UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Urban agriculture policy community Kelowna Hamilton, Cassandra Lee 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2017_september_hamilton_cassandra.pdf [ 1.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0347667.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0347667-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0347667-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0347667-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0347667-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0347667-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0347667-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0347667-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0347667.ris

Full Text

  URBAN AGRICULTURE POLICY COMMUNITY KELOWNA   by   CASSANDRA LEE HAMILTON   B.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 2007   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF SCIENCE   in   THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES   (Interdisciplinary Studies)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Okanagan)   May 2017    © Cassandra Lee Hamilton, 2017   ii  The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled:    Urban agriculture policy community Kelowna  Submitted by     Cassandra Lee Hamilton                       in partial fulfillment of the requirements of   The degree of      Masters of Science (Interdisciplinary Studies)                                                          Dr. Jon Corbett, Irving K. Barber School, Community, Culture, and Global Studies Supervisor, Professor (please print name and faculty/school above the line)  Dr. Mary Jung, Faculty of Health and Social Development, School of Health and Exercise Sciences Supervisory Committee Member, Professor (please print name and faculty/school in the line above)  Dr. Colin Reid, Faculty of Health and Social Development, School of Health and Exercise Sciences Supervisory Committee Member, Professor (please print name and faculty/school in the line above)  Dr. Christine Schreyer, Irving K. Barber School, Community, Culture, and Global Studies University Examiner, Professor (please print name and faculty/school in the line above)  Dr. Brigitte le Normand, Irving K. Barber School, History and Sociology External Examiner, Professor (please print name and university in the line above)   May 20, 2017 (Date submitted to Grad Studies)  Additional Committee Members include:   Please print name and faculty/school in the line above   Please print name and faculty/school in the line above   iii Abstract  This research is a qualitative descriptive case study about the urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. I use Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework to structure the research and examine the policy actors within the policy community, their beliefs about urban agriculture in Kelowna, the relationships they share with other policy actors, the challenges they face, and their priorities in advancing the urban agriculture agenda to align with their vision of a healthy community. This research is informed by population health and food security theory, and the World Health Organization Healthy Cities movement. This research was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 11 policy actors in the policy community, representing a variety of sectors in the food system. This study reveals that overall, the policy actors interviewed understood urban agriculture in much the same way. In their own language, they all pointed to the importance of urban agriculture with respect to its contribution to fostering a healthy community. The actors could articulate their roles as they relate to urban agriculture policy, but many actors recognized that their roles were evolving and with that, their understanding of their roles in the policy community. This contributed to their understanding of the roles of other policy actors in the community and if, why, and how to partner with them. Some challenges with partnerships are identified. The participants shared many priorities.  The results suggest that the policy community is not well networked and that most actors do not collaborate with each other, and in most cases, are not aware of one another. However, collaborations between a few of the policy actors has suggested the modest formation of a policy coalition. The policy actors have a clear desire to work together and to better understand the policy community. Additionally, the policy actors agree that urban agriculture is beneficial for Kelowna and that more opportunities for urban agriculture must be pursued and promoted to foster a healthier community. This research provides a snapshot of Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community and provides insight into potential priorities and possible next steps for the policy actors within it.    iv Preface  This thesis is an original intellectual product of the author, C. Hamilton.  Ethical approval to conduct this study was provided by the University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioral Research Ethics Board. The Certificate Number of the Ethics Certificate was: H13-01889   v Table of Contents Thesis Committee ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iii Preface ........................................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ ix Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... x Dedication .................................................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Literature review ....................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Population health and the social determinants of health ................................................... 9 2.2 Food Security ................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Health impacts of urban agriculture ................................................................................ 17 2.4 Healthy public policy....................................................................................................... 21 2.5 Policy analysis and the Advocacy Coalition Framework ................................................ 23 2.6 Local governments and healthy public policy ................................................................. 28 2.7 Local Governments, Urban Agriculture Policy, and Urban Agriculture Policy Communities .......................................................................................................................... 33 2.8 Opposition to Urban Agriculture ..................................................................................... 36 2.9 Research Question and Contribution to the Literature .................................................... 38 Chapter 3: Methodology............................................................................................................ 40 3.1 Position of the researcher ................................................................................................ 40 3.2 Case Study Methodology................................................................................................. 43 3.3 Use of the Advocacy Coalition Framework .................................................................... 44 3.4 Research objective, purpose and rationale ...................................................................... 46 3.5 Unit of analysis ................................................................................................................ 47 3.6 Data collection ................................................................................................................. 48 3.7 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 50 3.8 Rigour .............................................................................................................................. 51 3.9 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 4 – Kelowna’s food system history ............................................................................. 54 vi 4.1 Kelowna was established as a community based on agriculture ..................................... 55 4.2 Kelowna and the Agriculture Land Reserve .................................................................... 56 4.3 Food security work in Kelowna....................................................................................... 60 4.3.1 Central Okanagan Community Gardens Society ..................................................... 61 4.3.2 Central Okanagan Food Policy Council .................................................................. 63 4.3.3 Okanagan Fruit Tree Project .................................................................................... 69 4.3.4 Other food security initiatives .................................................................................. 72 4.4 Kelowna’s local food movement ..................................................................................... 72 4.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 75 Chapter 5 – Results, Analysis, Discussion ................................................................................ 76 5.1 An introduction to the Policy Actors ............................................................................... 78 5.2 Urban agriculture as defined by the policy actors ........................................................... 82 5.3 Urban agriculture contributes to a Healthy City .............................................................. 84 5.4 The roles of the actors in urban agriculture ..................................................................... 87 5.5 Collaborations between the policy actors ........................................................................ 95 5.5.1 Interior Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the City of Kelowna ................... 96 5.5.2 Central Okanagan Community Gardens and the City of Kelowna .......................... 99 5.6 Struggles with collaboration and opportunities in-waiting ............................................ 100 5.6.1 City of Kelowna and their Agricultural Advisory Committee............................... 100 5.6.2 Central Okanagan Food Policy Council (COFPC) ................................................ 103 5.7 The priorities of the urban agriculture policy community members ............................. 104 5.8 Usefulness of the Advocacy Coalition Framework ....................................................... 110 Chapter 6 – Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 112 6.1 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 114 6.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 116 6.3 Future research opportunities ........................................................................................ 117 6.4 Final thoughts ................................................................................................................ 117 References ............................................................................................................................... 119 Appendices: Appendix A – Email communications ............................................................... 148 Introduction email................................................................................................................ 148 Follow up email (if no response from intro email) .............................................................. 149 vii Transcript review email ....................................................................................................... 150 Appendix B – Fact Sheet and Informed Consent for Semi-Structured Interviews ................. 151 Appendix C – Semi-structured Interview Guidelines and Script ............................................ 154    viii List of Tables Table 5.1 Roles of urban agriculture policy actors interviewed…………………………………89   ix List of Figures Figure 2.1 2007 Advocacy Coalition Framework Flow Diagram……………………………….26 Figure 4.1 City of Kelowna – Map of the Agricultural Land Reserve zoning…………………..58 Figure 5.1 2007 Advocacy Coalition Framework Flow Diagram……………………………….77   x Acknowledgements I would first like to acknowledge that the research I have conducted in based on the unceded territory of the Okanagan Syilx people. Agriculture is not a traditional part of the Okanagan Syilx culture and is fundamentally colonial in its roots. For this reason, I recognize that the work that I am involved in (including this research) does not always align with the practices, beliefs, culture, and history of the Okanagan people. Keeping this in mind, I endeavor to work thoughtfully and better understand how traditional knowledge may intersect with my work.  I would like to acknowledge my supervisor Jon Corbett and the members of my thesis committee, Mary Jung, and Colin Reid. This was a very long journey and I appreciated their patience as I pressed forward in completing my thesis. Jon urged me to carry on, when life circumstances were challenging and when my self-confidence was wavering. I would also like to acknowledge Alan Davidson for encouraging me to apply for graduate school and inspiring me to contribute to my field academically. I will forever be in awe of his knowledge and passion for his work.  I would like to acknowledge my participants. Thank you for sharing your breadth of knowledge about this interesting and innovative field. To the many others who were aware of the research I was conducting in the urban agriculture policy community and continued to share with me their interest in my research, thank you. Conducting research that is of relevance to my community was of importance to me. I had countless friends and family who never gave up on me and believed me when I said that I was “almost finished.” My mom was always there to provide an ear. Elise, Robyn, Ailsa, and Andy were all there as graduate students and friends with whom I could commiserate, share ideas, and share a beer. Thank you to my best friend Catherine, another fellow graduate student. She was always there for me and acted as my North Star. She managed the emotional brunt of my graduate school journey and her wisdom, patience, and love will always be remembered. To my Love, Kyle. You came into my life partway through this journey but played the most important role: you fed me delicious food and cleaned the house when I was too exhausted to contribute to our household duties. On top of that, you patiently listened to my endless worries and kept me grounded when I was flying too high.   xi Dedication To those that keep going in the face of adversity.      1 Chapter 1: Introduction The term “urban agriculture” sounds like an awkward juxtaposition. In Canadian urban societies, agriculture within an urban environment may be an unusual concept that many are unfamiliar with, save for the family back yard garden or indoor plants. Some are even uncomfortable or vehemently opposed to the concept because of their unfamiliarity with urban agriculture concepts and practices. Examples of this resistance include neighbours that have issued formal complaints to their local government, and local governments that have instituted bylaws to prohibit specific urban agricultural practices, such as front yard vegetable gardening (Halligan, 2016; Higgins, 2011). The opposition to urban agriculture is reflective of the ways in which Canadian urban environments have been planned and designed over the last century: agriculture is typically concentrated outside the urban environment, pushed to the peripheries of cities and outside the visible world of urban dwellers (HB Lanarc - Golder, 2013). Despite some opposition to urban agriculture, it has been growing in popularity with non-profits, businesses, governmental institutions, and community members in many communities worldwide (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016). These individuals and organizations have observed the many benefits of urban agriculture in their personal lives, their organizational operations, and their communities. There is not a universal definition of urban agriculture, however it is commonly understood as the practice of growing food in the city and the phrase is often used interchangeably with the term “urban farming”, which involves growing food in the city for profit (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, n.d.; HB Lanarc - Golder, 2013; Mougeot, 2000). Growing food in the city takes many forms: urban farms, community 2 gardens1, forms of public produce2 such as edible landscaping3, food forests4, and public gardens and orchards, growing that takes place in building design such as green roofs and living walls, aquaponics5, animal husbandry6, and, of course, home gardening (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, n.d.; HB Lanarc - Golder, 2013; Nordahl, 2009). Urban agriculture is a component of a community’s larger food system and relies on other supporting economic and community infrastructures, including agricultural supplies, distribution, manufacturing and processing, retail including grocers and restaurants, and waste management and diversion systems (HB Lanarc - Golder, 2013). Urban agriculture is appealing to a diverse range of individuals from varying backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic status, and is celebrated for its contribution to a healthy community. It is practised in many countries and there are a variety of reasons why urban agriculture is rising in popularity. Urban agriculture has demonstrated benefits to a community’s food system and is promoted to build community through collaboration to protect both community and individual food security (Brown & Jameton, 2000; Enns, Rose,                                                  1 Community gardens are a source of land for gardeners who do not have their own property to garden on; many community gardens are located in city parks or other city-owned property (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). 2 Public produce is a subset of urban agriculture and refers to produce that is grown in public locations, and is available for public consumption (Nordahl, 2009). 3 Edible landscaping is a form of landscaping that includes edible plants such as berries, fruit trees, and vegetables (Nordahl, 2009). 4 Food forests a variety of food producing plants and resemble a natural forest in that the plants each serve a unique function in the forest (i.e. shade, fertilizer, rhizomes, etc.) (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013c). 5 Aquaponics is a form of closed-loop agriculture incorporating fish and edible plants (The Aquaponic Source, n.d.). 6 Animal husbandry is raising animals for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). 3 de Vries, & Hayes, 2008). Urban agriculture also promotes food sovereignty7 as a way for people to exercise their right to grow and acquire their food on their own terms and with dignity (Dubbeling & Santandreu, 2003). Several international agencies such as the United Nations and the Pan American Health Organization promote urban agriculture as an important way to grow urban economies and boost social capital (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016; Pan American Health Organization, 2011). Urban agriculture is also entwined with the local food movement8, and has become fashionable in higher-end restaurants and their customers – typically the urban elite – who seek a connection with the producers of their food (Cityfood Magazine, 2009; Donald & Blay-Palmer, 2006). Urban agriculture has become a new trend in the agriculture, food security, and local food movement, as it offers a variety of positive outcomes to individuals and the community (Balmer et al., 2005; Cityfood Magazine, 2009; Nieoczym, 2011).   Given the recent organic growth of urban agriculture and the recognition of its relevance within food security and local food movements, governments have begun to address urban agriculture often through healthy public policy9 (American Planning Association, 2007; Balmer et al., 2005; City of Minneapolis, 2011; Enns et al., 2008; HB Lanarc - Golder, 2013). Increased densification of urban environments, coupled with a                                                  7 Food sovereignty is guaranteeing that the right to food includes the ability to acquire food the way one chooses to, whether that be by purchasing food or growing food using productive land or other natural resources (De Schutter, 2010). 8 The local food movement involves eating foods that are grown locally, many restaurants have joined the movement by offering menu items using ingredients grown or made locally (Cityfood Magazine, 2009; Connell & Frisque, 2012; Green City Acres, n.d.-a). 9 Healthy public policy is an approach to public policy that uses a health lens in its planning, development, implementations, and evaluation. This means that the impact of a policy on public health is considered (National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, 2010). 4 growing desire from some urbanites to grow their own food – whether due to need or to want – has led local governments to rethink their community planning practices and land use policies in a variety of ways. One strong example of progressive policy implementation comes from the City of Vancouver, which has developed a set of guidelines for developers that specifically address how to plan for urban agriculture in their developments (City of Vancouver, 2008). Other local governments, such as the City of Kelowna, have made changes to land use policies to accommodate the practice of urban agriculture (City of Kelowna, 2010). In addition, local governments such as the City of Vancouver and the City of Kamloops have adapted their bylaws to allow residents to keep hens (City of Vancouver, 2016; Foulds, 2016). However, local governments do not make policy changes in isolation. Policy actors endeavor to influence local governments to make policy changes (Considine, 1994; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Skogstad, 2005). Policy actors can be individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions that actively work to influence a policy area (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Policy actors in a similar policy area belong to a policy community or network. For this thesis, I will use the term policy community (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Skogstad, 2005). The actors within a policy community who organize and collaborate with the intention of advancing their policy agenda form what is termed a policy coalition (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). These urban agriculture policy actors and coalitions put pressure on local governments to initiate policy changes in favour of their interests (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). For example, many local governments have been exploring or have adapted their bylaws to allow residents to keep urban hens in response to public pressure (City of Vancouver, 2016; Foulds 2016). 5 I am an urban agriculture policy actor located in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. I first became involved in this policy area through my role as a Registered Dietitian. My work is in the field of population health, community food security, and healthy communities, in which I apply community development principles to my work. Through my practical experience, I grew to understand how urban agriculture contributes to a food secure community, and that a more robust local food system will facilitate a healthier community. While working in Kelowna’s food security and local food movements, I often encountered challenges with moving forward the community projects I was involved in. These projects often included elements of urban agriculture to promote and support a more food secure and healthy Kelowna. One of the primary issues I faced was a lack of research and literature about food security and urban agriculture specific to the area. This literature is essential because it provides evidence and rationale to policy makers learning to prioritize urban agriculture, as well as methods and best practices. Another significant challenge I noted during my community work was the lack of resources – both financial and time – dedicated to food security and healthy local food systems. In addition, I often found that many of the urban agriculture policy actors in the community were operating in isolation. It is challenging to make progress towards any type of goals when faced with limited resources and lack of collaboration. As my own work progressed and I moved throughout this field, I realized that other policy actors within the policy community were also experiencing similar challenges. After identifying this problem, I began to actively determine place-based solutions that considered the unique context and history of urban agriculture in Kelowna, and to provide initial research to lay the foundations for policy actors to work more cohesively to support the development of local urban agriculture. In this thesis, I aim to address the gap in 6 information surrounding Kelowna’s food system through an in-depth examination of the actors, their beliefs, their relationships, and the challenges they face in advancing urban agricultural policy to support healthy communities. I draw on Paul Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework to structure this research objective, and use Kelowna’s urban agricultural policy community as a case study. Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community is characterized as a group of individuals, organizations, and institutions who are in the process of answering a variety of questions: what urban agriculture should look like in Kelowna, their individual roles within the urban agriculture community, the role of other policy actors within the policy community, and how policy actors may collaborate to advance the urban agriculture agenda. Several attempts at collaboration occurred with little traction in the beginning, but incremental successes have recently led to the formation of a small policy coalition. Finally, while policy actors within the urban agriculture policy community often use varying language to describe the rationale for pursuing urban agriculture as a priority, all consider it an important aspect in fostering a socially, environmentally, and economically healthy community. This thesis is explored across six chapters. In Chapter 2, I review concepts underpinning the importance of urban agriculture to community health and to both individual and community food security. I begin with an explanation of population health theory, food security, and why urban agriculture is important to a healthy community. I then review key public policy concepts and argue that local governments play one of the most significant roles in healthy public policy. To elaborate this point, I discuss the Healthy Cities movement as a strategic action that policy actors and local governments are taking to put healthy public policy into practice. I position this movement within a provincial context, by examining the 7 Healthy Communities program of the BC Healthy Families initiative (BC Healthy Communities, 2016). I offer an in-depth exploration of the ways in which local governments are involved in urban agriculture as an extension of healthy public policy. Positioning myself as an urban agriculture policy actor, I then explain how local governments are members of the urban agriculture policy community as the policy maker in their jurisdiction. Policy communities and network theory and the Advocacy Coalition Framework are also reviewed. Closing the chapter, I describe my research objective and contribution of this thesis to the literature. In Chapter 3, I review the methodologies utilized in this study. I begin the chapter by outlining my positionality as a researcher to ensure transparency in the research process. I then outline the key concepts of case-study methodology and its utility specific to this research study (Yin, 2003; Zucker, 2009). I follow up with an explanation of how the Advocacy Coalition Framework is applied to this study (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2011). This paper's research study objectives and rationale are then outlined. Next, I describe my data collection procedures, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment of participants, interview methods, and data analysis process. I conclude by outlining the rigour of my research methods and ethical considerations encountered during my research. Chapter 4 examines the development of the urban agriculture policy community, and provides the reader with the context and background of Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community. This section is based on historical accounts and experiential evidence from my work in the Kelowna community. As one of the policy actors within this policy community, my experience is inextricably linked to the development of Kelowna’s urban agriculture 8 policy community. I begin the chapter with an overview of Kelowna as a community that both formed around and was subsequently based on agriculture. Following this, I explain Kelowna's relationship with the Agricultural Land Reserve, a type of land designation in the Province of British Columbia (Agricultural Land Commission, 2014b). Finally, I selectively review the history related to Kelowna’s food security and local food movements. In Chapter 5, I share the analysis and results of my research within the context of Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2011). I first introduce each of the policy actors interviewed. I then review how the policy actors define urban agriculture, followed by what they believe urban agriculture contributes to a community. I then explore how each of the actors define their role in urban agriculture and how, if at all, they are partnering with other policy actors to advance the urban agriculture agenda. Some examples of struggles in collaboration are discussed. Next, I outline the priorities shared by the policy actors within the policy community. I close the chapter by commenting on the usefulness of the Advocacy Coalition Framework for this research project. In the concluding chapter, Chapter 6, I begin with a summary of the study and review my study findings. I then describe and comment on the limitations of this study. Following this, I outline several recommendations that emerge from my research for Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community as well as to specific policy actors within the community. I then outline future research possibilities related to Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community.   