1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
City food supply is part of a complex food system and systemic fluctuations can
be detrimental to the city’s capacity to feed people in the long term (Kortright &
Wakefield, 2011; Morgan, 2009). Inconsistent practices to grow, transport, distribute, and
dispose of food are the result of complexities in the urban food system (Ericksen, 2007).
This study offered an exploration of urban farms as a supplemental food resource in the
Northeast United States. For the purpose of this study, the research question was
evaluated with regard to urban agriculture public policy. This study examined the
potential to develop an urban farming network as a resource in a large Northeastern city.
Food policy complexities created unsustainable practices and few supplemental
food resources (Holmgren, 2002). Other challenges included population growth,
complicated food production processes, and a centralized food network. Threats to a food
system are urbanization, agriculture designed for short-term food production, and
unstable food prices (Ericksen, 2007; Kortright & Wakefield, 2011). According to
Ericksen (2007), the combined risk factors and complexities, such as long transport miles
to deliver food, energy-intensive food production, and complex food networks make the
food system weak and unsustainable.
The challenge of providing food for the city is a longstanding one. Threats to a
food system could occur anywhere along the food supply chain, which does not favor
stability or consistency (Brundtland, 1987; Ericksen, 2007; Wiskerke, 2009). For
example, in the 1920s, New York City’s vulnerable food system was evident when a
2
potential transportation strike threatened the city’s and the country’s entire food supply
(Peters, Bills, Wilkins, & Fick, 2008). When Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans’
food supply in 2005, the United Stated Department of Agriculture transported food to
survivors in devastated neighborhoods (Loyd & Harless, 2005).
Although food security and insecurity were not within the scope of this study,
they are a common theme in food policy research and were discussed briefly. The
Brundtland Report first linked food security to environmental conservation and global
starvation (Brundtland, 1987). According to Brundtland (1987), food policy theory
evolved from research on industrial or large-scale agriculture. In the 1980s, this type of
agriculture was the default solution to end hunger in developing nations.
The United States Department of Agriculture defined food security as “…access
by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life.” (para. 1,
www.ers.usda.gov). Three categories of food security included community food security:
“…a condition in which all community residents obtain safe, culturally appropriate,
nutritionally sound diet through an economically and environmentally sustainable food
system that promotes community self-reliance and social justice” as defined by Hamm
and Bellows, 2003 (p. 37). McBeath and McBeath (2009) identified global food security
as “the material basis for human survival” (p. 49). Friedmann and McMichael (1989)
described environmental food security as the connections between the physical, cultural,
and political boundaries in nature and the tensions between communities regarding food
production and distribution (as cited by Kaiser, 2011).
3
In general, food security is an interconnecting part of food policy and influenced
by the assets available in the community. Food security can be high (wealthy
communities with many choices in food), medium (food available but sometimes people
run out of food), or low (poor neighborhoods with few choices in healthy foods)
(Kortright & Wakefield, 2011; Morgan, 2009; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). According
to McBeath and McBeath (2009), food insecurity described the conditions that block
individual access to food (limited transport or availability of fresh food), or burden the
environment (pollution, overfishing, pesticides use, and weather extremes). As
mentioned, food security was a recurring theme (Clemmitt, 2008; Hutson, 2011; United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), 2011) and outside the scope of
this study.
The focus of this research was the interactions and complexities that are inherent
to an urban farm network as a supplemental food source (Angelo, Timbers, Walker, &
Donabedia, 2011; Hutson, 2011). The social change aspect of this study could improve
community and personal well-being, and offered a fresh look at public policy and local
food policy (James, 2011; Kortright & Wakefield, 2011). Researchers discussed the
potential benefits of growing food: Encourage awareness about local food systems, help
low-income people access healthy food, and foster cross-sector partnerships to improve
the urban food policies (Chase, 2012; Hiranandani, 2010; Mayer and Knox, 2010; Zerbe,
2010).
I included an introduction and background on urban farms, the problem statement
concerning food deficits, purpose of the study, research questions, and the nature of the
4
study Chapter 1. Other sections included the definitions of key terms, scope and
delimitation, and the potential contribution of the study to public policy. I presented a
description and analysis of the urban agriculture literature, and reviewed the theoretical
and conceptual framework in Chapter 2. There also was a discussion of food policy
concepts such as urban agriculture, urban farms, and permaculture in the chapter. In
Chapter 3, I presented the research design and rationale, researcher role, data collection
strategy, participant selection plan, data analysis plan, ethical procedures, and preliminary
semistructured interview questions.
Background
Contemporary urban food production relies on a global food network of large-
scale, industrial practices. Fewer communities support small-scale, locally based
agriculture (Clemmitt, 2008; Godfray et al., 2010; Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Although
the local food system could benefit from different ways to grow food, industrial
agriculture remains the preferred method of food production. There are many challenges
associated with industrial agriculture (IDA) practices. Such challenges included the
ongoing need for more farmland to grow fewer crop varieties, processed and fatty foods
that cause obesity in children and adults worldwide, fewer family-owned farms in rural
areas, and more people moving into the city (urbanization) (Chase, 2012; Pothukuchi,
2009; Wiskerke, 2009).
Food policy literature. In this study, I explored food policy to describe food
production in the context of urban agriculture. Specifically, urban farming, alternative
food systems, and permaculture could provide the tools to create a supplemental food
5
source (Harper, Shattuck, Holt-Gimenez, Alkon, Limbrick, 2009). Harper et al., indicated
that current food policy literature identified alternative food systems (AFS) as a
complementary food source for the city. Alternative food systems included two types of
urban agriculture: formal infrastructures known as food policy councils or regional food
plans, and informal infrastructures such as social movements or community-based food
production (Harper et al., 2009; Zerbe, 2010). Public policy included the subcategory of
food policy in its various forms.
Food production could be robust if supported by both industrial agriculture and
alternative food systems. Alternative ways to grow food might lower the risk of food
deficits and improve the local food system. Further, a balanced food system could evolve
through an assortment of ways to grow food (Ericksen, 2007; Kortright & Wakefield,
2011). Researchers in contemporary food policy examined local and cross-sector
partnerships as tools to develop regional and local food systems (Maxwell & Slater,
2003; Morgan 2009; Sonnino 2009). However, this research only explored urban farms as
a supplemental food resource. A process to design an alternative food system was outside
the scope of the study.
Food policy and permaculture. Food policy also included permaculture
principles that favor sustainability to save resources for present and future generations,
and ethics to promote social well-being (Holmgren, 2002). In this study, sustainability
referred to long-term food production. Sustainability was not a new concept and directly
linked to the 1987 Brundtland Report (Brundtland, 1987; Kulhman & Farrington, 2010).
Permaculture practices included urban agriculture and alternatives in food production
6
(Taylor Lovell, 2010). According to Plyler (2012), urban agriculture (urban farms,
farmers’ markets, community gardens) was 15 times more productive than industrial
agriculture. Urban farms were an example of food policies that combined features from
permaculture and urban agriculture (Zerbe, 2010). In general, food policy literature
described formal and complex ways to grow food. This gap was an opportunity to
examine small, local, and individually based solutions to urban food production. As such,
I explored an alternative food production process that combined elements of urban
agriculture and permaculture. My goal is to understand the role of public policy in
creating an urban farm network, and its potential contribution as a supplemental food
source for a city in the Northeast.
Problem Statement
Many urban food systems do not have a supplemental food supply (United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, UNFAO, 2011). Collectively, population
growth and limited public land for agriculture increased the potential for a food deficit,
and were the main challenges to the local food system (Morgan, 2009; Wiskerke, 2009).
Food systems in a major metropolitan community in the Northeast relied on a complex
global food network as its primary food source (Peters et al., 2008).
Contemporary food systems use industrial agriculture (IDA) practices and large
amounts of natural resources, fossil fuels, and agricultural technologies (Godfray et al.,
2010). However, some researchers suggested that IDA favors unsustainable practices
(Maxwell & Slater, 2003; Wiskerke, 2009; Zerbe, 2010). For example, industrial
agriculture practices increased risks in nature favoring limited crop variety and pesticides
7
use in humans from hormone-fed animals and synthetic fertilizers. This also occurred in
rural communities where large factory farms control the food supply and there are fewer
family-owned farms.
There were also risks to urban populations limited to a diet of processed and
packaged foods that result in higher food-related diseases. In addition, infrastructure risks
included problems from weather extremes or threats if food was not available by road or
railway. As a subcategory of public policy, food policy itself was an incremental process
to find new solutions from old ideas (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Other researchers have
found that new food policies were cross-discipline by design using ideas from
agriculture, public policy, public health, urban planning, social justice, or community
development (Ericksen, 2007). According to Andreatta, Ryne, and Dery (2008), the
reality of food policy was that one size does not fit all; each community had its unique
food challenges. Successful, effective, and reasonable implementation of food policies
depend on community assets (local expertise, community interest, political support) as
part of the solution (Andreatta et al., 2008; Ericksen, 2007).
In their case study, Andreatta et al. (2008) described how local farmers used
agriculture to connect with people in low-income urban communities. Farmers gained a
new niche market in low-income communities, and urban populations had access to fresh
foods (Andreatta et al., 2008). However, the farmers did not consider a food education
program to teach people to cook simple meals with fresh food (Andreatta et al., 2008).
Andreatta et al. noted that farmers ignored the food needs of the community. It was
8
important to recognize the challenges and complexities in developing sensible food
policy (Andreatta et al., 2008).
Several factors could offset the urban food supply problem. New food policies
might promote supplemental food sources including land use and zoning for local food
production, urban farms, and subsidies for local farmers, and farmers’ markets (Bates &
Hemenway, 2011; Mayer & Knox, 2009; Zerbe, 2010). There was a public policy
opportunity to contribute new information to food policy literature through an exploration
of urban farms for food production, and the potential for their expansion as a
comprehensive food source.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore food policies that help or harm the
creation of a secondary food source in a large Northeastern city in the United States.
These policies are the food-related activities including food production, local food and
zoning policies, consumer buying choices, food distribution, transport, and disposal.
These elements make up the food system for growing food (crops, fish, honey,
technologies that artificially grow meat) and nonfood items (flowers) (Fountain, 2013;
Hand & Martinez, 2010). This study identified the limits and opportunities for urban
farming as a supplemental food source.
This research used a case study approach to gain an understanding of food policy
concepts in urban farming. Urban agriculture, permaculture, and alternative food systems
were examples of food policies that support a supplemental food source (Dixon, Donati,
Pike, & Hattersley, 2009). Researchers additionally found that urban agriculture was the
9
overall food policy to address food production in the city (Chase, 2012; Holmgren, 2002).
Permaculture supported small-scale agriculture that was best suited for life in the city
(Holmgren, 2002). Alternative food systems were various food-related activities
(Andreatta et al., 2008). For this research, urban farms were alternative food systems, a
type of urban agriculture that supported environmental, social, and economic
sustainability (Andreatta et al., 2008).
Research Question
Research question: What are the public policy limits and opportunities that
support urban farms as a supplemental food source?
Theoretical Framework
Food Policy Theory
Brundtland’s (1987) food policy theory was an outgrowth of the United Nations’
effort to end the global food crisis. The public policy aspect of food included the
government regulations that direct food-related activities such as production, transport,
distribution, and food safety (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). The United Nations (UN
structured a plan to boost food production using industrial agriculture, technology, and
fast growing crops to feed starving people worldwide (Brundtland, 1987).
The United States Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was the foundation of the
current Farm Bill (www.ag.senate.gov). However, this study applied Brundtland’s (1987)
food policy theory which recognizes food production within the limits of nature and the
relationship between conserving nature and human survival (Brundtland, 1987). When
10
these interactions were discussed with the international community, food policy became a
global concern (Kulhman & Farrington, 2010).
In general, food policy research developed from industrial agriculture which
supported large-scale food production, agricultural technologies, and monocrops
(Godfray et al., 2010; Maxwell & Slater, 2003; Wiskerke, 2009; Zerbe, 2010).
Researchers found that this type of agriculture was the world’s primary food source
(Godfray et al., 2010; Zerbe, 2010). Previously, Ericksen (2007) suggested that the food
supply chain was complex because it was part of a global food network, with many
transport miles between food producers and consumers.
By its nature, food policy favored a complex food system and tradeoffs between
conflicting stakeholder interests (Harper et al., 2009; Sonnino, 2009). Complexities
suggest that there were connections between food, human survival, economic growth,
poverty, international collaborations, and political support (Brundtland, 1987; Wiskerke,
2009). Ericksen (2007) and Wiskerke found that food policy complexities were
characteristic of the interactions between food-related activities including food systems,
food supply chains, and food cycles. Further discussions on these interactions follow in
Chapter 2.
Conceptual Framework
Urban Agriculture
This research was an exploration of ideas and processes supporting urban farms as
a supplemental food source a large Northeastern metropolitan community. As such, food
policy included many choices in food production. In this study, urban agriculture was the
11
specific type of food policy to examine the design of urban farms. Urban agriculture
supported food production based on the assets, collective knowledge, and community
resources available in the city (Taylor Lovell, 2010).
Urban agriculture has several definitions; for example, Taylor Lovell (2010)
defined urban agriculture as food production in the city. Dixon et al. (2009) defined it as
food distribution in urban areas. Duchemin, Wegmuller, and Legault (2009) described it
as a collection of agricultural and city development concerns. Further, Taylor Lovell’s
(2010) discussed the ties between urban agriculture and urban planning. Traditionally,
urban planners ignored food as part of the city landscape, and created a gap in community
efforts to improve local food systems and food policies (Glosser, Kaufman, &
Pothukuchi, 2007; Taylor Lovell (2010).
Permaculture supporters favored less harmful ways to grow food in coordination
with urban agriculture (Holmgren, 2002). Organic farming, composting, food culture, and
traditions were features of permaculture (Holmgren, 2002). Permaculture practices filled
in the intangible social elements that were missing in food policy alone (Holmgren,
2002). Collectively, food policy, urban agriculture, and permaculture provided a public
policy framework that described urban farming as a supplemental food source (Dixon et
al., 2009; Peters et al., 2008; Zerbe, 2010). This food source could be a reflection of
human cultures, behaviors, and traditions (Zerbe, 2010).
In summary, the research question concerned the public policy limitations,
opportunities, and potential for an urban farm network to provide a supplemental food
source. I used a case study approach to examine the creation of an urban farm network
12
and its influence on local food policy. My sampling strategy provided the rich data
needed for an in-depth analysis of an urban farm network, and I presented more details in
Chapter 2.
Nature of the Study
My research was a qualitative study that explored urban farming as a
supplemental food source. Using basic food policy concepts, I explained the potential
contributions of urban farms to local food policy in an urban environment in the
Northeast. For instance, I discussed food policy as the guidelines for food activities,
urban agriculture as the food activities unique to the city, and permaculture as the variety
in food production (Andreatta et al., 2008; Bates & Hemenway, 2011; Holmgren, 2002).
The phenomenon was the exploration of food-related activities to design an urban farm
network.
The data collection plan included various stakeholders in food policy
development, urban farming, city and state agriculture, public policy, urban planning,
community gardening, urban food research, and urban agriculture. Case study data
contained multiple data sources (interviews, document analysis, and archival records).
Rich, detailed descriptions revealed themes, and a coding procedure and HyperResearch
software organized information in tables, graphics, or chronological order (Yin, 2009).
13
Definitions
I used the following definitions in my study:
Agriculture: “Establishments primarily engaged in growing crops, raising
animals, harvesting timber, and harvesting fish and other animals from a farm,
ranch, or their natural habitats” (www.dhs.gov, p. 18).
Alternative food systems: A type of food system that uses simple farming
practices (recycled resources, crop rotation) and the variety in food production
(Chase, 2010; Zerbe, 2010). Community supported agriculture and Slow Food
and Fair Trade (consumer politics) are examples of alternative food systems
(Andreatta et al., 2008; Hiranandani, 2010; Jarosz, 2008; Mayer & Knox, 2009).
Culture and traditions, and food branding are other examples (Haydu & Kandoff,
2010; Mariola, 2008).
Food: “Establishments transform livestock and agricultural products into products
for intermediate or final consumption” (www.dhs.gov, p. 18).
Food cycle: The life cycle of food from production to disposal, where food comes
from: food producers, transport over short or long distances, consumers who buy
local or exported food and food disposal (recycling or waste) (Wiskerke, 2009).
Ericksen (2007) defined the food cycle as the interactions between food systems,
nature, and society.
Food policy: The government regulations that guide food production, distribution,
consumption, and waste (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Hiranandani (2010) and
14
Mayer and Knox (2009) defined it as a complex of tradeoffs between stakeholders
in urban agriculture, permaculture, urban planning, and food interests in rural and
urban communities. Food policy was also defined as “decisions that impact the
ways that people produce, obtain, consume and dispose of their food” (Mansfield
& Mendes, 2013, p. 38).
Food supply chain: A series of food-related activities including production,
processing, packaging, transport, distribution, consumption, and disposal
(Brundtland, 1987; Ericksen, 2007).
Food systems: A food system is a collection of food-related activities (Wiskerke,
2009). For example, a complex food system is large-scale food production,
compared to simple, small-scale production, with few infrastructures (Ericksen,
2007). Food systems include the social value of food culture and traditions;
economics as food access and pricing; the built environment such as
transportation options, presence of grocery stores, and food type including who,
when, and what kinds of food people eat (Ericksen, 2007).
Industrial agriculture: Agriculture based on large-scale food production,
technologies, and limited crop variety or monoculture (Wiskerke, 2009).
Industrial agriculture is an outgrowth of the industrial revolution and is the
primary food source in urban communities (Hemenway, 2011; Jarosz, 2008;
Maxwell & Slater, 2003).
Local food or local food systems: These terms have an array of definitions with
little consensus about what local means (Hand & Martinez, 2010). Other
15
definitions included distance, transport miles; geography by region, city, state,
and country, a system of farmers’ markets, urban agriculture, a social movement
(Fair Trade), and consumer behavior (willing to pay more for food labeled local)
(Hand & Martinez, 2010).
Permaculture: Holistic agriculture to balance activities in nature and society
(Holmgren, 2002). Permaculture activities are ethical (caring for nature) and
social (sustainable agriculture to feed people in the long term). Permaculture
practices included alternative food systems, community gardens, and social
networks (Andreatta et al., 2008; James, 2011).
Supplemental food source: Small-scale agriculture that includes urban farms,
rooftop gardens, simple gardening practices, community support agriculture,
community gardens (Jarosz, 2008; Wiskerke, 2009).
Sustainability: A process to conserve natural resources for present and future
generations (Brundtland, 1987). Sustainability is a vague idea that is open to
interpretation and was revised to include culture and social well-being (Holmgren,
2002). I defined sustainability as a process for long-term food production for
present and future generations.
Sustainable agriculture: This type of agriculture describes long-term, holistic
food production through composting, organic farming, and support for the local
food sector (Holmgren, 2002). It provides a means to grow food to support life
within the limits of nature (Brundtland, 1987).
16
Urban agriculture: “…the growing, processing, and distribution of food and
nonfood plant and tree crops and the raising of livestock, directly for the urban
market, both within and on the fringe of an urban area” (Taylor Lovell, 2010, p.
2500). Chase (2012) included food production, transport, and distribution. Urban
agriculture is also “food production in cities through plant cultivation or animal
husbandry and the processing and distribution of that food” (Mukherji, 2009, p.
2).
Urban farms: Small, commercial farms on 100 to 200 acres designed to sell food
for profit located in the city or nearby suburban areas (peri-urban areas) (Brown
& Carter, 2003). For this study, urban farms were also micro farms the size of
one-quarter acre (10,890 square feet) or less in size.
City Ordinance: was the synonym for the new urban agriculture regulations
adopted by a Northeastern city.
[City] or [State]: represented the synonyms for the Northeastern city and state
that was the setting of this study.
Assumptions
I made several key assumptions concerning a supplemental food source. An
assumption was that urban agriculture is a dynamic process to encourage people to grow
their food. But there were associated restrictions with urban farming, such as soil testing
requirements, construction regulations, and zoning laws. Many people may not grow their
food, but I assumed that a fair number of people will participate in urban farming. Urban
agriculture supported different ways to grow food. However, I assumed that people
17
understood that there were associated regulations such as fire safety, weight, and lighting
restrictions on rooftops farms, food safety, and raised bed-farming practices.
Any assumptions about food policy included social equity based on the dynamic
nature of urban agriculture. However, urban agriculture may not foster social equity in
every community. Equity depended on available resources in public land or skills in
gardening, and wealthy communities likely had more resources than low-income areas
(Macias, 2008). Further, other assumptions were that urban agriculture supported
sustainable agriculture more than industrial agriculture, and evolved from simple
permaculture principles. But the caveat was that sustainability is relative: Both urban
agriculture and industrial agriculture used natural resources and fossil fuels to grow food.
In addition, the process to expand urban farming required substantial infrastructures to
coordinate an urban farm network.
I assumed that the participants agreed to share their knowledge and actual
experiences without fear. There was a twofold assumption that participants were truthful
in their responses and organizations cooperated with requests to interview staff and
review documents. Truth means “reasonably accurate and believable data” from different
perspectives (Patton, 2002, p. 578). The selection of a qualitative study was to collect
accurate data from various points of view rather than from one perspective (Patton,
2002). For instance, document reviews were other resources to help find the truth (Patton,
2002). Another research assumption was that the case study approach is a resource for
thick, rich descriptions for understanding how an urban farm network can emerge. The
18
format was a phenomenological interview style of open-ended conversations with
informants, rather than a quantitative survey or questionnaire-based approach.
In summary, my assumptions combined data on the dynamic qualities of urban
agriculture. Adequate community support and political will were other considerations
needed for an urban farm network. The quality and depth of the research influenced the
transferability of the findings (similar findings in different contexts) (Patton, 2002). In
this study, transferability was limited to communities similar to large a metropolitan
community in the Northeast in size, political support, and available resources. Again, it
was not clear if the results of this study might transfer broadly to different communities,
or be limited to small neighborhoods rather than the citywide landscape.
