didomenica slides (4-12-15)

Food Policy: Urban Farmingas a Supplemental Food Source

PhD Dissertation Oral Defenseby

Bessie DiDomenica, MBASchool of Public Policy and Administration

Walden University April 17, 2015, 8am (EST)

Acknowledgements

Committee Chair: Dr. Mark Gordon

Second Committee Member: Dr. Anthony Leisner

URR: Dr. Linda Day

Program Director: Dr. George R. Larkin

04/18/233

Fruit Stall in a Market in Barcelona, Spain

Source: www.commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fruit_Stall_in_Barcelona_Market.jpg

04/18/234

Agenda

1. Problem & Purpose 7. Limits of the Study

2. Research Question 8. Recommendations

3. Literature Review 9. Implications 4. Data Collection 10. Social

Change5. Data Analysis (2) 11.

Conclusions6. Findings (5) 12. Q & A

04/18/235

Problem and Purpose Problem: Food systems in many cities are

complex and without a plan for a secondary food

supply(UNFAO, 2011). Population growth and

limited space increase the potential for a food

deficit.

Purpose: To explore food policies that influence urban farms as a secondary food

source.

04/18/236

Research Question

What are the public policy limits and opportunities that support urban farming as a

supplemental food source?

04/18/237

Literature Review Literature review themes:

• “Macro food policy” of food production, distribution, and consumption (Angelo et al.,2011).

• Urban agriculture and local food production (Lutz et al., 2010; Taylor Lovell, 2010).

• Urbanization and land use barriers (Lang, 2010; Morgan, 2009).

04/18/238

Data Collection Methodology: Case study approach

Sample size (20):

• Food and land policy officials (6)• Nonprofit managers and staff (7)• Commercial farmers, social enterprise

(3)• Students and administrators (4)

04/18/239

Data Analysis

Code transcripts, organize data into themes and patterns

Pattern matching for internal reliability,

explanation building, comparison

04/18/2310

Data Analysis Coding: Iterative using HyperResearch software

and manual coding

1st Round: Cursory and extensive list of codes

2nd Round: Categories: Policy & Planning, Agricultural Activities, Outliers

3rd Round: Themes and patterns 4th Round: Three major themes

04/18/2311

Overall Findings

General agreement with literature:

• Alternative food systems, creative partnerships

• New zoning policies for agricultural use of public land

• Political will and community support

04/18/2312

Overall Findings Discrepancies from literature:

• Urban farms were micro farms (¼ acre) not recreational farms (100 acres)

• Organic practices, but not certified organic

• Participants did not use the word “permaculture”

04/18/2313

Findings: Local Food and Land Policy

Public: Design and implement local policy

Nonprofit: Networks and community presence

Private: Active in city’s urban agriculture policies

Academic: Design curriculum and student-run food projects

04/18/2314

Findings: Food Production

Public: Selective funding of urban agriculture projects

Nonprofit: Urban farming was a secondary program

Private: On the ground and above ground agriculture

Academic: Different resources and opportunities to grow food

04/18/2315

Findings: Procurement

Public: Buy from different food producers

Nonprofit: Source food for self and others in social service programs

Private: Source local and nonlocal food

Academic: Procurement partner for large food suppliers

04/18/2316

Limits of the Study Case study approach and small sample size:

• Limited views on the topic • Purposeful sampling

Transferability of the findings:• Depends on community assets• Communities active in urban agriculture

04/18/2317

Recommendations

Ideas for future studies:

1. Design a database of best practices

2. Create a pilot project for an urban farm start up

3. Explore a network of specialized urban farms

04/18/2318

Implications Organizational: Support collaborationsMentor and share ideas between different

types of farmers

Theoretical: Food policies for different urban agriculture practicesFood policies based on the unique qualities ofurban agriculture

04/18/2319

Implications for Social Change Describes the influence of food policies on an urban food system, and the challenges and opportunities in urban agriculture.

Creates an awareness that urban farms may already exist as a secondary food source.

04/18/2320

Conclusions Key conclusions:

• Urban farms are evolving, need a centralized infrastructure

• Policy solutions in permitting, crop specialties

• Stakeholders are passionate and frustrated

• Local foods cannot feed large urban populations

04/18/2321

ReferencesAngelo, M. J., Timbers, A., Walker, M. J., Donabedia, J. B., & Van Noble, D. (2011). Small,

slow, and local: Essays on building a more sustainable and local food system: small, slow, and local. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 12(2), 353-378.

Lutz, A. E., Swisher, M. E., & Brennan, M. A. (2010). Defining community food security. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WC/WC06400.pdf

Morgan, K. (2009). Feeding the city: The challenge of urban food planning. International Planning Studies, 14(4), 341-348. doi:10.1080/13563471003642852

Taylor Lovell, S. (2010). Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability, 2(8), 2499-2522. doi:10.3390/su2082499

United Nations Food & Agriculture. (2011). 2011 The state of food insecurity in the world: How does international price volatility affect domestic economies and food security? (FAO Corporate Document Repository No. 978-92-5-106927-1 ISBN) (p. 55). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2330e/i2330e00.htmWikimedia Commons. (2012).

Wikimedia Commons. (2012). Retrieved from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fruit,Vegetables_and_Grain_NCI_Visuals_Online.jpg

04/18/2322

THANK YOU!

Source:www.google.com/imgres

04/18/2323

Questions and

Answers