9 Chapter 2: Literature review  This chapter provides background information on the increasing prominence of urban agriculture as a relevant public policy topic, and situates the formation of urban agricultural policy communities and coalitions as the vehicle by which urban agriculture policies are planned, created, implemented, and evaluated. I review several bodies of literature spanning a number of disciplines that inform and structure my research. Population health theory, food security, and the World Health Organization’s Healthy Cities movement form the rationale of my research and situate it in the specific context of urban agriculture. Policy community theory – specifically the Advocacy Coalition Framework – informs the process, or analysis, of my research (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Skogstad, 2005; Weible & Sabatier, 2007).  2.1 Population health and the social determinants of health Population health, a field of health emerging in the 1970s, is a theoretical and practical approach to health where the focus is not on the individual, but on an entire population of interest (Lalonde, 1981; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012). It differs from the traditional health field, which conventionally focuses on the treatment of ill-health or on the education of individuals or groups to prevent ill-health associated with genetics or lifestyle factors such as healthy eating, exercising, and not smoking (Lalonde, 1981; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012). Conversely, population health practitioners focus their efforts on making changes at the system level, with the intention that as much, if not all, of the target population is impacted (Davidson, 2015; Lalonde, 1981; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012, 2013).  10 The desired outcome of the population health approach is to improve the health of populations as a whole, paying special focus to reducing inequities within a population by addressing the social determinants of health (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2011b, 2012). The social determinants of health are the social, environmental, and economic conditions that impact the health of individuals and groups of people through the distribution of wealth, power, and resources (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2011b; World Health Organization, 2016). While variance exists, there is consensus that the social determinants of health include early childhood development, education, income, built environment, social environment, gender, culture, and food security (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014; World Health Organization, 2017). The population health approach has the most impact through policy changes and programs centered on improving the social determinants of health (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013; World Health Organization, 2016). The provincial public health care and public education systems are excellent examples of system-wide approaches to population health. Basic health and education are available to all Canadian citizens at an affordable cost that are much less than the costs of private services (Health Canada, 2004; The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, n.d.). Reducing physical, social, political, and economical inequities through targeted programs and changes in policy helps to level the playing field through assisting those born into generational disadvantage, challenging life circumstances, or who have fallen into unanticipated hardship (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012, 2013). It is well demonstrated that the more equitable the distribution of resources is in a community, the better off all members of the community become (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014). 11 In addition to a focus on the health of populations and the social determinants of health through system level change, there are several key elements to a population health approach (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013; World Health Organization, 1986). Significant to this study is the concept that health is a role that goes beyond the scope of the healthcare system or typical health policy actors. Health is a shared responsibility, and improving the health of the population requires collaboration across sectors at varying levels of society (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013; World Health Organization, 1986). Furthermore, social, environmental, and economic conditions that impact population health are created or influenced by policy actors who often have little to no interest or background in health – such as those forming economic policy and land use policies; collaboration with these policy actors is essential in ensuring that the impacts on population health are considered and lessened (Lalonde, 1981; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013; World Health Organization, 1986). Public involvement is another key element to the population health approach (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2001, 2013). Public engagement in the process of policy and program development can be done to varying degrees such as surveying, including public members on committees, or engaging community members and groups throughout the process of identifying priorities and addressing them. The sincerest and most effective level of public involvement employs the principles of community development, wherein policy makers and those with decision making power in a community work in a non-authoritarian and collaborative way with community members. In community development practice, the community is recognized as the owner of its issues and that citizens hold the knowledge and resolve to address these issues utilizing everyone’s unique gifts, resources, and knowledge 12 (BC Healthy Communities, 2016; Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2010; Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition, n.d.). The population health approach is complex and consists of multiple elements. Addressing each of the social determinants of health requires systems thinking, multiple strategies, collaboration between multiple policy actors, and often takes several years or decades (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013). In the next section I review one of the social determinants of health, food security, its impact on health, and how food security is addressed.    2.2 Food Security Food security is an important indicator of a healthy community and can be defined at both the household and community level (Community Nutritionists Council of BC, 2004; Dietitians of Canada, 2005, 2007; Miewald et al., 2007). Household food security is “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2002). Community food security factors household food security and it may be defined as “…a situation in which all community residences obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, and nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes self-reliance and social justice” (Hamm & Bellows, 2003, p.37).  With household food security, food must be available, accessible, and adequate at both the individual and family level (De Schutter, 2010). “Available” necessitates that food must exist in a community and there must be enough for all those living there. “Accessible” 13 means that people can physically obtain food that is in close proximity and that it is affordable. “Adequate” requires that the food must meet the nutritional, cultural, and culinary needs of the individual (De Schutter, 2010). In addition, individuals must also be able to access food in a dignified way that does not facilitate stigmatization and marginalization (Cook, 2008). Food security is a concept that is expansive from the household level to the community level, and includes principles that advocate for food to be grown in an environmentally conscious way, contribute to the local food system by fostering economic and social development, and support a healthy food environment (Community Nutritionists Council of BC, 2004; Dietitians of Canada, 2005, 2007; Ostrey, 2010). The food environment includes the availability, accessibility, and distribution of food throughout our built environment (Dietitians of Canada, 2007; Ostrey, 2010). A healthy food environment considers that food is readily available and accessible to all members of a community, and includes both food for purchase and food which is grown. Another important factor of a healthy food environment is how food is marketed and the existence of food policies that govern food availability and accessibility (Dietitians of Canada, 2007; Ostrey, 2010). Food insecurity, the state of not being food secure, is an issue impacting all Canadian communities. According to the 2009-2010 Canadian Community Health Survey, 5.2% of households in British Columbia were moderately food insecure and 3.2% of households in British Columbia were severely food insecure during this period (Health Canada, 2012). The 2016 Canadian Association of Food Banks’ Hunger Count report further details that over 103,000 individuals accessed food banks in British Columbia in March 2016 – a figure that is up 3.4% from the previous year (Food Banks Canada, 2016). The Central Okanagan Food 14 Bank’s Kelowna location supports 2500-3500 individuals per month (Central Okanagan Community Food Bank, 2016a). Food insecurity may impact almost anyone, although those on social assistance, those who have a diversability10, seniors, single parents, and low income households are often impacted more frequently and more severely (Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014). Being food insecure greatly impacts health. Those experiencing food insecurity are at increased risk for poor nutritional status which results from reduced intake of key nutrients essential for health (Dietitians of Canada, 2005; Dixon, Winkleby, & Radimer, 2001; Tarasuk, 2001). The result is increased risk for obesity and chronic disease including diabetes (Dietitians of Canada, 2005; Nelson, Cunningham, Andersen, Harrison, & Gelberg, 2001; Wilde & Peterman, 2006). In addition, there is a growing understanding of the relationship between poor diet and mental health (Dietitians of Canada, 2005; Heflin, Siefert, & Williams, 2005; Stuff et al., 2004). Food insecurity is especially impactful on children, who are at risk for diminished cognitive, academic, and physical and psychosocial development (Alaimo, Olson, & Frongillo, 2001). Beyond the direct impacts of food insecurity on dietary intake and the development of disease, those experiencing food insecurity also endure higher levels of stress because they must make difficult decisions about how to allocate their money – they must choose between maintaining eating and all other necessary expenses in their lives. It is not a coincidence that the largest factor that puts a person at risk of food insecurity is their level of income (Dietitians of Canada, 2005; Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014; Ostrey, 2010).                                                  10 Diversability is an alternate and more positive word used instead of disability. Diversability is a conjunction of the words “diverse” and “ability”. It recognizes and celebrates the diversity of people’s abilities (Diversability Inc., 2016; Kelowna Capital News, 2012). 15 In addition to income, many other factors determine a person’s ability to be food secure. A person must have the capacity to budget their income, as well as have an understanding of nutrition, and the knowledge of safe food handling practices (Davidson, 2015; Dietitians of Canada, 2005). They must have appropriate housing conditions with a place for food storage and food preparation and the time and skills to access or grow, prepare and then finally eat the food (Community Nutritionists Council of BC, 2004; Davidson, 2015). There are a number of other factors such as stress, depression, and the influence of marketing that can impact how a person eats (Davidson, 2015). There are many ways that communities work to address the issue of food insecurity and it is often understood using the concepts explained through the three stages of the food security continuum (Community Nutritionists Council of BC, 2004; Dietitians of Canada, 2007). In the first stage, communities try to assist those without enough to eat via emergency food provision such as food banks, soup kitchens, and food assistance programs (Dietitians of Canada, 2007). However, accessing food through emergency food provision provides only temporary assistance to individuals and families who are hungry. Furthermore, it is often not a dignified way to access food and does not fully support or address the underlying causes and systemic nature of food insecurity (Davidson, 2015; Dietitians of Canada, 2005, 2007; Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014). The second stage in the food security continuum is to provide education and capacity building programs as well as resources such as community kitchens11, community gardens, and other food skills programming (Community Nutritionists Council of                                                  11 Community kitchens provide a space for individuals to gather and prepare food together and often incorporate the goals of making connections amongst participants and increasing the knowledge of participants about food preparation (Interior Health, 2016). 16 BC, 2004; Dietitians of Canada, 2007; Enns et al., 2008). In the third stage, communities work at the population level to implement policy and environmental design changes to improve the overall food system. This includes improving the production, distribution, consumption, and recycling of food and food related products (BC Ministry of Health, 2006; Community Nutritionists Council of BC, 2004). Living wage12 campaigns, affordable housing strategies, and subsidized child care are also important policy strategies that assist those experiencing household food insecurity (Dietitians of Canada, 2005; Mikkonen & Raphael, 2014). A community may also address community food security and community health through its local food environment, by developing specific policies and changes in environmental design that are supportive of urban agriculture (Enns et al., 2008). Urban agriculture may be used as a strategy for addressing household and community food insecurity and community health with the potential to engage with all three stages along the food security continuum. In some communities, urban agriculture is practiced to grow food for food banks and other emergency food programs, such as The Stop Community Food Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (The Stop Community Food Centre, n.d.). The Stop Community Food Centre grows food on several plots of land in Toronto for disbursement through their food bank and for use through several of their community food programs. Beyond emergency food relief, it also addresses food insecurity through capacity building programs such as their community kitchen and youth education programs (The Stop Community Food Centre, n.d.). Several examples of how communities are making policy                                                  12 A living wage reflects the dollar value per hour an employee must earn to be able to afford a standard lifestyle and is based off of the actual cost of living in a community. It is usually significantly higher than the Provincial minimum wage and its purpose is to reduce financial stress. Living wage is encouraged but not legislated (Living Wage Canada, 2013). 17 changes to enable citizens and agencies to practice urban agriculture have already been shared, such as the City of Vancouver’s urban hen policy and urban agriculture design guidelines for developers (City of Vancouver, 2008, 2016). The next section will review how urban agriculture positively impacts health at both the individual and community level.  2.3 Health impacts of urban agriculture Urban agriculture impacts individual and population health in several ways. People engaged directly in urban agriculture, or exposed to it, experience several health benefits (Bellows, Brown, & Smit, 2003). Participating in urban agriculture, whether for personal consumption or for business, increases the participant’s level of physical activity (Bellows et al., 2003). It is widely known that physical activity is essential for maintaining health (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2011a). In 2014, only 54% of Canadians 12 years and older were moderately active, indicating that many Canadians are not as physically active as they need to be for good health (Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology, 2012; Statistics Canada, 2016). As well, there is a correlation between growing food and its consumption; studies about community gardeners demonstrate an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption with participation in community gardening (Alaimo, Packnett, Miles, & Kruger, 2008; Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007). Fruits and vegetables are an important part of a nutritious diet (Health Canada, 2011). According to the Canadian Community Health Survey, almost 60% of Canadians ages 12 years and over consumed less than five servings of fruits and vegetables daily, indicating that many Canadians are not eating enough of them (Statistics Canada, 2013). The current recommended number of servings for individuals 12 years and over ranges from 6-10 servings a day (Health Canada, 2011). 18 Urban agriculture increases an individual’s access to food if an individual has the ability and time to garden, the space, tools, and other resources required for gardening, access to edible landscaping, the ability to access food through emergency food programs giving produce away like the Central Okanagan Food Banks “plant a row, grow a row”13 program, or the ability to participate in community food programming such as gleaning14 programs and community kitchens (Central Okanagan Community Food Bank, 2016b; Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2016a). Supportive urban agriculture policies enable citizens to grow their own food and acquire food in a just and culturally acceptable way, which promotes food sovereignty (Dubbeling & Santandreu, 2003).   Urban agriculture contributes to both a health-promoting environment and healthy food environment, and influences how individuals interact with and eat food (Bellows et al., 2003; Kamloops Food Policy Council, 2007). Policies that facilitate urban agriculture impact not only those facing obvious food insecurity, but also those who have enough to eat that are disconnected from their food system (Bellows et al., 2003; Brown & Jameton, 2000). These people are often over-nourished and/or malnourished; many suffer from chronic disease such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity (Health Canada, 2006). Being disconnected from healthy food sources may exacerbate these conditions (Tarnapol Whitacre, Tsai, & Mulligan, 2009). Growing food in the city normalizes healthy food and agriculture in our culture and environments and facilitates increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. From a health                                                  13 In plant a row, grow a row, gardeners add a row to their home garden where the produce is destined to be donated to the food bank (Central Okanagan Community Food Bank, 2016b). 14 Gleaning is the act of harvesting food that would otherwise go to waste; produce that is gleaned is often donated to charities serving the food insecure (United States Department of Agriculture, n.d.). 19 perspective, choosing nutritious food is arguably one of the most important diet changes a person could make to improve their health (Health Canada, 2007; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2008). Educators recognize the importance of connecting children with how food is grown, and some incorporate gardening into curriculum so that children grow up in an environment understanding how food is grown and where it comes from (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2005). Urban agriculture builds on social capital (Field, 2008). Field (2008) defines social capital as “a way of conceptualising the intangible resources of community, shared values and trust upon which we draw in daily life” (p.i). Urban agriculture plays a role in creating safe communities. Studies show that safety is increased with community gardens by increasing the beauty and esthetics of the environment, vandalism is discouraged (Bellows et al., 2003; Brown & Jameton, 2000). Urban agriculture has been demonstrated to be useful in revitalizing unused properties that would be otherwise derelict (Balmer et al., 2005; Bellows et al., 2003; Kamloops Food Policy Council, 2007).  Sustainable urban agriculture practices lead to a healthy environment via the reduction of detrimental impacts of the urban environment on human health (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Knizhnik, 2012). It positively impacts air quality by reducing the amount of local carbon dioxide through an increase in the amount of plants and green spaces in a community. Also, increases in green spaces positively impact micro climates within the immediate area and can reduce the “heat island effect”15 (Knizhnik, 2012; US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). This enables building owners to reduce energy use on cooling                                                  15 The heat island effect describes urban areas that are hotter than surrounding or nearby rural areas due to human activities (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). 20 (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000). Additionally, urban agriculture can reduce the amount of waste a community produces by using organic wastes as compost (Bellows et al., 2003). Plants can improve the soil quality of urban land by increasing the biodiversity of beneficial bacteria and breaking up the soil to better handle and utilize storm water run-off, and through phytoremediation16 (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Knizhnik, 2012). Enhanced biodiversity is also a benefit, with an increase in beneficial insects and birds (Knizhnik, 2012).  Finally, urban agriculture is beneficial to the local economy. Rises in urban agriculture activity result in increased local employment opportunities and business growth potential for farmers (Golden, 2013; Kamloops Food Policy Council, 2007). This is because urban agriculture has multiplier effects: it attracts and supports other types of business operations related to the industry such as restaurants, shops, markets, agricultural equipment facilities, and processing facilities (Kamloops Food Policy Council, 2007). Furthermore, it promotes neighbourhood revitalization and property values (Golden, 2013). Some local governments allow the properties they own to be used for urban agriculture, thus reducing the cost of property maintenance by the local government (Golden, 2013).  The numerous benefits of urban agriculture outlined above to the health of a community’s culture, environment, and economy have encouraged policy actors to influence policy to support their work. The next section describes what is meant in this thesis by public policy, why local governments in British Columbia are a key policy actor in their community, and how they are using public policy to improve the health of their communities.                                                  16 Phytoremediation is a process where plants growing in polluted soils take up toxic products such as heavy metals, reducing the level of pollution in the soil and ultimately water supply and quality (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000). 21 2.4 Healthy public policy Policy is an often misunderstood and complex concept, despite how ubiquitous the word has become in everyday language. For example, most retail stores have a return policy stating how long an individual may be able to return the item they purchased. Human resource departments usually have policies about hiring practices. Policy can be understood as a statement or course of action that an individual, company, institution, or government takes with respect to specific issue or topic (Dunn, 1981; Miller & Demir, 2007; Torjman, 2005). Some policies are reactive and are developed in response to an unanticipated issue. Policies can also be proactive in anticipation of an issue arising (Colebatch, 1998; Considine, 1994; Dunn, 1981; Torjman, 2005). There are many components of an effective policy, which includes how a policy is planned, developed, implemented, enforced, and evaluated (Colebatch, 1998; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Torjman, 2005; Weible & Sabatier, 2011). In the field of political science, public policy17 can be understood as “a prior statement of the actions and commitments of a future government in respect of some area of activity” (Colebatch, 1998, p. 1). In other words, a government will state their position related to a specific area in which they have some oversight. In the case of local governments, this may include policy related to a number of distinct areas such as transportation, local infrastructure, housing, water, or agriculture (Bish & Clemens, 2008). Policy may also range from broad directives to specific and targeted interventions (Colebatch, 1998; Considine, 1994; Dunn, 1981). To demonstrate, a local government may support urban agriculture practice in their community through supportive language in their                                                  17 When using the term “public policy”, the word “public” is added to denote that the policy is coming from a government body, which are publicly funded institutions (Colebatch, 1998). 