Scope and Delimitations
I designed this research to explore the creation of an alternative food source, not
to develop a new food system, and limited the scope to the processes that contribute to a
supplemental food source. There is a trend in many cities today: population growth,
restrictions on public land for agriculture, expanding food desert communities, and
complex food systems are factors that drive urban food production (Morgan, 2009;
Wiskerke, 2009). The trend contributes to a possible threat for food deficits because an
urban community in the Northeast relied on a complex global food network as its primary
food source. In addition, food policy theory was the foundation to discuss a range of
stakeholder interests (Brundtland, 1978; Peters et al., 2008). I excluded rural food
systems from the scope of this study because of their unique challenges (food access,
19
economic hardships, weather extremes) (Morgan, 2009; Kortright & Wakefield, 2011;
Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999).
Trochim and Donnelly (2007) stated that the value of qualitative research was its
variety and ability to explore, understand, and explain the phenomenon under study. The
case study was less about truth and more about describing meaningful conclusions
(Trochim & Donnelly, 2007). I used purposeful sampling that was limited to select
industries, with selection criteria based on informants experienced in urban agriculture,
urban farming, public policy, food production, urban planning, and implementation
strategies to produce food for the community.
Participants with knowledge and skills in urban agriculture could identify the
research boundaries. The participant skill sets included implementation, involved in
urban agriculture, knowledge of urban farming, and the local food system. Participants
could be senior level government officials in a state agriculture agency. Local nonprofits
participants can include decision makers in farm management in an urban farming
organization. I excluded people active in small-scale gardens and community gardens,
which were primarily edible gardens for educational or personal use (Bosschaert, 2008).
Other theories I reviewed were (a) community resilience which described how a community uses its
resources to adapt to change (Magis, 2010); (b) community food security identified by
the food infrastructures and qualities that exist in the community (Lutz, Swisher &
Brennan, 2010); (c) contemporary agri-ecological which was an alternative agriculture
system that supported community resilience (King, 2008); (d) foodways was a generic
20
term for what people eat, their cultures, beliefs, and practices around the production,
preparation, and presentation of food (Cannuscio, Weiss, & Asch, 2010).
I further explored alternative theories such as social justice, Slow Food, and
Transition Towns (Harper et al., 2009; Zerbe, 2010). However, these topics were too
autonomous, focused on resources only in one location, and did not lend themselves to
political support, or external resources. In addition, I found little research on some of
these theories, or the concepts were unrelated to public policy and food production in the
city (Harper et al., 2009; Peters et al., 2008; Zerbe, 2010).
Limitations
A possible weakness was a case study itself: A relatively small sample size could
limit different points of view about the main food policy concepts under investigation.
Another weakness might be in finding the cases that provided enough rich details needed
to answer the research questions; therefore, the sampling strategy must be carefully
designed (Patton, 2002).
To offset these weaknesses, I used purposeful sampling for data collection
(Patton, 2002; Yin, 2009). To avoid the risk of bias, I included data from various sources.
Adequate descriptions from interviews, document analysis, archival records, exploring
different theories and an external audit could improve the dependability of this research. I
was the primary observer who kept an open mind about any case study limitations, and
actively searched for alternative or opposing points of view (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2009).
The nature of qualitative research was subjective (Yin, 2009). As mentioned, the
21
transferability of the findings may be limited to urban communities with infrastructures
similar to a large Northeastern metropolitan community.
Significance of the Study
I might contribute new knowledge to public policy in general and food policy in
particular. Ericksen (2007) suggested that food policy evolved from agriculture, public
health, urban planning, business, education, and community development. Inherently,
there are urban agriculture and urban farming qualities that could influence food policy
based on available assets in local communities. In addition, there may be opportunities
for urban agriculture collaborations between public and private stakeholders and local
food policies in their cities.
A gap in food policy literature did not addressed food production in local
communities. Examples of local food policies included formal infrastructures such as
food policy councils, regional planning boards, and informal infrastructures including
urban farms and small-scale agriculture. In this research, I explored the potential for
urban farms to become a supplemental food source, and not replace the primary industrial
agriculture food system. In addition, the local food system might benefit from urban
farmers who grow food and ease the burden from urbanization and limited public land for
agriculture. I will address the opportunities for positive social change through public-
private partnerships, greater interactions between local farmers and consumers, and better
access to healthy foods in low-income communities (Kortright & Wakefield, 2011;
Morgan, 2009).
22
Summary
There were inherent complex food policy interactions that contributed to a
supplemental food resource. The main challenge is that today’s global food system is
outdated and not sustainable (Godfray, et al., 2010). However, the interactions between
urban agriculture and urban farms might offer a solution as a supplemental food source in
contemporary urban communities (Holmgren, 2002; Zerbe, 2010).
The purpose of this qualitative research was to explore the creation of a small-
scale urban farm network in a Northeastern city. The theoretical framework was a
specific type of food policy known as urban agriculture (Brundtland, 1987; Holmgren,
2002). The phenomenon was the activities needed to develop an urban farm network. The
rationale for this study was an effort to understand the public policy challenges in
providing food for an urban community. Through the literature review, I discovered few
studies on small-scale solutions for urban food production. While there was an
opportunity for new research in this area, there were associated challenges in creating a
supplemental food source. For instance, as part of urban agriculture, an urban farm
network would need various infrastructures (formal food policy councils, food plans,
community interest, and political support) (Harper et al., 2009; Zerbe, 2010). Further, I
assumed that urban agriculture was sustainable and challenged the premise that simple
food systems used less energy than a complex food system (Ericksen, 2007).
The rationale was based on the assumptions, scope, delimits, and limitations of
this study. By its nature, qualitative research is subjective, with limited generalizability
and transferability. My study provided a description of a supplemental food source for a
23
large Northeastern metropolitan community. In Chapter 2, I described the current food
policy research, followed by a discussion of my methodology in Chapter 3.
24
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The challenge of providing food for the city is a longstanding one. Urban food
systems are inconsistent as many cities struggle with complexities in food production,
transport, distribution, and access (Ericksen, 2007). Threats to a food system can occur
anywhere along the food supply chain, which does not favor stability or consistency
(Brundtland, 1987; Ericksen, 2007; Wiskerke, 2009). For example, in the 1920s, New
York City’s vulnerable food system was evident when a potential transportation strike
threatened the city and the country’s entire food supply (Peters et al., 2008).
When Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans’ food supply in 2005, the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) delivered 80,000 pounds of food to survivors
(Loyd & Harless, 2005). Government officials delivered emergency food packages and
food stamps directly to households in devastated neighborhoods (Loyd & Harless, 2005).
Officials prepared over 300 trucks filled with canned vegetables, fruits, meats, cheese,
and baby food (more than 12 million pounds of food) for delivery (Loyd, 2005).
Conditions in New York and New Orleans illustrated the importance of a secondary food
source for the survival of a community (Peters, et al. (2008).
United Nations officials predicted that the world’s population will reach nine
billion by 2050, and long-term solutions in urban food production are forthcoming
(Brundtland. 1987; UNFAO, 2011). Current trends in many cities included new food
policies to find alternative ways to feed more people, and threats from limited public land
for agriculture (Maxwell & Slater, 2003; Morgan, 2009; Sonnino, 2009). In addition,
25
urban food systems remain weak without food reserves or infrastructures to absorb
external shocks (Wiskerke, 2009). The Department of Homeland Security is concerned
about the nation’s food supply and issued the National Infrastructure Protection Plan as
the national policy to protect agriculture and food systems (critical infrastructure) against
natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other emergencies (www.dhs.gov). The
Department of Defense coordinated Operation Liberty Shield, a comprehensive
multidepartment, multiagency national plan to protect the nation’s citizens and
agricultural infrastructures (www.defense.gov). Participating departments include
Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Public Health, Environmental Protection,
Education, Transportation, and others (www.defense.gov).
The purpose of my qualitative case study was to explore the creation of a
complementary food source in an urban community in the Northeast. Further, I explored
the activities that influenced public policy and local food policy. Such activities included
consumer buying choices, social media campaigns, or technologies that artificially grow
meat (Fountain, 2013; Hand & Martinez, 2010). A process to design an urban farm
network may provide innovations in food policy. Ericksen (2007) recognized that
understanding the rewards and risks of creating a supplemental food source may be
critical to the future survival of cities. In addition, I might contribute new ideas and
solutions to urban food production, information that is missing in the current food policy
literature. In Chapter 2, I provided a description and analysis of the literature, food policy
concepts (urban agriculture, urban farms, permaculture), and a review of the theoretical
and conceptual framework.
26
Literature Search Strategy
Through an exhaustive literature review, I described key features in food policy
and potential solutions to create a supplemental food source: food systems, urban
agriculture, permaculture, sustainable agriculture, local food, sustainability, and
alternative agriculture. Database searches in CQ Researcher, Academic Search Complete,
ProQuest Central, SocINDEX, Academic ASAP, Thoreau, and Web of Knowledge
revealed basic food policy key words. The ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis, Military &
Government Collection, and Greenfile databases provided articles on small-scale
agriculture, urban farms, food security, and civic agriculture. Keywords to find
publications from 1985 to 2014 included food policy, local food systems, urban farms,
informal gardens, edible gardens, foodscape, and community gardens.
Another literature resource was a scholarly lecture series on food in the urban
landscape. Speakers in the series presented an overview of the urban food system in an
urban community in the Northeast. Scholars and practitioners discussed the challenges of
the city’s food system: stakeholder diversity, limited access to healthy food, the obesity
epidemic, local and global food systems, and reconnecting people to their food sources. A
recurring theme in the lecture series was that food systems are complex. Policy solutions
should engage local resources, such as community organizations, public and private
stakeholder, and people with local food system expertise.
Lecture series summary. Food policy researchers from the lecture series offered
a historical view of urban food systems. For example, a speaker at the lecture noted that
there are two important outcomes of the industrialized food system: It made food more
27
available and provided technology that decreased the amount of food people needed to
survive. In other words, wealthy nations had less starvation and famine, and more access
to food variety. The speaker said that recreational eating and drinking was encouraged by
convenient and fast foods. But the tradeoff resulted in more long-term health-related
diseases and obesity due to excess eating and less exercise.
Another speaker described agricultural policies of the last century that expanded
only after the Great Depression. Before that time, agriculture was limited, but by the
1930s, government intervened in many areas of food production including crop variety,
agriculture technologies, and controlling the market. Policy officials supported research
and development to increase production (crop and animal) and efficiency (input/output
and labor). The speaker noted that the upsurge in corn, sugar, wheat, soya, dairy, and
cotton was the outcome of these food policies. For example, corn is a commodity used
for ethanol, to feed a growing population, and remains a popular export. However, fewer
crop varieties planted on less available land and more environmental harm, represent a
food system that is not sustainable.
A different presenter in the lecture series described yet another challenging food
policy, food waste. Many retail establishments throw out five billion pounds of food
yearly, and it is not possible for trucks to pick up excess food from grocery stores.
Further, hunger in the U.S. is the result of eating the wrong foods and poor nutrition. The
speaker noted that overall, food has become invisible, and people take it for granted. The
nutrition transition diet of fast foods, processed and packaged meals have produced a
slow, negative and long-term affect on human health. Food waste is a growing public
28
policy problem as cities struggle with urbanization and providing adequate nutritional
food. Further, people in low-income communities may reject food that has expired and
removed from grocery stores. An interesting note is that the state’s Department of
Environmental Protection banned commercial food waste from public landfills. In the
near future, supermarkets and restaurant owners will have to make a concerted effort to
redirect expired food to nonprofit organizations such as food banks and pantries, or
church groups, and gleaning centers.
Theoretical Objectives and Assumptions
Food policy research. Food policy was the theoretical foundation to explore the
creation of a secondary food source/. While there are many types of food policies, I
examined urban farms as a secondary food source in a Northeastern city in the United
States. Brundtland (1987) defined public policies as the government regulations, and
directives used to solve public concerns. As a subspecialty of public policy, food policy is
a growing concern (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Brundtland (1987), Ericksen (2007), and
Wiskerke (2009) found that food policy complexities are characteristic of the interactions
of critical public concerns, such as the food-related activities (food systems, food supply
chains, food cycles) in a community.
Food systems can be either large-scale, support agricultural technologies or
monocrops, or small-scale, favor organic farms, and urban agriculture (Godfray et al.,
2010; Zerbe, 2010). According to Ericksen (2007), the food supply chain could be
complex and part of a global food network, or simple and dependent on local food
resources. The food cycle is the life cycle of food from start to end, and included food
29
produced by local or regional farmers or the global food network, and transported over
short or long distances. Food cycle activities involved consumption of local or imported
food, disposal by composting, recycling, or gleaning (overripe or slightly damaged
produce is donated to food banks and homeless shelters) (Brundtland, 1987; Ericksen,
2007; Wiskerke, 2009).
International food policies. International food policy was an outgrowth of the
1987 United Nations (UN) document, Our Common Future, From One Earth to One
World: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, also called
the Brundtland Report (Report) (Brundtland, 1987). During the 1980s, developing
nations suffered from long periods of poverty due to limited domestic resources and
international support (Brundtland, 1987). Brundtland suggested that new food policies
might counteract the real threat of a food crisis in poor countries. According to
Brundtland, the UN’s immediate response was to redouble food production and food
policy was critical for human survival. Brundtland observed that poverty was a threat to
communities with limited resources to grow food.
The Brundtland Report was important for three reasons: First, the Report was the
seminal document that introduced food policy to the international community (Morgan,
2009; Pingali, 2006; Pothukuchi, 2009). For the first time, food became a topic of global
concern - joint ventures between countries were a means to end starvation (Brundtland,
1987). Second, Brundtland’s Report served as a platform to describe the relationships
between environmental conservation and human survival. Sustainable agriculture was a
resource to preserve natural resources for present and future generations (Brundtland,
30
1987). As such, urban agriculture became a bridge between sustainable agriculture and
food production in urban communities (Brundtland, 1987). Third, decision makers used
the Report to develop food policies for the current industrial agriculture-based food
system (Brundtland, 1987). This type of agriculture provided the foundation of the global
food network which is the primary food source for cities worldwide (Brundtland, 1987;
Clemmitt, 2008; Godfray et al., 2010).
In contrast to industrial agriculture, city officials in Havana and the Cuban
government have maintained a well-developed urban agriculture system since the 1980s
(Dixon et al., 2009; Hiranandani, 2010). Havana is an example of international food
policies that reflect sustainability and human survival. Officials in Montréal, Canada
designed a network of 97 community gardens throughout the city (Taylor Lovell, 2010).
The government in Beijing, China, expanded an urban agriculture model of farms and
public land for agriculture (Taylor Lovell, 2010). Members of the London Food Board
introduced the Healthy and Sustainable Food program to increase regional foods
throughout the United Kingdom (Reynolds, 2009).
Regional and local policies. A focal point of domestic food policy was regional
and local food. The Agricultural Act of 2014 known as the Farm Bill provided “national
agriculture, nutrition, conservation, and forestry policy” (para. 1, www.ag.senate.gov).
Several Farm Bill policy makers supported industrial agriculture subsidies and incentives.
But my study was limited to small-scale agriculture, local and regional food policies
(Hardesty, 2010).
31
Of note, American Planning Association members recognized that local and
regional food systems were critical to urban planning (Raja, Born, & Russell, 2008). Raja
et al. suggested that local or community food policy explored the interactions between
food producers, distributors, and consumers. Regional food policy is a collection of local
food systems identified by geographic proximity (Clark et al., 2010). Farmers located just
outside the city can create agri-regions that rely on food resources in the community
(Clark et al., 2010). Policy makers can apply regionalization to potentially expand
agriculture anchored by a group of farms within an area (Clark et al., 2010).
Food policy summary. The city of Buffalo, New York is a community with
numerous vacant lots and abandoned properties available for agricultural use (Metcalf &
Widener, 2011). City officials applied local and regional food policies to increase the
local food supply. In a Northeastern city, food policy changed restrictive zoning laws to
allow plant agriculture in all zoning districts. Specifically, zoning codes were changed to
include a new section, called the City Ordinance, (Ordinance) to accommodate urban
agriculture projects throughout the city. In Seattle, Washington, members of the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) designed a multiple county plan to enhance the region’s
food system. The comprehensive plan included an element of food in land use, housing,
economic growth, transit, and environmental conservation policies (PSRC, 2012).
Food policy definitions. A food policy definition was “any decision made by a
government institution which shapes the type of foods used or available…”, and
underscored the incremental nature of public policy (Hamilton, 2002, p. 444). New food
32
policies emerged from old ones and integrated ideas from community development,
agriculture, public health, urban planning, and technology (Ericksen, 2007).
In contrast, food policy included infrastructures and guidelines for food-related
activities in the community (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). For instance, food policy decision
makers included (a) food production activities (urban farming or edible gardens), (b)
agricultural variety (urban agriculture and industrial agriculture), (c) food distribution
(community shared agriculture) or farmers’ markets, (d) consumption (home cooked
meals and takeout/fast food), (e) economics (food pricing, and trade policies) (Maxwell
& Slater, 2003). The social qualities included food traditions and consumer food choices
(Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Food policy represents a collection of food related activities,
and has a clear impact on the well-being of urban communities (Morgan 2009; Sonnino
2009).
Brundtland (1987), Ericksen (2007), and Hamilton (2002) explained that the goal
of food policy was to develop infrastructures that improved the flow of food through a
community. In addition, food policy makers included food access, pricing, culture,
traditions, and quality. Contemporary food policy research is fluid and cross discipline in
nature (Godfray et al., 2010; Maxwell & Slater, 2003; Morgan, 2009; Sonnino, 2009).
The challenges in food policy theory were based on its unique qualities (Macias, 2008,
Morgan, 2009, Taylor Lovell, 2010). For example, food policy could be specific to rural
and urban areas or policies might change within urban neighborhoods that fall within the
city’s overall food policy (Morgan, 2009; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). Variations in
food policies combined urban food planning, local and regional food policy councils,
33
institutional policies, hybrid agriculture, and social justice (Glosser et al, 2007, Lutz et
al., 2010, Pothukuchi, 2009, Reynolds, 2009).
Food policy objectives. In the literature review, I described food policy
objectives that explored their complexities. Food policy decision makers recognized the
connections between food and human survival as an important objective (Brundtland,
1987). These connections included agricultural practices that strengthened the local food
system, food crisis as a reality in nations struggling with poverty, and long-term
environmental harm that is detrimental to humanity. The Report was the first formal
document about environmental conservation and human survival, and Brundtland (1987)
fostered it to gain the attention of the international community.
The second objective was that the solution to poverty was food access and
economic parity: When people had money, they could buy food (Brundtland, 1987). The
authors of the UN’s 1984 report, Potential Population Supporting Capacities of Lands in
the Developing World, called the Land, Food and People Report described the
relationships between livable wages and food (Brundtland, 1987). For instance,
conserving farmland in poor rural communities was a mechanism to encourage people to
work their land, rather than migrate into cities (Brundtland, 1987). If people could
generate profit from their crops, then economic growth would return to their communities
(Brundtland, 1987).
Pingali (2006) suggested a third objective. Brundtland presented the Report as a
global agenda for change to promote long-term plans for sustainable development into
the next century. The plans involved international joint ventures to resolve environmental
34
problems and global action plans to protect nature (Brundtland, 1987). Brundtland
favored sustainability to conserve natural resources for present and future generations.
But the means to implement sustainability remained unclear, and the Report was more
useful as a long-term planning guide for rich and poor countries (Brundtland, 1987).
Brundtland offered a fourth objective: Food policy could not evolve without
government support. Godfray et al. (2010) found that the Report was the first document
to introduce sustainable development to global policy makers. But sustainable
development had a vague definition: “Ensuring human rights and well-being without
depleting or diminishing the capacity of the earth’s ecosystems to support life, or at the
expense of others well-being” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 24). Sustainable agriculture
described the balance “between food self-sufficiency and food self-reliance,” and favored
job creation to eradicate poverty and protect natural resources (para. 3, www.fao.org).
Although the environment was already on the UN’s agenda, Brundtland emphasized the
link between human survival and conserving nature, and suggested that the process to
balance food policy objectives was political and ambiguous at best.
Food policy assumptions. Food policies are assumptions about a particular
outcome. For instance, Brundtland’s (1987) assumption was that the 1980s food crisis
was the result of technological inequities between rich and poor countries, and consumer
demand for meat and dairy products. But the food crisis also included the “new
fundamentals,” the indicators of poverty, food production, or lack of agricultural
resources (Lang, 2010, p. 88).
35
However, a food crisis was open to interpretation and food policy makers who
ignored the new fundamentals increased the threats to their food system (Lang, 2010).
Lang explained that industrial agriculture was not the true cause of a food crisis. In the
1980s, higher food production did not end hunger in developing countries, and hunger
increased since the 1990s. Lang proposed that effective food policies should consider
unhealthy eating habits and undernourished people, agriculture to feed livestock rather
than people, and the harm from large-scale food production. In other words, several
factors contributed to the food crisis beyond technological inequities and consumer
demands for meat and dairy (Lang, 2010).
Clemmitt (2008) provided a chronology of food crisis events:
1. 1917: The War Department encouraged youth to grow vegetable gardens.
2. 1928: Drought in northern China killed three million people.
3. 1945: Los Angeles schoolchildren planted 13,000 gardens to help the war
effort.
4. 1948: The Green Revolution or industrial agriculture, applied technology to
expand agricultural processes.
5. 1990s: Farm subsidies reached $5.9 billion in emergency funds as floods, and
civil war destroyed communities in North Korea, Ethiopia, and the Soviet
Union.
6. 2007 - 2008: Grain production declined. Congress favored corn production for
biofuels in gasoline. The UN declared that 850 million people worldwide were
starving. The Green Revolution continued to deplete resources and wreak
36
havoc in nature. Congress favored complex industrial agriculture as the
primary food source.
Brundtland (1987) and Maxwell and Slater (2003) favored economic growth as a
catalyst to end worldwide poverty. The UN policy makers promoted economic growth in
their report, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2006 (Pingali, 2006). However,
infrastructure, start-up costs, farming experience, and knowledge of the marketplace are
critical for farmers to generate profits from their farms (Angelo et al., 2011; Zerbe, 2010).
Economic growth to end poverty was a slow and demanding process (Hemenway, 2011).
Brundtland Report summary. Mutual gains from equitable and sustainable
practices were possible. If a poor nation lacked technology to begin sustainable farming,
a wealthy bordering nation might offer technical support (Brundtland, 1987).
Brundtland’s basic conclusion was that effective food policies required political support.
