive effects on participants as a result of the method, including: Participants obtaining new knowledge and developing a more critical and nuanced awareness of their community, receiving social recognition, and building new connections through the process. Sprague et al. (2023) found through the use of Photovoice that children from low-income urban communities were exposed to a range of environmental factors, and articulated how those exposures shaped their health and wellbeing with images. Photovoice was also used to engage with participants living with mental health conditions, which aided in strengthening mental health services and reducing stigma (Rai, Gurung, & Kohrt, 2023).

These examples demonstrate some of the benefits of employing Photovoice, but there are a range of significant drawbacks to be considered. It is recommended that, before engaging with Photovoice for any prospective projects, these be taken into consideration by a research or public engagement team.

Benefits:

1. Photovoice can be adapted to a range of use, and is relatively easy to gather the data and transfer from participants to researchers, and the timeline to document the photos is discretionary and project-dependent.
2. It is an inclusive method, which can be used by a range of participants. The tool has been used in projects with children, individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ID), in communities with low-literacy rates, and with traditionally equity-denied groups (Mannon et al., 2024).
3. Cameras are considered a fairly intuitive device for participants to document their perspectives. With this said, some initial training and setting parameters for taking photos is recommended.
4. It provides participants with the opportunity to photograph strengths and weaknesses within a community, and allows participants to approach a subject with creativity.
5. It enables researchers and policymakers to gain insight on lived experiences of participants. These may be perspectives not often captured or documented, and it may assist with addressing knowledge gaps for researchers.
6. In instances in which participants are in a group where they know each other, the photos may allow participants to see each other in a different light, or allow for sharing experiences and finding likeness.

Drawbacks:

1. There are potential privacy concerns for participants, in the event their address or other personal information is identifiable, which may limit the kinds of information that can be requested by the researcher.
2. Risk of data loss (ex. corrupted files), which may be dependent on the format that the photos are taken and gathered.
3. Due to a potentially high volume of data, it can be onerous for researchers to summarize and interpret.
4. The interpretation process by the researchers is subjective, which may lead to misrepresentation of the results. This has potential negative impacts to participants, and it may result in distrust towards the researcher or project. (Wang and Burris, 1997).
5. Participants may take photos which they feel fit the requirements of the research project, or align with the ideas of the researcher, but it may not be a true representation of their lived experiences.
6. Both the process and outcome of the project is dependent on adequate resourcing and having an effective facilitator or research team.
7. There may be significant time commitments related to the project, which could be a deterrent for some members of the community and may impact the total number of participants.
8. If ineffectively executed, the project may unintentionally make assumptions which disempower or assign stereotypes to the participants (Evans-Agnew & Rosenberg, 2016).
9. There is potential for the project to raise “false hope” that participants’ contributions to the project will lead to policy changes.

Background History and Context

“Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience” was a community-engaged research project led by the Simon Fraser University Food Systems Lab. The project took place in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, the unceded and ancestral territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. Funded by the New Frontiers in Research Fund through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), this book is one of three published from the lab. The projects all employ Photovoice as a participatory method, allowing community members to document their food landscapes through their own images and stories. The study aimed to identify hidden food assets and barriers by centering the lived experiences of marginalized residents. The project asked two main questions:

“1. How can a citizen science process reveal food assets overlooked in a two-tiered, settler-colonial food security framework?”

“2. How can Photovoice support more equitable urban food policy and advance a decolonial approach to food systems planning?”

This research situates itself within a broader conversation at the Food Systems Lab about “food assets for whom?” Even though Vancouver is often celebrated for its early adoption of food system planning, such as the Vancouver Food Policy Council, city-wide food strategy, and food asset maps, many of these initiatives still reinforce dynamics of racism, colonialism, and exclusion. Lead researchers Dr. Soma and Belinda Li discuss how in a settler-colonial context, food asset maps must reflect the needs of diverse community members, particularly urban Indigenous peoples. Soma, Li, and Shulman discuss that despite the “narrative of success,” the city’s planning efforts miss the colonial context and have failed to consider Indigenous perspectives. As an alternative to the dominant narrative in the City of Vancouver, the researchers turned to Photovoice to challenge these structures and bring attention to the experiences of communities that are most affected.