22 official community plan and other planning documents (broad) or they may dedicate time and resources to an individual policy such as the creation of a bylaw that allows the growth of food producing plants on boulevards (specific) (American Planning Association, 2007; Enns et al., 2008; Kamloops Food Policy Council, 2007; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). “Health in all policy” is an approach to public policy endorsed by the World Health Organization. This approach encourages policy makers to apply a health lens to all policies, in order to consider the impact of their policies on the health of individuals and the population at large (Leppo, Ollila, Pena, Wismar, & Cook, 2013). When governments use the “health in all policies” approach they are developing healthy public policy (National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, 2010). Healthy public policy is key to addressing population health and the social determinants of health (Leppo et al., 2013; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013; World Health Organization, 2013, 2016). Although healthy public policy is developed through publicly funded institutions, they are not the sole policy actors involved in the policy development process. Public policy making is a complex process and often includes a multitude of actors (National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, 2010; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013; UK Healthy Cities Network, 2011; Union of British Columbia Municipalities & British Columbia, 2012; Weible & Sabatier, 2011). In the next section, I discuss how public policy is studied and describe the Advocacy Coalition Framework which helps structure and makes sense of the complex nature of the policy making process (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2011).  23 2.5 Policy analysis and the Advocacy Coalition Framework The study of public policy, as a branch of political science, gained prominence shortly after World War II (Fischer, Miller, & Sidney, 2007; Howlett & Ramesh, 2003). Dunn (1981) defined policy analysis as “an applied social science discipline which uses multiple methods of inquiry and arguments to produce and transform policy-relevant information that may be utilized in political settings to resolve policy problems” (p. 35). Many theories have emerged throughout the evolution of public policy, each with their own strengths and weaknesses (Considine, 1994; Dunn, 1981; Fischer et al., 2007; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). The first iterations of public policy analysis were considered overly simplistic in their approach (Considine, 1994; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Skogstad, 2005; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). One of these early iterations, called the institutional approach to policy analysis, views policy solely from the perspective of the institution designing, implementing, and evaluating the policy (Fischer et al., 2007). This approach fails to recognize that policy-makers in the institution work in an ever-evolving community, and are influenced by many variables outside the policy-creating institution, such as academic research, social trends, and political climate at other governmental levels (Cairney, 2014; Howlett & Ramesh, 2003; Miller & Demir, 2007; Weible et al., 2011). Another well established theory of policy analysis is the stages theory (Fischer et al., 2007). The stages theory was used to simplify and break down the policy process into identifiable steps and interactions: agenda setting, policy formulation, legitimation, implementation, evaluation, and finally policy maintenance, succession, or termination. Although convenient and approachable, the stages theory does not recognize a multitude of variables that impact policy. In the real world, policy does not follow a prescriptive and linear pattern (Cairney, 2014; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & 24 Sabatier, 2007). These two theories were overly simplistic in their approach, and failed to recognize the complexity of policy development and the numerous confounding variables that make policy analysis so complex. In 1988, Paul A. Sabatier began to question these theoretical approaches to policy analysis, and in collaboration with Hank C. Jenkins-Smith collaborated to develop the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2011). The “Advocacy Coalition Framework for Policy Change” (See Figure 2.1 below) played an important role in strengthening my research approach (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993, p. 18). The framework depicts policy development, implementation, and evaluation as an iterative process, driven by policy actors operating within what is termed a “policy subsystem” (Cairney, 2014; Howlett & Ramesh, 2003; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). For the purposes of this research, a policy community and its policy actors (not identified in the framework) fall within a policy subsystem. Policy actors within the policy subsystem can be government, special interest groups, non-profits agencies, businesses, academia, media, as well as community members (Cairney, 2014). Policy actors within a policy subsystem who share a set of core beliefs often form into policy coalitions in order to push forward their policy agenda (Cairney, 2014; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework suggests that the shared beliefs within a policy coalition are not only what compel the policy actors to collaborate to push their policy agenda, but also shapes the development of strategies aimed to impact the development, implementation, and evaluation of policy that occurs through policy-makers and key decisions makers in government (Cairney, 2014; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). Policy-makers, who are also policy actors, are bound by pre-existing institutional rules, and these rules, in combination with the influence 25 of policy coalitions, result in policies and their associated impacts (Cairney, 2014; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). The policy subsystem is situated within a broader context and is impacted by external conditions, both stable and unstable, in which it exists (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). The concept that policy actors within a policy subsystem learn from policies already developed, as well as learn through the process of policy development, was an important and novel inclusion in the framework by Sabatier (1993). Earlier approaches to policy analysis did not consider the learning and evolution of beliefs of policy actors (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). Another key influence comes from the theory described in Mark Considine’s “Public Policy: A Critical Approach” (1994). Considine (1994) describes the highly contextual nature of policy making and discusses the importance of both the culture and history of a policy community, and of the policy issue itself (p. 13).  26  Figure 2.1 2007 Advocacy Coalition Framework Flow Diagram. Reprinted from Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, by Weible, C., P. Sabatier, and K. McQueen, February 2009, Policy Studies Journal, 37(1): 123.  The Advocacy Coalition Framework recognizes four major premises surrounding policy development and implementation (Weible & Sabatier, 2007). The first premise is that policy development, implementation, and evaluation occur over time (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). Previous policy theories conducted analyses of policies utilizing only a brief segment of time. Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith recommend that a proper analysis of policy can only occur when a time perspective of a decade or more is used 27 (Cairney, 2014; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). The rationale is that policy takes a long time to form and, once implemented, the true impact of that policy may not be observable until several years later. Furthermore, policy often goes through an iterative process where policy actors spend time trying to influence policy throughout its development, implementation, and evaluation (Cairney, 2014; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). The second premise of the Advocacy Coalition Framework is that policy makers do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, they are in contact with, and influenced by, individuals and groups outside the policy-making institution who are working to influence decisions via policy coalitions (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). Often, more than one coalition exists in a policy subsystem, and these coalitions do not always align in their agendas, so may work against each other to influence policy-makers to move their agenda forward (Cairney, 2014; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Coalitions gather evidence, public opinion, and history to raise the profile and add credibility and momentum to their agenda (Cairney, 2014; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Policy coalitions are a valuable tool to use to understand policy through a specific policy area (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible et al., 2011; Weible et al., 2009). The third premise of the Advocacy Coalition Framework states that policy is multilateral, and policy at one level of government is impacted by other levels of government. For example, municipal policy is impacted not only by events, research, and players at the local level, but also by provincial, federal, and even international policies, events, research, and policy actors (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). 28 The final premise of the Advocacy Coalition Framework finds that policy coalitions and policy makers work to influence and make policy based on their shared belief system (Cairney, 2014; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Policy actors are impacted by the same forces as any other individual: culture, feelings, upbringing, education, and many other variables that form an individual’s belief system. This is important and distinct from previous policy theories which relied more on microeconomics and not psychology (Weible & Sabatier, 2011). The Advocacy Coalition Framework has been used in a variety of policy analyses, but has typically been used to analyze environmental or energy policies (Weible et al., 2011; Weible & Sabatier, 2011). The Advocacy Coalition Framework has also been useful in public policy analysis, and is the framework which has been used in over 80 public policy analyses (Cairney, 2014). The Advocacy Coalition Framework is suitable for this study, and was chosen for a number of reasons that are discussed in Chapter 3. In the previous sections I positioned urban agriculture policy within the context of community health and described the concepts behind the Advocacy Coalition Framework. In the following section, I review how local governments became involved in healthy public policy and describe why they are the main policy makers and one of the most influential policy actors at the local level.  2.6 Local governments and healthy public policy  Many population health historians date local government involvement in population health back to the discovery of how cholera spread (Rutty & Sullivan, 2010; Vachon, 2005). In England, John Snow (1813-1858) began charting the cases of cholera during the outbreak 29 in London (Vachon, 2005). At the time, the cause of cholera was believed to be bad air also called “miasma.” Dr. Snow was able to determine using maps plotting the location of new cases that the spread of cholera was not through “miasma” but was in fact spread through the water supply (Rutty & Sullivan, 2010; Vachon, 2005). This important discovery led to an understanding of how local governments play a role in the health of their citizens. At the time, drinking water was not treated and the sewer systems were not well developed. For the next century, the role of local governments in ensuring a well-maintained water and sewage system for their communities became well established, and local governments began working closely with public health experts (Rutty & Sullivan, 2010).  In British Columbia, the role of local governments in health is legislated by the Provincial government. Both the Local Government Act and the Public Health Act outline local governments’ role as a policy actor in healthy public policy (Government of British Columbia, 2016a, 2016b). The first is part 9, division 2 of the Local Government Act which classifies the role of government in preserving, maintaining, and promoting public health and maintaining sanitary conditions (Government of British Columbia, 2016a). This piece of legislation gives local governments the power to manage the water and sewer systems within their boundaries and regulate how both systems are utilized and maintained (Government of British Columbia, 2016a). The second is part 6, division 6 of the Public Health Act (Government of British Columbia, 2016b). This piece of legislation outlines that a local government must take action to ameliorate a health hazard or health impediment within its jurisdiction (Government of British Columbia, 2016b). A health hazard is defined as a condition, thing, or an activity that leads to immediate impact on public health through injury or illness (Government of British Columbia, 2016b). Water, sewer, and air quality fall under 30 this area of governance. A health impediment is defined as a condition, a thing, or an activity that results in cumulative impacts on public health leading to chronic disease and disability (Government of British Columbia, 2016b). The term health impediment was added to the Public Health Act in 2008 and is an important evolution in the role of local government in public health. The addition took the mandate of local governments in health beyond health hazards, which include water, sewer, and air quality, to health impediments, which could potentially include impacts of the built and social environments on health, among other social determinants of health. Although today health hazards as defined in the regulations relate only to trans fats and child health screening, the framework is set in place for the Province of British Columbia to explore other potential impediments (Government of British Columbia, 2010). Under the Public Health Act, a local government is also required to designate a staff or elected official as what is termed the “local government liaison” (Government of British Columbia, 2016b). The liaison’s role is to work with public health officials outside the local government. In other words, some collaboration with public health officials is mandated (Government of British Columbia, 2016b). Outside their legislated mandate to act on barriers to health, a core impetus driving local governments to take an active role in population health has come from the World Health Organization’s Healthy Cities movement (UK Healthy Cities Network, 2011). The movement began with communities in the UK and Europe, but is now widespread in Canada and the United States (Ministry of Health, 2011; UK Healthy Cities Network, 2011). Healthy Cities is informed by research and is a call to action for communities to utilize the principles outlined in the Ottawa Charter and other population health and healthy public policy research (UK Healthy Cities Network, 2011; World Health Organization, 1986). Healthy Cities draws 31 on population health principles and proposes that health is a responsibility that goes beyond the role and scope of typical health care policy actors. Local governments and decision makers play a key role in the health outcomes of those living within their jurisdictions and have a significant amount of influence and decision making power on the design and growth of their communities (Canadian Institute of Planners, n.d.; Government of British Columbia, 2016b; Ministry of Health, 2011; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013; World Health Organization, 1986). Healthy Cities stresses that local governments, among other key policy actors, recognize their influential role in healthy public policy and become leaders in healthy public policy by taking a health in all policies approach to policy and community planning (National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, 2010; UK Healthy Cities Network, 2011). In British Columbia, BC Healthy Families is a provincial initiative of the Ministry of Health and has a component which is strongly informed by Healthy Cities (Healthy Families BC, 2012b). Launched in May 2011, the initiative is the Province’s health promotion strategy designed to assist British Columbians to live a healthier life through four different programs: 1) Healthy Start – education and programming around healthy early childhood development; 2) Healthy Eating – education and programming around healthy eating; 3) Healthy Communities – education and programming around designing communities that support healthy decisions; and 4) Healthy Living – education and programming to support healthy lifestyle choices (Healthy Families BC, 2012b). 32 The Healthy Communities program component of the BC Healthy Families initiative has a special focus in that its target audience is primarily local governments and their partnering agencies (Healthy Families BC, 2012a). Ultimately, the goal of the Healthy Communities program is to encourage local governments to partner with their local health authorities on the planning and design of their communities to support the health of their population (Healthy Families BC, 2012a). The program began in February 2012 when BC local governments were invited to participate in consultations hosted by the Ministry of Health and regional health authorities (Healthy Families BC, 2012c). In the Interior Health Region, three consultations were held, including one in Kelowna, BC (Healthy Families BC, 2012c). Local governments were asked to share their views on what makes a community healthy, what is healthy and unhealthy about their communities, and what issues they are currently working on or struggling with. They were also asked to share how they envision working with their regional health authorities and the Ministry of Health, if at all (Healthy Families BC, 2012c). Some key themes emerged through these consultations: the need to increase trust between local governments and health authority staff, a desire for increased collaboration, and the need to work more proactively on issues impacting community health. Local government participants noted the key areas for action included physical activity, tobacco reduction, and healthy eating (Healthy Families BC, 2012c). The Healthy Cities movement, the BC Healthy Families Healthy Communities program, and the British Columbia provincial legislation – in addition to the push from policy actors involved in healthy public policy – create an optimal political environment for local governments in British Columbia to take a lead role in healthy public policy to address the social determinants of health. Many local governments are taking a more central role in 33 healthy public policy by developing and amending a variety of healthy public policies. For example, local governments have been engaging in implementing smoking bylaws to discourage smoking in public spaces, designing communities that include bike lanes and sidewalks to encourage active transportation to increase physical activity, and implementing recycling and compost programs to reduce waste (Capital Regional District, 2014; City of Kelowna, 2016g; City of Vancouver, 2015). Many Canadian local governments are also focusing their efforts on food and agriculture, recognizing the importance of local food production and improving local community food security by incorporating these priorities into their official community plans, integrated community sustainability plans, agricultural plans, and community food security plans (City of Kamloops, 2010; City of Toronto, 2010; City of Vancouver, 2008).  2.7 Local Governments, Urban Agriculture Policy, and Urban Agriculture Policy Communities  Urban agriculture practices introduce many policy implications related to land use planning and zoning bylaws to the local government in which the food production occurs (American Planning Association, 2007; Ellis & Sumberg, 1998; Kelsey & Vaserstein, 2000; Sharp & Smith, 2003). A local government may already have policies in place that determine where food can or cannot be grown that need review or amendment, or there may not be a policy where one is needed (American Planning Association, 2007; Ellis & Sumberg, 1998; Enns et al., 2008). As I have explored in previous sections of this paper, many local governments have begun developing and amending policies to govern and promote urban agriculture in their districts (Balmer et al., 2005; City of Minneapolis, 2011; City of Toronto, 34 2010; Stringer, 2010). In some communities, urban agriculture has become such a priority that overarching plans and/or policies have been developed to deal specifically with this trending issue (City of Minneapolis, 2011; City of Toronto, 2010; Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer, 2010). Local governments play the most influential role in land use planning because they are the policy actors developing, enacting, implementing, enforcing, and evaluating policies in their jurisdiction (Bish & Clemens, 2008; Government of British Columbia, 2016a). They are legislated by the Provincial government to develop the plans for land use and future growth of their community (Bish & Clemens, 2008; Government of British Columbia, 2016a). Municipalities employ planners and other staff dedicated to work on policies, bylaws, and zoning (Bish & Clemens, 2008). Although local governments play the main role in the development of policies within their jurisdictions, they are often not the sole actors responsible for policy change (Union of British Columbia Municipalities & British Columbia, 2012; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). Depending on the type of policy, bylaw, or zoning change, many community stakeholders are consulted or invited to participate in the development of a policy amendment, review, or creation, and when the suggested policy change comes before City Council, the public often has the opportunity to make comments (Bish & Clemens, 2008; Government of British Columbia, 2016a). In fact, the Local Government Act stipulates that when certain changes are made to a land use policy, the public must be consulted (Government of British Columbia, 2016a). Policy actors may also have a policy agenda that is not a current priority for the municipality, not congruent with the current municipal policy, or not within the institutional awareness of the local government and they may be working to influence that local government to make a policy change 35 (Interior Health, 2012; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013). Because urban agriculture has proven benefits for communities, it has been recognized by several influential policy organizations such as the United Nations, the Provincial Health Services Authority in British Columbia, and the American Planning Association (American Planning Association, 2007; Bellows et al., 2003; Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Enns et al., 2008; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016). The increase in popularity in urban agriculture has better positioned the issue to become a focus for several sectors including health, government, non-profits, and business – all of whom are making policy recommendations favouring urban agriculture (City of Kamloops, 2010; Enns et al., 2008; HB Lanarc - Golder, 2013; UK Healthy Cities Network, 2011). The rise of the local food movement and the increasing trend of city dwellers to “get back to the land” has also helped to promote and support this policy agenda (Coyne & Knutzen, 2010; Pollan, 2007). Increased knowledge and awareness about the benefits of urban agriculture have resulted in several best practice documents which contain recommendations about how local governments can support and promote urban agriculture (American Planning Association, 2007; Enns et al., 2008; HB Lanarc - Golder, 2013; Kamloops Food Policy Council, 2007). “A Seat at The Table: Resource guide for local governments to promote food secure communities” is a document produced in British Columbia targeted towards local governments that recommends the implementation of policies that encourage the use of edible landscaping, to use land use planning principles that support developers and residents to produce local food, that includes the dedication of space for community gardens in new housing developments and neighbourhoods, and promotes 36 citizen involvement in the local food system, whether it be through growing, purchasing, and/or eating locally produced food (Enns et al., 2008). Like other communities in Canada, there has been a rise in popularity of urban agriculture in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014; Nieoczym, 2011; Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2016a). Multiple policy actors in the community are striving to push forward the urban agriculture agenda (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014; Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013c; Green City Acres, n.d.-b; Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2016a). Outside traditional farming within Kelowna, community gardens were the first obvious form of urban agriculture; the first garden was established in 2003 (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). In 2010, the first urban farmer began farming in the yards of community members (Green City Acres, n.d.-b). The development of urban agriculture in Kelowna will be further explored in Chapter 4.  2.8 Opposition to Urban Agriculture  Although urban agriculture is increasingly embraced by communities and their members, there are those that do not support urban agriculture or are not convinced of its potential benefits. There are many reported stories where community members or municipalities have clearly stated their position on urban agriculture and have taken action to eliminate it (Halligan, 2016; Higgins, 2011; Moore, 2010; Mougeot, 2000). The main arguments of those who oppose it relate to community esthetics, public health, and appropriate land use. 37 Some in opposition comment on the displeasing sights, sounds, and smells of agriculture in an urban or peri-urban environment (Landscape Architects Network, 2015; Mougeot, 2000). The esthetics of farming may be viewed in a negative way by some community members because they have become accustomed to a form of community planning where agriculture typically occurs outside the urban environment. Some community members who live adjacent to agriculture at first romanticize it only to become frustrated with the reality of some farming practices which include early mornings, spray schedules, the noises and smells of animal husbandry (Landscape Architects Network, 2015). This may lead to complaints to their local municipality (Kelsey & Vaserstein, 2000). In British Columbia, the legislation entitled “The Right to Farm Act” protects farmers and enables them to carry on with their regular farming operations without consequence (Government of British Columbia, 2017). Urban agriculture activities may pose a threat to community health. There are many approaches to agriculture and techniques used by farmers may not always be supportive of human and environmental health (Mougeot, 2000). For example, the inputs a farmer may opt to use to encourage growth and reduce the pest and disease susceptibility of their plants – such as pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides – may pose temporary or long-term toxic threats to human and environmental health (Landscape Architects Network, 2015; Mougeot, 2000).  Others argue that agriculture is not the best use of land in an urban or peri-urban environment. Some community planners believe that with increasing populations, urban densification is a priority to reduce urban sprawl, and to protect more land outside the urban environment for agricultural use (Landscape Architects Network, 2015; Mougeot, 2000). Still others don’t see urban land use for urban agriculture as an economically valuable way to 38 use urban land and see property development as more economically viable (Landscape Architects Network, 2015; Mougeot, 2000). The arguments presented above are worth considering when planning for urban agriculture. However, if appropriate planned, these concerns may be mitigated through adequate community consultation and policy options.   