Further, Pothukuchi (2009) and Morgan (2009) offered that a comprehensive food system
emerged from political will, cross-sector expertise, a strategy to enact change, and
interest at the national level.
In the end, Brundtland (1987) concluded that there was a link between food policy
and the survival of all future generations. The interaction of public policy and food
activities in the community was a reflection of its sustainable practices (Brundtland,
1987). As mentioned, sustainability had different meanings for different stakeholders:
Tradeoffs and power leveraging between rich and poor nations was part of the process
(Brundtland, 1987). Overall, the Report was a powerful tool to spark new conversations
on the critical need to save natural resources for human survival (Brundtland, 1987).
37
Urban Agriculture Literature
In this study, I focused on local food policy in the Northeast, although many food
policies and urban agriculture studies address global and international concerns. As
mentioned, food policy offered a broad perspective on the interactions between local,
regional, and global food systems (Angelo et al., 2011; Maxwell & Slater, 2003). The
local needs of the community and its various food production activities can be resolved
through urban agriculture. Urban agriculture is “the growing, processing, distribution of
food and other products through intensive plant cultivation and animal husbandry in and
around cities” (Brown & Carter, 2003, p. 3).
The urban agriculture definition is inclusive of all areas of agriculture, related
businesses, natural resources, consumption, well-being, recreation, and economics
(Brown & Carter, 2003). Similar to other food policy concepts, urban agriculture has
different meanings as seen in the Definitions section in this chapter. Urban agriculture
benefits include a resource to create environmental stewardship, a sense of community, to
promote lower energy needs for locally grown foods, support economic development,
empowerment and control over urban food policies (Brown & Carter, 2003).
Urban farms sell food and generate profits, and commercial farms can be small
farms that make less than $250,000 in gross sales (Brown & Carter, 2003). They
represent many farms in the Northeast region (Brown & Carter, 2003). Three groups of
urban farms included recreational farms of less than 100 acres, adaptive farms of 100 to
200 acres, and traditional farms of more than 200 acres (Brown & Carter, 2003).
38
Commercial farmers can be in the suburbs (peri-urban areas) and develop close
interactions with local communities (Brown & Carter, 2003).
In urban agriculture, there are different types of urban farms. Small-scale farms
were similar to edible food gardens for personal or educational use (Bosschaert, 2008).
These stand-alone farms produced specialty organic crops, and not designed for
agricultural use (Bosschaert, 2008). Medium-scale farms are part of an institution
(hospitals, universities, prisons, nursing homes) to grow food for large dining halls
(Bosschaert, 2008). Students and volunteers managed the farms that were culturally,
socially, and visually attractive, and support biodiversity (Bosschaert, 2008). However,
medium size farms had limited expansion beyond the community level because of space
limitations in the surrounding area of the institution (Bosschaert, 2008). Large-scale
farms support high volume food production (Bosschaert, 2008). Large-scale farms can be
vertical or stacked to maximize space in a high-rise building (Bosschaert, 2008).
Alternative technologies such as hydroponics (growing food in water with added
nutrients) and aeroponics (plants growing in dark boxes with a vaporized nutrient
solution) are also examples of large-scale farms (Bosschaert, 2008).
Other types of urban agriculture included community gardens and small plots of
land for personal and household use (Brown & Carter, 2003). Nonprofits, institutions,
community groups, or individuals own these gardens. People grow food to sell or donate,
and for greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables (Brown & Carter, 2003). According
to Brown and Carter (2003), backyard gardens are container, windowsill, balcony and
39
rooftop gardens. People use them to supplement their diets with seasonal foods, and
urban gardens help low-income families save money on food (Brown & Carter, 2003).
Some of the challenges in urban agriculture include land access, start-up costs,
gardening skills, and the seasonality of the region (Brown & Carter, 2003). But solutions
were possible through strategic partnerships. A citywide food assessment could address
problems on different levels. Urban planners, social workers, public health, and
international development experts might learn new practices and share ideas. In addition,
food policy councils form a collective of civic and youth groups, institutions, skilled and
novice gardeners (Brown & Carter, 2003). An urban agriculture system may be possible
with infrastructures for various food production methods, farm-to-institution partnerships,
food education programs, and creative ways to use public lands for agriculture.
However, the inherent complexities of urban food systems increase as people
migrate into cities due to financial hardships in rural communities, weather extremes, and
civil unrest (Forster, 2011). This collection of challenges required new policy solutions
from local, national, and international communities (Forster, 2011). In 2009, 79% of the
people in developed countries were city dwellers, compared to 45% in less developed
areas (Forster, 2011). The challenges of urban agriculture suggested that there was
potential for it to become a mainstream food source, but it had limitations (Sharzer,
2012). For instance, vacant land and public spaces have more market value as developed
or commercial land rather than for agricultural use. Therefore, urban agriculture might
occupy niches (farmers’ markets, food trucks, urban farms) in the city rather than provide
a viable mainstream food source (Sharzer, 2012, p. 75).
40
Global urban agriculture. Contemporary researchers in urban agriculture
revealed a global trend in cities exploring food production choices. For instances,
populations in African cities have been active in urban agriculture since the 1970s
(Lerner & Eakin, 2011). During the 1980s, around 25% of urban populations in Africa
were active in food production, and by the 1990s, the number rose to 70%, and up to 60%
in Asian populations (Bryld, 2003). Urban agriculture is not a new phenomenon. In 1998,
the health benefits of urban agriculture were examined for children in Kampala, Uganda
(Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Seeth et al. (1998) noted that cities in Russia used urban
agriculture for food production and gardening to generate income and provide food for
their families (as cited by Lerner & Eakin, 2011).
The growth of urban agriculture in cities worldwide may be in response to
additional pressures on urban environments (Lerner & Eakin, 2011). Local food sectors
are expanding to meet the demands of global consumers (Tacoli, 2003) The emerging
middle-class population, high-income professionals, and urban tourists have changed
food production as people demand food from traditional and local heirloom varieties
(Baker,2008, Keleman & Hellin, 2009). There is “little understanding of the complex
interactions in the motivation, needs, assets, and opportunities” in urban agriculture
(Lerner & Eakin, 2011, p. 318). But, the relationships between agriculture and urban
planning require further studies, which should be a collaborative process.
Holistic urban agriculture. Strong connections exist between urban agriculture
and agricultural sustainability. The author of report on a food-based nonprofit in the
Northeast described urban agriculture relating to the environment, agriculture, social,
41
financial, and community. Agricultural sustainability is a balance between food
production and natural resources for long-term gains. The author proposed different
forms of sustainability: (a) environmental sustainability (working with natural systems to
replenish the land for growing food), (b) social sustainability (conditions that provide
healthy, nourishing, and productive work habits), (c) financial sustainability (fostering
small-scale agriculture and alternative food systems that survive in the marketplace of
large-scale profits), (d) community sustainability (interactions that built relationships
between neighbors and community groups for long-term value).
Urban agriculture in the United States is generally thought of as community
gardening, where people grow food on public or private land that they do not own
(Peters, 2011). UN officials defined urban agriculture as food production, processing,
distribution, and marketing for consumers in cities, towns, and nearby communities.
Urban agriculture is also food production that supports sustainable agriculture (crop
variety and rotation, recycling natural resources) (Peters, 2011). Examples of urban
agriculture include vacant lots, hospital grounds, rooftops, windowsills, and parks as
resources to grow food. The benefits of urban agriculture create jobs and promote
entrepreneurship, increase access to fresh fruits and vegetables, provide a supply of
healthy organic food to counteract poor nutrition and mental illness (Peters, 2011). Food
culture, traditions, and well-being were also benefits (Taylor Lovell, 2010).
Based on its proximity to buildings and close living areas, urban agriculture
should use organic farming (food production without heavy equipment and pesticides)
(Peters, 2011). Urban agriculture by definition fosters natural processes to grow food
42
(Harper et al., 2009; Zerbe, 2010). More importantly, when low-income populations grow
their food, it increases the food supply in the event of a food shortage (Peters, 2011). For
this reason, Peters suggested that urban agriculture favors social equity between the rich
and poor. U.S. cities with active urban agriculture programs included Portland, Oregon,
where the Department of Parks and Recreation officials provided public land to lease
garden plots for people to grow food or donate to emergency food organizations (Peters,
2011). City officials in Baltimore, Maryland created the City Farms program that leased
land to urban gardeners, and members of the Community Greening Resource Network
provided seeds, compost, tools, and workshops to encourage more urban gardening
projects (Peters, 2011).
Urban agriculture summary. An urban agriculture system in the U.S. could be
sustainable and might develop through eminent domain to pay private landowners to
convert their land for public use (Peters, 2011). Nonprofit managers for land trusts can
also encourage private landowners to donate land as a tax incentive. In addition, decision
makers can build infrastructures for urban agriculture to provide education, resources,
and jobs. But political support and public funding (state and federal) are needed to build
these infrastructures (Peters, 2011).
In contrast, Taylor Lovell (2010), Tregear (2011), and Zerbe (2010) questioned
Peters’ (2011) assertions about alternative food systems in general. For instance, patterns
in alternative food system literature can diminish its scholarly value because concepts are
vague and confusing (Tregear, 2011, Clemmitt, 2008, Godfray et al., 2010, Marshall &
Lozeva, 2009). However, alternative food systems are different from any industrial
43
agriculture system: The definition described what the food system is not, rather than what
it is (Tregear, 2011). As a result, alternative can mean food miles, backyard gardens,
consumer-buying habits, or a simple food supply chain (Tregear, 2011).
Tregear (2011) found that heterogeneity in concepts does not promote real world
solutions. Shorthand terms such as heterogeneity, put many alternative food systems in
one group, with an assumption that they all responded in the same way (Tregear, 2011).
As such, alternative food systems are weak or strong, traditional or innovative (Tregear,
2011). But food systems identified by their value to the community was confusing and
vague (Tregear, 2011). In addition, there were misperceptions of people as political
radicals, when it may be that the food system itself is not sustainable or socially just
(Tregear, 2011). People may support for local farmers bit overlook the corner store that
offers flexible credit options for low-income individuals, or large-scale farming that
recycles its food and animal waste (Tregear, 2011). As such, heterogeneous patterns do
not add value to the literature. Practical solutions need re-thinking, deep exploration, and
clear descriptions of basic food policy concepts (Tregear, 2011).
Consumer perceptions about local food were another pattern in alternative food
systems literature. For instance, consumers believed local food systems had fresher food
and were more energy efficient and sustainable (Mariola, 2008; Peters et al., 2008;
Tregear, 2011). However, farmers who sold local food may use more resources in water
and fossil fuel than traditional agriculture. Also, these farmers might serve as a local
vendor for a supermarket chain that transports food across the country (Courtemanche &
Carden, 2011; Tregear, 2011). Overall, there are deeper connections between diverse
44
food systems. A holistic approach to studies on alternative food systems, food policy,
public policy, and small-scale agriculture was a strategy to add value to urban agriculture
research. Cross-fertilization of ideas from various disciplines, plain language, transparent
concepts, and open-mindedness can stimulate new research (Tregear, 2011). A contrary
and questioning approach can further add value to any food policy study.
Literature based analysis. Food policy studies included several themes. Food
policy is an evolving landscape, and one food policy model does not fit every
community. The process is open to interpretation and dependent on available resources in
the community (Macias, 2008; Morgan, 2009; Taylor Lovell, 2010). Agriculture in food
policy includes urban agriculture, industrial agriculture, and permaculture. Except for
industrial agriculture, urban agriculture and permaculture have qualities supporting
organic farming, supplemental food sources, and small-scale agriculture (Harper et al.,
2009; Zerbe, 2010). Some examples of food policies were formal infrastructures and
informal food practices, or a vision for a specific community (Slow Food, Transition
Towns) (Mayer & Knox, 2009; Wiskerke, 2009; Zerbe, 2010).
But food policy practices could also be exclusive and ignore social equity: Some
policies offered more food choices through boutique grocery stores and farmers’ markets
(Macias, 2008). This pattern was a common in wealthy neighborhoods more than in low-
income areas (Macias, 2008). For instance, projects designed to increase food access in
poor communities might include large upfront fees, which people could not afford
(Macias, 2008). Further, food policies could be community-based, citywide, statewide,
regional, national, or international (Macias, 2008). Land, food assets, local expertise, and
45
consumer demand are resources that have a critical impact on food policy development
(Pothukuchi, 2009).
Research based analysis. The goal of food policy is to foster stable food
systems, a process that includes creating infrastructures that improve food-related
activities in the community (Brundtland, 1987, Hamilton, 2002, Maxwell & Slater,
2003). However, a summary of food policy research included these challenges:
Equity in stakeholder interests.Land and zoning regulations could be barriers to
effective agricultural practices. Discrepancies between large-scale and small-scale food
systems, and between local and technology-based food production were other concerns
about equity (Brundtland, 1987; Holmgren, 2002).
Food safety and urban agriculture. Food regulations are critical in urban
agriculture. Urban farm regulations included soil testing and raised bed practices for all
above ground edible gardens (Hutson, 201). Such problems may be unique to cities with
soil contaminated by lead, toxins, and pesticides (Mukherji, 2009).
The industrial agriculture (IDA) food system.Currently, IDA is the most
prominent type of food system in urban communities (Ericksen, 2007). This dependency
puts urban populations at risk because a complex global food network is unsustainable
(Holmgren, 2002). Food system complexities included long food transport miles, few
centralized locations, and a large consumption of natural resources (Ericksen, 2007,
Kortright & Wakefield, 2011). IDA is short-term food production, and there is an input-
output imbalance when a large input (water and land) outweighs the output (amount of
46
food produced) (Godfray et al., 2010). Unlike organic practices, industrial agriculture is
not self-replenishing (Godfray et al., 2010).
Consumer behavior and the food system.Maxwell and Slater (2003) found that
food marketing and branding influence what people buy. Over time, consumer
preferences favored the nutrition transition diet of fast and convenient foods. Such
preferences resulted in more obese children and adults worldwide and higher costs of
treating food related diseases (heart disease, diabetes) (Glosser et al., 2007; Maxwell &
Slater, 2003; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999).
Curious qualities of food. There are unique qualities of food that make it easy to
ignore. Food is visible and invisible at the same time (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999).
Food has a visible feature as seen in a deluge of print advertisements, reality TV shows,
and the excess of fast food restaurants in many cities (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). For
the same reasons, food is also invisible because it is “always there” (Pothukuchi &
Kaufman, 1999, p. 214). As a result, people think that the urban food system is stable.
But easy access to unhealthy food and limited access to fresh food does not make a food
system stable or sustainable (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999).
Complacency and the nature of cities. Urban populations have feelings of
complacency around food because cities have a “hunger safety net” for poor people with
access to food banks, school lunch and food stamp programs (Pothukuchi & Kaufman,
1999, p. 214). A sustainable food system to accommodate urbanization should be a
priority, and an urban farm network offers a possible solution (Pothukuchi & Kaufman,
1999).
47
Another food curiosity is the nature of cities. A city was defined as a place where
people cannot grow enough food to keep them alive (Howard, 1960, Losch, 1954, and
Toynbee 1970 as cited by Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). Other food curiosities included
the fact the food policy is farm policy - federal subsidies are for farmers, and social
programs are for cities (Cannuscio et al. 2010). Another curiosity was that industrial
agriculture technologies favor processed, packaged, and convenience foods, which has
become the staple diet for many urban populations. In addition, food has a social element
that creates a third place or a space for people to socialize at the corner store.
Food quality summary. The foundation of a complex food supply chain included
the food curiosities that separated producers and consumer (Pothukuchi & Kaufman,
1999). Political support was important in urban food strategies, but the foundation of a
sustainable food system was urban farms and small-scale agriculture Pothukuchi &
Kaufman, 1999). A composite of disciplines such as public policy, agriculture, public
health, urban planning, and community development, was the basis for food policy theory
(Ericksen, 2007). The qualities, assets, and agricultural practices that were unique to each
community are elements of effective food policies (Avery & Avery, 2008; Brundtland,
1987; Godfray et al., 2010; Wiskerke, 2009).
Examples of food policies included food system gaps. Wiskerke (2009)
identified three elements of the food system. Disconnecting created a gap between food
producers and consumers. Disembedding was food branding and marketing designed to
change consumer-eating habits. Disentwining extended the gap between food producers,
suppliers, and consumers. Such features were part of industrial agriculture and the
48
qualities of a complex food system (Godfray et al., 2010). As mentioned agricultural
variety included industrial and natural food production, such as large-scale or commercial
agriculture that applies technology and artificial processes to grow food (Brown &
Carter, 2003). For instance, genetically modified crops (GMOs) are an agricultural
technology to produce more high yielding monocrops (limited crop variety, monoculture)
(Avery &Avery, 2008).
In contrast, permaculture is organic agriculture based on natural ways to grow
food (composting, crop variety) (Holmgren, 2002). According to Harper et al., (2009)
and Zerbe (2010), urban agriculture has nature-based processes to grow food. Alternative
food systems had more variety in food production, and supported local and small-scale
agriculture (Holmgren, 2002; Lutz et al., 2010; Zerbe, 2010). Jarosz (2008) included
simple farming practices such as composting, recycling, and crop rotation in this
definition. Urban agriculture and peri-urban farms or farms located around areas a city
are part of an alternative food system (AFS) (Dixon et al., 2009). Other elements of AFS
included social equity, traditional foods, or food geography such as Washington apples,
Florida oranges, and Idaho potatoes (Haydu & Kandoff, 2010; Mariola, 2008).
Rationale for Food Policy Theory
In the United States, the earliest official food policy was the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (Act) (www.ag.senate.gov). Officials wrote the Act to provide
government subsidies to farmers for excess grain for the country’s food supply in case of
emergencies or weather extremes (www.ag.senate.gov). However, I used the international
food policy described in the 1987 Brundtland Report (Report). The rationale for
49
contemporary and global food policy was threefold: The Report suggested that there was
an inextricable link between human survival and environmental conservation
(Brundtland, 1987). Further, the current global food network is the primary food source
and evolved from commercial agriculture (Brundtland, 1987). In addition, I studied urban
farming as a supplemental food source, small-scale agriculture based on composting,
recycling natural resources, and alternatives in food production (Lutz et al., 2010; Zerbe,
2010).
The challenges in food provisioning are more complicated today than in the
1930s, and food policy should address them. As such, the contemporary perspective of
the Report had solutions to the food policy challenges in urban communities. From a
global perspective, the nature of food systems was evolving (Lee-Woolf, 2009; Reynolds,
2009). There was an assortment of food policies in the urban landscape - urban farming,
farmers’ market, limited food choices, and unhealthy eating habits (Hutson, 2011;
Kortright & Wakefield, 2010; Mukherji, 2008; Pingali, 2006). Food policy theory was a
framework to understand the potential to develop a small scale, supplemental food source
in a large Northeastern city.
Answers to the research question. I selected food policy to answer the research
question for several reasons (Bates & Hemenway, 2011). First, the choice was based on
understanding the challenges in the global or local food supply chain, and the best
practices in large-scale and small-scale agriculture (Lutz et al., 2010; Zerbe, 2010). As
such, food policy was the foundation to explore the phenomenon to create a
complementary food source (Lutz et al., 2010; Zerbe, 2010).
50
Further, food policy was selected to explore several definitions for food-related
activities - local food systems, food cycle, urban agriculture, and supplemental food
sources (Maxwell & Slater, 2003; Morgan, 2009; Sonnino, 2009). The definitions build
knowledge to foster new ideas in food policy development (Brundtland, 1987). In
addition, food policy was a resource to best answer the research question, what are the
public policy limits and opportunities that support urban farms as a supplemental food
source? As such, I explored the potential to implement food policy as urban agriculture
and more specifically, to evaluate urban farming as a supplemental food source.
Conceptual Framework
Urban farms could be a diverse system of food and non-food related activities.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined urban farming as “a local food
system where food is cultivated and produced within an urban area and marketed to
consumers within that urban area” (www.epa.gov, p. 3). EPA officials identified urban
farms as a resource that provides food and nonfood products such as (beekeeping,
livestock, fish farming, flowers, cultivating seeds and seedlings (www.epa.gov). Other
activities included sustainable food production, food education, job training, and urban
farms can be a nonprofit or business enterprise (www.epa.gov).
I examined the phenomena of the activities that foster an urban farming network.
Urban agriculture could help or harm the design of this network (Dixon et al., 2009).
Food production in densely populated communities (multiple family units, high-rise
apartment buildings) has its unique challenges (Holmgren, 2002; Lovell, 2010; Lutz et
al., 2010). While urban farms could potentially expand the urban food system, food
51
policy might be problematic at best. For instance, urban farms could help local food
systems and enhance the well-being of the community (Flachs, 2010). But in reality,
commercial urban farms and gardens require strict regulations for garden construction,
food safety, and agricultural practices.
Food policy interactions. I used the relationships between public policy, food
policy, urban agriculture and permaculture to explore the creation of an urban farm
network (Chase, 2012; Holmgren, 2002). Urban agriculture is a type of food policy that
describes food production, transport, and distribution in the urban marketplace (Chase,
2012; Taylor Lovell, 2010). Permaculture was the contextual lens for an urban farm
network, and provided the invisible structures, or the social qualities of culture, traditions,
and community well-being (Dixon et al., 2009). Conflicting stakeholder interests are a
consideration in designing a supplemental food source (Ericksen, 2007). Collective
agriculture, urban farms, social networks, and food policy councils can mirror the
conflicting interests between food policy, urban agriculture, and permaculture (Dixon et
al., 2009; Plyler, 2012).
Effective and forward-thinking policy makers combined multiple viewpoints on
the unique food needs of the city (Brundtland, 1987; Holmgren, 2002). According to
Maxwell and Slater (2003), food policy has the infrastructures to produce, distribute, and
dispose of food. Such infrastructures expanded the idea that food is part of nature and a
basic human need, an idea first introduced in the Report (Maxwell & Slater, 2003).
Trends in food policy highlight both the need for alternative food resources and the city’s
dependence on a complex and unsustainable food supply chain (Wiskerke, 2009).
52
Urbanization remains a threat to the flow of food and increases the potential for food
shortages in cities worldwide (Morgan, 2009; Sonnino, 2009). Effective food policy is a
concern for local governments, and many city officials are evaluating different ways to
grow food (Maxwell & Slater, 2003).