Participant Recruitment, Selection, and Research Study

The participatory study engaged a group of community members (n=10) belonging to racialized and often disadvantaged groups, including Indigenous peoples, racialized peoples, former youth in care, seniors, people of diverse gender identities, low-income community members, and community members living with disabilities. Posters were shared on online platforms and listservs (automated email lists) of community groups, associations, and networks, with a focus on groups working alongside marginalized community members. The study was informed by an earlier process to engage community members through a food asset mapping charrette in Vancouver. Participants had to live within Vancouver city boundaries, and all names and photos were used only with explicit informed consent. A group of ten participants were selected, which was in part due to budget and researcher time constraints, but is also considered the ideal number for Photovoice projects. The participants were empowered to take on the role of “citizen scientists, a term broadly referring to the “active engagement of the general public in scientific research tasks” (Vohland et al., 2021, pg. 11).

Left image: Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience: Citizen Scientist meeting and learning session (Soma, Shulman, Li, 2021)

Right image: Session on Camera Usage (Soma, Shulman, & Li, 2021)

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

To reduce barriers to participation, citizen scientists were paid a living hourly wage of 26.58 CAD and provided a digital camera. An initial meeting was held to introduce the objectives of the project to participants and to provide tips and guidance on how to take photos. Themes were assigned to the participants to frame the food assets, including: Important food places, emotions and identity around food, food knowledge and sites of learning, and hopes and aspirations for food in Vancouver.

After photos were taken over a two-to-three-week period, participants were asked to narrow their photo selections to twenty images. In total, each citizen selected twenty photos with a researcher in a two-hour semi-formal interview, who transcribed verbatim what each participant said, and connected the photos to their story.

Photovoice book entry by Diana Jacobson, 2021

Photovoice entry by Elwood Price, 2021

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The Photovoice project revealed that many essential food resources in Vancouver are overlooked or misunderstood, and that food assets extend far beyond grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and food banks. Participants described long, stigmatizing lineups at places like Union Gospel Mission and the low-quality, insufficient food they often received from food banks. They highlighted how gentrification has removed affordable, ready-to-eat meals in Chinatown cafés – spaces that were especially important for people living in SROs (single room occupancy) where cooking is banned. Unanimously, citizen scientists emphasized their reliance on independent and immigrant-owned grocers for fresh, affordable produce, and they also pointed to foraging, as well as cultural and natural food spaces—like community fruit trees and Indigenous food hubs –as quiet but crucial contributors to food security in the city.

Photovoice entry by Hsu Meilang, 2021

The work went on to be published in a photobook titled “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience”, and a subsequent paper discussing the process and the findings was published by Soma, Li, and Shulman in 2024 titled “A Citizen Science and Photovoice Approach to Food Asset Mapping and Food Systems Planning.” The lab continued to publish subsequent Photovoice books and papers, such as the Alberni-Clayquot Photobook and the Kitselas Photobook. The learnings from these select Photovoice photobook projects went on to inform a review of food asset

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Research 101: A manifesto for Ethical Research in the DTES

Several of the citizen scientists who participated in “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience” live in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES), a neighbourhood that the 2024 paper acknowledges has been subject to a disproportionate amount of academic research. The paper situates the study in response to a gap in research about determinants of long-term health in the DTES. Given that this gap is being explored within the context of a community that has been exposed to the harmful effects of over-research, we are comparing the project against a framework designed by DTES community members for researchers to follow. Research 101: A manifesto for Ethical Research in the DTES was created through a series of workshops co-facilitated by the Sustainability, Identity and Social Change Lab at Simon Fraser University and 6 to 13 peer leaders from DTES organizations.

The manifesto acknowledges that research can bring benefits but also reinforce inequality, stigma, and exploitation. By evaluating the project through this framework, we aim to understand how Photovoice can function as an ethical, community-centred participatory planning method. Following the manifesto’s four sections, we highlight where the project aligns with or falls short of its guidelines.

1) Getting To Know Each Other

“Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience” seeks to contribute to new approaches in food system planning that recognize and challenge the settler-colonial context of planning and food injustice. While the 2024 paper does root the purpose of the work in food justice, it does not explicitly name how this goal aligns with ongoing work in the DTES to improve food security. Without this explicit alignment, it calls into question whether this research project, operated out of SFU, is truly able to reflect the most urgent food security goals in the DTES.

2) Ethical Review: Whose Ethics?