2.9 Research Question and Contribution to the Literature Given the increasing implementation and practice of urban agriculture, its relevance to Healthy Communities, and my involvement as a policy actor in the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community, I aim to contribute to this body of research using Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community as a case study. In this thesis, I examine the actors, their beliefs, their relationships with other policy actors, and the challenges they face in advancing urban agricultural policy to support healthy communities. I use Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework to structure this research objective (Weible & Sabatier, 2007). There are many ways in which this research will contribute to the broader body of literature about urban agriculture, healthy communities, and the research using the Advocacy Coalition Framework. First, there is little literature about urban agriculture policy communities. In my research, I was only able to locate a small amount of academic literature dedicated to this topic, and my findings were all related to large urban centres, like Vancouver, British Columbia (Mendes, 2007, 2008). I could not locate any literature about urban agriculture policy communities in mid-sized cities. Second, though the Advocacy Coalition Framework has been used in several public policy analyses, it has never been used in the context of urban agriculture policy communities (Cairney, 2014). Third, urban 39 agriculture in the Kelowna is rapidly evolving. The results of my research may help inform members of the urban agriculture policy community during the course of their work, and will prove useful throughout the development of the City of Kelowna’s Healthy City Strategy, subsequent healthy food system plan, and the implementation of Agriculture Plan which, at the time of writing this thesis, is in the process of being updated (City of Kelowna, 2015a, 2016b). 40 Chapter 3: Methodology  This chapter provides insight into my personal background and professional journey that led to and greatly informs this research. The selected case study methodology is described, followed by a description of how the Advocacy Coalition Framework has been used to form the research process. I go on to provide a detailed description of my research methods. Finally, I discuss the rigour of my research study and its ethical considerations.  3.1 Position of the researcher I chose an interpretive lens through the research process to reflect how I have come to understand the development of the urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna throughout my career path. This research aligns closely with my background as a Registered Dietitian, my work history (both paid and volunteer), and my community development practice in the Kelowna local food system over the past 10 years. Prior to the commencement of this research I worked as a Community Nutritionist for Interior Health. Specifically, I worked in the area of food security and food systems development and used a population health approach. Interior Health is one of British Columbia's health authorities and provides health care services to those living within the interior region (Ministry of Health, 2016). I worked in what was at that time the Population Health department, a small department within public health – drawing on approximately 0.3% of the Interior Health annual operating budget (KPMG, 2013). The broad role of the department was to improve the health of the population. My practice area was nutrition for pregnant women, infants, and children up to 6 years of age. Part of my role as a dietitian was to support high risk pregnant teens and women in the community, most facing moderate to 41 severe food insecurity. This was my introduction to food security work in the Okanagan, and the time when I began developing relationships with non-profits who serve those facing food insecurity. Soon into my role, I realized that educating this high-risk population about healthy eating, albeit beneficial to their understanding of what it is to eat healthy, was not addressing the main determinants of their food insecurity, income and other social determinants of health. This work, in combination with my work at the Provincial level on the Dietitians of Canada Cost of Eating in BC reports, piqued my interest in working “further upstream” at the community level. As my work evolved to a broader population health scope working in community food security, I attended my first Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council (COHFC) meeting in May 2008 (Rule, 2008). I then spent the next year learning about the broad range of policy actors, as well as building my understanding of the politics surrounding food security work in Kelowna. Through my Community Nutritionist role, I became the chair of the COHFC, which I continued to Chair on a voluntary basis. Under my leadership, COHFC eventually became the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council (COFPC) and a registered non-profit society. With the COFPC I worked on several projects related to the Kelowna food system, including the Food System GeoWeb Mapping for the Central Okanagan and the Okanagan Fruit Tree Project (OFTP), a non-profit organization that brings volunteers together to harvest otherwise wasted produce and redistribute it to organizations in the community serving people who are food insecure (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013a; Kuyer, 2009). I continued in the role of leader of the OFTP after my term with the COFPC board was completed; the OFTP was established as a separate non-profit society in the spring of 2014 (British Columbia, 2014). 42 My inextricable connection to the Kelowna food system provided several advantages to my ability to conduct research as it relates to the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community, but also presented several challenges. Because my work has been and continues to be deeply entrenched in the Kelowna food system, I brought to my research an intimate understanding of the details and workings of the system, and especially food security in Kelowna. I am a policy actor in the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community who is regularly in contact with many of the key stakeholders, involved in community food events, and continues to operate the Okanagan Fruit Tree Project. Straddling the line between researcher and policy actor helped me recognize and acknowledge that as a policy actor in the community I have my own set of beliefs and priorities. In the sections of Chapter 4 where work is described in which I played a large or leading role – sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 – I have drawn on multiple references such as meeting minutes and other documents detailing conversations and positions taken by not only myself but the other actors who were engaged in the conversation at the time. I chose this approach to attempt reducing personal bias and misrepresenting the evolution of food security work in Kelowna. It is important to be aware of the challenges that I faced during my research. Working within the Kelowna food system has placed me in a position where I have developed strong connections and relationships with stakeholders that were necessary to interview for this research. These connections and relationships made it simpler for me to determine which stakeholders were the most appropriate to interview. It also made obtaining interviews simpler, as I have a good working relationship with most of the actors. However, since I was already connected to the policy network and worked closely with several policy actors it may have been easier for me to make assumptions on who the policy actors already were. It was 43 important for me to ensure that I explored past the typical policy actors with whom I worked, or was already aware of, in order to find other policy actors within the community. Using a snowball sampling technique, I relied on other policy actors to assist me in identification of additional policy actors. In addition to making assumptions on who the policy actors were, I was also at risk of making assumptions about the responses to my interview questions. Assumptions about what I believed I already “knew” – working relationships, collaborative work, and rationale for interest/involvement in urban agriculture policy – needed to be suspended to ensure an accurate description of the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community from the voice of those other actors. My career thus far has placed me in a position where I have become intertwined with food systems work in Kelowna – through work, volunteerism, and my personal life. Kelowna is mid-sized urban centre and many of my social connections and relationships are with policy actors in the urban agriculture policy community. This research is the next step in a continuum of work, driven by my desire to contribute to the work already being done related to Kelowna’s food system. I address my research objective of examining Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community through the lens of Healthy Communities and utilizing the Advocacy Coalition Framework. For this type of research, adopting a case study methodology was the most appropriate.  3.2 Case Study Methodology  Due to the complex and highly contextualized nature of public policy creation and the lack of published literature about urban agriculture policy networks, my research question was answered most appropriately by utilizing a case study methodology, informed primarily 44 by the works of Robert Yin (2003). Case study is a comprehensive research strategy and a form of empirical inquiry that is useful for studying a “contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (Yin, 2003, p. 13). Whereas many other research methodologies are used to understand a phenomenon on a larger and broader scale, according to Yin, Stake, Zucker and other proponents of case-study methodology, case-study allows a researcher to delve deeply into a case and understand it more intimately and within its specific context (Gerring, 2006; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003, 2011; Zucker, 2009). Case studies are useful for researching phenomenona for which little is understood; the fact that I could not locate any research about urban agriculture policy networks in North American mid-sized cities means that the application of case study methodology for this research study was appropriate. Case study research is designed and carried out with the aid of a protocol, a tool designed by the researcher that defines the research boundaries and creates a framework for the study (Yin, 2003; Zucker, 2009). A case study protocol includes numerous components: the research objective and purpose, a determined unit of analysis, data collection and management techniques, data analysis based on research purpose and rationale, and references a theoretical framework throughout the research process (Yin, 2011; Zucker, 2009). The sections that follow will describe these aspects.  3.3 Use of the Advocacy Coalition Framework One of the most important underlying components of case study research is that it is designed and implemented utilizing a theoretical framework (Yin, 2003). The theoretical framework is used throughout the research process and assists with determining precisely 45 what is being studied (i.e. the unit of analysis), informs the researcher about the type of data to collect, how the data is collected, and how that data is analyzed. As this case study was about urban agriculture policy networks, I chose to utilize the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Many researchers have used the ACF in their case studies (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible et al., 2011; Weible et al., 2009), though the ACF had not yet been used within the context of urban agriculture, nor specifically an urban agricultural policy community. I selected the ACF for structuring my research objective for several reasons. First, the framework aligns with the population health concept that public policy is a shared responsibility, in that policy is influenced by many actors in addition to those making policy, including other levels of government, media, researchers, policy analysts, and the public (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2013; Weible & Sabatier, 2007). Second, the ACF enables the researcher to analyze the human component of policy-making, which includes the beliefs and experiences of policy actors and the relationships between them (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Whereas most other policy analysis methods look at a specific policy, I was not looking at any specific urban agriculture policy, but the policy actors involved in that policy area. Finally, the ACF reflects the dynamic nature of policy making, and acknowledges the importance of history, current context, and culture (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible et al., 2011; Weible & Sabatier, 2011). This case study was structured using the underlying concepts of the ACF discussed in Section 2.5, which specified that policy development, implementation, and evaluation is an iterative process and that this process is driven by policy actors operating within a policy subsystem (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Referencing the visual representation of the ACF, this research is situated within the “policy subsystem” component of the framework. 46 Specifically, this research examines the policy actors within the Kelowna urban agriculture policy subsystem and investigates whether any of the policy actors have formed a policy coalition(s). I further reference the ACF in relation to understanding if the policy actors and/or policy coalition(s) work in collaboration to influence the local government policy maker (i.e.) the City of Kelowna, based on their shared beliefs and through pooling of resources. The ACF framed my research objective and subsequently the methods used to conduct this study.  3.4 Research objective, purpose and rationale The objective of my research was to examine the Kelowna urban agriculture policy actors, their beliefs, their relationships with other policy actors, and the challenges that they faced in advancing urban agricultural policy to support healthy communities. Through this research objective, I explored a number of questions to take a comprehensive look at Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community: ▪ Who are the key policy actors in Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community? What are the policy roles of the actors? Do they interact with each other? If so, how? Has a policy coalition(s) formed within the policy community? ▪ What are the policy actors’ definition(s) of urban agriculture? How do they see urban agriculture evolving in the Kelowna? How has each policy actor contributed to the urban agriculture movement? What has been the policy actors’ experience with urban agriculture in the Kelowna? 47 ▪ What do the policy actors believe about urban agriculture? What do they believe urban agriculture contributes (or not) to Kelowna? What do they think the priorities are for urban agriculture in Kelowna? Are there any barriers to urban agriculture in Kelowna? ▪ Has the City of Kelowna been responsive to urban agriculture as an issue? Has the response been appropriate? Do the policy actors have any beliefs about what the City of Kelowna must do to support (or not) the progression of urban agriculture within their jurisdiction? Through the research objective I identified a number of key policy actors in the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community and ascertained the relationships between them; described the policy actors’ definition(s) of urban agriculture, their experience with urban agriculture in Kelowna, and the direction in which urban agriculture policy and practice may be headed; described the views and positions of policy actors regarding their priorities and direction of urban agriculture in Kelowna; as well as described how the City of Kelowna has responded to these views and positions with respect to planning and policy development.  3.5 Unit of analysis It is important to clearly define the boundaries of what is being studied and what is not in any case study. This is determined by clearly identifying the unit of analysis (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). A unit of analysis is the phenomenon that is being studied and can be many things: an individual, an organization, a policy, or a country, for example (Yin, 2003, 2011). In this research study, the unit of analysis was the urban agriculture policy community operating within the urban agriculture policy subsystem in Kelowna, British Columbia, 48 Canada. This included any actors whose work was conducted within the geographical boundaries of Kelowna and within the topical scope of urban agriculture policy. My research objective assumed that there was an existing urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna. Kelowna's urban agriculture policy community is a dynamic and ever-evolving entity for which there is little documentation. In fact, there were several visible policy actors working in the area of urban agriculture in Kelowna, such as the Central Okanagan Community Gardens Society and the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, which will be further discussed in Chapter 4. Although some policy actors were highly visible in the community, there were likely many more. As there had been no formal documentation of this community, little was understood about the workings of this urban agriculture policy community.  3.6 Data collection To adequately address my research objective of understanding the deep workings of Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community, I needed to connect directly with the policy actors within it. Thus, I collected data via interviews with key urban agriculture policy actors working in Kelowna.  Appropriate sampling for this research required consideration of who to interview, how many interviews to conduct, and a realistic time frame for conducting these interviews. The unit of analysis – the urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna – determined the sampling criteria for this study; therefore, any individual or organization that did not have an interest in urban agriculture in Kelowna fell outside the scope of my research. Setting a time limit on data collection was important for the sheer practicality of completing a master’s 49 thesis program, recognizing the dynamic nature of the urban policy community in Kelowna. Data collection occurred from January 2014 through to June 2014. I gathered first-hand information related to my research objective through semi-structured interviews conducted with individuals within the urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna. The sampling criteria for the semi-structured interviews required that each interview participant be directly involved in urban agriculture or urban agriculture policy in Kelowna through employment, volunteering, or leisure time. As previously mentioned, there were a number of highly visible individuals and organizations involved in urban agriculture in Kelowna. Using purposive sampling, I contacted six potential participants. I contacted these individuals and organizations directly, via email, and requested participation in the study (Appendix A). A consent letter was provided outlining my research and explaining their role as participants (Appendix B). If I did not receive an email response, I sent a follow up email two weeks after the initial email invitation (Appendix A). I then used snowball sampling to locate an additional five interview participants, by asking the original participants I interviewed to forward my email to other potential participants. For case study research, there is not a recommended range of interviews (Yin, 2003), but my aim was to conduct interviews until data saturation was reached or until no further stakeholders wished to participate in this study. At the outset, I estimated I would conduct approximately ten to fifteen interviews. I ultimately completed eleven interviews. Once individuals consented to an interview, I arranged to meet with them at a date, time, and location convenient to them. At the beginning of the interview, the consent letter was reviewed again and signed by the participant prior to the commencement of the interview questions. During the recorded interview, I referenced an interview script 50 containing questions I developed that were informed by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Appendix C), but I also followed the cues of the participant, asking any additional relevant questions. There was no time limit for each interview; the interviews concluded when each participant decided they had nothing more to share. The interview lengths ranged from approximately 30 minutes to 2 hours. The interviews were transcribed by me, verbatim. Follow up after the interview included sending the participant a copy of the interview transcript to provide them with the opportunity to review their interview and ensure that it reflected the ideas and materials that they intended to share. Only one participant chose to review their transcript and retract a few statements from inclusion in analysis of this study. I have honoured this participant’s request.  3.7 Data Analysis As previously mentioned, the first step in my analysis began with the transcription of each interview. Transcribing enabled me to spend the time required to deeply understand the data. I identified categories and broader themes in the data during the transcription process. After completing the transcription, I analyzed each interview using a coding framework that I developed, based off the script I used in the interviews, which was informed by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). I organized the coding framework using an excel spreadsheet. Each transcription was read several times to capture all relevant data for coding. Coding was conducted using a colour coding system, with each colour representing a different topic within the coding framework. Information was categorized and then summarized into themes that will be discussed in Chapter 5.  51 3.8 Rigour There are several research practices that I followed to increase the rigour of my research. Throughout the research process including the development of my original research proposal, the literature review, sampling, data collection, and data analysis, I kept a research journal where I tracked any questions, decisions, and important thoughts as a record of my thought process and provided structure for anything requiring follow up. Methodological congruence is perhaps one of the most important concepts to follow when conducting a case study. I ensured methodological congruence by referring to my case study protocol for each decision point along the research process. As previously discussed, case study research is designed based off a theoretical framework that informs the researcher in the overall design of their study (Yin, 2003; Zucker, 2009). My study protocol was structured by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), so I referenced the ACF throughout each step of my study (Weible & Sabatier, 2007; Yin, 2003; Zucker, 2009). The case study protocol and the ACF informed my decisions related to the unit of analysis, data collection, and data analysis. Transcribing my own interviews had a significant impact on the rigour of my research. It allowed me to develop a more complex understanding of the interviews than I would have had had I them professionally transcribed. The process also facilitated my analysis, as I was much more familiar with the information in the interviews. In addition, the fact that interview participants were considered members and experts in Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community increased the probability that the information they provided was a relatively accurate depiction of the urban agriculture policy community and practices.  52 3.9 Ethical Considerations Although this was a low risk study, there were still important ethical considerations when conducting my research in respect to the confidentiality of the participants. Guaranteeing complete confidentiality was not realistic in this study. Although I was as cautious as possible in maintaining each participant’s confidentiality, many interview participants may be relatively easy to identify due to either their involvement in urban agriculture, their role with the organization in which they work, or the other actors they collaborate with. Each participant was made aware of this fact; none of the participants were concerned about their identity being discovered and some shared that they wouldn’t mind being identified by their real name. Nonetheless, I chose to use pseudonyms to be consistent with how each participant’s data was handled. If a participant chose to share sensitive information, they were informed that they may be putting themselves at risk of being identified, and asked to consider any repercussions that may result from the information they shared, such as an impact on the relationship with another policy actor. As such, transparency about the risks of participating in my research were a high priority. In my consent letter, I informed each participant that I would attempt to maintain confidentiality using code names to mask their identity. As is standard with most research procedures, all electronic files (scanned consent forms, transcripts and coding) were encrypted, password protected, and stored on a computer at UBC Okanagan campus. Another ethical consideration I had to consider in my study was that I already had a working relationship with several of the potential interview participants. This added complexity to the interview process as the participants might have not shared some information with me for reasons outside of contributing to this study. They may not have 53 been comfortable sharing an answer with me for fear it may negatively impact their relationship with another interview participant. Though I could not ensure complete anonymity, I was clear about the steps I would take to handle the information they shared in a diplomatic and conscientious way. In addition, they might not have shared some information with me because they may have believed that I already knew that information. Throughout each interview, I reminded the participant to answer each question as they would explain their answer to someone who doesn’t have a pre-existing understanding of urban agriculture in Kelowna or of their role in urban agriculture. This was especially true for interviews with participants that I had worked with in the past; in fact, I had to remind some participants several times during the interview to imagine they were explaining their answer to someone that had no pre-existing knowledge of the issues.  This chapter reviewed case study methodology, how the Advocacy Coalition Framework was used throughout the research process, and the methods used to conduct the study. The following chapter provides important context related to the community of Kelowna, food security work in Kelowna, the local food movement in Kelowna, and the City of Kelowna’s connection to this work. 54 Chapter 4 – Kelowna’s food system history To properly examine Kelowna’s urban agricultural policy community, it is important to understand the rich and longstanding history of agriculture in Kelowna, as well as the relatively recent history of food security and modern food systems work in Kelowna. This chapter recounts the history of the food security and the local food movements in Kelowna, as these two aspects provide important context and background to the community.  