Summary of food policy concepts. The phenomenon of an urban farm network
could offset food policy trends. The interactions between food policy, urban agriculture,
permaculture, and industrial agriculture influence a process to cultivate a complementary
food source (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). A complex food supply chain includes available
land, supermarket locations, transportation choices, access to fresh food, economic
opportunities, and each element affects the overall quality of the food system (Glosser et
al., 2007; Hébert, 2011).
Food system complications included urbanization that drives the demand for
public services as more people move from rural areas into the city (Jarosz, 2008).,
However, the food supply chain activities also provides opportunities to find alternative
ways to grow food and build local food networks (Jarosz, 2008). In general,
complications are concentrated in food desert areas. Such communities had easy access to
unhealthy foods (takeout, fast food places), limited access to fresh food, and greater
obesity and diet-related diseases (Freedman & Bell, 2009; Hutson, 2011).
Food policy was a source of intersecting ideas from several disciplines (Godfray
et al. 2010). For example, urban planning included the built environment and food policy
councils (governance). Agriculture involved urban farming, edible rooftop gardens
(small-scale agriculture), and technology (vertical and hydroponic farming). A hybrid
53
food system could emerge from a combination of industrial agriculture and organic
farming practices (Brundtland, 1987; Ericksen, 2007; Godfray et al., 2010; Wiskerke,
2009). Food-related activities are all part of the solution to design a complementary food
source, and key terms were discussed in the Definitionssection of Chapter 1.
Gap in the literature. A plethora of tradeoffs is part of the food policy design
(Brundtland, 1987; Zerbe, 2010). For example, urban agriculture and permaculture have
low yielding crops compared to industrial agriculture (Avery & Avery, 2008, Brundtland,
1987; Zerbe, 2010). But commercial, high yielding crops deplete natural resources which
are not sustainable, in contrast to urban agriculture (Zerbe, 2010). But agriculture also has
its associated risks and rewards.
I found few articles in the food policy literature on the phenomenon to create an
urban farm network. Similar to other food policy concepts, urban farming has several
definitions such as food production for profit, fish farming, community gardens, and
growing flowers (www.epa.gov). Many urban agriculture researchers described different
types of community gardens for personal use, donations, and community-based
agriculture. But these gardens might be too small to complement the local food system
and influence food policies in a Northeastern city (Dixon et al., 2009; Holmgren, 2002).
As such, I discovered an opportunity to review urban farming as a supplemental
food source. Economic sustainability and promoting healthy eating habits may be
features of urban farms: They also serve the demands of the local food sector
(restaurants, farmers’ markets, public food markets, food trucks) (Brown & Carter, 2003).
Urban farms can potentially become a supplemental food source for the food system in a
54
large Northeastern city. However, infrastructure and available resources were other
considerations in this process.
Urban Agriculture Policy
The qualitative method was used in many food policy studies. Case studies, meta-
analyses of current studies, or comparison studies described the main challenges in food
policy design. There were a few quantitative studies, but case studies were the primary
resource of articles on the interactions between food policy and urban farming.
The scope of my study was urban agriculture, a type of food policy specific to the
city environment (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). The primary focus was urban farming as a
supplemental food source. Further, I explored the interactions, similarities, and
challenges in designing an urban farm network for the city. For instance, many traditional
food policies had a long-term and harmful impact on nature, including soil erosion,
pesticide use, hormones in animal feed, and people exposed to synthetic chemicals
(Maxwell & Slater, 2003; Wiskerke, 2009; Zerbe 2010).
Urbanization, technology changes, lifestyle choices, media, and industrial
agriculture were activities that defined past and present food policies (Maxwell & Slater,
2003). Emerging policies included the challenges in developing a sustainable food
system, or looking for alternatives in food production (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Micro
marketing was niche marketing for the boutique farmers’ market segment to support local
farmers and economies (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Food-related diseases and consumer
preference for the nutrition transition diet (high sugar, salt, and animal-based foods)
increased healthcare costs worldwide (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). A comparison of old and
55
new food policies showed that the food supply chain had old policies that were simple.
For instance, few transport miles, or farm to table transport were old policies. New
policies were complex, with an extensive transportation network that included processed
heat and serve meals (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Food preparation included old policies
(home cooked meals, family meals), and new policies (takeout and frequent meals
outside the home) (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Old policies were the food shocks from
weather and production problems: New policies included trade inequities, subsidies, and
erratic food prices (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Also, old policies were food sector jobs in
agriculture and food production, while new policies had few agricultural jobs compared
to food retailing and manufacturing (Maxwell & Slater, 2003).
Sustainable food systems include the concept of space. For example, (a) social
space was a place for community members to interact, listen, learn, and create social
capital for people to engage in their local food systems (Feenstra, 2002); (b) political
space represented local leadership through community organizing, and formal and
informal activities supporting the food system (Feenstra, 2002); (c) intellectual space was
for a common vision for a sustainable food system - a vision combined different interests,
economies, and food policies (Feenstra, 2002); (d) economic space favored the flow of
money through the local food system, when people shared costs and developed local
agriculture in their communities (Feenstra, 2002). Space represented the local resources
in the community such as governance, economic opportunities, and nutritional benefits
(Feenstra, 2002). Space was also a resource to create a unique bridge-building element to
56
encourage people to have more interactions with nature, and support for the social,
cultural, and spiritual health of a community (Feenstra, 2002).
Summary of food policy themes. Maxwell and Slater (2003) described several
recurring food policy themes including the quality of food systems. Industrial growers
control food marketing and branding, support the complex food network, and encourage
the popularity of street foods or food from vendors and fast food restaurants (Maxwell &
Slater, 2003). Such foods contributed to the global rise in obesity (Maxwell & Slater,
2003). In addition, the industrialized food system had many regulations for food
handling, combined with favorable trade policies and subsidies that protect sugar and
beef markets (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Curiously, developing countries adopted flexible
food policies to be competitive in the global market, which increased the spread of food-
borne diseases worldwide (Maxwell & Slater, 2003).
Other food policy themes were the conditions that control the flow of food
through a community, and the sustainability of food systems (Ericksen, 2007; Maxwell &
Slater, 2003). Ideally, a sensible food system should limit environmental harm to nature,
use resources efficiently and economically, and be relevant to the social needs of people
in the community (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). But without a clear definition, sustainability
could mean geography or food miles, agricultural practices as polyculture and
monoculture, or food cultures and traditions (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). I defined
sustainability as the agricultural practices that support long-term food production to meet
the needs of present and future generations (Brundtland, 1987; Holmgren, 2002).
57
Therefore, food systems could be simple or complex, urban or rural, and sustainable or
unsustainable.
Macro Food Policy and Technology-Based Agriculture
Traditionally, food policy evolved from public policy, industrial agriculture and
large-scale technology-based food production (Brundtland, 1987). The goal of food
policy was to feed the poor and in the 1980s, people in developing countries were most at
risk for starvation (Brundtland, 1987). UN officials supported extensive food production
as a solution to end global hunger (Brundtland, 1987). At the time, local food resources
were available to support food production, but policy makers ignored small-scale
agriculture as a potential solution (Brundtland, 1987).
Today’s complex global food system evolved from industrial agriculture practices
(Maxwell & Slater, 2003). The shift toward a macro food policy exposed the reality of
the global connections between food production, distribution, and consumption (Angelo
et al. 2011; Maxwell & Slater, 2003). High volume food production was the default
solution to feed starving people, yet starvation has increased since the 1990s (Lang,
2010). One outcome of this macro food policy included a decline in small, family-owned
farms. Other outcomes were more environmental damage to farmland and natural
resources, harm to wildlife, and humans exposed to hormones and synthetic chemicals
(Angelo et al., 2011; Hiranandani, 2010; Zerbe, 2010).
Food System Criteria, Contradictions, and Analysis
Food system criteria (universal values, access to healthy food, inclusion of poor
people) were important factors in food policy development (Maxwell & Slater, 2003).
58
But policy makers rejected such criteria in favor of idealized policies around social equity
and economic development (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). The outcome of policy could be
uneven because policy makers used a collection of resources, stakeholders, and ideas
(Maxwell & Slater, 2003). But policy should be practical to be effective.
In addition, food system planning included an assortment of idealized interests
that cause the opposite effect (Harper et al., 2009; Hiranandani, 2010; Mayer & Knox,
2009; Sonnino, 2009). For example, exclusion was the tradeoff for social equity: Slow
Food communities could limit the variety of available foods from different cultures.
Community-supported agriculture (CSAs) might not support local economies. Farmers
must pay high certification fees to sell organic food, and this excluded small farmers
from participating in the marketplace. While urban agriculture advocates might
encourage people to grow their food, additional resources were needed, such as basic
food education programs to help people learn how to cook with fresh food (Harper et al.,
2009; Hiranandani, 2010).
Different types of food systems (local or global, traditional or alternative, regional
or national) each have contradictions and tradeoffs (Clark et al., 2010; Jarosz, 2008). As
such, a complex food system has large-scale food production and infrastructures for
transport, distribution, and processing (Ericksen, 2007; Wiskerke, 2009). But a simple
food system was small scale, with few infrastructures (Ericksen, 2007; Wiskerke, 2009).
Elements of a food systems included food preferences based on culture and traditions,
food access and pricing, and the built environment (Ericksen, 2007). The presence of
grocery stores, and factors that determine who, when, and what kinds of food people eat
59
were part of a food system (Ericksen, 2007). Other food system complexities included the
efforts to change personal behaviors and eating habits to reduce obesity: Individual and
community well-being was impaired as people struggle with intergenerational food-
related health problems (Cannuscio et al., 2010).
There are tools to assess the interactions between local food systems and food-
related activities (Peters, Bills, Wilkins and Fick, 2008). For instance, Hedden (1929)
discussed foodshed analysis and defined a foodshed as the flow of food through the
system from producers to consumers (as cited by Peters et al., 2008). In the 1920s, New
York City managed to feed eight million people without anyone understanding the flow
of food from production to distribution (Peters et al., 2008). People around the country
relied on a complex food supply chain; A looming transportation strike of five railroad
and transportation worker unions created the threat of a national food crisis (Peters et al.,
2008). But fortunately, the strike never happened, and the city avoided a food crisis.
Contemporary foodshed definitions also include food geography such as rural,
local, or regional foods, and related activities in the food supply chain (production,
distribution, disposal) (Peters et al., 2008). Other definitions included the generic urban
or rural food systems, specific types of food systems (community-support agriculture,
Fair Trade), food systems that conserve natural resources, and alternative food systems
(Peters et al., 2008). An emphasis on agriculture was a shared theme in these definitions,
specifically agriculture that was less harmful to nature and humans, and was a link
between a foodshed and a local food system (Peters et al., 2008). Therefore, foodshed
60
analysis could be a tool to evaluate the different costs in energy use, transport, and other
food-related activities (Peters et al., 2008).
Alternative food systems. Alternative food systems (AFSs) combined simple
farming practices and various food production choices (Chase, 2010). Alternative food
systems were also defined urban farms, community gardens, urban agriculture and food-
related social networks (Andreatta et al., 2008; Brundtland, 1987; Jarosz, 2008; Kortright
& Wakefield, 2011; Taylor Lovell, 2010; Zerbe, 2010). Alternative food systems
definitions included sustainable agriculture and crop diversity; social equity movements
(Fair Trade, Transition Town), and were derived from culture, traditions and food
branding by geography or region (Haydu & Kandoff, 2010).
However, there was a pattern in AFS definitions and they were described by what
they are not, rather than what they are (local, less commercial, less environmentally
harmful) (Follett, 2009). As such, AFS retained a vague quality that was problematic
because they are hard to define. For example, an AFS is also trust building between food
producers and consumers, and shifted value away from commercial agriculture (Follett,
2009). However, these definitions may be too general to accurately explain what an
alternative food system is (Follett, 2009).
Alternative food systems were very different, and it was difficult to capture their
“totality” (Follett, 2009, p. 33). Strong complementary networks such as urban farms and
large-scale agriculture were useful in developing new local markets, and providing
shorter food supply chains (Follett, 2009). Community well-being, available
61
infrastructures, and the level of political support determined the success or failure of
alternative food systems (Follett, 2009).
Local food systems. Hand and Martinez (2010)found that there was limited
consensus on what “local” means (p. 1). While local food systems might reverse the
processes of industrial agriculture, there should be a standard or criteria for any food
system (Angelo et al. 2011; Jarosz, 2008; Mariola, 2008; Martinez et al., 2010).
Consumer buying habits, location, region, or distance between consumers and producers
could identify local food systems (LFS). Local food systems were an example of a
cultural shift in American society resulting from (a) the Green Revolution or industrial
agriculture which was technology-based and favored high volume crop production; (b) a
dependency on natural resources that supported a complex global food supply chain; (c)
separate farming practices for animal and plant agriculture, large subsidies, and favorable
trade policies for industrial agriculture; (d) fewer connections between consumers and
local food producers; and (e) limited access to fresh foods in low-income urban areas
(Clark et al., 2010; Wiskerke, 2009).
Food systems summary. Forward thinking policy stakeholders were re-
evaluating local and regional food systems in their communities (Clark et al., 2010). Peri-
urban areas or farms located just outside the city were agri-regions that fostered the
unique food resources in the community (Clark et al., 2010). Regionalization was a
process to potentially expand agriculture from a collection of small farms into a new
regional food system (Clark et al., 2010).
62
A different concept known as a re-regionalization or food systems that had local,
alternative, global or conventional qualities, and supported processes, flows, and new
partnerships. (Donald, Gertler, Gray and Lobao, 2010, Kneafsey, 2010). These food
systems were more dynamic and could potentially grow beyond the region to the national
or international level (Kneafsey, 2010). However, re-regionalized food systems were also
limited to wealthy countries with resources to accommodate growth (Field et al., 2010).
Local food systems were also new food systems that supported farming practices
to revitalize family farms and rebuild rural economies (Angelo et al., 2011). New food
systems included urban agriculture (urban farms, community gardens, farmers’ markets,
organic foods) (Angelo et al., 2011). Further, sustainable farming practices might be a
complementary food resource. Food systems might be weak if they created inequities
between resources (Hiranandani, 2010; Maxwell & Slater, 2003; Mayer & Knox, 2009). I
reviewed the tradeoffs and imbalances in developing an urban farm network. The goal
was to offer public policy and food policy choices supporting stakeholder interests and
the wider community.
Industrial food systems. Industrial food systems (IFS) have been complex and
static since the last century, when different manufacturing technologies were used to
produce high-yielding monocrops (Angelo et al., 2011). The current global food network
emerged from these technologies and relied on old food systems (Angelo et al., 2011).
For instance, robust food production might feed starving people in countries struggling
with natural disasters and civil wars. However, the negative social and economic trends
of industrialized food production included a 60% decline in family farms from 1950 to
63
2000 that forced people into the cities to find work (Angelo et al., 2011, p. 6). There was
environmental damage from technologies that contaminated farmland and water, and
pesticides that harmed wildlife, farm workers, and consumers.
Traditional agriculture from cereal and wheat crops evolved into the current
technology-based agriculture of high yielding, large volume food production (Angelo et
al., 2011). When farming equipment replaced workers and simple farming practices, the
global food system changed forever (Angelo et al., 2011). Agricultural technologies
forged a gap between rich and poor countries: Industrialized farmers in Europe and the
U.S. overwhelmed small farmers in the Caribbean, Asia, and Latin America (Angelo et
al., 2011). Poor farmers struggled to compete in the global marketplace (Angelo et al.,
2011; Brundtland, 1987; Hemenway, 2011; Zerbe, 2010).
Urban Agriculture
History of urban agriculture. Since the Middle Ages, farmers have exploited
urban agriculture (UA) to satisfied the food needs of cities and wars and natural disasters
were opportunities to find other ways to grow food (Taylor Lovell, 2010). Any available
space was space to grow fresh fruits and vegetables, medicine, herbs, and flowers. For
instance, the population of Machu Picchu in Peru designed urban agriculture
infrastructures around irrigation, food storage, terraces, and climate control (Taylor
Lovell, 2010).
In the 1890s, officials in Detroit, Michigan supported the Potato Patch program to
encourage urban gardens and temporarily farm land on vacant lots (Mukherji, 2009). The
City Beautiful movement in the 1890s and 1900s was another gardening effort to
64
improve the urban landscape with open spaces (Mukherji, 2009). During the war years,
the U.S. government encouraged schoolchildren and families to cultivate victory gardens
to supplement their diets with fresh food (Taylor Lovell, 2010). Throughout the Industrial
Revolution in England, workers used allotment gardens to grow food, and the practice
spread throughout Europe. Many governments still provide allotment gardens today
(Mukherji, 2009).
Contemporary urban agriculture. Officials in Asia, Latin America, and sub-
Saharan Africa used UA to provide income, affordable food in poor communities, and
social advancement for women (Taylor Lovell, 2010). City officials in Beijing, China,
combined organic farms, greenhouses, and public land to expand urban agriculture
(Taylor Lovell, 2010). Officials in Havana, Cuba designed a strong urban agriculture
infrastructure after the fall of the Soviet Union and decision makers in Montréal, Canada
developed a network of 97 community gardens throughout the city (Dixon et al., 2009;
Hiranandani, 2010); Taylor Lovell, 2010, p. 2504).
Urban planning summary. Innovative urban planners should include
infrastructures for urban farms and public land for agriculture in city planning (Taylor
Lovell, 2010). Urban agriculture strategies include sustainable land use through crop
rotation and nutrient recycling (Taylor Lovell, 2010). Other benefits included well-being
from cultural, ethnic, and traditional foods, and improved health from plants for spices,
vegetables, fruits, or medicine (Taylor Lovell, 2010). Urban agriculture could be 15 times
more productive as a food source than industrial agriculture (Plyler 2012, p. 25).
Integrated agriculture was a type of urban agriculture based on hydroponic gardening,
65
but growing food in containers was the most popular type of agriculture (Plyler, 2012).
Urban agriculture could be an informal collective (community gardens), or formal
networks (food policy councils, community groups interested in food-related activities)
(Plyler, 2012).
City officials in Seattle, Washington created an alternative food network (AFN)
based on a simple food supply chain to improve interactions between producers and
consumers (Jarosz, 2008). The AFN was a tool to expand food resources throughout the
city using (Jarosz, 2008). Resources include farmers’ markets, seasonal food stands, and
food cooperatives, and AFNs represented sustainable food production such as organic
agriculture (Jarosz, 2008). Finally, the AFN had an element of equity to promote social
consciousness, local resources, and less harm to nature (Jarosz, 2008). Alternative food
networks might help local farmers access the niche market for local foods, and help low-
income people find fresh foods (Jarosz, 2008). Officials in more and more cities are
exploring urban farms and community gardens as a supplemental food source (Jarosz,
2008). Relative to the research question, an urban farm network could be a
complementary food resource.
Urban agriculture challenges. Urban agriculture has helped people survive
(guerilla gardens) or generate profit (urban farms) (Sharzer, 2012). However, without a
national database on urban agriculture, commercial farms have gained a large market
share; it was unclear if low food production at higher prices could be a sustainable
business model for small farmers (Sharzer, 2012). The success of urban agriculture was
evaluated case by base, and its overall benefits were hard to measure (Sharzer, 2012). For
66
instance, small plot intensive farming (SPIN) favored lower transport, distribution, and
labor costs - SPIN was mini agriculture for food production on small plots of land
(Sharzer, 2012). SPIN farmers relied on family, friends to barter to save costs and offered
food education and composting services (Sharzer, 2012).
Although small plot intensive farming has increased by 17% in the U.S. since
1982, it was not clear if rural or urban SPIN farmers could survive (Sharzer, 2012, p. 90).
These types of farms struggled to compete with large commercial agriculture (Sharzer,
2012). The collective value of urban agriculture remained unclear without a holistic
perspective that included innovation in public policy, as well as local food and zoning
policies (Sharzer, 2012).
Agricultural Diversity
I discussed agriculture relative to sustainable agriculture, with qualities that
supported environmental conservation, met human needs, and fostered economic growth
(Gold, 2009). Agriculture was a combination of different food production practices, and
urban farming was sustainable agriculture for long-term solutions in food production
(Holmgren, 2002). Sustainable agriculture included urban farms, rooftop, or hydroponic
gardens, which were practical in densely populated communities. For instance, Cuba and
Canada were two countries that used sustainable agriculture in different ways
(Hiranandani, 2010). Cuba launched its sustainable agriculture in 1989 and established a
foundation of permaculture-based food systems (Hiranandani, 2010). The food system
planners integrated composting, decomposed animal waste for energy, mixed land use,
and organic agriculture (Hiranandani, 2010). Canada supported organic farming, but
67
farmers paid high fees, and there was limited enforcement of the country’s organic
farming policies (Hiranandani, 2010).
Permaculture
Invisible structures. The core permaculture principle was a strategy to balance
outputs (natural resources needed for food-related activities) and inputs (food production,
personal behaviors) (Holmgren, 2002). Permaculture had a holistic quality that was
missing in food policy alone: Permaculture included the invisible structures common in
human activities (Holmgren, 2002). Some examples included land and nature stewardship
such as organic and biodiversity in agriculture (Holmgren, 2002). Culture and education
were also invisible structures and included reusing and recycling, holistic medicine, and
health and spiritual well-being to create a sense of place (Holmgren, 2002). The built
environment integrated rainwater recycling, and building materials from natural resources
(Holmgren, 2002). Permaculture’s holistic approach was the foundation of the input-
output relationship and a macro approach included the natural, economic, and social
relationships in the food system (Holmgren, 2002)
Permaculture principles. Holmgren (2002) described 12 principles, or thinking
tools to guide common sense practices for local food systems:
Principle 1: Observe and interact.A process to balance activities in nature and
society includes observing patterns and exploring a holistic view of interactions.
Principle 6: Produce no waste.Human activities should encourage practices that
recycle materials and avoid waste.
68
Principle 8: Integrate rather than segregate.Solutions can appear from a larger
view rather than looking at smaller pieces of the problem.
Principle 9: Use small and slow solutions.Small solutions favor local food
resources and support for community businesses.
Principle 10: Use and value diversity.Permaculture favors crop variety
(polyculture) over growing the same crop (monoculture) each year.