The study was approved through SFU’s Research Ethics Board and only included participant’s names and images in publications with their explicit consent. It is unclear how citizen scientists were involved in or made aware of this ethics review process. Research 101 suggests alternate approaches to ethics approval rooted in dialogue. For example, creating a memorandum of agreement, a collaborative process that might provide more opportunities to discuss the citizen scientists’ data sovereignty.

3) Doing the Research: Power and Peers

Researchers took deliberate steps to engage citizen scientists meaningfully, respectfully, and fairly. Aligned with the manifesto’s guidance on hiring peers through appropriate channels, the project recruited participants through community organizations serving marginalized DTES residents. By providing a living wage, training, and tools, the project enabled citizen scientists to take active roles throughout the research, including in the analysis.

4) Reciprocity and Bringing the Research Back

Alongside the academic paper, the Food Systems Lab produced a photobook to share citizen scientists’ insights in plain language. While this aligns with the manifesto’s call to share findings accessibly, it is unclear how the project’s results tangibly supported DTES community members in their efforts toward positive change. The manifesto emphasizes that researchers must prioritize community benefit when publishing their work, alongside any academic or professional gains.

“Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience” demonstrates the possibility of using Photovoice as a participatory planning tool that respectfully centres DTES community members’ experiences and ideas. The project is successful in adhering to many of Research 101: A Manifesto for Ethical Research in the DTES guidelines for researchers, such as thoughtful recruitment, peer researcher training and fair pay. Because the scope of the project focuses on food asset mapping across all of Vancouver, the manifesto may only serve as a framework for research within the DTES community. In the event a DTES-specific Photovoice food asset mapping project were to be conducted, there are two unmet guidelines that would need to be taken into consideration in order to adhere to the manifesto: 1) is the project rooted in the goals of people struggling for food security in the DTES; and 2) are insights amplified through Photovoice used by researchers to support food security advocacy in the DTES.

Without the fulfilment of these guidelines, research projects risk repeating the extractive and colonial practices that have historically caused harm in the DTES. These two considerations may also stand between research and becoming true participatory planning, where community-based knowledge drives system change. Our analysis of “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience” was conducted using only the publicly available literature on the project, highlighting that these conditions may have been met by the project privately or may be currently underway. Ultimately, the project demonstrates how Photovoice might be used as a participatory tool in community-specific planning, on the condition that it is used to support the community’s goals.

Participation Analysis

We turn to the well-known frameworks of Fung's (2006)’s Democracy Cube and Miraftab’s (2020) “Invited/Invented spaces” to analyze the participatory planning potential of Photovoice outside the DTES community-specific context. As noted by the case study researchers, Photovoice projects are considered useful in subverting researcher-participant power dynamics (Soma, Li, and Shulman, 2024). At a high level, their project thoughtfully approaches how it engages with community members, and centres community perspectives in both its formation of the project and in its outcomes.

Democracy Cube

Fung (2006) introduced a multi-dimensional “cube” to describe participatory democracy along three spectrums: participant selection, communication and decision, and authority and power.

Figure 1: Fung’s (2006) Democracy Cube pictured with where citizen participation may fall for the three spectrums.

Participation Selection

According to Fung, the most unrestrictive level of participant selection is “self-selection,” where individuals participate out of their own free will (2006). It’s noted that those who participate willingly are often not representative of a broader community and tend to be wealthy and highly educated. There are ways of bypassing this tendency, for instance, through random selection and by paying “lay stakeholders” to engage in a particular process (Fung, 2006, p. 67).

The “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience” case is considered to be on the “self-selection” on the Democracy Cube, as participants were those who responded to posts shared on social media, listservs, and through community-specific channels (Soma, Li, and Schulman, 2024). The project’s recruitment also included a selective element, which sought participants who were from

“urban Indigenous communities, were within disability networks, were seniors, and purposive sampling was employed to ensure there was representation from former youth in care” (Soma, Li, and Schulman, 2024, p.1507).

Communication and Decision

The communication and decision element of Fung’s Democracy Cube is based around participant interactions with each other within a specified venue or participatory process (Fung, 2006, p. 68). The lowest level of communication on this axis is “listen as spectre,” where participants only listen to decision-makers. Subsequent levels include the ability to “express preferences” to decision-makers (Fung, 2006, p. 68). “Decision,” still on the same axis, describes the ways participants can discuss with each other and work with decision-makers for desired outcomes (Fung, 2006), p. 69). Fung argues however, that “technical expertise” is where much of public decision-making occurs on the cube, where “experts” implement decisions (2006, p. 69).