This chapter first provides a brief description of agriculture in Kelowna, and recognizes that agriculture has been fundamental to the development of the city since its establishment. When Kelowna was first settled, and became a municipality, it was also when agriculture became established in the area. It was also the beginning of the city’s urban agriculture policy community – though at the time it would not have been defined in that manner. This was when the first fruit trees were planted, the first farms were developed, and the first livestock was raised. During this era, agriculture became an integral part of the community and often occurred intermixed with other land uses within the city. There was no need for the term “urban agriculture,” it was simply a way of life and was required to sustain the growing population and economy. This chapter then gives an account of the work conducted by policy actors in Kelowna as it relates to food security and the local food movement. This account is intermixed with a personal narrative of how I came to understand the intricacies of the urban agriculture policy community and issues through my work in the food system and as a policy actor participating in the urban agriculture policy community. This narrative is supported by a large number and range of documents including meeting minutes, reports, newspaper articles, city bylaws, and websites. 55 4.1 Kelowna was established as a community based on agriculture Kelowna is a mid-sized city located in the Okanagan Valley, in South-Central British Columbia, Canada. Kelowna was incorporated as a municipality in 1905 (Marsh, 2007). It is the third largest metropolitan area in BC, following Vancouver and Victoria, with respect to both population and geographical footprint (Statistics Canada, 2012a). The 2011 Census indicates that Kelowna’s population was 117,312 with a growth of 9.6% since 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2012b). Topographically, it is situated in a valley and borders Okanagan Lake, its main source of water (City of Kelowna, 2016d). The climate in the Okanagan Valley is hot in the summer and temperate in the winter (City of Kelowna, 2016d). Kelowna was established on the unceded territory of the Okanagan Syilx people, who inhabited the land long before the settlers arrived in the late 1850s (Okanagan Historical Society, 1926; Okanagan Nation Alliance, 2010). Shortly after the first settlers arrived, the first fruit trees were planted around the new settlement and Catholic mission – now in the Mission area of Kelowna (Okanagan Historical Society, 1926). Agriculture was quite diversified at the beginning and included cattle, hay, grains, tobacco, vegetable and roots crops, and orchards (Okanagan Historical Society, 1926). The first grape vines were also planted at this time, although commercial winemaking did not occur in the Okanagan until the 1920s (Mitham, 2013). The agricultural landscape evolved dramatically over the next century as it became clear that the Okanagan climate and soil conditions were perfect for orchards and vineyards. Kelowna became known as the “Orchard City” (Okanagan Historical Society, 1926). It is now also known as one of the top wine regions in the world (Catteneo, 2014; Wines of British Columbia, 2016). Because of the landscape, the weather, and the wine industry, Kelowna has a booming tourism industry (City of Kelowna, 2016d).  56 Agriculture has and will likely always be a foundation for Kelowna. Recently added information on the City of Kelowna’s18 website about agriculture clearly articulates that the City of Kelowna is working to protect agricultural land and recognizes the importance of agriculture to a vibrant city and thriving agri-tourism industry (City of Kelowna, 2016a). This messaging is in line with the City of Kelowna now dedicating resources to updating their outdated agriculture plan, which was released in 1998 (City of Kelowna, 1998, 2016a).  4.2 Kelowna and the Agriculture Land Reserve The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) is a special land designation in the Province of British Columbia, the purpose of which is to protect land that exhibits good farming conditions, and to protect and promote farming in British Columbia (Agricultural Land Commission, 2014b). The ALR Act was enacted in 1973 and nearly 4.7 million hectares of land were placed into the reserve (Agricultural Land Commission, 2014b). The ALR is an often-contested topic in BC for a variety of reasons, and has an extensive body of research related to it (MacLeod, 2016; Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 2016; Stewart, 2015). Of relevance to this research in relation to the ALR is understanding how the ALR and urban development are impacting the discourse about farming within the Kelowna’s municipal boundaries and thus urban agriculture. This, in combination with Kelowna’s historical roots in agriculture, and the changes to the farming industry influences a complex relationship between policy actors and their beliefs about urban agriculture in Kelowna.                                                  18 At this point in my thesis, I switch between “Kelowna” and “City of Kelowna”. This is intentional. “Kelowna” refers to the community; “City of Kelowna” refers to the local government institution that governs the jurisdiction of Kelowna. 57 Today, approximately 40% of Kelowna’s land base is situated in the ALR (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands & Agricultural Land Commission, 2008). A map of the Kelowna’s ALR – depicted by the green sections on the map below – reveals how intermixed the ALR is with land designated for other uses including residential, commercial, and industrial designations (see Figure 4.1) (City of Kelowna, n.d.). In Kelowna, it is not uncommon to see agriculture occurring immediately next to a residential neighbourhood or a commercially zoned property, such as the main shopping mall. The growth in population has resulted in a large amount of development pressure to remove land within municipal boundaries from the ALR (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands & Agricultural Land Commission, 2008). Additionally, many owners of ALR zoned properties in Kelowna are not actively farming the land and would like to be allowed to use the property for non-farm use or to have their property rezoned out of the ALR in order to enable development on the property or to sell the property at a higher value to a developer, who would in turn eventually develop the property (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands & Agricultural Land Commission, 2008). 58  Figure 4.1 City of Kelowna – Map of the Agricultural Land Reserve zoning. Reprinted from City of Kelowna public map viewer, by City of Kelowna, Retrieved September 3, 2016 from http://maps.kelowna.ca/public/mapviewer/.   There are two main reasons for why owners wish to change the zoning of their properties. First, the property value of ALR zoned land is typically much less than non-ALR 59 zoned land (Eagle, Eagle, David, Stobbe, & van Kooten, 2015). It has not been uncommon for people to purchase an ALR zoned property at a lower price with the intention of applying for exclusion from the ALR in the future in order to sell the property for a much higher value (Eagle et al., 2015; Mickleburgh, 2012). Second, farming in Kelowna has changed dramatically over the last several decades, and many people in the farming and orchard business perceive the industry as not as economically viable as it had been in the past. Some of these challenges include orchardists that experience difficulty competing in the global market and the aging farmer population (Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission, 2015; McDonald, 2016). Thus, many farmers and orchardists in Kelowna have converted their land into vineyards in response to the challenges of the orchard and farming business and growth of the wine industry in the Okanagan (Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission, 2015). Owners of ALR property in Kelowna wishing to use their land for non-farming purposes or to have it excluded from the ALR make an application to the City of Kelowna. The City's Agricultural Advisory Committee reviews the land use amendment or exclusion application and provides recommendation(s) to City Council (City of Kelowna, 2015b). City Council then votes on the application and it then is forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), a provincial body that governs the ALR (City of Kelowna, 2016a). Because the mandate of the ALC is to protect farmland and promote farming in BC, it may be challenging for owners to get their applications approved (Agricultural Land Commission, 2016; Agricultural Land Commission, 2014a). This contributes to the land owner feeling that they are trapped on their land and leads to a negative discourse about agricultural land and farming in Kelowna (Mickleburgh, 2012; Waters, 2015). The ALR is a topic of much debate 60 in Kelowna, there is a clear division between those resentful of the ALR and the belief that farming is best pushed to the outskirts of the municipal boundary, and those who are supportive of the ALR and are advocating for a more localized food system (Mickleburgh, 2012; Moore, 2016; Waters, 2015). Given all the issues arising in Kelowna related to agriculture, an updated agriculture plan is crucial to plan with intention for the growing population and the future of agriculture in Kelowna. Coinciding with the update of the agricultural plan is the City of Kelowna’s Healthy City Strategy, which has been recently added as municipal priority (City of Kelowna, 2015a). The Healthy City Strategy is made of six theme areas: a community for all ages, healthy neighbourhood design, healthy housing, healthy natural environments, healthy food systems, and healthy transportation networks; currently, they are focusing on the first theme (a community for all ages) (City of Kelowna, 2015a). It is not clear at what point the City will begin developing their plan for the healthy food systems theme, though it is likely that food security will be addressed in the plan, as food security is a main component of a healthy food system and has been an important discussion happening in Kelowna for the last several decades. In addition, it would be prudent to assume that the updated agriculture plan and the healthy food system plan are synergistic.  4.3 Food security work in Kelowna As described in Chapter 2, food security work often begins in a community at the emergency food stage of the food security continuum (BC Ministry of Health, 2006; Community Nutritionists Council of BC, 2004; Dietitians of Canada, 2007). In Kelowna, 61 efforts to address food insecurity formally19 began with the establishment of a food bank and soup kitchen (Central Okanagan Community Food Bank, 2016a; Kelowna’s Gospel Mission, 2016). Kelowna’s Gospel Mission began as a grassroots effort in 1977 by students from the Okanagan Bible School (Kelowna’s Gospel Mission, 2016). In 1983, the Kelowna Community Food Bank (KCFB) was established. According to the KCFB website, now the Central Okanagan Community Food Bank, they began serving approximately 600 people a year and by 2015 they were serving almost 2500 people per month (Central Okanagan Community Food Bank, 2016). For many years, emergency food provision was the main form of food security action in Kelowna. In 2002, the Central Okanagan Community Gardens Society (COCG) was established and went on to become a well-known organization promoting food security though capacity building strategies, and influenced policy to support urban agriculture in Kelowna (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014).  4.3.1 Central Okanagan Community Gardens Society The COCG formed organically out of what was originally intended to be a food policy council or food action group (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). The first food forum20 in Kelowna was held in January 2002. A result of this food forum was the                                                  19 For purposes of this research, only documented information about food security was utilized in the development of this thesis. There has been and continues to be a lot of food security work done by many community members and groups at the grassroots level to improve the food system. A lot of this is not documented or the data is not stored publicly, as is typical of grassroots work. This work is not included in this research simply because it had not been uncovered. 20 A food forum is a public event organized by stakeholders intended to bring together the community to discuss the issues and strengths of their food system (Provincial Health Services Authority, 2008). 62 formation of the Central Okanagan Food Coalition (COFC) and two identified project possibilities: a good food box, and community gardens (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). The group began to meet regularly and had difficulty and frustration with the differing perspectives and lack of consensus on determining the priorities for the group. Finally, over several meetings the group supported the idea of developing a community garden. Those that did not want to work on community gardens ended up leaving the group, thus ending the COFC. The remaining members became the Central Okanagan Community Gardens in May 2002, registered as a non-profit society (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). In the winter of 2002, the COCG hosted a public forum to select a possible site for Kelowna’s first community garden, and subsequently developed a proposal for the City of Kelowna (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). In April 2003, the COCG was awarded $6000 from the City of Kelowna to be used towards their first community garden project, but was advised by the City that the site that the group had requested would not be available (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). With their first funding, the COCG hired a coordinator in June 2003 and broke ground on the first community garden, located at the Unitarian Church property, granted by the Kelowna Unitarian Fellowship (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). Since the establishment of this first garden, 15 additional gardens have been created and the COCG have established themselves as a credible organization and reliable source of information to other organizations seeking to start a community garden (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014). In addition, over time they were able to establish an effective working relationship with the City of Kelowna. The City now strives to collaborate with the COCG when possible as it now considers 63 community gardens an important part of a healthy and vibrant community (Central Okanagan Community Gardens, 2014; City of Kelowna, 2009).  4.3.2 Central Okanagan Food Policy Council In March 2006, a second food security forum was held, sponsored by Interior Health (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008a). Over 65 individuals were present at the two-day event and included representation from Interior Health, School District 23, UBC Okanagan, Community Futures, many from the non-profit sector, business sector, and many more. Through the forum many issues were identified by the participants: these issues included poverty and low-income, under-resourced community food programs, and barriers to local food production and access (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008a). The forum resulted in the formation of several task forces that were to begin addressing the issues identified through the forum. These undefined task forces are not reported in the Community Food Action Plan (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008a). It appears that only one of the task forces went on to continue working, and eventually became a group called the Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council (COHFC) in October 2007 (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008a). This group was tasked with developing a food charter21 which was drafted in January 2007 and was shared at a follow-up food security forum in March 2007 (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008a). The COHFC went on to finalize the Okanagan Food Charter and develop a food security map; in March 2008, they                                                  21 A food charter is a document that provides an overall vision for a vibrant, just, sustainable, and healthy food system. They are often referenced in the development of food policies or in the amendment of policies. They are promoted to municipal governments as a way to gain support or to anchor their commitment to supportive food policies (Joughin, 2008). 64 finalized the Community Food Action Plan document, and had subscribed to the goal of becoming the “central hub” for work occurring in the Central Okanagan food system (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008a). It was at this point when I began attending the COHFC meetings as a part of my role as Community Nutritionist with Interior Health (Rule, 2008). In the spring of 2008 until the end of the year, the group spent time attempting to move forward the Okanagan Food Charter, authored by the group and informed by the feedback provided by participants at the most recent food security forum. The COHFC made a request to present the Okanagan Food Charter to the City of Kelowna’s City Council and was declined. Instead, they were invited to present to the Women’s Advisory Committee, which was then a committee of City Council (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008b). The Okanagan Food Charter presentation was well received and it was agreed by the Women’s Advisory Committee of City Council to support the Charter (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008c). Unfortunately, the Women’s advisory committee was disbanded in the following election and was no longer a committee of Council (City of Kelowna, 2016c). Ultimately, the Okanagan Food Charter did not have any significant traction within the City of Kelowna. Interestingly, minutes about the discussion held during the June 2008 COHFC meeting reveal that a City of Kelowna staff member was utilizing the work of the COHFC to justify the inclusion of food security elements into the development of the latest version of the Official Community Plan, which is arguably the most important plan a municipality must develop – and is legislated by the Province as it sets out fundamental values and principles that guide the overall growth of a municipality (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008b; Government of British Columbia, 2016a). The 65 group was perplexed because no city staff had been in contact with the COHFC; it was assumed that a consultant working for the City at the time obtained a copy of the Okanagan Food Charter and provided it to city staff (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008b). This was frustrating to the group and they discussed the need to connect with City Council and attempt to determine why food security was apparently not a topic of interest or appeared to be a priority (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008b). The COHFC made a second attempt in 2011 to work with the City and submitted a proposal to build a demonstration garden at City Hall, but was denied once again (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2011). The attempts made at building a relationship with the City of Kelowna continued to be unsuccessful throughout my time with the group, which was from June 2008-January 2013 (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013a; Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008b).  During my first year with the COHFC, it became clear that the group was still in its developmental stage, and was having difficulty gaining broader recognition with their work and in the community. My time spent at meetings revealed several factors likely influencing the group’s struggling progress: the COHFC had no funding, there was a diversity in members’ opinions about which priorities to focus on, most members were there voluntarily and many could not commit time outside meetings to work on COHFC projects, the group was still in its infancy and had not yet established credibility in the community nor was their presence in the community known, and they were not yet adequately connected to the research community. The issues that the COHFC faced are common issues that many volunteer or civil society groups encounter when starting up. Establishing a group requires substantial up front work to set up the organization and its operations and members typically 66 act as unpaid staff until the group becomes more established as an organization and is able to focus more time on governance issues (Reynolds, 2012). I also recognized the lack of diversity at the table when I first began attending meetings. Specifically, there were no policy makers, researchers, or anyone representing the farming community on the council. These factors contributed to the effort that I dedicated to advance the work of the group; I had the ability to dedicate more time than other members as I was attending meetings as a part of my role with Interior Health, and was thus able to put more resources into the group (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2008; Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008b). In July 2009, I submitted a proposal for funding to advance the work of the food security map that the COHFC had done a couple of years prior, and also to initiate a partnership between the COHFC and UBCO (Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, 2008a; Hamilton, 2009). Specifically, the COHFC partnered up with the Centre for Spatial, Social and Economic Justice at UBCO to begin a research project related to mapping the Central Okanagan food system. This was funded through a grant provided by the Institute for Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Prevention at UBCO (Hamilton, 2009). This was an important project for the COHFC as it was an opportunity to build a formal partnership with the university and build credibility in the community by securing grant funding and pursuing a project in collaboration with a well-recognized and reputable community stakeholder. Many positive outcomes came out of the partnership: a completed project for the COHFC, increased morale of group members (morale was low because many in the group were becoming frustrated that the COHFC had not made significant progress), a contribution to local research about the Central Okanagan food system, and a partnership with a Centre at UBCO – which eventually led to other opportunities and connections through UBCO 67 (Corbett, Hamilton, & Wright, 2016; Hamilton, 2010b). Many other COHFC projects included partnerships with UBCO students and faculty: a new website, updates to the mapping project, term research papers, and students that became COHFC members (Hamilton, 2010c). In September 2009, I became the chair of the COHFC. Through my time serving as chair, I recognized the organization needed an in-depth strategic planning session, which was held in July 2010 (Hamilton, 2010a). In addition to the regular attendees, other stakeholders were invited and encouraged to participate. Clear issues and priorities were identified by the group. Many of the issues identified included those previously mentioned: the COHFC had no funding and the need to become a registered non-profit in order to be eligible for more funding opportunities, there was limited time for COHFC members to move forward on action items as most were there voluntarily, the need to address gaps identified in the Central Okanagan food system, and the COHFC was not in touch with current research and food system statistics of the Okanagan which were important to supporting their work (Hamilton, 2010a). Priorities identified included: for the COHFC to become a non-profit agency, to build a website and public presence, to build partnerships with key food system actors in the community, and to build the credibility of COHFC (Hamilton, 2010a). By the end of 2010, the COHFC had changed its name to the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council (COFPC), registered as a non-profit agency, had recruited new members and had started to increase connection with food systems research in the Okanagan (Hamilton, 2010b). Another important change that occurred during this time was that my role at Interior Health no longer supported my time with the COFPC, and as a result, my work with the COFPC became that of a volunteer, which I provided until the end of my term with the COFPC in the Jan 2013 68 (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013a). The reason for this change was a shifting of priorities at Interior Health, which had undergone a major re-organization in early 2010 (Halpenny, 2012). Despite the progress made over the years with limited resources, there was a common and recurring discussion at the COFPC table that the COFPC was not “doing anything.” My understanding was that this was for two important reasons. Many COFPC members had a keen interest in food system change but lacked the time to dedicate to any of the COFPC projects. In addition, many members lacked a clear understanding of the role of a food policy council. A food policy council serves a community in several ways (Harper, Shattuck, Holt-Gimenez, Alkon, & Lambrick, 2009). First, they serve as a table for people to gather around to discuss issues within their food system. All community members are welcome, and there are often diverse views and agendas at the table, though typically they serve the agenda of improving the food system through increased localization and support of local growers, addressing food insecurity, and improving the food environment (Harper et al., 2009). Second, they often take action on their food system and are often incubators of food system projects. Many start community gardens, community kitchens, gleaning programs, and food banks. Depending on the council, they may continue to run the project/program/service or they may act as a food action project incubator, where the project/program/service is established and then becomes its own entity once sustainable (Harper et al., 2009). Third, they try to maintain a comprehensive and unbiased view of their food system through the collection and summarization of data and research (Harper et al., 2009). And finally, they act as a vehicle to coordinate action to move forward changes to their food system through environmental change and policy work (Harper et al., 2009). Most of the COFPC members at 69 the time were interested in food action projects and less interested in food policy work. Since most of the projects the COFPC had worked on up to this point were food policy or research based projects, and many of the members did not assist with these projects, they were not exposed personally to the progress that the COFPC had been making. As COFPC chair, it became clear to me that a food action project was needed to engage the COFPC members and increase group morale; this was when conversations about a gleaning program became more serious.  