Permaculture summary. Permaculture or permanent agriculture is a holistic
process to balance systems in nature and society (Holmgren, 2002). In the 1970s, the idea
of permaculture (PRM) emerged from landscape design specialists, David Holmgren and
Bill Mollison (Holmgren, 2002). By the 1980s, Holmgren expanded the definition of
permaculture: “consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and
relationships found in nature while yielding an abundance of food, fibers, and energy for
provision of local needs” (Mannen, Hinton, Kuijper, and Porter, 2012, p. 356).
The revised permaculture definition is needed because of the gap between
resource use in nature (inputs) and human activities (outputs) (Holmgren, 2002). These
resources considered local, grassroots social movements for incremental change, local
innovations in agriculture, technology, and sustainable development, or a collection of
local assets to serve the needs of present and future generations (Holmgren, 2002).
Permaculture involved alternative agricultural practices, and permaculture is a feature of
an urban farm network. Holmgren’s view placed permaculture in a broader context to
accommodate urban farms and small-scale agriculture for food production.
69
Agricultural Diversity Summary
Horticulture and agriculture. Permaculture is a growing process that relied on
sustainable practices from horticulture, not agriculture (Hemenway, 2011). As such
agriculture (industrial agriculture) and horticulture (organic agriculture) remained
incompatible (Hemenway, 2011). Horticulture was a reflection of patterns in nature (crop
rotation, composting), which were complementary processes in an ecosystem
(Hemenway, 2011). Agriculture was more resource intensive and highly dependent on
fossil fuels (Hemenway, 2011). Further, Hemenway challenged the notion that
agriculture was a sustainable process based on its resource intensive nature. As
mentioned, the current global food supply chain was vulnerable because it created an
imbalance between inputs and outputs (Hemenway, 2011). Compared to industrial
agriculture, horticulture could foster social equity, resource conservation, and
sustainability (Hemenway, 2011). As such, an urban farm network could apply
horticulture practices.
Community supported and small-scale agriculture. Community supported
agriculture (CSA) had a twofold benefit: A niche market for local farmers and a means
for low-income people to access healthy foods (Andreatta et al., 2008). However, food
education programs were critical for successful CSAs: Farmers learn about cultures and
traditions important to urban consumers and low-income consumers learn how to cook
meals with fresh foods (Andreatta et al., 2008). Urban farms were examples of small-
scale agriculture which offered a complementary food resource in the city (Kortright &
Wakefield, 2011). An informal food network could be a series of teaching gardens in
70
schools, prison gardens, and provide a visible food source for community well-being.
However, small-scale agriculture needed a loyal customer base, political will, and a
strong infrastructure to be successful (Chase, 2011; Dixon et al., 2009; Jarosz, 2008).
Urban Farming
Urban farming or urban horticulture was the “science and art of promoting the
successful growth and development of ornamental plants, turf, vegetables and fruit in the
urban environment” (para. 1, agclass.nal.usda.gov). Environmental Protection Agency
officials noted that urban farms revitalize abandoned land, contribute to community well-
being, and the urban landscape (www.epa.gov, p. 3). However, urban farmers must meet
strict regulations and safety measures when they sell food to the public. This section
provided an overview of urban farming research.
Viet Village Urban Farm: New Orleans. New Orleans city officials embraced a
rebuilding process for neighborhoods damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Truitt, 2012).
Officials selected communities to create economic growth through “a smaller and more
efficient post-Katrina New Orleans” (Truitt, 2012, p. 321). One project was the Village
de l’Est, a Vietnamese neighborhood in New Orleans (Truitt, 2012). The neighborhood
had a well-established urban garden and Saturday food morning market (Truitt, 2012).
City officials wanted to rename the garden the Viet Village Urban Farm, and change it
into a green technology and sustainable agriculture enterprise (Truitt, 2012). Most of the
gardeners were elderly, but the Viet Village Urban Farm was a plan for future
generations, commercial growers, a covered market area, and a playground for
intergenerational social activities (Truitt, 2012).
71
While the urban farm project had adequate funding, the project failed to include
amenities for the Vietnamese culture (Truitt, 2012). People supported the community
garden because it defined the neighborhood’s culture and unique qualities (Truitt, 2012).
An urban farm was a modern representation of green technologies (recycling, energy
efficiency) and future growth (Truitt, 2012). Many gardeners did not favor commercial
growth at the expense of losing their community garden and their well-established
gardening culture, and young people were not engaged enough to become the next
generation of farmers (Truitt, 2012). The Viet Village Urban Farm failed in several ways:
City officials implied that the community garden was not sustainable and used
contaminated water from a nearby landfill. Also, they favored the urban farm over the
community garden, and promoted it as sustainable and capable of growing healthier food
(Truitt, 2012).
But members of the Army Corp of Engineers determined that the garden was
“jurisdictional wetlands” with options for a land-swap (purchase environmental credits
before the land could be used for agriculture) (Truitt, 2012, p. 333). The wetlands
designation applied because the area was used as a dumping site after Hurricane Katrina
(Truitt, 2012). Project supporters did not want to fund the purchase of environmental
credits, and the urban farm never developed (Truitt, 2012). In the end, the area remained
a community garden with a Saturday morning market for gardeners to sell fresh produce
to neighbors and visitors (Truitt, 2012).
Growing Experience Urban Farm: Long Beach. Urban farming can be a
strategy to create well-being, community engagement, and environment justice concerns
72
in low-income communities (Tijerina, 2014). Environmental justice was defined it as
“those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations, behaviors, policies, and decisions to
support sustainable communities,” (Schlosberg, & Carruthers, 2010, p. 14). The Growing
Experience (GE) urban farm was a project to design an urban farm in a public housing
unit (Tijerina, 2014). The Carmelito Public Housing Project, a low-income, high-crime
neighborhood in North Long Beach, California, was the site for the urban farm (Tijerina,
2014). The Growing Experience began as a community garden on seven and a half acres
of land managed by the Los Angeles Housing Authority in 1994 (Tijerina, 2014).
Community space was the stimuli to make the GE urban farm a valued asset for
the neighborhood (Tijerina, 2014). Community space is a holistic process of
“participation, control, and sense of ownership” (Eizenberg, 2012, p. 106). But it was
unclear how to measure the value of the GE urban farm and environmental justice on
quality of life in public housing (Tijerina, 2014). The Growing Experience provided
workshops on growing food, business training to support the culture and social landscape
of Carmelito (Tijerina, 2014). Other trainings included food education workshops to
teach people how to prepare culturally appropriate food, understand the cost savings from
growing food, and learn simple gardening skills (Tijerina, 2014).
However, people in Carmelito did not support the GE urban farm (Tijerina, 2014).
The idea of an urban farm appeared to involve the community, but there was a gap
between the programs offered and how people in Carmelito valued space as part of their
community (Tijerina, 2014). For example, there were more survey responses from people
20 to 29 years of age compared to people between 40 to 69 years of age (Tijerina, 2014).
73
This pattern was the opposite of other urban farm studies with higher participation from
people 55 plus years of age (Tijerina, 2014, p. 75).
It was possible that there was a geographic discrepancy in urban farming: People
of color on the West Coast had less access to land, and therefore, did not participate in
urban farming (Tijerina, 2014). In addition, there were more active urban farmers on the
East Coast than the West Coast (Tijerina, 2014). Growing Experience attracted new
people to the project but could not keep them involved after one year (Tijerina, 2014).
The GE urban farm project might benefit from a marketing strategy that involved
people through social media and word of mouth promotion (Tijerina, 2014). Growing
Experience suffered from a common pattern in privatized community spaces that
excluded people in the community from the governance and decision making process
(Tijerina, 2014).
Right to Farm Laws: Detroit, Youngstown and Cleveland. Right to Farm laws
impact urban farming in cities such as Buffalo, Detroit, Youngstown, and Cleveland,
(Heckler, 2012). Similar to Buffalo, New York, Detroit, Michigan has an abundance of
empty properties for agricultural use, although local and state regulations limit the growth
of urban farms (Heckler, 2012). For example, there are logistical challenges in Detroit,
such as limits on farming operations in a residential area, or restricted use of pesticides
near a work zone or school (Heckler, 2012). But the Right to Farm law protects urban
farmers from nuisance lawsuits even when they used harmful farming practices (Heckler,
2012).
74
City officials in Youngstown and Cleveland, Ohio struggle with the “shrinking
city syndrome” as many people left the city due to the loss of manufacturing jobs
(Heckler, 2012, p. 219). Vacant buildings produce less income lower property taxes, less
revenue for the city, and more crime (Heckler, 2012). But city officials are exploring
urban farms to build food sources in empty spaces, parking areas, schoolyards, and
rooftops (Heckler, 2012). Urban farms could potentially reverse crime rates, provide a
source of income, and reduce maintenance costs on vacant land and buildings (Heckler,
2012).
Some of the challenges associated with traditional urban farms included their
social value. For instance, city residents questioned the influence of urban farms on the
quality of life in cities (Heckler, 2012). As mentioned, farming operations in residential
areas can be problematic. Urban farms are temporary when private landowners reclaim
the land for development: In such cases, urban farmers had no legal rights (Heckler,
2012). Finally, zoning regulations for agriculture could potentially block the expansion of
urban farms because land in the city is limited (Heckler, 2012). Comprehensive
legislation might provide a broad, statewide solution to urban farming and clear standards
could help local governments design useful zoning regulations to expand urban
agriculture (Heckler, 2012).
Produce From The Park: Baltimore. Produce From The Park was a nonprofit
that acquired six acres of land to “improve community access to produce, promote
localized food consumption, provide experience-based learning opportunities for
students, and establish urban farming as a source of community development” in the city
75
of Baltimore (Hu et al., 2011, p. 70). The nonprofit worked with community groups to
gain credibility (Hu et al., 2011).
A summary of interviews with African Americans (between 30 and 50 years of
age) about their perception of healthy foods revealed some interesting ideas:
xFood choices involved food culture and preferences, rather than cost and
access. Fatty, fried foods were part of their food traditions and to eat healthy
meant giving up those traditions.
xPeople were hesitant to eat “mainstream White” food. There was a negative
association with healthy foods but not with sugary, processed foods (p. 70).
xFood preferences were the old school or Southern food that was “overcooked
and fried.” Southern foods gave a sense of nostalgia. People did not know the
different between healthy and unhealthy food, and relied on TV commercials
that falsely promoted healthy foods. (p. 70).
xTime was a factor and processed, packaged foods were easier to make than
cooking meals with fresh food. However, some people did not see a link
between obesity, diabetes, and poor eating habits.
xEngagement in urban farming was perceived as “getting their hands dirty,” an
association with White landowners and slavery.
xHealthy food was not tasty, and people were too busy to eat healthy food (Hu
et al., 2011, p. 70).
Urban farming summary. Common misperceptions about food were some of the
barriers and strategies that required a food education program (Hu et al., 2011). Produce
76
From The Park needed a marketing effort to encourage people to understand the
connections between good food and good health (Hu et al., 2011). Farm stands of fresh
fruits and vegetables located in high traffic areas can build in the community (Hu et al.,
2011). People in the community did not know about Produce From The Park, and the
organization needed a word of mouth campaign for community engagement (Hu et al.,
2011). More participation from community youth, community leaders, and trust building
were critical for Produce From The Park to fulfill its mission (Hu et al., 2011).
Efforts to change eating habits to promote better health are a multiple level
process (Hu et al., 2011). Low-income populations could embrace urban farming if
provided with creative and respectful practices that recognized the local culture (Hu et
al., 2011). Local traditions, cultures, and food education should be part of that process
(Hu et al., 2011).
Local Government
Urban planning. Food policy was a cross-discipline specialty in need of creative
solutions: Policy makers in local government and urban planning are reassessing their
roles in the process (Glosser et al., 2007). Planners from the American Planning
Association, a professional organization for city and county planners released its 2007
Community and Regional Food Planning Guide (CRFPG) to encourage its members to
think about food as an urban planning concern (Glosser et al., 2007).
Favorable urban planning trends can support new policies around local and
regional food systems (Pothukuchi, 2009). Planners described some trends in holistic
food planning, sustainable food systems, biodiversity, and institutional support
77
(Pothukuchi, 2009). However, dubious trends included the loss of farmland due to urban-
influenced communities, the largest consumers of food, and rural farms at risk of
becoming part of industrial agriculture when families lost control of their farms
(Pothukuchi, 2009).
Regarding farm policy and health, urban planners were encouraged to consider
how industrial agriculture changed nature, human health, and communities (Glosser et al.
2007). The rise in obesity and food-related diseases affected health care costs in states
and regions with large poor and diverse populations (Glosser et al., 2007; Maxwell &
Slater, 2003; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999).
Urban planning summary. In 2000, over 40% of supermarket sales were in
frozen, processed, and baked goods, compared to 9% of sales in fruits and vegetables
(Pothukuchi, 2009, p. 4). More recently, consumers explored alternatives in food choices:
Major food companies lost sales in prepared frozen meals (Ouimet, Schmidt, Donnan, &
Kearney, 2013). Between 2013 and 2014, company officials “experienced sustained
volume declines” of three to five percent of their frozen meal divisions, with projections
in the double digits in the future (Ouimet, et al. 2013, para. 6). Fresh food is “the
ultimate, convenient, ready-to-eat solution” and more people are buying unprocessed and
unpackaged foods (Ouimet, et al.2013, para. 6). Urban planners might promote cost-
saving measures such as growing food to save money, or healthy eating to lower
healthcare costs, to create well-being, and improve local food systems (Glosser et al.
2007).
78
Traditionally, urban planning changed food production in the city from victory
gardens to convenience shopping (Pothukuchi, 2009). For instance, food production
based on gardening as a food source was transformed into today’s supermarket chains as
the primary food source (Pothukuchi, 2009). Wal-Mart, Safeway, and niche grocery
stores such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s are examples of this transformation.
There are different types of food plans as discussed in the Community and
Regional Food Planning Guide (Pothukuchi, 2009). For instance, there are
comprehensive food plans to supply food for emergencies and to develop local food
sources, and city food system plans to support urban agriculture and preserve local food
traditions (Pothukuchi, 2009). Regional food plans are for local farming, local markets,
and connecting farmers and consumers, and localized native and ethnic food plans
represented cultural and regional biodiversity (Pothukuchi, 2009).
Food Planning Research
Food equation. Historically, urban planners ignored food systems and believed
that food was strictly a rural problem (Holmgren, 2002; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999).
This was a puzzling omission because of urban planners’ focus on tangibles, or the built
environment rather than intangibles such as a food system (Morgan, 2009, p. 341). The
idea of the city as a farm was not new because people in the city have been starving for a
long time (Viljoen, 2005, as cited by Morgan, 2009). A new food equation was a tool that
identified new challenges in urban food systems (Morgan, 2009). Several challenges
included land conflicts as rich countries such as Saudi Arabia, and South Korea colonized
land in Africa and Asia to grow food (Morgan, 2009). Urbanization (people moving to
79
the city) increased the potential for food shortages in cities worldwide (Morgan, 2009).
Rising food prices in 2007 and 2008 caused instability and food riots when people could
not afford their staple foods and climate challenges burdened poor countries with
droughts and flooding (Morgan, 2009).
Multifunctional food systems. The new food equation was a potential solution
for the question: “How to feed cities in a just, sustainable and culturally appropriate
manner in the face of looming climate change, widening inequality and burgeoning world
hunger?” (Morgan, 2014, p. 2). Any solutions relied on the multifunctional qualities
(health care costs, environmental destruction, and food culture) of food systems (Morgan,
2014). However, the rewards of these multifunctional qualities were that people came
together and underscored the power of food (Morgan, 2014). Also, in the Global North
(North America and Europe) the variety of food selection was through farmers’ markets,
beekeeping, and urban farming, all signs of growth in urban agriculture (Morgan, 2014).
The risks of multifunctional qualities were that the segmented nature of food systems
(organic, local, food politics, Fair Trade) supported food issues rather than a food
movement (Morgan, 2014).
Alternative food geography. The interactions between food policy, farming
practices, and consumer behaviors were features of alternative food geography
(Wiskerke, 2009) This model was based on urban food strategies to build synergies in the
public sector through public health, environmental conservation, and job creation
(Wiskerke, 2009). The strategies also included educational programs, food festivals and
80
events to connect farmers and consumers, and the shared interests of urban and rural
communities (Wiskerke, 2009).
Urban food strategies. Trends in new food planning research concern land used
to feed livestock rather than to grow food for people (Sonnino, 2009). Hybrid food
strategies favored smaller, local farms, and better quality of life for urban populations
(Sonnino, 2009). The core of urban food strategies included urban farms, neighborhood
gardens, and small-scale agriculture (Sonnino, 2009). The stimuli for new food policies
included limited food access, urbanization, consumer demand, and the media influence
on food-related problems (Cohen, 2014). In addition, food policies had several
dimensions such as environmental harm from pesticides, and waste from food packaging
(Cohen, 2014). Also, there is a greater demand for meat in developing countries, and
social factors included a staple diet of high-calorie foods combined with little exercise
(Cohen, 2014). Other contributing factors were that the military is rejecting obese people
from military service, as well as the long-term economic hardships in poor communities
and food desert areas with limited choices in healthy food (Cohen, 2014).
Based on these dimensions, food strategies could be sustainable if supported by
local food assets (Cohen, 2014). For instance, institutions, schools, and public facilities
could develop a public plate program (Cohen, 2014). Members of the Center for
Ecoliteracy (2012) suggested that the Los Angeles school district switch from canned
fruits and vegetables to produce from sources within a 200-mile radius (as cited by
Cohen, 2014, p. 64). In 2009, the school district spent 9% of its budget on fresh fruits and
vegetables, but increased to 73% in 2012 (Cohen, 2014, p. 64).
81
However, the sustainability of small-scale agriculture was questionable even with
the need for long-term food production (Cohen, 2014). For instance, small-scale
agriculture and the proximity of local food does not guarantee that food is ethically or
environmentally favorable (Born & Purcell, 2006; Levkoe, 2011, as cited by Cohen,
2014). Also, small producers use more energy to deliver food, and practice poor
treatment of animals and farm workers (Angelo et al., 2011). Finally, local foods can be
expensive and further widen the gap between poor and wealthy consumers (Clark et al.,
2010).
Municipal food strategies. Three cities - Toronto, London, and San Francisco -
developed a comprehensive municipal food strategy (MFS) (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013
Other cities (Vancouver, Ottawa, Portland, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle) also have
their MFSs, but Toronto, London, and San Francisco actually implemented a formal plan
(Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). Toronto, London, and San Francisco city officials have
integrated multiple food system challenges into one public policy framework for food
production, processing, distribution, access, waste management, and urban agriculture
(Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). As such, MFSs were unique as city officials design and
control policies that favor a holistic view of the region’s food systems (Mansfield &
Mendes, 2013).
Municipal food strategies had three policy frameworks: (a) new localism favors
non-traditional roles for stakeholders to participate in local government and public policy
(Mansfield & Mendes, 2013); (b) local partnerships examine collaborations between
government, business, local institutions and community groups (Mansfield & Mendes,
82
2013); (c) urban governance capacity was the ability of local governments to implement
municipal food strategies using available resource (tools, human capacity, regulations)
(Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). In addition, MFSs had structural factors including staffing
support and a clear mandated role of food policy within local government (Mansfield &
Mendes, 2013). The MFS planners favored inclusion of food policy in a regulatory and
policy framework - the procedural factors support citizen participation and
complementary partnerships in planning and policymaking (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013).
Toronto officials adopted the first food strategy in Canada in 2010 with the
highest priority to “embed food system initiative as well as food system thinking into
existing work and priorities” (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013, p. 48). The MFS planners
created opportunities to implement an action plan, and identified roles and
responsibilities for city departments (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). In 2006,Greater
London Authority officials launched a comprehensive plan that involved local
departments and boroughs, but the Mayor of London had no direct control over municipal
food strategies activities (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). San Francisco city officials
designed the first comprehensive food strategy in the U.S. in 2009 (Mansfield & Mendes,
2013). The MFS had clear timelines and responsibilities for each city department, staff to
implement the plan, and the executive directive came directly from the mayor’s office
(Mansfield & Mendes, 2013).
The MFS infrastructure in Toronto had a food policy mandate since 1991 that
involved the Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC) (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). The
Toronto Food Policy Council members had strong political support for the Declaration on
83
Food and Nutrition, a plan to address urban food security (Blay-Palmer, 2009). But
political support was not enough as some board members dismissed food policy from any
policy development for the city (Blay-Palmer, 2009). Toronto Food Policy Council
members opposed food as an element of urban planning and believed that food was a
public health concern (Blay-Palmer, 2009). Today, staff from public health and the food
policy council monitor activities, but the leading authority is the Toronto Public Health
division (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013).
London’s 2006 London Food Strategy mandate emerged from the London
Development Agency, a division of the Greater London Authority (Reynolds, 2009).
London’s mayor was a strong supporter of the London Food Board and established the
Healthy and Sustainable Food program to increase regional foods and sustainable
agriculture throughout the United Kingdom (Reynolds, 2009).
Similar to the Toronto Food Policy Council, the London Food Board was a model
for cities in Europe, North America, and South Korea (Reynolds, 2009). In contrast to the
Toronto Food Policy Council, London Food Board (LFB) members dismissed urban
planning in its policy development (Reynolds, 2009). As a result, LFB policies to reduce
the healthcare costs of food-related diseases were stagnant. In time, LFB members
designed a robust food plan for the 2012 Olympics to promote local and regional foods,
strong environmental practices, more public access to fresh foods, and support for
London’s food cultures (Heron, 2012). The leading authority today is the Greater London
Authority Food Team within the Mayor’s office (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013).
84
The 2009 Executive Directive was San Francisco’s food policy mandate. The
city’s Food Policy Council members (citizen, city staff) and 47 city departments
implemented food policy (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). The lead authority today is the
Director of Food Systems who required input from 47 city departments (Mansfield &
Mendes, 2013).
Food strategies summary. There were two important municipal food strategy
challenges in Toronto, London, and San Francisco: Uncertainty and shifting food policies
when a new administration takes the office, and the complex positioning of food
strategies within local government (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). In addition, local
governments lacked the regulatory tools and institutional experience to collaborate across
divisions (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). As a result, individual food policies could arise
that may not reflect a collective decision. Further, food strategies succeed through
coordination, and the critical need for clear department roles and responsibilities
(Mansfield & Mendes, 2013).