It is not entirely adequate to analyze Photovoice projects using this dimension, given that participants may not interact with one another and may not ultimately have influence in municipal or city-level decision-making. The flexibility and adaptability of the method mean its application is determined by the research team, which could be both beneficial or seen as a potential drawback to the outcome. Additionally, one could argue that some Photovoice projects could fall under “technical expertise,” as the participants are the experts on Vancouver’s food system. Through their documentation of hidden food assets as well as the “friction” of formalized food systems, participants highlight that they are the experts on their own lives, and their ideas deserve to be included in the decision-making process.

Authority and Power

Authority and power refer to the level of influence citizens have within decision-making processes. Lower levels support participants’ self-education but do not include policymakers conceding, listening, or considering participants’ concerns. Higher levels include elements of collaboration with decision-makers, allowing participants to directly influence key outcomes (Fung, 2006, p. 69). Within the case study, participants not only gained skills to become researchers, but they also provided specific recommendations based on the data they collected. For instance, some participants noted the importance of small diasporan businesses in contributing to a functioning food system (Soma, Li, and Schulman, 2024, p. 1511). Participants were able to highlight the complexity of food in the city beyond the two-tiered system (Soma, Li, and Schulman, 2024).

Invited/Invented Spaces

Miraftab (2020) suggests that invented spaces (spaces that are created within grassroots movements) can create possibilities for participation in invited spaces (formal spaces that require “invitation” for access) within juxtaposition (p. 433-434). These invented spaces can lead to invited spaces through “agitation or performance” that de-invisibilize grassroots activism (i.e. through visible actions like chaining oneself to city hall), therefore opening up possibilities of access to invited spaces (Miraftab, 2020, p. 438). This is a possibility with “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience” as the project creates an invited space that centers the experiences and expertise of the citizen scientists.

Informality in Planning

Miraftab also argues that planning requires a “southern turn,” which begins to value informality over the previously preferred formalities found in municipal and urban systems (2020, p. 435).

Photovoice offers a method to do so that centers on lived experience and its knowledge base. However, as demonstrated through “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience”, the likelihood of this knowledge infiltrating municipal systems is dependent on how the knowledge is translated into action.

Lessons Learned

1. Photovoice reveals blind spots.

The Photovoice method is particularly effective at uncovering community “blind spots,” which are typically invisible to traditional social science research methods such as surveys and structured interviews. In the context of food, this methodology allowed participants to highlight the nuanced realities of their daily experiences with food. The Photovoice tool was effective in illuminating the social and cultural dimensions of food and highlighted the resiliency of participants, with the reliance on independent and immigrant-owned grocers, and foraging.

1. Need for clear pathways for ongoing feedback and implementation.

While participants identified critical issues related to food access, home environments, and community resilience, it was less clear how these insights would be communicated to decision-makers or incorporated into policies, programs, or community initiatives.

In the context of food, follow-up mechanisms could include regular check-ins with participants or the co-development of action plans.

1. Legitimizes “citizen scientist” approaches.

By documenting their lived experiences and interpreting their own photos, citizen scientists generated knowledge that is authentic to the communities they are part of, rather than filtered by an external scientist. As the findings from Photovoice emerge directly from community members, it can legitimize the results.

1. Visual storybook as an amplification tool.

The creation of a visual storybook can significantly increase the impact and readership of the project. By transforming qualitative insights into an accessible engaging public resource that can be shared with a variety of actors, this tool helps with broader dissemination of knowledge and reinforces the project’s narrative power.