4.3.3 Okanagan Fruit Tree Project A gleaning program had been an idea discussed for years at the COFPC and was a possible project identified during the strategic planning sessions held in July 2010 (Hamilton, 2010a). In the Fall of 2011, a few UBC students and a few recent UBC graduates from the Dietetics program began attending COFPC meetings (Hamilton, 2011). They were keen and ready to take on the work necessary to move forward on a gleaning project for the Central Okanagan. In November 2011, I began mentoring them through the research and project planning phase of the gleaning program. Our project team met almost weekly for the next several months, collecting information and resources from other gleaning programs, adapting forms and resources for our use, and planning the launch of the Central Okanagan Fruit Tree Project (COFTP) in June 2012 (Hamilton, 2012; Smith, 2012). When it was time to launch the COFTP, the students that worked on the research and planning had graduated and moved on to other communities to pursue employment. There remained only one other planning team member and myself to carry out the implementation of the COFTP during the 2012 picking season (Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2014). The 70 project was officially launched June 17, 2012 with a “Pick-Nic Info Session,” where the first volunteers (approximately 20) were recruited to learn how to participate (Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2014). The project did well in the first season ending with approximately 5100 pounds of fruits, vegetables, and nuts harvested by 70 volunteers and shared with 12 organizations serving those who experience food insecurity (Hamilton, 2015). One of the reasons the COFTP was successful in the first season was the media coverage received at the outset of the project. Fortunately, one of Kelowna’s newspapers had a reporter with a keen interest in food security, and she was eager to feature the COFTP on the front page of the Kelowna Capital News (Smith, 2012). Through this article, the COFTP received enough publicity to recruit community members wishing to have their fruit tree picked and additional volunteers for fruit picks; word-of-mouth and Facebook were other important recruitment strategies (Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2016b). It was clear by the end of the first season that the community was supportive of the project and thus the COFPC applied for grant funding to support the COFTP in the 2013 season (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013b). The COFTP application for funding was successful and they received their first funding through the City of Kelowna Community Social Development grant which enabled them to hire their first coordinator (Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2014). Securing funding to run the project helped it to grow exponentially – by the end of the 2013 season the COFTP had picked almost 18,000lbs of produce with approximately 200 volunteers and supported 22 non-profits serving those who experience food insecurity (Hamilton, 2015). No one could have predicted the rapid growth of the COFTP. By the end of 2013 season, it was clear that the COFTP had grown large enough that it was appropriate for the 71 project to become its own non-profit organization. There was substantial debate at the COFPC table whether or not to allow the COFTP to separate (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013d). Those that advocated for separation believed that the project had grown to a point where it was unmanageable to the COFPC board and that COFTP team was worried about getting bogged down by bureaucracy and wished for the autonomy to run the COFTP and the ability to make quick decisions. In addition, the COFTP would apply for charitable status which would enable them to provide charitable tax receipts and apply for many more funding opportunities (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013d). Those that were hesitant to separate the COFTP from the COFPC expressed their sense of loss and were reluctant to let a project go just as it was becoming successful (Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, 2013d). Ultimately, the COFPC board did vote to allow the COFTP to move on. The COFTP became an independent non-profit society March 2014 under the name Okanagan Fruit Tree Project Society (OFTP) (British Columbia, 2014). The 2014 picking season was even more successful than the previous two and by then, the OFTP had significant coverage in the local media and was being celebrated by the community (Kelowna Capital News, 2014; Shore, 2014; Zielinski, 2014). The OFTP was able to secure funding from both the City of Kelowna and the Central Okanagan Foundation to operate and increase their volunteer base to approximately 350 people, support 35 non-profits, and pick 37,000 pounds (Hamilton, 2015). In the 2015 season, the OFTP secured funding from the City of Penticton, and expanded into the South Okanagan, increasing their volunteer base and the number of non-profits supported, and were able to pick close to 60,000 pounds (Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2014). My role in the OFTP started as founder and chair of the board; in March 2015, I stepped down from the board of directors and 72 became the executive director (Okanagan Fruit Tree Project, 2015). As of January 2016, the OFTP is now a registered charity with plans to grow even further as an organization (Canada Revenue Agency, 2016).   4.3.4 Other food security initiatives  There have been many others food security initiatives in the Kelowna area over the last decade all making important contributions to the community. Notable groups include RAMA (Radical Action with Migrants in Agriculture) which supports and advocates alongside migrant farm workers in the Okanagan, the Kelowna chapter of Food Not Bombs that was a political action group that provided food as an act of solidarity with those who are hungry, and the Central Okanagan Community Farms that is a new organization growing food entirely for donation to other non-profit organizations (Central Okanagan Community Farms, 2016; kelownafoodnotbombs, 2013; Radical action with migrants in agriculture, 2016).  4.4 Kelowna’s local food movement Alongside the growth of the community food security movement in Kelowna has been the growth of the local food movement in Kelowna. The food and restaurant scene in Kelowna has changed tremendously over the last couple of decades. In 1995, the Kelowna Farmers’ and Crafters’ Market was established and over the years has become British Columbia’s largest farmers’ market, with approximately 165 vendors and 113,456 annual visits by customers (Connell & Frisque, 2012). Farmers’ markets are an important contribution to the local food system as they provide a venue for community connection, 73 allowing customers to directly interact and bond with the producers of their food. In addition, farmers’ markets promote the local food economy where local producers may sell their food and gain direct feedback from customers to refine their business practices and products (Connell & Frisque, 2012). In the mid 2000s, the restaurant scene in Kelowna was not nearly as focused on the local food movement as it is today. Outside of the restaurants at wineries, options during this period were small family restaurants, chain restaurants, fast food; there were a few fine dining establishments such as Bouchons, Waterfront Wines, and Fresca (Bouchons Bistro, 2005; Michaels, 2014). The urban food scene began to shift in 2009 when the owners of Fresca, a fine dining restaurant in downtown Kelowna, decided to shut down and start a new restaurant concept called RauDZ (Cityfood Magazine, 2009). RauDZ was a novel idea for Kelowna and helped popularize the values of supporting local farmers, producers, and wineries, using fresh local ingredients in cooking, and seasonal menus that were creative and progressive (Cityfood Magazine, 2009). Since the opening of RauDZ, Kelowna’s urban restaurant scene has blossomed and many more restaurants have opened with similar values that cater to customers that value local food (Smysnuik, 2015). In addition to the urban restaurant scene, the winery industry has had a tremendous impact on Kelowna’s food system. Wine has been produced in Kelowna since the 1930s but  dramatic changes occurred in the industry during the 1990s that boosted the industry: BC grapes producers were now able to negotiate directly with wine producers, the North American Free Trade Agreement enabled wine producers to sell internationally, wineries were focusing on higher quality wines and thus went through almost a 100% replant to different varietals more appropriate to the Okanagan growing conditions, and investors (local 74 and international) began purchasing land to begin their own vineyards and wineries (Hickton, 2005; Mitham, 2013). Large tracts of orchards were converted to vineyards as the industry grew (Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission, 2015). Over the course of a couple of decades, the Okanagan became an established world-renowned wine region, and the wines produced in the area are regular award winners. This has resulted in a thriving wine tourism industry (Baldwin & Mellows, 2013; Catteneo, 2014; Hickton, 2005). With the thriving tourist industry, many wineries have contributed to Kelowna’s high-end restaurant scene by establishing restaurants at their wineries, where tourists and locals can enjoy wine paired with elegantly prepared food that is often local and seasonal (Clapson, 2014; Okanagan Life, 2016). Along with Kelowna’s trendy urban restaurant and winery scene grew the celebration of local farmers and producers. The timing was perfect for the establishment of urban farming in Kelowna. A young entrepreneur established the first urban farm in Kelowna in time for the 2010 growing season (Green City Acres, n.d.-b; Nieoczym, 2011). Green City Acres is based on the SPIN (small plot intensive) farming model, and is operated on less than an acre of land spread amongst multiple urban properties. The farmer turns back or front yards into high producing crops like lettuces, squash, and tomatoes and provides the home owner with free produce as compensation for use of their property (Green City Acres, n.d.-b). Green City Acres was an instant success and the farmer now tours the world teaching about SPIN farming through lectures, his new book, and an online program (Green City Acres, n.d.-c). Green City Acres’ main customers are the restaurants that have created Kelowna’s trendy urban food environment (Green City Acres, n.d.-a; Robbins, 2012). 75  Community events dedicated to celebrating local food have become more popular in Kelowna as well; events such as Diner en Blanc, Feast of Fields, the Okanagan Organic Festival, and the Okanagan Wine Festival are numerous (Diner en Blanc, n.d.; Farm Folk City Folk, 2016; Okanagan Greens, 2016; Okanagan Wine Festivals Society, 2016). These local food events, the trendy restaurants, and occasionally, the farmers’ market cater to those who can afford to pay the higher prices often associated with food that is prepared in such an elegant fashion.  4.5 Conclusion  In this chapter I reviewed contextual information related to the Kelowna, agriculture in Kelowna as it relates to the ALR, and the evolution of the food security and the local food movements in Kelowna. I enriched this material with details of my personal experience as a policy actor in the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community. In the next chapter, I will review the results of the interviews conducted with several key policy actors engaged with urban agriculture in Kelowna. It is complementary to the material presented in this chapter, as I outline the views and experiences of the other policy actors, how they network with each other, and what their priorities are.   76 Chapter 5 – Results, Analysis, Discussion The previous chapter reflected on the foundation of food systems work that has already occurred in Kelowna, and how urban agriculture grew as a priority. This chapter shares the results of the interviews and discusses the results of this research utilizing the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2011). The analysis of this research heavily focuses on the “policy subsystem” component of this framework, as the focus of this research is about the policy actors and not a specific policy. Looking deeper into the framework model (Figure 5.1), under the “policy subsystem” section, some of the results of my research may be used to describe components of a coalition, their beliefs, and resources. For the purposes of this research, I define “policy community” and “policy coalition” as related but differing entities. A policy community consists of policy actors who identify as an individual or institution with an interest in a particular policy area. Members of this community may or may not be aware of other members of the community, and may or may not share similar beliefs about the policy area. In this research study, a policy coalition exists when members of a particular policy community collaborate through the exchange or sharing of information and resources to influence policy, based on a set of shared beliefs. 77  Figure 5.1 2007 Advocacy Coalition Framework Flow Diagram. Reprinted from Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, by Weible, C., P. Sabatier, and K. McQueen, February 2009, Policy Studies Journal, 37(1): 123.  The results, analysis, and discussion for this chapter are organized following the same structure as the interview process. Each interview began by evaluating the different ways which each policy actor understood urban agriculture. This began by identifying how they defined urban agriculture, and what they believed urban agriculture contributed to a community. Once these two views were established, they aided in establishing the underlying beliefs each actor held about urban agriculture. Each actor had a unique underlying belief, and understanding these underlying beliefs enabled me to better understand and frame 78 questions in the interview that addressed their involvement with urban agriculture and how they worked with, or did not work with other policy actors. After the line of questioning related to their beliefs, I then asked questions intended to allow me to understand their role in urban agriculture in Kelowna, followed by any partnerships or relationships they had with other policy actors. I asked them about their understanding of the current urban agriculture situation in Kelowna: who other actors were and their understanding of how other policy actors worked with each other. I concluded each interview by asking each actor to share their own priorities around urban agriculture in Kelowna. This chapter concludes by reflecting on the usefulness of the Advocacy Coalition Framework.   5.1 An introduction to the Policy Actors The data collection for this research project occurred from January to June 2014. Eleven interviews were conducted in total. The interviews were held in the offices or homes of the policy actors. Using purposive sampling, I began interviewing the actors that I already had a relationship with as their roles and work in urban agriculture were already known to me. Following these interviews, I connected with the other participants via snowball sampling. I will now introduce each of the actors interviewed using a pseudonym for each actor: Carol: Carol was the first individual I interviewed. She is employed by Interior Health, where she works in Health Protection, a department that oversees the health inspectors and licensing officers. Her interest in urban agriculture relates to her role, which is to promote the importance of the built environment to community health, and to influence 79 and work with local governments to consider the health impacts of the built environment on community health. Ethan: Ethan works with the Ministry of Agriculture as a territory agrologist. In his role, he serves many functions and describes himself as a “Jack-of-all-trades”. Ethan works with the farm and ranch community on environmental management, agriculture emergency management (for example, a forest fire may be approaching a ranch and he assists with the plan to move agricultural operations out of harm’s way), and handles general inquiries related to food and agriculture from the public. His main role is with the Strengthening Farming program, where he works with local planners within his territory – this includes planners with the City of Kelowna – on bylaw and policies related to agriculture. Luke: Luke’s ties to urban agriculture in Kelowna were made through multiple avenues. First, he is a member of the City of Kelowna’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC). According to their Terms of Reference, the AAC is an advisory committee of City Council with the role of advising council on “issues important to the agri-business community” (City of Kelowna, 2015b). The AAC is a liaison between Council and the agricultural community. Second, Luke is an instructor at Okanagan College, with a background in geography. He teaches about environmental resources and agriculture, often including real-world teachings – this is how he became connected with the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council (COFPC). Through connecting his curriculum with the COFPC he eventually became a member of the COFPC, and has a strong interest in working with the COFPC on research related to Kelowna’s food and agriculture systems. Gwen: Gwen is another employee with Interior Health, but works in a different department than Carol. Gwen is the Manager of Food Security, Community Nutrition, and 80 Tobacco Reduction. She oversees the Community Nutritionists, who are Registered Dietitians working in the community setting. Their roles vary, but all relate to food security and/or nutrition at a community level. She is managing a new Community Nutritionist whose role is to work in the Central Okanagan with local governments – like the City of Kelowna – on food policy issues. Mark: Mark is the City of Kelowna’s City Manager. As Mark describes it, the City Manager is essentially the CEO of the local government institution and he reports to City Council. Mark comes from a background in planning and has a strong understanding of land use planning and bylaws. Percy: Percy used to work for the City of Kelowna as a planner. During his time at the City, his planning role evolved and he became the planner that worked on anything related to agriculture. According to Percy, agricultural planning used to be a shared responsibility amongst all the planners at the City of Kelowna, but over time he began to recognize it made sense for a planner to focus on this area, especially in Kelowna where so much of the land base is in the ALR. His role as the agricultural specialist was self-designated and the City was approving of this. Ian: Ian was born and raised in Kelowna to a farming family. He grew up in agriculture and continues to be a farmer to this day. He is extremely passionate about farming and serves as the Chair of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). The ALC is an independent provincial body – its role is to preserve agricultural land protected by the Agricultural Land Reserve and to encourage farming and the accommodation of land to use for farming in a variety of communities (Agricultural Land Commission, 2014a). 81 Elizabeth: Elizabeth has substantial experience and interest in urban agriculture. She is a landscape architect working in Kelowna. Landscape architects work mainly on development projects such as buildings, parks, and roadways to factor in how these developments integrate into the broader landscape (American Society of Landscape Architects, 2016). Elizabeth is also a new board member of the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. In addition to that, she operates an organic orchard in Summerland, a community south of Kelowna, and is an avid gardener. Gunther: Gunther is intimately connected to urban agriculture in Kelowna as he is Kelowna’s first celebrated urban farmer. He operates his urban agriculture business in Kelowna using the SPIN farming model where he grows crops on borrowed private urban land. He also holds training sessions and speaks worldwide about his method of urban farming. Lindsay: Lindsay is a manager within the City of Kelowna and her portfolio involves overseeing the policy and planning department. She has a background in natural resource management and also has a keen understanding of community food security. Cheryl: Cheryl is the Chair of the Central Okanagan Community Gardens Society (COCG) and has been a part of the COCG since its formation. She was also a founding Board member of the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. Cheryl has been involved in Kelowna’s food system work for a couple of decades and was in attendance at the food forums discussed in Chapter 4. Many of the policy actors interviewed identified many other actors that were not interviewed. These actors included representatives from the Regional District of the Central Okanagan, the Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission, and Tourism 82 Kelowna who were contacted but I could not secure an interview, and representatives from the restaurant industry, School District 23, Okanagan Water Basin Board, UBC Okanagan, Kelowna Crafters’ and Farmers’ market, and the Central Okanagan Divisions of Family Practice, who were not contacted for an interview.  5.2 Urban agriculture as defined by the policy actors In general, all interview participants agree that at a fundamental level, urban agriculture involves growing food within the boundaries of a city. Although this may seem obvious, it was interesting to hear the more detailed definitions of urban agriculture from participants. Urban agriculture was described by what it is. Actors identified wineries, orchards, farms, greenhouses, gardens, edible landscaping, food forests, and wild foods. Urban agriculture includes the production of vegetables, fruits, and grains and the raising of livestock and bees. Some went further to include farmer’s markets, pocket markets, and abattoirs. Many actors expanded their definition to include elements within a complete food system – the elements that enable food production, distribution, marketing and sales, and disposal. Those with a holistic viewpoint included other components within a community. Luke, who has a strong background in food systems geography, included the water system. Ian, who has grown up in the farming industry and was the Chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, included the tourism industry. Urban agriculture was described by where it happens within a municipal boundary. It may occur on traditional farmland located in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), or on land not zoned within the ALR such as residential, commercial, industrial, or mixed land-use 83 properties. It may occur in public spaces such as parks, along boulevards and walkways, or in containers in busy urban locations. Urban agriculture can be located at schools, daycares, senior facilities, and office spaces. It may occur in dense and developed locations or in undeveloped spaces. Urban agriculture may take advantage of the vertical spaces, rooftops, and nooks of the city's built environment. And of course, urban agriculture may occur in a community member’s yard. Urban agriculture was described by how it happens. It may occur through commercial farming, incubator farming, school gardening, community gardening, personal gardening, gleaning, permaculture and food forests, and public produce. Urban agriculture can be conducted for commercial, industrial, community, educational or personal use. The scale of urban agriculture was also noted: it may be large, small, or micro in scale. Finally, urban agriculture was also described by who participates in it: farmers, community members, community activists, non-profit and charitable organizations, restaurants, children, adults, seniors, people of all diversabilities, varying cultures and demographics. Not surprisingly, each policy actor’s definition of urban agriculture reflected their role as a policy actor. As an example, Gunther, the urban farmer, was very clear that urban agriculture only included growing food within city limits for profit and when probed further quite specifically stated it does not include non-commercial forms of food production, such as gardening or edible landscaping. Another example was Ethan, who works for the Ministry of Agriculture and gave a comprehensive definition that urban agriculture is all agriculture occurring within the municipal boundary including micro, small, or large operations, production for commercial, community, or personal use, and plant and animal. Lindsay, the 84 policy manager with the City of Kelowna, used the City of Kelowna’s official description of urban agriculture which is “the cultivation of a portion of a parcel for the production of food including fruits, vegetables, nuts and herbs for human consumption only…this definition does not include poultry and/or livestock” (City of Kelowna, 2010). It’s important to understand how policy actors understand agriculture because it contributes to their understanding of what and how it contributes to a community. The next section outlines the beliefs of the policy actors interviewed.  5.3 Urban agriculture contributes to a Healthy City Although many of the actors utilized different terms and set of languages to describe the contribution of urban agriculture to a community, they all explained the same phenomenon: urban agriculture is an important component of a healthy community. Carol, Interior Health’s Healthy Built Environment, and Gwen, Interior Health’s Community Nutrition and Food Security Manager, both spoke directly of the BC Healthy Communities Initiative described in Chapter 2 and the support for urban agriculture within the Provincial Healthy Families BC Initiative (Healthy Families BC, 2012a). Many other actors interviewed used the word “health” in their descriptions and spoke about how urban agriculture is “healthy” or “contributes to the health of a community.” This included Mark, the City Manager, Percy, the ex-planner, Lindsay, the City of Kelowna Planning Manager. Still others utilized terms such as “vibrant”, “thriving”, “resilient”, and “sustainable.” With respect to Healthy Cities literature, all the terms used point to the broad and comprehensive view of what “health” means in Healthy Cities which takes into account the people, culture, 85 environment, and economy (BC Healthy Communities, 2016; UK Healthy Cities Network, 2011). There were many ways described in which urban agriculture contributes to a healthy community: it connects people with their food and contributes to their personal health, it is an important component of community food security and community food sovereignty, it contributes to a healthy local economy, and it promotes a healthy environment. Urban agriculture connects those within the community to agriculture and the understanding of where food comes from and influences their personal involvement in urban agriculture. Per Carol, Interior Health’s Healthy Built Environment program (IH HBE), and Cheryl, the Central Okanagan Community Gardens representative, community members are often removed from their food system and do not eat the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables. Ethan shared: I think it’s a little disrespectful that one of the three primary needs that we have in our lives – clothing, shelter, and food – and you don’t know where one of the most important things comes from? I think we’ve made a mistake there.  Cheryl stated that urban agriculture directly impacts health; by being around produce, people are directly influenced by it because they see it more often and understand it better – they are more likely to participate in gardening, a light form of physical activity and to eat more vegetables and fruits which are healthy. Urban agriculture contributes to the normalization of healthy food, which is a diet consisting predominantly of whole foods and abundant in fruits and vegetables (Health Canada, 2011). When Luke thinks about urban agriculture, he “think[s] of revitalization of people's understandings of their yards." The influence of urban agriculture on community members was described by its rippling effects in the community. Gunther, the community farmer notes: 86 …you’re engaging all these people that wouldn’t normally see these kind of things and so, one example is every single place I’ve had a garden plot that’s visible to that neighborhood has been contagious. So, others neighbors go “oh what a great idea” and whenever they see me there they come and chat with me you know and ask me gardening tips.  