However, a more important challenge was if local and regional governments
could implement municipal food strategies in the first place (Morgan, 2008). Food policy
was dynamic, and one policy across multiple departments, sectors, and organizations may
not be a practical solution (Mansfield & Mendes, 2013). Due to the recession, local
governments have cut back on public services, and a process to explore food policy
reform with community groups and nonprofits could be a practical food policy solution
(Mansfield & Mendes, 2013).
85
Food Policy Councils
Food policy councils (FPCs) were an essential resource to “restore the social,
economic, and environmental health of local and regional food systems” (DiLisio, 2011,
p. 1). Food policy councils are a collection of stakeholders (local, state, municipal,
regional, food sector, community groups, individuals, entrepreneurs) working to improve
the local food system (DiLisio, 2011). The goals of these organizations include helping
communities organize effective food systems that were “environmentally sustainable and
socially just” (Harper, Shattuck, Holt-Giménez, Alkon and Lambrick, 2009, p. 2).
The Knoxville Food Policy Council was the first (1982) in the United States and
since then, more FPCs have emerged in local, regional, and state governments (Harper et
al, 2009). Despite their popularity, there is no central or national resource on food policy
councils or food systems (Harper et al, 2009). Each community must design its food
system and food policy council. (Harper et al, 2009). In addition, FPCs could be formal
(paid staff), or informal (managed by volunteers) (Harper et al, 2009). Both types could
receive funding from the Farm Bill under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program (Harper et al, 2009; Ver Ploeg et
al., 2009). One hand, the Farm Bill supported policies for large-scale food production
which replaced small farms and local food facilities (Hardesty, 2010). On the other hand,
Farm Bill policies favored programs such as the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing
Act of 1976 to expand the marketing of local foods (Hardesty, 2010). Farmers who
applied to this program were exempt from USDA grading standards for produce
(Hardesty, 2010).
86
The Farm Bill appropriations subcommittees changed funding allocations yearly:
Forward thinking FPC members should apply for funding at the local, state, or regional
level (Hardesty, 2010). This strategy underscored the political nature of food (Hardesty,
2010). In 2010, a Northeastern state established a food policy council with an Advisory
Committee and several members appointed by the Governor. Other members should
include new and experienced farmers, urban farmers, farmland protection advocates,
organic farmers, nutritionists, youth, and public policy and food policy researchers.
Regional food policy councils. There are limits and opportunities in designing a
regional food policy council as seen in a study on Todmorden, a rural community (15,000
people) in the United Kingdom (Lee-Woolf, 2009). Currently, the UK has 40% of its
food imported based on consumer demand the nutrition transition diet, in addition to high
transport and distribution costs that increase food prices (Lee-Woolf, 2009; Reynolds,
2009). The Incredible Edible Todmorden (IET) project was a regional food policy
council of volunteers who wanted a sustainable food system (Lee-Woolf, 2009). The
goals were to supplement Todmorden’s red meat and dairy production economy and
develop food policies aligned with Securing the Future, the government report for robust
food systems and sustainable development across the UK (Lee-Woolf, 2009).
In the short term, IET was promoted as a model for other communities as a
cornerstone of sustainable societies (Lee-Woolf, 2009). While sustainable development
was the focus of IET, volunteers and the community could not define sustainability;
Others thought sustainability was a marketing tool to promote Todmorden as a franchise
to sell to other communities (Lee-Woolf, 2009). Overall IET had mixed results with
87
outreach programs that included social interactions for some, but excluded people in
public housing units (Lee-Woolf, 2009).
Members of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) offered a comprehensive
food strategy for the city of Seattle. The plan was to develop “multicounty planning
policies and certify local comprehensive plans to ensure they are consistent with the
Growth Management Act” (PSRC, 2012, p. 5). The Growth Management Act was a
mandate for cities to develop strategies for land use, housing, utilities, transportation, and
parks and recreation (PSRC, 2012).
Puget Sound Regional Council members included food in the overall strategy
(PSRC, 2012). For instance, the PSRC recommended that the city’s core values (greater
food access, environmental sustainability, support local food economies) guide the
creation of a comprehensive plan: Environmental stewardship, community, economic
opportunity, and social equity were also part of the food system (PSRC, 2012). The plan
included amendments to expand countywide and multiple county decision making
opportunities (PSRC, 2012).
Key elements of the plan included removing barriers to urban food production to
reduce food waste through composting, and limit unhealthy foods in publicly owned
facilities (PSRC, 2012). But the unique quality of the comprehensive plan was that it
included a standard of one community garden for every 2,500 household (PSRC, 2012, p.
7).
Food policy plan summary. The Puget Sound Regional Council members
recognized other examples of food policy plans including the City of Madison, WI
88
Comprehensive Plan. Members of this plan emphasized natural resources and agriculture
with a goal to expand these elements in the local food economy (PSRC, 2012).
Homegrown Minneapolis combined public health and sustainability to bring awareness to
food system concerns (PSRC, 2012). Policy makers tried to connect institutions with
local food producers, encourage composting, and support for community empowerment
(PSRC, 2012). The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) officials
developed Eating Here: The Greater Philadelphia Food System Plan in 2011(PSRC,
2012). Their plan was a geographic analysis of economic development, conservation, and
health impacts of the food system within a 100 miles radius around Philadelphia (PSRC,
2012). The city of Baltimore officials launched the Baltimore Sustainability Plan in 2009,
to increase access to fresh fruits and vegetables in low-income communities, and to
develop vacant land for agricultural use (PSRC, 2012).
Food Policy Contradictions and Controversies
Contradictions. Food policy research had its contradictions and controversies.
One contradiction was that food policy itself was an offshoot of industrial agriculture
research that was technology-based, resource intensive, large-scale food production
(Brundtland, 1987; Ericksen, 2007). Although industrial agriculture was a source to feed
starving people, it was not clear how to limit environmental harm from large-scale food
production (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). Further, it was unknown if policy fostered parity
between poor and rich countries that choose to exploit their natural resources or ignore
any responsibility to limit environmental harm (Blay-Palmer, 2009; Reynolds, 2009).
89
Another contradiction was that urban agriculture has its set of regulations for food
production (Wiskerke, 2009). There were clear tradeoffs associated with urban
agriculture as (Taylor Lovell, 2010). For instance, there are height and fire safety
regulations for rooftop farms (Taylor Lovell, 2010). Food sold from edible gardens
required construction regulations (raised beds, no railroad ties used in construction,
geotextile liner) (Taylor Lovell, 2010). Soil testing and food safety concerns were other
tradeoffs, and urban agriculture remains highly decentralized and informal (Taylor
Lovell, 2010).
Despite its variety in food production, it was unknown if urban agriculture had the
infrastructure to become a supplemental food source (Mukherji, 2009). Shared visioning,
political will, public sector support, and collective resources were infrastructures needed
to create a successful urban farm network (Chase, 2012; Dixon et al., 2009; Jarosz, 2008;
Taylor Lovell, 2010). Other contradictions were that permaculture had a holistic quality
that combined the invisible structures (culture, well-being), with the variety in food
production (urban farms, edible gardens) (Holmgren, 2002; Mariola, 2008). A
comprehensive urban farming network may need elements of both industrial agriculture
and permaculture.
Permaculture was associated with sustainable food production, organic and small-
scale agriculture (Blay-Palmer, 2009; Holmgren, 2002). Permaculture and urban
agriculture promoted flexible food production, but it was unknown if permaculture could
be the foundation of an urban farm network. Sustainable food production might generate
profit for urban farmers, but it was unknown if farmers could make a living selling food
90
to local vendors (Chase, 2012; Dixon et al., 2009). Further, it was unknown if
permaculture helped people change their eating habits to improve their overall health
(Andreatta et al., 2008). There is limited research on urban agriculture, which can be
problematic when trying to compare and evaluate its risks and rewards (Sonnino, 2009).
Urban agriculture research concerned specific types of small-scale agriculture, but a
holistic view may be more useful to understand the environmental, social, and health
benefits of urban agriculture (Sonnino, 2009).
Controversies: Vague food policy definitions. Historically, food policy was
laden with controversies from the beginning because of its vague concepts (Brundtland,
1987; Clemmitt, 2008; Godfray et al., 2010). For example, definitions for sustainability
and sustainable agriculture remained unclear even today: Sustainability means to balance
resources in nature, society, and the economy (Brundtland, 1987). The definition was
changed to mean a walkable, mixed-use housing community that provides jobs and limits
harm to nature (Corsin et al., 2007; paras. 1-10; www.newurbanism.org). Sustainable
agriculture had stable agricultural inputs (land, fuel) and outputs (food related activities)
(Hiranandani, 2010). But perhaps a vague definition of sustainability was a political
strategy that allowed governments to benefit from selective ignorance about sustainable
development (Brundtland, 1987). In addition, a comprehensive view may not be possible
because sustainable development relied on the unique food resources available in each
community (Brundtland, 1987).
Controversies: Tradeoffs in food planning. Controversies included tradeoffs in
land use and the use of public land for agriculture (Chase, 2012; Jarosz, 2008). An urban
91
farm on a vacant lot could attract pests and thieves, and soil contamination was common
in many cities (Sonnino, 2009). In another example, a large Northeastern city adopted
zoning laws for open space set aside for community gardens (Mukherji, 2009). A good
idea became controversial when too many people signed up to be community gardeners
(Mukherji, 2009). The controversy concerned land use limitations and failure to explore
other ways for people to become urban gardeners (Mukherji, 2009). In the end, city
officials’ effort to promote urban agriculture required more regulations to monitor soil
safety and testing, and programs to teach people how to be urban gardeners (Mukherji,
2009).
Controversies:Consumers and local food. Relative to industrial agriculture,
consumers believed that any local food was more energy efficient, often described as
romanticizing food (Mariola, 2008). But local food could potentially use more energy
than industrial agriculture. Farmers used more energy driving to multiple locations in
trucks half filled with produce, compared to driving to a centralized drop off location
(Mariola, 2008). In addition, consumers who bought local products may not necessarily
support local farmers and vendors (Peters et al., 2008). Large competitors such as Wal-
Mart Supercenters, access the global food network to bring food to local markets:
Consumers may be buying local food not grown by local farmers (Courtemanche &
Carden, 2011).
Urban agriculture and permaculture summary. Urban agriculture and
permaculture are food policies that shared controversies related to their patterns of
exclusivity (Taylor Lovell, 2010). Such patterns contradicted urban agriculture and
92
permaculture goals that tried to balance natural and human activities (Castell, 2009;
Holmgren, 2002; Kortright & Wakefield, 2011; Wiskerke, 2009). As such, food equity
might be secondary to other agricultural practices (Macias, 2008). Further, any political
support was a controversial but necessary feature of food systems (Blay Palmer, 2009;
Reynolds, 2009). For instance, in Beijing, China, the government supported a blended
urban agriculture model of organic farms, greenhouses, and public land preserved for
agriculture (Taylor Lovell, 2010).
In contrast, the former mayor in a large Northeastern city created an agency for
food initiatives. The agency decision makers set goals to develop new urban agriculture
rezoning regulations to promote an array of agricultural activities including urban
farming, beekeeping, and composting. However, the city’s long-time mayor retired in
2013, and it was uncertain how the city’s urban agriculture initiatives could evolve under
the new administration.
Organic agriculture. One controversy about organic agriculture was that it is
safe, healthy, and improves a food system (Avery & Avery, 2008). However, organic
agriculture was vulnerable to disease, local pests, and bad weather (Avery & Avery,
2008). Organic agriculture could not produce enough food for a large urban population
and genetically modified (GMOs) crops and industrial agriculture were the best choices
to fill the gap (Avery & Avery, 2008; Godfray et al., 2010). Other controversies included
consumer buying habits and organic food (Aertsens, Verbeke, Mondelaers, and Van
Huylenbroeck, 2009). Although consumers had a positive feeling about organic food,
people did not regularly buy organic food (Aertsens et al., 2009). A popular deterrent to
93
buying organic food was its high price: In Europe, consumers with more income bought
organic food, but in the United States, income was insignificant (Avery & Avery, 2008).
Opposing Views: Permaculture
In terms of food policy, permaculture deserved a special note. The literature
review had limited scholarly research on permaculture, and it was necessary to search for
other resources from online news sources, blogs, magazines, and social media for more
information.
Biomimicry and permaculture. Biomimicry was “a revolutionary new science
that analyzes nature’s best ideas and adapts them for human use” (Marshall & Lozeva,
2009, p. 1). At the same time, biomimicry was not new because humans have tried to
mirror systems in nature for a long time (Marshall & Lozeva, 2009). For instance, the
invention of Velcro mimicked the spiny burs from the cocklebur plant that attached to a
dog or clothing (Marshall & Lozeva, 2009). From this perspective, permaculture was “an
agricultural practice that aims to emulate native grasslands and bushland” (Marshall &
Lozeva, 2009, p. 2).
A criticism of permaculture was that projects designed with sustainable qualities
favored military research and funding (Marshall & Lozeva, 2009). In an effort to mimic
nature, technology-based projects had a negative or unsustainable effect on nature
(Marshall & Lozeva, 2009). Experts, rather than local people, controlled such projects
and by default, a global perspective prevailed at the local level, and such projects failed
to meet the needs of local communities (Marshall & Lozeva, 2009).
94
Further, permaculture values and principles were open to interpretation, and
people remain confused about how to apply these practices (Marshall & Lozeva, 2009).
However, remedies could be to provide a natural and social perspective to describe
sustainability; share knowledge between experts and people in the community; and
encourage decision-making between diverse stakeholders (Marshall & Lozeva, 2009).
Permaculture summary. Permaculture is a toolbox of strategies for people to
grow food in different ways (Harper, 2003). But permaculture was not a cult of vague
ideas and assumptions (Harper, 2003). As such, smart permaculture was an evolving idea,
supported urban food systems, and was a subject worthy of academic research (Marshall
& Lozeva, 2009).
Permaculture in the U.S. A literature review of permaculture in the U.S.
revealed that it was not a scholarly topic, and there was little communication between
environmental science and grassroots permaculture groups (Scott, 2010). Since
permaculture’s introduction in the 1980s, its principles remained static (Scott, 2010).
Current permaculture literature is outdated, without a central database, or a scholarly
primer for novice gardeners to learn about the subject (Scott, 2010).
In the U.S., permaculture supporters favored education over agriculture (Scott,
2010). For instance, in 2002 about 1,000 practitioners trained 100,000 people worldwide
on the general principles of permaculture (Scott, 2010). The training resource was the
Permaculture Activist magazine, which presented 69 workshops and 277 permaculture
projects in 2002, and articles written by permaculture trainers and practitioners (Scott,
95
2010). In the U.S. more than 100 farms used permaculture practices, but few were well
developed (Scott, 2010).
In addition, a literature review uncovered 49 peer-reviewed journals that
mentioned permaculture, 14 had permaculture articles, but articles on agroforestry, urban
vegetable gardening, energy, and sanitation barely mentioned permaculture (Scott, 2010).
The Permaculture Activist was not peer-reviewed, and between 1985 and 2005, there
were no citations: Much of the material was collected from blogs and popular literature,
rather than from scholarly journals (Scott, 2010).
Scott (2010) was a permaculture intern (2000 to 2008) for an established garden
in Wisconsin called the Dreamtime Village (Village). Scott developed the Urbana
Permaculture Project (UPP) and over time, the Village gained and lost community
gardens, changed from a public to a private garden, and increased its educational
programs. Eventually, UPP founders changed their focus to data analysis, and board
members included an engineer, architect, farmer, and a food coop manager. Scott noted
that the Urbana Permaculture Project began on leased land, but the original owner later
reclaimed the land. The Urbana Permaculture Project never purchased the land to develop
a farm, and Scott concluded that the decline of the UPP demonstrated that workshops
were easier to develop than the true practice of permaculture.
Permaculture of the future. Agriculture was a biological system created from
the processes and interactions of life (Noga, 2012). Contemporary large-scale agriculture
produces harmful effects in nature and humanity (Noga, 2012). Agriculture of the future
should be small scale and in large enough numbers to meet the food production needs of
96
tomorrow (Noga, 2012). For example, a collection of urban farms could potentially
become a supplemental food source. This collective should combine community well-
being, horticulture to cultivate plants for food and animal husbandry, with sustainable
buildings and community living (Hemenway, 2011).
People active in permaculture had the flexibility to avoid the hard decisions to
address the challenges in agriculture to produce high yielding crops, resource
consumption, and the environmental harm from animal waste and soil erosion (Noga,
2012). From a local perspective, permaculture was small and relied on local resources
including small-scale farms located near communities to allow easy access for consumers
(Noga, 2012). Marshall and Lozeva (2009), and Scott (2010) found similar patterns and
suggested that even after 20 years permaculture remained a minor phenomenon from a
global viewpoint.
Growing Power: A personal view. Harb (2010) described his personal
experiences as an intern with Growing Power (GP). The organization was a national
nonprofit that taught people about sustainable agriculture and the local food system in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Harb, 2010). Since 1993, GP’s charismatic founder, Will Allen,
was a recognized innovator in urban agriculture, and he expanded the GP model into low-
income areas in New York, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Colorado (Broadway, 2009).
In 2009, GP had over 20,000 pots of vegetables, mostly salad greens from its Merton
farm, a network of small family farms near Milwaukee (Broadway, 2009; Hughes, n.d.a,
n.d.b.). Growing Power’s urban agriculture included greenhouses, aquaponics, beehives,
97
worm and anaerobic composting, housing for poultry, rainwater recycling and a retail
store to sell produce to local vendors (Hughes, n.d.a, n.d.b.).
As an intern, Harb (2010) worked for two weeks at GP and spoke with 40
employees at the time of the blog. Topics included finances, greenhouse construction, job
satisfaction, logistics, and planning. A summary of Harb’s discussion included:
Logistics.Employees were ‘frustrated’ with GP’s management. Growing Power
was growing too fast with few infrastructures to accommodate its growth. With no
expansion goals, GP was “way in over its head.”
Community outreach. Growing Power received a $150,000 check from Chase
Bank to coordinate a partnership with the Milwaukee Public Schools. But the person
responsible for community outreach did not follow up, and the partnership never
developed.
Volunteer management. Volunteers from local school groups and Americorps
arrived daily at GP. However, it was not possible for 40 employees to handle multiple
volunteers and projects each day. Growing Power needed external help as it continued to
grow beyond its expectations. Each staff member had similar concerns about volunteer
management.
Harb (2010) met GP with founder Will Allen to share his insights. The author
wrote a letter to Allen based on employee feedback: Growing Power gained recognition
as the “best large-scale urban farm in the world,” but the nonprofit suffered from its
growing success. The burn out rate for GP employees was two years, and a high turnover
rate weakened GP’s infrastructure and value to the community (Harb, 2010). Allen’s
98
response to the letter was anger; he was an innovator and international role model. But
Harb suggested that GP needed restructuring and less micromanagement from Allen.
Delegating clear responsibilities and separating units for on-site and off-site activities
were possible solutions (Harb, 2010). The author presented an interesting perspective on
real world challenges of urban agriculture, and the importance of standardized processes.
Distinctive Food Policy Concepts
Romanticized food. A literature on consumers’ perceptions about local food
concerned the social factors of their buying habits (Hébert, 2011). In general, support for
local economies and small farmers influence consumer-buying decisions more than the
price of food (Hébert, 2011). Many consumers did not know if their food came from local
food systems or the global food network (Hébert, 2011). Even when people could not
identify local foods, they believed the local food was more sustainable or fresher and less
harmful to nature than food shipped across many miles (Hébert, 2011).
In addition, people romanticized food, and remained disconnected from their local
food source: Mariola (2008) described similar themes. Food system experts (agriculture
official, food policy researcher, community-supported agriculture manager) suggested
that local food had no objective value (Hébert, 2011). Overall, there was no clear
definition for local food and consumers buy food for any reason - if the food was on sale,
through word of mouth, or because of food branding (Hébert, 2011).
Lifestyle politics: Old and new. Since the 1800s, there have been social
movements around food. Several food movements called lifestyle politics were
consumer-based efforts to create social change (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010). Examples
99
included consumer boycotts against child labor to today’s buycott supporting Fair Trade
practices (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010). Older food movements included (a) food riots
popular during tie Colonial period and during the Great Depression of the 1930s, as a
protest against rising food prices (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010); (b) healthy food movement
advocates of the1830s and 1840s who encouraged people to cook homemade vegetarian
meals (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010); (c) pure food supporters of the 1890s and 1900s who
favored political reform for strong food safety regulation (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010).
New food movements included (a) the organic food movement (1960s to the
present) that was against pesticides and industrial agriculture and was now a profitable
niche market (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010); (b) the anti-GMO supporters (1980s to today)
favored stronger testing for health hazards in GMO crops, mandatory labeling of GMO
foods, and lobbying efforts (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010); (c) the locavore movement
(1990s to the present) included alternative sustainable agriculture such as urban farms,
local food systems, Slow Food, farmers’ markets, organic food, and small-scale
agriculture (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010); (d) technology-based food supporters promote
food loyalty using digital technologies such as flash mobs and social media used to draw
people into grassroots efforts around Transition Towns, social equity, and food safety
concerns (Haydu & Kadanoff, 2010).
However, remains unclear if lifestyle politics was a practical form of civic
engagement or if it would help or harm the process of social change, a question raised in
other studies (Johnston, 2008; Glickman, 2009; Nava 1991; Schudson, 2007; Shah,
McLeod, Friedland, and Nelson, 2007; Putnam, 2000, as cited by Haydu & Kadanoff,
100
2010). In addition, the new food movements were exclusive, and attracted wealthy
people, more than lower income people (Castell, 2009; Kortright &Wakefield, 2011;
Wiskerke, 2009).
Summary
Today’s primary food system is a collection of large-scale agriculture processes
(Zerbe, 2010). Traditional food policy research emerged from industrial agriculture based
on high volume food production, and unsustainable processes that harmed plants,
animals, and people (Wiskerke, 2009). This system is problematic because a complex
food supply chain, urbanization, and externalities from weather and unstable food prices
were potential threats to urban food systems worldwide (Morgan, 2009).