See Also

References

Boilevin, L., Chapman, J., Deane, L., Doerksen, C., Fresz, G., Joe, D., … Winter, P. (2019, March 15). Research 101 : A Manifesto for Ethical Research in the Downtown Eastside [O]. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0377565

Brecher, D., Day, D., Ezekiel, R., Litonjua, M., Shaffer, D. K., & Tandon, R. (2021). Pros and cons of the curricular method. PhotoVoice digital exhibit & guidebook. Toronto Metropolitan University Pressbooks.https://pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca/photovoice/chapter/pros-and-cons-of-the-curricular-method/

Budig, K., Diez, J., Conde, P., Sastre, M., Hernán, M., & Franco, M. (2018). Photovoice and empowerment: Evaluating the transformative potential of a participatory action research project. BMC Public Health, 18, 432.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5335-7

Castleden, H., Garvin, T., & First Nation, H. (2008). Modifying Photovoice for community-based participatory Indigenous research. Social Science & Medicine, 66(6), 1393–1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.030

Evans-Agnew, R. A., & Rosemberg, M.-A. S. (2016). Questioning Photovoice Research: Whose Voice? Qualitative Health Research, 26(8), 1019–1030. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315624223

Fung, Archon. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance” Public Administration Review 66: 66-75.

Gullón, P., Díez, J., Conde, P., Ramos, C., Márquez, V., Badland, H., Escobar, F., & Franco, M. (2019). Using Photovoice to examine physical activity in the urban context and generate policy recommendations: The Heart Healthy Hoods Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), 749. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050749

Li, B., Soma, T., Payment, R., Kumar, S., Anderson, N., Xu, F., & Piensatienkul, P. (2024). A review of food asset maps in Canada. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l'alimentation, 11(2), 149-170.

Mannion, N., Fitzgerald, A., & Tynan, F. (2025). Photovoice Reimagined: A Guide to Supporting the Participation of Students With Intellectual Disabilities in Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241270467

Miraftab, F. 2020. “Insurgency and Juxtacity in the Age of Urban Divides” Urban Forum 31:433–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-020-09401-9

Oliffe, J. L., Gao, N., Kelly, M. T., Fernandez, C. C., Salavati, H., Sha, M., Seidler, Z. E., & Rice, S. M. (2023). The case for and against doing virtual Photovoice. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22.https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231190564

PhotoVoice. (2025). Our work. https://photovoice.org/ourwork/

Rai, S., Gurung, D., & Kohrt, B. (2023). The PhotoVoice method for collaborating with people with lived experience of mental health conditions to strengthen mental health services. Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health, 10, e73. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2023.73

Seitz, C. M., & Orsini, M. M. (2022). Thirty Years of Implementing the Photovoice Method: Insights From a Review of Reviews. Health Promotion Practice, 23(2), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211053878

Soma, T., Shulman, T., Li, B., Bulkan, J., & Curtis, M. (2022). Food assets for whom? community perspectives on food asset mapping in canada. Journal of Urbanism, 15(3), 322-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1918750

Soma, T., Li, B., & Shulman, T. (2024). A citizen science and photovoice approach to food asset mapping and food system planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 44(3), 1503-1515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221088985

Sprague, N. L., Zonnevylle, H. M., Jackson Hall, L., Williams, R., Dains, H., Liang, D., & Ekenga, C. C. (2023). Environmental health perceptions of urban youth from low‑income communities: A qualitative photovoice study and framework. Health Expectations, 26(5), 1832–1842. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13776

Tuck, E. 2009. “Suspending Damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Education Review Vol. 79 No. 3

Vohland, K., Haklay, M., Dörler, D., Heigl, F., Manzoni, M., Hecker, S., Land-Zandstra, A. and Ceccaroni, L., 2021. What is citizen science? The challenges of definition. The science of citizen science, 13(1), pp.34-51.

Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309

Image Credits:

Fung, A. (2006). Democracy Cube.

Jacobson, D. (2021) Photobook entry in “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience”

Langet, D. (1949). Migrant Mother [medium]. MOMA, New York City, New York, USA. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/50989

Soma, Shulman and Li, (2021) Our home, Our food, Our resilience, Citizen Scientist meeting and learning session [photograph]

Soma, Shulman, & Li, (2021) Session on Camera Usage [photograph] Price, E. (2021). Photobook entry in “Our Home, Our Food, Our Resilience”

External Links

Notes

Contributor Positionality Statements

We are a group of Master’s students studying Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. While no group member was involved in the case study research, one group member had previously worked with Dr. Soma on a separate project.

As Soma, Li, and Schulman (2024) note in their article, the colonial context of the City of Vancouver occupying unceded, traditional, and ancestral lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ cannot be forgotten in food systems planning, particularly in ensuring Indigenous peoples’ food sovereignty and food justice