Urban agriculture was described as an important contributor to community food security and to community food sovereignty. Carol, IH HBE program; Lindsay, City of Kelowna policy manager; Gwen, IH CN/FS manager; Elizabeth, landscape architect, orchardist, and Central Okanagan Food Policy Council board member all described urban agriculture as a critical component of population health and has the potential to activate the community around the common issue of food security. To them, urban agriculture is an important contributor to a healthy built environment and healthy food environment. They also spoke to urban agriculture’s modest contribution to household food security by providing an opportunity for community members to produce their own food at a reduced cost compared to purchasing food from a grocery store or market. Urban agriculture was described as a component of a community food system and to healthy public policy, Carol stated “I see food security as local food production, I see local food production as food security. So the more you can produce locally, the better off the vulnerable populations and the population as a whole are.” Many actors acknowledged how urban agriculture contributes to a thriving economy. Ethan explained that many community members do not recognize the importance of agriculture to a community’s economy: People undervalue agriculture, quite often they see agriculture not as in agri-business but as those “dumb farmers”. If you take a number of the operations around here, they’re not kind of mom and pop scratching out a living, they are players in the world. They send multi-millions of dollars’ worth product out of here.  87 Gunther spoke first hand to his experience of becoming an urban farmer and how he grew his business in Kelowna. He described his business model in detail, how it is connected to and supported by many other local businesses, especially by the restaurant industry in Kelowna. Carol and Gwen talked about the role of a healthy economy as a component of a healthy community, and that the benefits of urban agriculture bring about other economic opportunities: business begets more business. Ian further exclaimed that, “All I’m saying is think of agriculture as an economic resource, a healthy resource, a community resource…” Urban agriculture contributes to an environmentally sustainable community. Several actors spoke to urban agriculture’s impact on the local environment, noticing that if conducted with sustainable practices, urban agriculture contributes to a healthy ecosystem and environment. Lindsay, City of Kelowna planning manager, said that urban agriculture ties in with “how we choose to handle our climate action plan and reduction of [greenhouse gas emissions].” Gunther mentioned the positive impacts on the microclimate where he farms. Actors, such and Elizabeth and Luke, also spoke to the esthetics of urban agriculture and its ability to add dimension and beauty to a community. Each policy actor's underlying belief system was integral for me to learn, as these beliefs inform all the actions they take in their separate roles in the urban agriculture policy community. This is expanded on and reviewed in detail in the following section.   5.4 The roles of the actors in urban agriculture  During their interviews, the policy actors identified their role in different ways. These different roles naturally fit into five categories: policy maker, policy influencer, educator and promoter, researcher, and urban agriculture practitioner (see Table 5.1). Policy makers are 88 those that develop policy; actors working for the City of Kelowna, Interior Health, and the Ministry of Health identified as policy makers. Policy influencers are those that work to influence the policy makers. Almost all the interviewees identified as a policy influencer, except for Gunther, the urban farmer, and Mark, the City of Kelowna City Manager. Educators and promoters are those policy actors who educate community groups and members about urban agriculture and promote it in the community; all actors explained that they are involved somehow in education and promotion of urban agriculture, except for Mark. Researchers are those involved in researching urban agriculture, including research conducted both within and not within an academic environment; only four of the actors identified their role in research and included both Carol and Gwen from Interior Health, Ethan from the Ministry of Agriculture, and Luke the instructor at Okanagan College. Finally, practitioners of urban agriculture are those policy actors – or their institutions – who physically engage in growing food within an urban context; Gunther the urban farmer, Elizabeth, who practised urban agriculture via her role with the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, Ian, the Agricultural Land Commission chair and local farmer, and Cheryl, the Chair of the Central Okanagan Community Garden Society all practise urban agriculture in Kelowna.      89 Table 5.1: Roles of urban agriculture policy actors interviewed  Policy Maker Policy Influencer Educator and Promotor Researcher Practitioner City of Kelowna – City Manager x     City of Kelowna –Policy and Planning Manager x x x   Agricultural Advisory Committee, Okanagan College Instructor, COFPC member  x x x  Interior Health – Heathy Built Environment  x x x  Interior Health – Community Nutrition and Food Security x x x x  Ministry of Agriculture  x x x  Ex-planner, City of Kelowna x x x   Urban Farmer   x  x Landscape architect, orchardist, COFPC board  x x  x COCG Chair  x x  x ALC Chair, farmer and orchardist x x x  x  Both current City of Kelowna staff interviewed, Mark and Lindsay, and Percy, the ex-planner for the City of Kelowna, understood the role a city may play in the development of urban agriculture policy and recognized that the City was the main policy actor with the power to develop and change policy in Kelowna. However, only Lindsay and Percy also understood how the City’s could also play role in the education and promotion of urban agriculture, as potential urban agriculture practitioners, and in research. This was an interesting point of discovery, as there was clear dissention in the ranks within the City of 90 Kelowna staff over how involved the City should be with respect to urban agriculture. City of Kelowna staff had for years been attempting more progressive approaches to urban agriculture, but many concepts could not proceed past management or to council. Lindsay explains this point by noting: “I think that um, within our senior leadership mentality and even at the political realm it’s viewed [urban agriculture] as being a luxury, an add-on, rather than a core business function and how that integrates into providing a healthy thriving economy.” Percy echoed that urban agriculture was not viewed as a priority with the City of Kelowna: “You try to do good work on the side of your desk but it was challenging to do so. You know as time permits without being able to focus on the policy side is a bit challenging.” It is important to note that at the time of this data collection (2014), the City had not begun the process of updating their outdated agriculture plan, publicly made any statements indicating a desire to prioritize agriculture and position Kelowna as a community that promotes and values agriculture, nor had they made much progress on their Healthy City strategy (City of Kelowna, 2015a, 2016a, 2016b, 2016f). Both Interior Health staff, Carol and Gwen, and Ethan from the Ministry of Agriculture were very clear in their role as influencers of urban agricultural policy. Both Carol and Gwen stressed their role in healthy communities and the role of Interior Health to work with local governments on policy and environmental change to create communities that support the well-being of its citizens. Ethan shared a similar perspective on the Ministry’s role: I spend a lot of time brainwashing planners...that planning for and with agriculture in ALL of its forms, everything from livestock feedlot right through to the guy trying to raise bees in backyards, that that is all contributing to the social fabric, the environment, and the economy that we find in British Columbia.  91 Although the word “brainwashing” was used in jest, it was very clear that Ethan takes his role in influencing policy very seriously. In fact, Gwen and Carol have formalized a partnership with Ethan specific to influencing municipal policy as it relates to agriculture and community health, including urban agriculture policy. This partnership will be discussed further in this chapter. Carol, Gwen, and Ethan stated that their roles are as educators and promoters of urban agriculture, as well as potential collaborators in research. They both also acknowledged their roles as policy makers. At the time of the interview with Gwen, Interior Health was actively developing its own process for utilizing Interior Health owned and leased land in Kelowna to grow food, with the intention of eventually transitioning towards an Interior Health land use policy that enabled urban agriculture. Gwen and Carol found that although urban agriculture was not a high priority for Interior Health as an institution, it was a priority for their respective departments. Both mentioned the importance that Interior Health work harder to lead by example and follow the same recommendations they give to municipalities in practising, promoting, and advocating for urban agriculture. Ethan felt that the Ministry of Agriculture did not develop policy directly related to urban agriculture, however the policies they did develop at the Provincial level influence urban agriculture policy through the relation to policy governing the Agricultural Land Reserve.         Ian, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) clearly defined the role of the ALC as being to protect and promote the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and farming, thus preventing land in the ALR from being re-zoned for development. Ian stated “our job is to make sure that that good piece of land stays there.” In the case of Kelowna, where approximately 43% of its land base sits in the ALR, policies of the ALC and ALR impact greatly the farming occurring in Kelowna boundaries (City of Kelowna, 2016a, n.d.). 92 Through his role at the ALC, Ian is a policy maker, a policy influencer, and educator and promoter of urban agriculture. As a farmer with farmland located in the City of Kelowna, he was also an urban agriculture practitioner, and used this background knowledge in his role at Chair of the ALC. Luke, who represented both Okanagan College (OC) and the City of Kelowna’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) and had a strong background in researching urban agriculture and the ALR, saw his role as contributing a critical perspective to the dialogue at AAC meetings. This included the process by which ALR land exclusion and other types of ALR applications are reviewed at AAC meetings. He felt that the AAC was not reaching its full potential with respect to the scope of the issues they were providing comment and direction on. Luke also identified that the AAC’s meetings were limited to ALR applications and only rarely discussed matters other than ALR applications. Through his role with Okanagan College, he incorporated local agriculture topics into his courses and endeavoured to contribute to local research about Kelowna’s food system, including urban agriculture. He became a member with the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council and provided the opportunity for the COFPC to collaborate with his students on their semester projects, to advance the work of the COFPC.         Cheryl, the Chair of the Central Okanagan Community Gardens (COCG) stated her main role as an educator and promoter of urban agriculture, but also explained her role in advocacy and influence of urban agriculture policy and as a practitioner of urban agriculture. Cheryl spoke to the importance of community gardens and the desire of the COCG to influence the requirements the City of Kelowna places on developers of new multi-family residential developments. The COCG advocates that developers earmark a mandatory 93 amount of land space in new developments for gardening, allowing residents to grow their own food and experience the many benefits of community gardening. Interestingly, Gunther, the urban farmer identified as an educator, promoter and practitioner of urban agriculture; however, he did not view his role as an influencer and advocator or developer of urban agriculture policy. He was clear about his desire to operate his urban farming business with as little government intervention as possible, ideally with no government or policy governance. Ironically, the City of Kelowna began working on and implemented their new land-use bylaw for urban agriculture use because of this urban farmer. Gunther approached Percy at the City of Kelowna to address a current land-use bylaw in place that prevented him from erecting a greenhouse on the residential property where he farmed. Because of the direct influence on his business practice, Gunther was compelled to approach the City to have the land-use bylaw changed. Percy began developing the policy with other city staff and the Agricultural Advisory Committee, with consultation from the urban farmer. The urban agriculture land-use policy was passed in 2010 (City of Kelowna, 2010). It was perplexing to me that this urban farmer was adamant he did not play a role in urban agriculture policy, yet instigated the development of Kelowna’s most progressive urban agriculture policy to date. His views are likely anomalous and are not representative of the views of other urban farmers, as he considers himself an anarcho-capitalist22 with a firm view of abolishing all government and policies. He was certain about his role in education and promotion with respect to urban agriculture, and obviously, his role as a practitioner of urban agriculture. His role in education and promotion was tied directly to                                                  22Anarcho-capitalists believe in the abolishment of government and a complete free market (James’s Liberty file collection index, n.d.). 94 his business practice, as he described the many speaking engagements he has done and workshops he has held. Another fascinating interview was related to the role of the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council (COFPC). Elizabeth, a board member of the COFPC spoke to the projects that the COFPC is involved in, all related to urban agriculture. However, she also mentioned that the COFPC has not been involved in any official policy work to date, despite having the word “policy” in their name. She stated that the COFPC would like to work on policy issues and saw a role for the COFPC in the development of position statements to support momentum in urban agriculture policy. As a landscape architect, Elizabeth viewed her role and that of other landscape architects to be at the forefront with respect to designing progressive spaces that promote the flourishing of a community, including the implementation of innovative urban agriculture design practices. Thus, promotion and education of urban agriculture, being a practitioner of urban agriculture, and influencing urban agriculture policy were roles that Elizabeth self identified. She admitted to the limited opportunities afforded to the landscape architects to utilize these progressive design strategies in Kelowna, because few developers request design projects which utilize them. For Elizabeth, this is largely because it is not a development requirement by the City of Kelowna, whereas it is for some other municipalities, like Vancouver. In addition to being able to categorize how the actors described their roles in urban agriculture policy, another clear theme that arose from the interviews was that the actors viewed their roles as evolving, and with that evolution, many were still in the process of understanding their roles in urban agriculture policy and how they should be working with other policy actors. Carol shared "but are we doing more upstream? [Are we] actually going 95 to council and saying ‘we want to focus in on your policies and procedures to improve food security and local food production'? Nope, we're waiting for them to come to us and then we respond.” Urban agriculture is so new that institutions such as the City of Kelowna, Interior Health, and Ministry of Agriculture are still trying to understand their evolving role in urban agriculture. The way that each policy actor described their role in urban agriculture provided insight into the actions they took, and underlined any motives for any advocacy, lobbying, or political action. It also relates to their collaborations and attempted collaborations with other policy actors with the community. As attempts to form relationships between organizations are being pursued, sometimes it is not clear how the policy actors should be working together or for what precise purpose. The following sections outline the working relationships described by the actors.  5.5 Collaborations between the policy actors As policy actors learn what their roles are in urban agriculture, they learn how they can work with other policy actors and what those actors’ roles are. In Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community, some partnerships have taken shape and have gained modest traction in the formation of a policy coalition. The interviews revealed that within the policy community, some of the policy actors have formed formal partnerships, while others have explored working together in formal or informal ways. These include intra-organizational and inter-organizational partnerships.  96 5.5.1 Interior Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the City of Kelowna The clearest partnership forming in Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community is between the Ministry of Agriculture, two departments within Interior Health (Healthy Built Environment program and the Community Nutrition and Food Security program), and the City of Kelowna. This partnership is still in formation. At a broad level, the actors were clear about their roles within the working relationship, but at the time of the interviews, they were still in the process of determining the details of carrying out their roles within the working relationship. The nature of the partnership can be defined by describing Interior Health’s “central intake process” originating out of their Healthy Built Environment Program. Both Carol and Gwen noted that the central intake process took shape as a response to an evolution in Carol’s role within Health Protection, a department within Interior Health. Earlier in Carol’s career within Health Protection, she worked as a health inspector with local governments to monitor water, sewer and air quality. Carol found that it was increasing levels of partnership with Population Health – the department in which Gwen is employed – coupled with updates in the academic literature about the roles of local government in fostering and developing healthy built environments that lead to her role evolving into a health inspector position focusing on monitoring and creating a healthy built environment. She developed the central intake process, where local governments within the Interior Health region may send requests for comment on development proposals, rezoning proposals, and planning documents such as official community plans. At the beginning of this role and process, Carol spent a great deal of her time building relationships with local governments to communicate how Interior Health was an important 97 stakeholder to include in their consultation process, particularly as they could provide valuable and informed comment from a health perspective. Many of the applications coming through the central intake process were focused on agricultural land. From a health perspective, this indicated that food security was a relevant topic for comment. Thus, a memorandum of understanding was forged with the Food Security and Community Nutrition program. At the same time, Carol and Gwen formed a formal partnership with Ethan at the Ministry of Health – who had a legislated mandate to provide comments to local governments within his region on ALR applications – because they sought out his expertise in agriculture, and shared the same mandate to preserve agriculture. Reviewing planning documents was new to Gwen's role and department and “if something comes to me and I’m just…I’m just unsure, I’ll call him up [Ethan] and ask him for some consultation just because he has so much more experience and history.” Collaboratively, Carol, Gwen, and Ethan began providing comments to local governments on any agriculture-related proposals coming through the central intake process. Carol, Gwen, and Ethan collaborated around a shared mandate and shared set of values. Ethan was clear about his mandate to preserve farmland and to ensure responsible farming practices. He also recognized:  It is part of our history, our social fabric, it allows us access to land, to resources to water that we consider to be very valuable in our lives. Not just the production of food but the benefit, you know, the ancillary benefits of good health, fresh air, movement, all those things, they come into play. It’s good for the economy.  Gwen and Carol both had a desire to improve community health, and they saw urban agriculture as a key component to community health. Carol and Gwen spoke broadly to their definition of health which included the local economy, culture, vibrancy, history, and 98 environment. All three emphasized their role in educating local governments on the importance of local government action in a healthy community. Carol, Gwen, and Ethan explained that within their regions, the City of Kelowna was a high priority for them because the City was the largest municipality in their region. As such, the City of Kelowna was high on their priority list. It took a few years of approaching staff and City Council to formally explain how Interior Health could support the City in understanding their role in health, and to influence the City to reach out to them for this expertise. Carol informed us that it took some time for the City of Kelowna staff to understand how their planning impacted community health, and why Interior Health would want to provide comment on planning documents and development proposals: We went through a very interesting process to have the discussion first with the long-range planner as well as the manager of Development Services to explain why we were doing what we were doing, how health impacted land use planning, and…um the actual usage of land and how…why health important, where health could be interjected in or parachuted in, um, what was healthy public policy. So we were really going through quite a learning stage during those 3 years.  Over time, Carol, Gwen, and Ethan built a relationship with the City of Kelowna and they had the opportunity to provide comment on the City of Kelowna’s Official Community Plan and have commented on several Kelowna-based ALR applications. Remarkably, the central intake process was not mentioned by either City of Kelowna policy actors interviewed (Mark and Lindsay), but it was discussed by Percy, the ex-planner. This may be perhaps because it would have been the planner that would have utilized the central intake process, and not by City staff further up the chain of command. From Percy’s perspective, the relationship with Carol and Gwen also took some fine-tuning. Percy worked with Carol and Gwen to help them understand how to best work with the City of Kelowna: 99 They didn’t really understand their role in the application process. I know they had consulted with the Ministry of Agriculture and had garnered some information from there, but I thought that I could provide them with a better understand of the government role and how they can be most effective. So, trying to coach them on the value of tailoring comments to each individual application versus a form letter that you know, that ALR land is important or agricultural land outside of the ALR is important for that matter.   5.5.2 Central Okanagan Community Gardens and the City of Kelowna           The working relationship between the Central Okanagan Community Gardens (COCG) and the City of Kelowna has taken over a decade to develop into a strong working partnership. According to the Cheryl, COCG chair, when the COCG formalized as a group in 2002, the City of Kelowna had no interest in community gardens. At first, the COCG’s attempt at gaining support from the City was unsuccessful: the COCG approached the City requesting the use of a small parcel of land to start their first garden, however the City was not interested, and did not provide the group any land. Cheryl informed us that the group had to look for private land to start their first garden, and was successful at securing land thanks to the Kelowna Unitarian Church, who were gracious to loan the space. It wasn’t until after the first community garden was built that the COCG could secure some time with staff at the City of Kelowna: I think what happened that really changed it for Kelowna is that they were sort of nervous about it so we took our whole board to a meeting with the chairman of parks and he had expected one or two people. And when he saw the expertise and knowledge that our board was comprised of he realized that it was an organization that was serious about planting gardens and making community gardens happen. And I think that was sort of the changepoint.  Over the last decade, the COCG has built many community gardens in Kelowna – quite a few on City of Kelowna land. In the last few years, the City of Kelowna has come to understand the benefits a community garden can bestow on a neighbourhood – increased 100 social capital, beautification of the environment, reduced water use compared to lawns, and reduced crime (Bellows et al., 2003; Brown & Jameton, 2000; Wakefield et al., 2007). The City of Kelowna now approaches COCG when they have a plot of land they wish to be used for a garden. This was the case with the COCG’s Lindahl garden, which the COCG agreed to build and manage with some reservation. Cheryl shared “we didn’t want to build it but the City said ‘please’!’’ At the time, the COCG had reservations because they were limited by their financial and staff/volunteer resources. Today, the COCG and the City of Kelowna continue to have a positive working relationship. The City of Kelowna publicly endorses community gardens on their website, and works in collaboration with the COCG on the development of new community gardens (City of Kelowna, 2016e).  5.6 Struggles with collaboration and opportunities in-waiting Some participants spoke of the partnerships that have formed between policy actors in the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community, but many policy actors also spoke about failed attempts at partnership. Participants reflected on partnerships in-waiting, or that some policy actors were primed for collaboration but were not receiving any interest from other policy actors to partake in a collaboration. These struggles were exemplified with the City of Kelowna Agriculture Advisory Committee and the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council.  5.6.1 City of Kelowna and their Agricultural Advisory Committee In our interview, Luke spoke at great length to the challenges he believes the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) faces, specifically related to the scope of the work that they do. Per the AAC Terms of Reference “the primary objective of the AAC is to advise 101 Council on sustainable agricultural land use from a multiple bottom line (i.e., cultural, economic, environmental, and social) perspective” (City of Kelowna, 2015b). Luke identified the main activities of the ACC as providing recommendations to City Council related to developments, exclusions, or exemptions of ALR land within the Kelowna municipal boundary. He believes that the role of the AAC was being interpreted too narrowly and that the scope should be broadened to include any action or thing impacting agriculture in Kelowna. Luke shared that the AAC had no input into the agriculture chapter of Official Community Plan – a long range planning document that all British Columbia municipalities are legislated to develop, which plans for the long-term growth of the community with respect to land use. This information was corroborated by Percy, whose role as a city planner involved also acting as the AAC staff liaison. He commented on the level of expertise at the AAC and his desire to work with them beyond their traditional role of providing recommendations on ALR applications: “I wanted to use the AAC in a different way, ya to kind of step outside considering applications and working more proactively on food policy.” Luke expressed his interest in having the AAC connect with community members, groups, and organizations to build the dialogue about agriculture in Kelowna. During his time with them, he attempted to connect the AAC with community groups working on agriculture, such as the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, only to receive push-back from the City Council. He said "they [the council] immediately pushed back and said ‘you are appointed, not elected’, ya and basically narrowed the scope of the committee." He proposed that the rationale for that move was that City Council worried that if the AAC opened their meetings to allow presentations and collaborations with other community 102 groups, the meetings would become an overly activist-type space. Luke believed that this fear was irrational: [The AAC was the] one venue you can look at these issues, get information to a councillor and have it not be a political thing…they [City Council] basically took a non-political forum where we could talk about these issues and then provide report to the city instead they shut it down. So the only other avenue is basically a political forum which is, you know, going through the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council.  