Major themes in the literature concerned food policy as a process open to many
ideas and solutions (Macias, 2008; Morgan, 2009; Taylor Lovell, 2010). However, one
model does not fit every community. Levels of agricultural were urban, industrial,
permaculture, and small-scale (Harper et al., 2009; Zerbe, 2010). Urban agriculture
practices are organic and food production is less harmful compared to industrial
agriculture, or technology-based, high volume food production (Lutz et al., 2010; Taylor
Lovell, 2010).
Food policies activities were formal infrastructures, social movements, and
informal food production (Mayer & Knox, 2009; Wiskerke, 2009; Zerbe, 2010). The
effect of food policies were contradictory and promoted social inequities such as limited
food choices in some communities compared to others (Hutson, 2001; Macias, 2008).
Policies such as upfront fees to gain access to fresh food were additional burdens for
101
people with limited incomes (Glosser et al. 2007; Hébert, 2011; Pothukuchi & Kaufman,
1999). Food policy was the framework to explore alternatives ways to grow food.
I explored food policies from a small-scale or mini agriculture point of view
through the literature review. The phenomenon in my study was the creation of an urban
farm network as a supplemental food source in a large Northeastern city. The advantage
of food policy lies in its range of ideas from agriculture, public policy, public health,
urban planning, research, and other disciplines. Food policy was a framework to study the
creation of an urban farm network. Urban agriculture included urban farms, community
gardens, and simple food production practices (Jarosz, 2008; Wiskerke, 2009).
Permaculture was less harmful to the ecosystem of plants, animals, and people: It added
the invisible structures of culture, food traditions, and community well-being that were
missing in food policy alone (Harper et al, 2009; Holmgren, 2002; Zerbe, 2010).
Urban farmers supported simple farming practices, add resilience through
sustainable agriculture and could be a supplemental food source for the city (Follett,
2009). Simple farming practices were very different and provide more food choices,
encourage people to participate in food production, and promote new markets for the
local food sector (Follett, 2009). I applied a case study approach to this qualitative study
explore the processes, qualities, and influence of an urban farm network in a large
Northeastern city.
Industrial agriculture remained the foundation for today’s global food network
(Brundtland, 1987). Some researchers questioned if large-scale agriculture could adapt to
processes that were less harmful to the ecosystem (Brundtland, 1987; Maxwell & Slater,
102
2003) While urban farms used organic agriculture, low food production might not serve
the needs of a large urban population (Avery & Avery, 2008; Godfray et al., 2010).
Permaculture had informal and unstructured practices, but it may not be possible to
design a complementary food source around agriculture that was too fluid (Blay-Palmer,
2009; Holmgren, 2002; Mariola, 2008). Permaculture may not have the ability to change
eating habits and help people improve their health (Andreatta et al. 2008; Sonnino, 2009)
City officials of the future may struggle with potential threats from urbanization,
limited space to grow food, weather extremes, and price instability (Lang, 2010; Morgan,
2009). Food policy should include local assets as a supplemental food source (Ericksen,
2007; Lee-Woolf (2009). My qualitative study on in alternative food production could fill
a gap in food policy literature. In Chapter 3, I examined the methodology and research
design for this process.
103
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
Food policy is an important public policy concern. Cities such as Vancouver,
Portland, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco are developing food strategies, and
local and regional food plans to feed their growing populations. As mentioned, the
American Planning Association released the Community and Regional Food Planning
Guide to encourage its members to re-evaluate the role of food as a basic infrastructure in
the city (Glosser, 2007).
My research explored a process to design an alternative food source in a large
Northeastern city. Urban farms could potentially evolve as a supplemental food source if
supported by adequate infrastructures, community interest, and political will. My study
provided an understanding of public policy in the context of urban agriculture, which is
food production in communities with limited space (Chase, 2012). My research intention
was to understand the phenomenon of the food-related activities needed to develop urban
farms as food source (Dixon et al., 2009).
Forward-thinking decision makers found that the relationships between food and
public policy (Hiranandani, 2010; Harper et al., 2009). A qualitative methodology would
guide the research question about the public policy limits and opportunities for a
supplemental food source for the city. The main sections of Chapter 3 were the research
rationale, methodology, data collection and data analysis plans, ethical procedures,
Institutional Review Board requirements and summary.
104
Further, I examined the main problem of long-term food production in the city.
Conditions that changed the quality of the food system included a dependence on one
type of agriculture, urbanization, and threats from weather extremes or civil unrest
(Ericksen, 2007; Kortright & Wakefield, 2011). As a result, food shortages could be a
reality (Ericksen, 2007). My research considered the phenomena of the interaction of
processes needed to create an urban farm network.
A case study approach was a reasonable choice to find the rich details to answer
the research question. My study on urban food policy applied the qualitative tradition and
was “relying on direct experience” of the participants as the foundation of qualitative
studies (Janesick, 2011, p. 24; Patton, 2002). In addition, Trochim and Donnelly (2007)
noted that this tradition included information that was meaningful to people. Data from
multiple sources could guide the meaning and understanding of the phenomenon. Other
qualitative traditions were possible, but my research used a case study approach to
understand the process to develop a supplemental food source for the city (Stake, 1995,
as cited by Patton, 2002).
Research Design and Rationale
Research question: What are the public policy limits and opportunities that
support urban farms as a supplemental food source?
Many urban food systems do not absorb the internal threats from urbanization, or
external shocks from weather extremes or infrastructures failures (UNFAO, 2011). The
traditional food system relied on industrial agriculture practices or technology-based
agriculture for high volume food production (Godfray et al., 2010; Ericksen, 2007). There
105
were several problems related to this type of food system including its centralized
infrastructure, ability to spread food borne diseases quickly, and there was no alternative
food resource if the system failed (Maxwell & Slater, 2003; Zerbe, 2010). In relation to
public policy, food policies offered alternative solutions to the challenges of a complex
food system (Dunn, 2004).
A case study approach favored a broad understanding of food policies for an
urban farm network (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007). Data collection included material from
interviews, field notes, archival records, and qualitative research favored exploration to
find solutions to real-world problems (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2009). In my study, the
phenomena were the food-related activities and processes that support an urban farm
network. Such activities were called as (a) agriculture, either organic or commercial
farming; (b) economic as food branding or consumer buying choices; and (c) structural
as land use or zoning laws (Maxwell & Slater, 2003). An urban farm network was the
setting to explore these interactions and the creation of a supplemental food source for the
city (Dixon et al., 2009).
In my study, I defined a supplemental food source as small-scale agriculture
(Jarosz, 2008; Wiskerke, 2009). Examples included informal infrastructures such as Slow
Food or Fair Trade, and formal infrastructures known as food policy councils and
regional food planning boards (Hiranandani, 2010; Harper et al., 2009). Niche markets
that supported local growers, food trucks, or farmers’ markets were also supplemental
food sources (Jarosz, 2008; Zerbe, 2010). As such, my study explored urban farming as a
supplemental food source.
106
Problems in the public domain need decision makers with a multidisciplinary
focus (Dunn, 2004). In general, the process to develop a supplemental food source could
be a small, continuous change rather than a large, discontinuous change (Dunn, 2004).
Good policy is the result of strong data collection from different sources, sound analysis,
and realistic policy recommendations (Dunn, 2004). As such, the rationale for my study
was to present a framework that described events in their natural setting within a stated
time, place, and condition (Patton, 2002).
Role of the Researcher
As the primary data collection instrument, my role as a researcher was to record
details of events. The role is dynamic but should remain neutral, avoid bias and undue
influence (Patton, 2002). For instance, participant observation could “simultaneously
combine document analysis, interviewing of respondents and informants, direct
participation and observation, and introspection” (Denzin, 1978b: 183, as cited by Patton,
2002, p. 265). However, the researcher’s role had a weakness in the potential for bias if
the researcher changed an event or participant behavior. The research questions were
vague, or the participant said what they thought the researcher wanted to hear were other
concerns (Yin, 2009). Further, I should have a clear purpose, time limits, and maintain a
scope that was either wide (an overview) or narrow (a small part of the event) Patton,
2002). More importantly, I should be aware of what was not said, or what did not happen.
The use of multiple data sources could avoid the risk of bias.
My study provided opportunities to collect data from different settings. For
instance, one setting could be a typical office environment for interviews, private areas,
107
offices, conferences and meeting rooms for formal and informal conversations. The
office setting had space for each interview, be comfortable for the participant, and
accommodate audio recording equipment. There may be some email communications or
phone interviews if needed. Another setting might include onsite visits to urban farms,
rooftop or hydroponic farms, and community gardens. Although the natural environment
presented opportunities to watch participants and collect rich details about urban farming
practices, there were no observations in my study.
The sample participants included stakeholders in the public, private, nonprofit,
community groups, and academic sectors. The sample contained approximately 15 to 20
people (three or four from each sector) and continued until saturation was reached.
Additional participants for this study came from my professional network and people
active in some area of sustainability and food policy. Such activities could be urban
agriculture, urban farming, planning, public policy, community development, recycling,
and green roofs. Other participants might be involved in conferences on urban agriculture
and urban farming, and interviews might include city government officials and other state
and local professionals.
My overall network was wide enough to gain access to people and information
from different sectors. There may be personal relationships within this group, but I
remained neutral and professional throughout the study. There were no concerns about
supervisory relationships since workplace participants were not included in my study.
LinkedIn, dissertation support groups, craigslist.org, meeting minutes from public forums
such as the city’s food program, or the state Food Policy Council could be other resources
108
to find participants. Each participant received a Letter of Introduction that outlined the
purpose and goals of the study, length of the interviews, communication preferences, and
timeframe to reply to the letter. As mentioned, I used a snowball sampling procedure to
reach a saturation point.
Other sources of names included material from urban agriculture conferences,
seminars, and workshops. For example, a scholarly lecture series on food in the urban
landscape provided the biographies of panelists and speakers who were potential
participants. The series presented an overview of problems in the urban food system. The
speakers’ biographies, website information, handouts, and program information were
helpful to determine if a person fit the sampling criteria.
Methodology
The qualitative tradition was selected as a scholarly resource with the tools
needed for my study. Interviews, recordings, and document analysis could support
meaningful ideas described by participants (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007). Data collected
from multiple sources could explain the research problem (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007). I
reviewed each qualitative approach to determine their fit for a study about creating a
supplemental food source. For instance, I reviewed the purpose, goals, and research
question to refine the search for the best qualitative method for my study (Patton, 2002;
Trochim & Donnelly, 2007; Yin, 2009). Finally, I selected the case study as “the study of
the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within
important circumstances” (Stake, 1995, as cited by Patton, 2002).
109
A summary of other qualitative methods included ethnography that evolved from
anthropology, in the context of the culture of a social group (Patton, 2002; Trochim &
Donnelly, 2007). Ethnography did not fit my study because the focus was a process that
could potentially contribute to local food policy, and the culture of the community was a
secondary concern (Patton, 2002). Grounded theory is a collection of ideas (field notes,
new information) that expand the original concept. However, Patton, Trochim, and
Donnelly suggested that grounded theory was not suited for a study on the processes or
activities related to food policy.
A narrative is a collection of stories that recognized the life and culture of one
person (Patton, 2002). A narrative study relied on one data source. However, research on
a supplemental food source needed multiple data sources. Phenomenology described
“how the world appears to others” (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007, p. 180). According to
Patton, meaning, essence, structure, and the lived experience described the focus of
phenomenology. My study on the processes to create a supplemental food source was not
a lived experience. The case study approach was the logical choice as a means to explore
an activity or event. Data collection included various sources to find answers to the
questions concerning the opportunities, limitations, and potential for urban farms to
become a supplemental food source (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007, Yin, 2009).
The sample size included three or four people from the public, private, nonprofit,
and academic sectors to recruit approximately 15 to 20 people a manageable sample size
(Patton, 2002). In addition, validity, meaningfulness, and insights were more a feature of
the data collection process than the actual sample size (Patton, 2002). For example,
110
potential stakeholder titles included: (a) senior managers from the state urban agriculture
program, urban planning, and economic development; (b) senior and mid-level managers
for nonprofits that operate urban farms and provide training for new farmers; (c)
entrepreneurs and small commercial growers from the private sector; and (d)
coordinators, program managers, and students involved in food policy, sustainable
agriculture, and food system planning at universities in the northeast and the northwest.
A small, carefully selected sample could offer the rich, in-depth details needed to
answer the research question. Participant criteria depended on a person’s knowledge and
skills in urban agriculture. More specifically, the participant criteria might include
knowledge and skills about food-related policies, planned any food production project, or
contributed as a participant or presenter at a conference, workshop, or seminar on
growing food in the city. Other experience included implementing a formal plan,
strategy, or program related to urban food production, gardeners experienced in growing
food at home, urban farms, community gardens, or other similar activities. In addition,
researchers in food policy, urban agriculture, food systems, or food policy councils may
fit this criterion. I used a snowball sampling procedure to reach the saturation point.
Participant recruitment. The recruitment process applied a snowball sampling
procedure. Each participant received an introduction letter that described the purpose of
the study, an invitation to participate, the selection criteria, time commitment, and the
possible benefits of the study to their profession (Yin, 2009). The consent form outlined
all researcher and participant expectations and options to end the study at any time. As
mentioned, data collection included multiple sources. Yin suggested that alternative
111
theories and rich details from multiple sources could create a sound data collection
strategy.
Data sources may include interviews about events and processes, and document
analysis of organizational plans, meeting minutes, research documents, government
reports, letters, or emails (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2009). Archival records of public
documents, charts, budgets, or survey data, as well as online videos, blogs, news releases,
audio recordings, and public comments were other sources (Yin, 2009). My study relied
primarily on interviews and some documents.
Data Collection
My data collection plan described each source in the context of the research
question. Further discussion included the frequency of data collection, duration, data
recording process, debriefing sessions, and any follow-up interviews. In addition to the
data collection plan, coding results, explanation building, theme comparison, interview
protocol, and the audio recording log was included in this section (Yin, 2009).
Sample interview questions were:
xWhat is your idea of food policy and can you give an example?
xWhat activities in your job focus on the food system in the city? Can you
describe those activities?
xWhat are some of the food policies challenges you see in the city?
xWhere do you see the gaps in the food system in the city?
xWhat are your ideas to fill the gaps?
112
xWhat role to you see for urban agriculture and how does it fit the food policy
plans for the city?
xDo you see any threats to the food system in the city? If so, please describe
them.
xWhat are the public policy risk and reward you see in designing a
supplemental food source for the city?
xHow does your organization address some of these threats?
xWhat do you think about small-scale, locally based solutions to supplement
the food system in the city?
xHow might our local government support your organization in a sustainable
urban farming effort?
xWhat is your vision for a sustainable food system in the city?
A data collection plan was the starting point to determine what data was needed to
answer the research question (Yin, 2009). Rich details and alternative theories might be
revealed through distinctive data collection strategies (Yin, 2009). Yin suggested four
data sources:
Interviews. This data could provide detailed materials to answer the research
questions. Although a primary data source, interviews were supported by other data
resources (Yin, 2009). The three types of interviews were in-depth (ask about events and
opinions of participants), focused (short, conversational), or based on a survey (to
produce quantitative data) (Yin, 2009). My study included people with experience
(design, implement, contribute, planning) in urban agriculture. I planned to recruit 15 to
113
20 people, with a realistic expectation that half of them would participate. The interviews
would be in person, by phone, or electronically if needed, over four to six weeks for
approximately one hour. All participants signed consent forms that described the
expectations and an option to leave the study at any time. I scheduled additional time for
another interview if needed. My research notes would supplement the recorded and
transcribed data.
Documents. Organizational plans, meeting minutes, reports, conference papers,
research documents, government reports, letters, and emails were samples of potential
data sources, as well as a research journal (Patton, 2002). Some of the documents were
online, and local libraries and newspapers were other resources (Yin, 2009). The
document analysis and timeline for completion followed the interview process. Further,
many documents were written for a specific audience, and they may be less than truthful
(Yin, 2009). I was aware of these objectives and potential biases, and read between the
lines when interpreting data from any document.
Observations. Two types of observations were direct (formal, in a natural setting)
and indirect (casual or informal). Internal meetings, public forums, town hall meetings,
conferences, workshops, seminars, videos, and other social settings were opportunities
for observations. I reviewed materials from past lectures, conferences, and meetings, as
well as notes from conversations and informational interviews with people in food
planning, public policy, and urban agriculture. The observation period depended on the
length of the meeting or observation activities. Patton (2002) suggested taking notes on
the physical surroundings and described the activities as they unfold.
114
Archival records. These data included public or government documents, charts,
budgets, company records, or survey data (Yin, 2009). Archival data could be
quantitative but not necessarily accurate. My data collection plan helped me decide if
material was relevant. As mentioned, archival records can serve an objective for a
specific audience, and may not be accurate. I drafted a schedule and reviewed archival
records along with the document analysis. Journal notes were also another data source.
The follow up plan for each data source was flexible to accommodate more time for
interviews, documents, and archival records reviews.
Content validity (measures the content it was intended to measure) relied on rich,
thick description from interviews, and document analysis. According to Trochim and
Donnelly (2007) and Yin (2009), validation strategies included triangulation, data
collection from different sources, pattern matching, chain of evidence, and member
checking based on the participants’ point of view. However, I recognized that the
participant views were subjective, and needed support from document reviews and
common themes.
Data sufficiency was determined when the information can answer, support, and
challenge the research questions (Yin, 2009). Overall, data was adequate when there was
enough material to answer the research question. A focus on thick descriptions from
various data sources favored transferability. Patton (2002) noted that transferability
applied similar findings to different contexts, but case studies had limited transferability.
For my study, transferability was contained only to cities similar to a large Northeastern
city in climate, population, agricultural resources, and political support. As such, I can
115
only speculate on the transferability of urban farms as a supplemental food source in
communities outside of a large Northeastern city. However, more information was
available after the data analysis.
My ability to integrate new data further supported dependability (Patton, 2002).
Data from alternative theories, other explanations, and an audit trail were other means of
dependability. In addition, Yin (2009) suggested reviewing data through triangulation
processes such as data triangulation based on various data sources, and investigator
triangulation using different evaluators. Other processes included theory triangulation
that reviewed the same data from other points of view, and methodological triangulation
using various methods. While triangulation was not a new process, Krefting (1991)
recommended coding the data multiple times to compare the results (double coding) as
part of the triangulation process (as cited by Baxter and Jack, 2008).
Data Analysis
The search for solutions to public problems is a holistic process of interconnected
and inseparable parts of a larger system (Dunn, 2004). In other words, any supplemental
food source was also part of the overall food system. Therefore, data collection should be
robust and include multiple sources. Data analysis included transcriptions of audio
recordings of interviews and feedback from participant debriefings (Dunn, 2004).
Transcript analysis involved a search for common themes and patterns of words and
ideas. Journals, reflection logs, interview logs, and organizational documents were part of
the analysis (Yin, 2009). My coding process used HyperResearch software to organize
words, themes, ideas, and patterns, and I manually coded the transcripts twice.
116
Issues of Trustworthiness
My plan for trustworthiness was to maintain a neutral perspective and keep an
open mind. The goal of my study was to develop an understanding of the situation, not to
prove or predict the outcome (Patton, 2002). I included multiple points of view and
recorded the data exactly as it happened. Further, I evaluated and reviewed the reporting
process for possible biases and mistakes (Patton, 2002). Trustworthiness involved
reflection and examining any personal views as expressed in interview logs, journals, and
the research diary.
Yin (2009) recommended a credibility strategy that included data analysis to find
patterns and themes from interviews and documents. For my study, I used explanation
building to understand how and why results occurred (Yin, 2009). In addition, I asked
interview questions and looked for documents that provided the rich, thick descriptions to
address transferability (Patton, 2002). To demonstrate dependability, I triangulated and
compared data from different sources such as historical documents, and interviews to
adequately describe the process to develop an urban farm network (Trochim & Donnelly,
2007). Further, an external auditor also evaluated the data for confirmability and
dependability (Patton, 2002).
In addition, I planned to gain a holistic and useful understanding of data by
applying the triangulation process discussed under the Data Collection section of this
chapter. Applying data from different sources favored a holistic understanding of the
phenomenon of my research: The interaction of processes that created an urban farm
network (Baxter & Jack, 2008). I ensured trustworthiness in several ways: (a) interview
117
different stakeholders in an organization to gain a broad perspective of the situation. The
preliminary interviews with mid-level staff provided useful information in drafting the
interview questions for senior staff. Rubin and Rubin (1995) noted that overlapping of
narratives was a useful means to check and compare information; (b) develop a priority
list of preliminary interviews with mid-level decision makers (managers, program
coordinators) to gain background information. A secondary list also included senior staff;
(c) use document analysis to check and double check data from interviews. I organized
the data by themes, keywords, situations, or other common elements (Rubin & Rubin,
1995); (d) carefully prepare follow-up questions to guide the interview. For instance,
wording of the questions could help the participant and not make them feel
uncomfortable. Rubin and Rubin suggested using phrases such as “What types of
challenges did you experience?” rather than “Why didn’t that work?” The purpose was to
avoid implications of problems or blame on the participant (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, pp.
224-225); (e) find the background information needed to understand a challenge or
situation. I reminded the participant that the interview was anonymous and should talk
honestly about a challenge or situation (Rubin & Rubin, 1995); (f) use honest and
descriptive language. (Patton, 2002). My obligation involved personal reflections and
perspectives on the situation. It is up to the reader to decide on the meaning, value, and
use of the research outcomes (Patton, 2002). Therefore, I carefully evaluated the terms,
context, and conditions in understanding a process.
I assigned a pseudonym or number to protect the participant’s identity. The
Letters of Introduction and consent forms also contained this information. Electronic and
118
offsite storage will protect all data collected for this research. Storage of all data
including hard copies, flash drives, and audio tapes, will remain in a locked file cabinet
for five years as suggested by the Institutional Review Board.
Ethical Procedures
The participant Letter of Introduction (LOI) described the purpose of the study
and expectations of the participants and researcher. The LOI requested access to
participants and any site visits. The LOI included a timeline or schedule based on the
availability of participants, site access, and myself. I saved copies of the LOI
electronically. Snowball or chain sampling required more than one round of interviews,
the first round with the critical stakeholders, and the second round with the people
identified by the key stakeholders (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007). If needed, a third round
of interviews could identify additional key stakeholders.
The second agreement was an informed consent form stating the confidentiality
matters, related rewards and risks of participation, and any ethical concerns. Yin (2009)
suggested additional explanations concerning voluntary participation including the
participant’s option to withdraw from the study at any time, refusal to answer any
question, participant and researcher expectations, and the selection criteria of all
participants.
As outlined in Walden University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) application,
the LOI and consent forms underscored the need for transparency, participant and data
protection, and the importance of communicating any concerns with the researcher.
Participants who completed the study had debriefing sessions to revise and correct their
119
interview transcript. There were no community partners in this study, and the IRB
application did not include Letters of Cooperation. The data collection process began
after I received written IRB approval.
I respected the wishes and requests of all participants. Any participants did not
have to answer any questions if they felt uncomfortable. The data collection proceeded
exactly as described in the IRB application. Participants may initially agree to
confidentiality, but some material might not remain confidential when published in the
summary (Patton, 2002). As mentioned, the participants had an assigned number or
pseudonym, and all names remained anonymous. Pseudonyms and alphanumeric coding
could ensure anonymity and confidentiality.
All data were stored electronically in separate locations. A locked file cabinet
housed all hard copies, audiotapes, documents, flash drives, and archival materials for at
least five years, as recommended in the Institutional Review Board application (Patton,
2002). I addressed the ethical concerns such as building a rapport with participants and
avoiding making promises lightly. For instance, I used my personal and professional
networks as a sampling resource. A participant might ask to delete information from the
recorded interview (Janesick, 2011). I could refer them to the LOI which outlined the
importance of anonymity. All participant identities remained anonymous and protected,
and there was no need to delete any data.
Most likely, I had a rapport with the participant, and expected a response to my
interview request. I reminded the person about the expectations of the study that were
outlined in the Letter of Introduction, including what can and cannot be confidential.
120
While the participant could refuse to answer any questions, it was my professional
responsibility to record all data accurately, and assure the person that their identity would
remain anonymous.
Another ethical concern was to assure that the language in my study was
understandable to all participants. I found an outside person (committee members, local
administrators, experts in food policy) to be a sounding board to review the research
questions and to address any ethical problems that might arise (Janesick, 2011). Other
concerns may be the possible risks and liability of all participants, such as a breach in
confidentiality, or too much information that could identify the participant or their
organization. I planned to avoid these risks by maintaining anonymity in all field notes,
journals, and transcripts. All raw data was password protected, safely stored, and job
descriptions were generic to retain participant confidentiality (Fritz, 2008). My workplace
was not part of this study, and any conflict of interest concerns were eliminated.
The nature of my exploratory study was to expand ideas of food policy for future
research (Yin, 2009). This element was parallel to the research purpose, to understand the
food policy interactions in creating an urban farm network. The relationships between
food policy, public policy, urban agriculture, urban farming, and permaculture were
speculative at best, as there are many known and unknown processes in building a
network. According to Trochim and Donnelly (2007) qualitative research favored
exploration and a diversity of ideas. For example, an urban farm network may address
new food policy research regarding the transferability of urban farms in small
121
neighborhoods and communities, rather than the overall urban landscape (Randolph &
Eronen, 2006).
My study can included a presentation of tables, graphs, charts, and described a
chronology of events (Yin, 2009). Data collection from interviews, documents, and
archival records included coding, explanation building, and comparing and contrasting
themes. Other presentations included a case study protocol, codebook, and database.
Discrepant material (divergent, convergent) was part of the data analysis. For instance,
complex pattern matching could explain alternate theories, reveal conflicting outcomes,
and build a holistic view for designing an urban farm network in the city (Yin, 2009).
Any discrepant cases revealed different perspectives and outliers. Yin suggested
backtracking to evaluate the definitions of initial and subsequent codes. The process
could assure that the initial definitions were still meaningful throughout the research
design.
Summary
My qualitative research examined the public policy implications for a
supplemental food source. The main points of this chapter explored food policy solutions
for a complementary food source in a large Northeastern city. As a blueprint to examine
the research questions, the case study approach applied multiple data sources to support
validity and dependability (Yin, 2009). The data collection plan included purposeful
sampling and careful selection of participants for a series of open-ended, conversational
interviews. Criteria for sampling selection included participant experience in urban
agriculture, urban farming, urban planning, and implementation strategies to produce
122
food in a community. Trochim and Donnelly (2007) noted that the value of qualitative
research lies in its variety and exploratory nature.
The data analysis could address different theories, evaluate details from multiple
data sources, and interview transcripts for themes and rich descriptions. My analysis
supported trustworthiness to accurately reflect the potential to develop an urban farm
network in a large Northeastern city (Yin, 2009). In addition, my data presentation
included a chain of evidence in data collection, coding and organizing all data in tables,
maps, graphics, and in chronological order.
Ethical procedures followed IRB approval prior to any data collection, well-
designed consent forms, and secure treatment and storage of all data (Patton, 2002). All
procedures including data collection timeline, and case study protocol, were available in
the Appendix section of this study, or saved electronically. Other details identified any
professional and personal relationships and researcher biases. My study might fill a gap
in public policy literature by exploring the role of urban farming in local food policy.
These urban farms could potentially offer a supplemental food source for a large
Northeastern city. My interpretation and a summary of the findings were presented in
Chapter 4.
123
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The purpose of my research was to explore policies that limit or expand urban
farms as a secondary food source in a large Northeastern city in the United States. In
addition, my study examined food-related activities such as food policies, procurement,
food production, farming practices, and technology-based agriculture. I used the
embedded case study approach (multiple units of analysis) to understand food policy
concepts in urban farming. Urban agriculture, permaculture, and alternative food systems
are examples of food policies related to urban farming (Dixon, Donati, Pike, Hattersley,
2009). According to Chase (2012) and Holmgren (2002), urban agriculture was the
overall food policy for food production. Permaculture is a type of small-scale agriculture
best suited for city living (Holmgren, 2002). Alternative food systems included food-
related activities (Andreatta et al., 2008). In my study, urban farms were alternative food
systems that support environmental, social, and economic sustainability (Andreatta et al.,
2008). Understanding these concepts helped me to answer the research question on the
public policy limits and opportunities the support urban farms as a supplemental food
source. I described the setting, demographics, data collection process, data analysis,
evidence of trustworthiness, results, and summary in Chapter 4.
Setting and Conditions
The setting for my research was the public, private, nonprofit, and academic
sectors. Each sector was selected based on its role in urban agriculture. For example, the
public sector included key food policy decision makers while the nonprofit sector
124
managed many urban farms. The private sector included the business and entrepreneurial
element of urban agriculture, and the academic sector represented research, technology,
and formal food policy programs. Collectively, these sectors provided a snapshot of the
urban agriculture and urban farming landscape in a Northeastern city.
The organizational conditions in the public sector include personnel changes as a
new governor appointed new commissioners, secretaries, and other cabinet posts
throughout state government. These changes were significant because the leading
stakeholder in the state agriculture department (known as an important supporter of urban
agriculture), was replaced after eight years. Long-term food policies, zoning laws, and the
city’s urban agriculture plan may also be in transition. A similar transition occurred in
city government when a new mayor was elected. For instance, the head of the city’s food
projects was replaced, also a key supporter of urban agriculture in this Northeastern city
and a founding member of the city’s urban agriculture plan. In addition, the state is
developing a food system plan for a snapshot of agriculture processes in regions
statewide. In the end, there will need to be new networks, partnerships, and alliances
between the new city and state stakeholders in urban agriculture and urban farming.
The organizational conditions in the private sector supported a relatively small
segment of the food landscape. For example, there are less than 25 urban farms in this
Northeastern city, most operated by nonprofits, compared to over 6,000 conventional
farms across the state. Market demands, a targeted customer base, and distribution
streams were critical in this sector. Public grants or foundation support was not an option
in this sector, unless a commercial business had a nonprofit unit, or perhaps if the
125
business was a social enterprise. My study included two types of commercial farms and a
mobile food market structured as a social enterprise. In this sector, technology and
agriculture were a means to expand urban farming that could include rooftops,
aquaponics, hydroponics, or raised bed gardens. Overall, this sector was small because
public and private investments favored the nonprofit sector over commercial urban
farming.
In this Northeastern city, conditions favored the nonprofit sector as the domain of
urban farms. The primary mission of most nonprofits was to help society by housing the
homeless, providing youth programs, or helping the sick. In addition, urban farming was
another program supported by many nonprofits as a way to grow their food, teach others
to grow food, provide job skills, or improve community well-being. City and state
officials supported nonprofits in different ways. For instance, nonprofits could buy or
lease city land at a substantial discount, receive public funding through grants, and
participate in food policy and zoning decision-making. Nonprofits were active in
planning urban agriculture projects, public-private partnerships, and included in an
extensive network of resources across different sectors. As such, nonprofits evolved into
the primary source of urban farms in this Northeastern city.
Academic stakeholders provided a way to explore technology and sustainable
agriculture practices. The conditions in this sector supported new processes to grow food
through aquaponics, vertical farms, greenhouses, and educational programs in
environmental science, food culture, food system planning, and nutrition. This sector is
also critical to the urban agriculture network as a research partner for local governments,
126
and nonprofits. Stakeholders in this sector revealed that while some programs were very
popular (food culture, environmental science, urban agriculture) career choices were
limited.
Demographics
The population of this Northeastern city was approximately 600,000. There was
limited public land available to grow food in the city. According to Participant 5:
“There are a total of 2,646 publicly owned vacant parcels, but many of them are at
the micro level. Public land that exceeds 10,000 square feet (one-quarter acre),
there are 717 of those, for a total acreage of 564 acres.”
Most urban farming projects were located in communities where people from Ireland,
Vietnam, Haiti, Cape Verde, and the Caribbean live. These ethnic communities were
historically and culturally diverse and low-income. Nonprofits that had urban farm
programs also had a well-established reputation, a definite presence, and were well
known to people in these communities. There was a keen interest in farming from
immigrant populations, and new farmers might include urban, suburban, and rural
communities.
Stakeholders included public officials in agriculture, urban and regional planning,
community economic development, environmental protection, food system planning, and
related food policy projects in city and state government. Private sector stakeholder
represented commercial businesses (for-profit urban farmers) and a social enterprise
business (mobile food market). I excluded retail vendors such as food trucks and
restaurants since they did not fit the parameters of my study. Nonprofit stakeholders
127
included organizations that served the food needs of urban communities. Sample groups
had programs on urban farming (grow food for themselves, to sell, donate, teach others to
grow food), and included a land trust and a farmers market group. Academic stakeholders
represented various roles. For instance, some universities focused on food policy, were
active in food-related projects in their communities, or had resources to explore
sustainable agriculture to grow food in different ways.
The political landscape in this Northeastern city was that the former mayor was a
loyal supporter of urban agriculture and passed the City Ordinance (Ordinance). Officials
described the Ordinance as the document that changed zoning regulations and identified
standards for urban agriculture practices within city limits. Rezoning changes included
public land for growing food, on the ground and above ground, technology-based
agriculture, farm-to-school programs, and beekeeping. The state agriculture department
has an urban agriculture division and a state-run food policy council. As mentioned, these
practices and programs were in transition as the result of a new city and state
administration in 2014. For example, the new governor recently signed a $2 billion
environmental bill. Some of those funds were for grants through the state’s agriculture
department. But there was also a government-wide hiring freeze. It would delay hiring
new staff to expand the state’s urban agriculture program. At the same time, the new
mayor announced the first urban farm under the new Ordinance for commercial farming.
See Table 1 for definitions used in each sector.
128
Table 1
Definitions by Sector
Sector Urban agriculture Urban farming Sustainable agriculture
Public sector “Growing food in the
city for commercial
purposes” (Participant
1)
“If you want to call
it agriculture if you
want to call it
farming, it can fall
into commercial or
non-commercial
[farming]’
(Participant 1)
“Growing practices that
maintain the ecological
health of the land…and
address a livable wage for
farm workers”
(Participant 13)
Nonprofit
sector
“Agricultural
practices that enrich
the land…the
growers, neighbors,
people who buy the
food” (Participant 20)
“Connect people to
the process of
growing food.”
(Participant 17)
“Take ownership of your
community, to build more
community feeling.”
(Participant 8)
Private sector “Very intensive
agricultural
practices…growing
on really small
amounts of land and
…understanding pest
control, rotations, very
intensive planting.”
(Participant 14)
“Commercial
production levels
for home
consumption”
(Participant 11)
“The nonprofit sector and
the private sector…food
lends itself to good
people that are genuine in
their mission to do
whatever it is that they’re
doing, whatever element
of food system
sustainability there is.”
(Participant 19).
Academic
sector
“A social, cultural
tool, a way to build
community”
(Participant 5)
“Any food that is
grown in those
areas [city].not
necessarily
produced for sale
or consumption.
(Participant 9)
“Development of
food…in a way that is not
detrimental to the long-
term health of …the
environment” (Participant
5)
129
Data Collection
Twenty participants were included in my study representing different points of
view in the food landscape in a Northeastern city. I reached the maximum sample size
(20) and included participants from the public, nonprofit, private, and academic or
education sectors. I conducted most of the interviews from my home office in the
Southeast region of the state, and one recorded off site in a small room. The length of the
interviews was between 45 to 60 minutes. I recorded 18 interviews and two people
requested an email interview. All participants agreed to the audio-taped interviews. The
participants received their interview transcripts to review, made corrections, and returned
them to me.
In Chapter 3, I predicted that the interviews would be in person, but most of them
(18) were phone interviews to save time for the participants, and they were easier to
arrange. Also, the Letters of Consent was signed electronically. The interviews were
predicted to occur over four to six weeks, but they were completed between November
30, 2014 and January 24, 2015. Finally, there were no observations made in my study.
Occasionally, there were technical problems on the speakerphone. Otherwise, conditions
were normal during data collection. My study was approved (Walden University’s
approval number for this study is 11-10-14-0118647 and it expires on November 9, 2015)
before any data collection was performed.
Data Analysis
My analysis began with a first round of reading the transcripts to develop a
cursory and extensive list of codes using HyperResearch software. The first round of
130
coding the transcripts produced an exhaustive list of codes. A second coding round was
used to organize the coding units into larger themes and patterns again using
HyperResearch, and the transcripts were re-coded. As a result, the data was organized
into five categories: Policy and Planning, Agricultural Activities, Processes - Food
Sources, Trends, and Outliers. Themes within the categories were Local Food and Land
Policy, Food Production, Procurement, Innovation and Creativity, and Outliers.
Many codes were repeated and an iterative process further narrowed the list to
three themes. The final themes were Local Food and Land Policy, Food Production, and
Procurement, with a final list 49 codes. Next, I used HyperResearch to design a word
cloud of the 50 most popular words, and then used the cloud to check if any new words
appeared. The common words were urban, farm, people, food, and agriculture, and the
pattern agreed with the codes revealed in the transcripts. I did not discover any new ideas
the word cloud, and believed that the coding process was adequate.
Prior to the data collection process, my committee chair suggested that I send a
list of sample interview questions to decision makers in different areas of food policy.
The suggestion was an important step to get feedback on the questions, and I learned that
each sector had its unique language. Although the interview process was intentionally
open-ended, I tailored the questions for each sector.
For example, when talking to participants from the nonprofit sector, the interview
question was: What are some of the gaps you see in the city’s food system? “Poor access
to unprocessed foods, and poor utilization of empty or under used areas.” (Participant 8).
A response to the question: What is the mission of your work? was
131
“The original purpose of the organization was to help support the initiation of
farmers markets in order to provide a retail option for farmers to transition out of
wholesale into retailing. And we’ve essentially accomplished that mission and
have transitioned our focus now to doing things that are more related to health and
wellness in general.” (Participant 2).
When asked about the long-term goals for a private company (described as a social
enterprise business) Participant 19 revealed:
“Like I said for the company to grow, the highest level objective for [Our] Truck
is to get it to a place where we can transition it with a larger organization that can
really accelerate our impact…And other than that, our mission is simple, we’re
just trying to feed people. It’s bottom line, we’re selling fruits from a truck, we’re
trying to feed people too and improve community health.”
Concerning policy work in the academic sector, Participant 16 said:
“Yeah, I have been doing the policy track learning about the history of food
policy in the United States and where it has the potential to go, and what private
and public groups are doing to make changes to work within food systems or
develop new food systems.”
When asked about the changing agricultural landscape in the city, a public sector
participant replied:
“You know, unique and non-traditional partnerships have to be formed to really
get these things on the ground, and I think that is really the only way the
movement is going to continue in [the city]. Because you know, it’s [the city] and
132
there’s just so much pressure for development and innovation in all sorts of
different areas of development. So if we don’t gobble up these big parcels, they’ll
be gone. So not to sound doomsday or anything, but I definitely think that we
have a good foundation, let’s use it.”(Participant 3).
Although policy concerns were central to my study, funding and space limitations in the
city were the common responses. The interview questions about gaps in the overall food
system prompted a series of replies from each sector:
“I mean, if you accept that there are any gaps. It’s really a case of available
funding, available land, and there’s other things we’d like to see in the future. But
we’re just trying to foster as much innovation as possible.” (Participant 15, Public
sector).
“Just looking more generally at the food system, looking at the urban agriculture
component of it, as I mentioned before, the availability of land, and the lack of
capital for urban farmers to buy or create those farms, is the biggest challenge to
urban farming right now.” (Participant 5, Nonprofit sector).
“And so at the end of 2012, we had a signed lease for 10 years at that building,
and zero money in the bank. So we did a crowdfunding campaign through
Kickstarter which helped pay for the initial installation of the farm.” (Participant
11, Private sector).
“I worked in nonprofits for a long time…and the way that nonprofits are funded
these days can be very, very frustrating. Because a lot of these foundations all
they want is…they don’t like giving money for general operations, which is what
133
nonprofits need. So I’m always a little worried about when nonprofits fund things
like this [urban farms], you know, how financially viable is it? How are they
going to pay the farmers? They have to pay a living wage or it’s not going to be
sustainable.” (Participant 9, Academic sector).
Initially, I used five categories as the basis for an overview of the food system in a
Northeastern city. For example, the Policy and Planning category included the themes
Local Policies - Food and Land. The codes were Food Policy: Local, City, Regional,
State. Sample comments were: “So feeding people that need feeding, solving food
security needs to happen with the entire food system. That’s why we’re very pleased that
the [state] is going through that planning process for its own food system.” (Participant
5). “I would say we have yet to reach our demand [for local food], particularly being a
three-season climate, maybe similar to the Northeast.”(Participant 4). Land policies
comments included:
“The most consistent issue that continues to be a problem is land access. City
Ordinance (Ordinance) has done a lot with that (better land access) in terms of
actually getting the government to think about it and creating systems to find
farmers who are looking for land, being able to match them with either city land
and/or private owners who are willing to sell or lease to a farmer.” (Participant
17).
The codes in this category also described land use policy, zoning and city
ordinances. Participant 17 noted that: “There’s a zoning article [Ordinance] is great but
that means there’s a whole permitting process that is fairly archaic and requires going
134
through multiple municipal departments to make anything to happen.” And “In order to
obtain land it’s possible to purchase or lease land from the city, which has been the most
method for obtaining land” (Participant 4). The Agricultural Activities category covered
the Food Production theme. Codes included urban agriculture, urban farm, conventional
farming, technology-based, suburban farms, and food quality (organic, conventional).
Some quotes from participants were: “But you know, I’d like to push beyond that and see
what’s possible for maximizing space, identifying crops that have a higher, you know,
yield, or are better for generating revenue in smaller spaces.” (Participant 4). “We’re
trying to figure out efficient ways of continuing to do our job and also grow crops that
work better than others, and what we can get more money for.” (Participant 11). “We’re
always saying global agriculture trade but that obviously also has to be reformed so that
small organic producers can still survive and participate, and that’s where the fair trade
movement comes in.” (Participant 13).
Finally, the Processes - Food Sources category included the Procurement theme
and codes such as Farmers market, Local food sources, CSAs, and Corner store/Bodega.
Some comments were: “Sometimes our locally grown carrots are organically grown
…We would rather our students eat all the carrots on the menu (local, organic or frozen
conventional) rather than just the organic ones that are sometimes on the menu.”
(Participant 18). “Some [food service providers] that have these giant contracts, with
institutions like CPS [City Public Schools) will begin you know, to consider locally
sourcing foods.” (Participant 4).
135
Some of the codes in the Outliers or discrepant category were Extensive farm
experience, Unique type of farm, and Institutionalized sustainable practices. Sample
comments included: “And I’m in that space of providing reflection, insight, observation.
Not so much on the production side of the coin, although I do bring that when asked,
because of 30 years of farming and 30 years of greenhouse growing.” (Participant 2).
“Urban farming is part of what we call a community agriculture program in [the state]
which is focused on getting 15 to 20 farmers onto farms in the next five years. That’s in
both in rural, urban and suburban settings.” (Participant 5). “Sustainable agriculture must
be just also, that you can’t call it sustainable if it’s only ecologically sustainable and not
addressing issues of equity.” (Participant 12).
Another interesting note was that each sector had a unique outlook on public
funding for urban agriculture. Comments included:
“In terms of policy, continuing to invest financial with supporting grants. Also
working with our sister agencies and figuring out where there is land. Once we
get this anchored in, the next piece of this puzzle is to support urban farmers who
live in the city but can’t get access to land in the city, but want to farm outside of
the city, and bring that food in. But that won’t be seeing that happening this year.
But just getting that conversation in after we build those bridges with our rural
farmers is something that I see as a natural next stop.” (Participant 1, Public
sector).
“Over our 40-year history, we developed an expertise in real estate, but also in a
host of other areas such as conservation finance and advocacy for funding at the
136
public level, for conservation, at the local, state, and federal level.” (Participant 5,
Nonprofit sector).
“So I think we need funding to grow, but I think vertical integration with a larger
group like that would streamline our operations, cut costs, would help us grow in
a sustainable fashion.” (Participant 19, Private sector).
“But if you go to a farmers’ market within the city environment and look at the
food that’s actually being grown and sold, in an urban environment, too often
there are very few organizations that are for-profit, that are not grant funded, that
are not part of a larger organization. And I think that just kind of points to where
we are in developing sustainable agriculture in the urban environment. It doesn’t
always make economic sense.” (Participant 4, Academic sector).
See Table 2 for a summary of the interview process.