This indicated the existence of a number of not yet negotiated issues of maintaining control. The AAC is a committee of City Council with appointed agriculture experts, thus the City Council relies on the expertise of the AAC with respect to agricultural issues in Kelowna. Yet, the City Council would not allow the AAC to invite groups for presentations unless it was approved by Council. By narrowing the potential scope of the AAC and exercising control over with whom the AAC could communicate, City Council fostered an environment where there could not be any dialogue about urban agriculture beyond ALR applications.  Both Luke and Percy also shared their frustrations about the moments when City Council did not vote in favour of the recommendations made by the AAC. Luke shared that he was not always confident that Council was voting in the best interest of the community and instead "the City Council votes on it or does some sort of back room politics and then whatever." Percy shared that his advice on most ALR exclusion or sub-division applications was “no.” But, according to Percy “when it came to an applicant coming forward with a hard luck story, the packing plant is paying us 5 cents a pound for apples, that seems to weigh heavily, especially with elected officials. Um, it’s hard to say 'no’.” There was a clear breakdown of confidence in the City Council of that era to “do the right thing” with respect to ALR decisions. These sentiments were indicative of a sensitive relationship between 103 members of the AAC, City of Kelowna staff, and City of Kelowna City Council in 2014. Percy ultimately left his position as agriculture planner for the City of Kelowna.  Undoubtedly, the City of Kelowna was not using the AAC to their fullest potential and missed opportunities to collaborate and garner broader feedback from community members on agriculture in Kelowna. Furthermore, there was no clear process (with the exception of ALR applications) for community members, groups, or organizations to take policy requests to the City. Both Percy and Luke revealed that if a community member or group wanted to make an agricultural-related policy recommendation to the City of Kelowna, the best route was to find a staff member with a “sympathetic ear in the planning department to help you work through and then WRITE or revise the bylaws. And present that to…council in a way that they can swallow it” (Luke). This was corroborated by Gunther, who approached Percy directly to have a bylaw changed that would allow him to erect a greenhouse on one of his urban farms. The AAC could fill this process gap for agriculture policy.  5.6.2 Central Okanagan Food Policy Council (COFPC) The history of the COFPC was discussed at length in Chapter 4, but through the interviews with policy actors, more information was revealed surrounding missed opportunities for collaboration between the COFPC and other policy actors. The most striking information I found about the COFPC was that a few of the eleven participants I interviewed for my research did not even know that the organization existed and some had heard of them but were not clear on the details of their mandate, or the work they were involved in. Elizabeth, a board member of the COFPC said “I think that’s something that the 104 food policy council needs to work on actually is strengthening their community partnerships and just information sharing in general.” This lack of clarity within the policy community of the identity and role of COFPC is reflective of the difficult journey the organization had with its establishment, board instability, lack of support by the City of Kelowna and other policy makers, and lack of funding. Luke and Gwen both had a clearer vision of the COFPC and the potential of the organization. Part of their vision was indicative of their understanding of the role of a food policy council. Gwen explained that the COFPC should have a “diversity of representatives meaning business, agriculture, urban agriculture, community gardens, gleaning, food forests, like whoever the movers and shakers are in the field of food security and agriculture, grassroots, municipal government, academia, health…” Luke explained that from his perspective, many of the grassroots groups working on urban agriculture appeared to have the same members. He said "you have ALL these groups with very similar interests, and sometimes share board members, but I don't really see them writing food policy. So I’m not really sure what their purpose of being is." The COFPC is not adequately connected within the policy community to advance on their mandate. Luke had shared his attempts at collaborating with the COFPC on producing white papers in collaboration with his students at Okanagan College, but again, the lack of funding, board instability and limited board volunteer time to work on this type of collaboration was out of reach for the COFPC.  5.7 The priorities of the urban agriculture policy community members The interviewed actors within the policy community described several priorities for advancing urban agriculture in Kelowna. Overall, all the actors interviewed, except for Mark, 105 the City Manager, and Gunther, the urban farmer who firmly identified himself as an anarcho-capitalist, agreed that urban agriculture should be more of a priority for the City of Kelowna. At the time of the interviews it was not a priority, but more recently the City of Kelowna has begun to update their agricultural plan, as well as working on the early components of their healthy city strategy (City of Kelowna, 2016b, 2016f). Mark, Lindsay, and Percy agreed that the City of Kelowna, as the developer and enforcer of municipal policies, held the main role in urban agriculture policy development through planning and land use policies. They did not appear to see the same expanded view of their role in supporting urban agriculture, as identified by other participants. Carol, Gwen, Ethan, Ian, Cheryl, and Elizabeth see the City’s role not only in planning and bylaws, but also through the support of staff time, grants, and promoting the importance of urban agriculture. They recognized the role that the City of Kelowna played in community health through their own descriptions such as vibrancy, resiliency, strong economy, and sustainability, and they saw urban agriculture as a way to realize that. Urban agriculture and its contribution to a healthy community should be a responsibility and obligation of the City, and many of the participants agreed with this. Upon some reflection, Luke shared that until there is political will, such as a City Council member advocating for City of Kelowna engagement in urban agriculture policy, it will be difficult for urban agriculture to reach a critical mass. Carol shared that they are still working with the City of Kelowna in building understanding of how the City can be more supportive of urban agriculture: "not sure we have a good connection between the "why" local food production...that connection between local food production and health improvements...what a local government can do". 106 In addition to the overarching priority that urban agriculture should become a priority to the City of Kelowna, several clear themes occurred: to value the importance of urban agriculture in municipal planning and increase awareness of this importance to policy makers and the public, to build an understanding of and value urban agriculture’s contribution to the local economy, the need for more resources, to increase education about the benefits of urban agriculture and how to participate in its application, the need for more local research about urban agriculture, and the need for increased collaboration between stakeholders. All priorities indicate a desire to enable an increase in urban agriculture and echoed the actors’ beliefs that urban agriculture fosters a healthier community. Participants reflected on the need for increased respect for the ALR, and that agriculture should be valued as an important practice and component in a healthy community. ...just framing it that this issue is of importance to public health, which local governments might not appreciate right, they might just see it as, I don't know what, like a development request. They probably get lots and lots of those but just putting that new lens on it and implications for community health (Carol).  They spoke about agriculture in relation to smart community planning and land use principles. With the increasing population and changing economy, urban agriculture in community planning was an important piece of the land use puzzle to address modern community design priorities such as the reduction of urban sprawl, and increasing densification, community activation, and community beautification. Gunther, Percy, Luke, Elizabeth, and Ian believed it made more sense to grow high yield, faster turnover crops in town with lower yield, fewer turnover crops towards the outskirts of the city. Ethan described how agriculture is often undervalued because development in the community 107 tends to focus on the short term. For Ethan, educating policy makers and the public about the importance of urban agriculture in the community fabric is a high priority. With 43% of Kelowna’s land base in the ALR, there is a lot of urban/rural interface (City of Kelowna, n.d.). Per Ian, this strikes a lot of controversy between those farming within the Kelowna boundary and residents of Kelowna who live next to farming activity: The tensions. Um, you know, there’s noise, there’s smells, chemicals, there’s early mornings, there’s late nights and all of those have impacts…it requires a lot of patience. It requires a lot of negotiation. And that happens and then you’ve got urban/rural tension in the municipality. And this municipality is FULL of it.   Valuing urban agriculture in land use planning is closely linked with understanding the value that agriculture contributes to the community’s economy. Carol, Elizabeth, Ian, Percy, Gwen, Ethan, and Luke all believe that the City Council at the time of this data collection in Kelowna was focused on economic development and the taxation that development provides. “They [City Council] look at development first, the…economic impact of that development as opposed to removal of food producing land" (Carol). These participants believed that Council at the time did not view ALR exclusion applications in a holistic manner or adequately evaluated the long-term impacts on the community of removing land out of the ALR for development. Percy shared “they’re [City Council] not focused on the big picture, they’re focused on incremental development. So an application comes in and it’s how fast can we get the application from submission to approval.” The participants believed that the City, with a focus on economic development, wanted to “be seen to be business friendly, um you know this mantra ‘open for business’” (Percy). Lindsay, Percy, Ian, Luke, Carol, Ethan, and Gwen pointed to the need for a clear business case. Lindsay notes that “Establishing that business case or return on investment is where the 108 highest degree of both government and political traction to support further policy development.” However, Ian noted that the City of Kelowna has started to value urban agriculture more recently:  I think there’s been a shift in the thinking that agriculture is important. That agriculture is an economic driver to the city. Big, small, and processing you name it, it’s an important economic contributor and I think the municipality also has moved beyond taking agriculture for granted.  Many of the actors spoke repeatedly to the lack of resources available to them, including human resources and funding. Ethan emphasized that in his role, he had a large portfolio of work resulting from the amalgamation of three roles within the Ministry of Agriculture. This caused a reduction in how much time he could spend with each municipality in his portfolio, including Kelowna. Cheryl and Elizabeth spoke about the lack of financial resources available to non-profits like the ones they represented (COCG and COFPC). Scarce financial resources limited the ability for both organizations to carry out their mandates. Participants emphasized that without enough resources, taking action on urban agriculture policy is challenging. Education about urban agriculture was spoken about in multiple ways. The first way was related to building community understanding about urban agriculture and its impact on a healthy community. Luke, Ian, Ethan, and Percy all discussed the need to educate residents living near farming operations about normal agriculture practices and what to expect during different times of year. The second educational component was related to teaching food production, preserving, and cooking skills to community members. Cheryl, Gwen, and Ian spoke to the significant loss in food skills community members have in relation to growing, cooking, and preserving their food. Cheryl finds value in community gardening and the 109 healthy benefits involved by participating in growing food. Luke wanted to take the educational opportunities further in Kelowna by developing a sustainable agriculture program at Okanagan College, but at the time of his interview, they did not have enough resources to develop that program. Research was an important priority to Luke, Carol, and Gwen. Luke spoke to the importance of research by academic institutions and the role research plays in influencing policy. He explained his belief that academic institutions have an obligation to conduct research as it relates to agriculture. He found this particularly relevant to the Okanagan Valley, where a large part of the culture and economy is based on agriculture. In addition, research conducted by local researchers increases the power of influence that the research has; if a researcher is local, they may also act as policy actors and therefore collaborate as part of a coalition to put their research into action. Luke shared "it seems to me the politicians don't have the will for some reason and that academia hasn't put forth the research required and the community organizations are missing some component that can push them over the edge [to work on urban agriculture policy].” Gwen and Carol are both aware of the importance of research to facilitating their work. Gwen echoed Luke’s view and expanded that much of the research available surrounding urban agriculture is typically not about developed countries like Canada, and went on to say that the people who work in her field rely more often on the “grey literature really being developed at our level and not being published.” Grey literature, such as reports and other documents produced by those working in the field, have demonstrated “best and promising practices happening at the practice level” (Gwen). Gwen and Carol both explained how important research is in assisting them to advance work in urban agriculture, and that much more is needed. 110 Finally, increasing the amount and level of partnerships was identified as a priority by many of the participants, though they often didn’t know who to partner with, or how to go about this. Gwen shared “we’re trying really hard to link with the tree fruit project, in terms of how some of the clients of health services could benefit from being involved with that program. So that’s one group…um…community gardens? That group we’re not really connected with, are they connected with gleaning? I have no idea.” The desire to increase partnerships, and the confusion around it, indicates that most actors in the Kelowna urban agricultural community are still in the process of understanding their own roles as well as the roles of others.  5.8 Usefulness of the Advocacy Coalition Framework This research project is the first use of the Advocacy Coalition Framework in the context of an urban agriculture policy community. Overall, the framework proved to be useful in providing a structure for the design and analysis of my research. As I outlined in Chapter 3, the methods chapter, I used the Advocacy Coalition Framework to guide all my decisions made related to the interview process and the analysis of the interviews. Compared to other policy analysis methods, the Advocacy Coalition Framework was the most appropriate for the fluidity of policy making in the real-world context by providing flexibility and high-level structure for understanding a policy community. Specifically, the Advocacy Coalition Framework provided the most realistic model of policy analysis available, and was in line with my experiences as a policy actor and of how policy is created. Typically, the Advocacy Coalition Framework is used to analyze a policy through its development, implementation, and evaluation process considering the policy coalition(s) and actor(s) 111 within that policy subsystem. My research, however, looked deeply into the policy community within the policy subsystem. For this reason, the Advocacy Coalition Framework had limited detail to provide direction about how to research the policy community itself. Regardless, this research has been a novel application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. As policy community is an ever-evolving entity, I believe it would be a disservice to limit the study of a policy community to a stricter model or framework.   112 Chapter 6 – Conclusion  This thesis describes a case study about the urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. I set out to gain an understanding of the policy actors within the policy community, and to explore their beliefs and the challenges they face in advancing urban agriculture policy to support a healthy community. I used the Advocacy Coalition Framework to structure this research goal. I used several bodies of literature to guide my research. This began with population health theory, which I used to explain the concepts underlying health at a community or population level as they are affected through the social determinants of health. I then identified food security as an important social determinant of health, and explored how food security at the community level is addressed through the promotion and adoption of urban agriculture practices and programming. This led to a discussion around the various ways urban agriculture contributes to a healthy community, and how population health theory, food security, and urban agriculture fit into a municipality’s scope of practice through healthy public policy. I reviewed policy analysis theory and then described the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the framework and policy community theory which set a foundation for understanding Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community in a way more consistent with real-world experiences.  I conducted my research using case study methodology, which proved suitable to this type of policy research. Case study enabled me to provide structure around my research by first establishing clarity about my unit of analysis – Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community. Layering the Advocacy Coalition Framework provided further structure and guidance for data collection and analysis. Using both a case study methodology and the 113 framework created the required structure to conduct my research, but also provided the flexibility needed for analyzing Kelowna’s dynamic urban agriculture policy community.  This case study revealed that urban agriculture policy actors in Kelowna define urban agriculture in a similar fashion – in its most basic form, urban agriculture is the production of food within a municipal boundary. The participants could describe urban agriculture by what it is, where it occurs, how it occurs, and who participates in it. Furthermore, all participants were clear that urban agriculture is beneficial to the community of Kelowna, and benefits were described using a variety of terms that define a healthy community. The roles of each of the policy actors in the policy community could be categorized as policy maker, policy influencer, educator and promoter, researcher, and/or practitioner. As each of the policy actors described their roles, it was clear that they understood what their roles were in a broad sense, but many were still working out the finer details as their roles and responsibilities evolved with the evolution of urban agriculture in Kelowna. Moreover, the understanding of their roles increased with their improved understanding of other policy actors’ roles in the community. Within the policy community, some partnerships have formed between a few of the policy actors; however, there are other actors who are struggling with collaborations; some are seeking partnership and others are missing out partnership opportunities available to them. These early partnerships indicate the early formation of an urban agriculture policy coalition in Kelowna.  Many priorities were identified by my research. First and foremost, the participants shared that the City of Kelowna must make urban agriculture a priority and begin to actively add it to their planning work in the city. The participants revealed that although the City of Kelowna has begun to increase their stewardship of agriculture lands and operations in their 114 community, there are still many improvements to be made. Educating the public and elected officials of the importance of agriculture in Kelowna is very important, especially as it relates to the economic contribution of urban agriculture. Other priorities included increasing opportunities for urban agriculture skills training, conducting more research about urban agriculture in Kelowna, increasing financial and human resources to support work in urban agriculture policy, and finally, that the actors should prioritize seeking out collaboration opportunities. Finally, the Advocacy Coalition Framework proved to be a useful tool in structuring the overall objective of this thesis, and provided the flexibility necessary to accommodate the fluidity within a policy community.  6.1 Limitations There were a few limitations to my research: the rapidly advancing area of urban agriculture policy communities, the lack of representation by certain policy actors or sectors in this research, and the swiftly evolving nature of the urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna. The field of urban agriculture policy is a rapidly developing policy area, as is the case in Kelowna. Since concluding the data collection for this research, much has happened in the evolution of the urban agriculture policy community. Progress has been made in regard to developing collaborations between some of the policy actors. For example, the City of Kelowna has taken an interest in urban agriculture and has recently demonstrated willingness to collaborate with the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council by inviting them as a key stakeholder in their consultations about the updated agriculture plan. However, recognizing the rapid progression in this policy area, I had to set a limit on the data collection timeframe. 115 Therefore, the results of this thesis are best understood by recognising that this thesis provides insight into Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community up to and including June 2014, and serves as an important foundation for understanding this policy community as it progresses. Another limitation to this research is that not all policy actors in Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community were interviewed, and a few sectors were not represented in this research. I was not able to connect with any willing participants in the restaurant, tourism, and economic development industries. The actors best represented by this research include local and provincial government, health, farming, and non-profits. Most participants could speak to urban agriculture as it relates to food security; only the farmers could speak to urban agriculture as it relates to the local food movement. Finally, the policy actors interviewed directly impact the nature of the policy community and the interpretation of it. This means that any changes in hiring, roles, or volunteers may have impact on the functioning of the organization or sector they represent in the policy community. For example, Luke, the policy actor who worked for Okanagan College, was a member of the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, and sat on the City of Kelowna Agriculture Advisory Committee, served in his roles based on a unique experience and worldview. If he were to leave his position with Okanagan College, the individual replacing him is not likely to participate at the COFPC or AAC tables, because those are not functions of being an instructor at the college. This is a reminder to recognize that this research reflects a moment in time for Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community, and may not necessarily reflect the policy community as it is today. 116 6.2 Recommendations  My research has led me to consider several recommendations to policy actors within Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community for the purpose of the advancement of urban agriculture policy to facilitate a healthier community: 1. That the City of Kelowna consider how the upcoming agriculture plan and the healthy food systems component of their healthy city strategy intersect, and to work to ensure that all relevant urban agriculture stakeholders are included during the consultation processes and plan implementation. 2. That the City of Kelowna dedicate staff and/or council representatives to further engage with the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council (COFPC), with a staff liaison and support them with appropriate resources (e.g., staff time, finances, promotion, and space). 3. That the City of Kelowna work with City Council to review the role of the Agricultural Advisory Committee and enable them to fulfill their potential and open that space for dialogue about agriculture in Kelowna. 4. That the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council continue to strive for organizational stability and growth to fulfill their mandate and create a space for community members to organize around urban agriculture issues. 5. That policy actors within the policy community provide support to and participate at the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council table to facilitate action in urban agriculture policy, increased local research about urban agriculture, and increased education in the community about the benefits of urban agriculture.  117 6.3 Future research opportunities  Urban agriculture is a rapidly growing topic area and there are significant opportunities for research, and potential to apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework in conducting this research. Further research about Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community would greatly contribute to the rapidly evolving area of interest in Kelowna. The Advocacy Coalition Framework could be applied in another case study of the City of Kelowna’s agriculture plan, which is currently being updated. Research investigating the City of Kelowna’s Agriculture Advisory Committee could create a better understanding of how this group currently functions and how they could work more collaboratively, holistically and intentionally to move forward urban agriculture policy. More research is needed to understand how Kelowna’s local food movement, which is a potentially separate coalition within the urban agriculture policy community, has worked in influencing urban agriculture policy in Kelowna. Finally, further investigation into the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council is needed, to reveal information about how to increase the sustainability of this organization and assist it with realizing its full mandate to work in local food policy, which includes urban agriculture policy.  6.4 Final thoughts  Within Kelowna’s urban agriculture policy community, there appear to be the modest beginnings of a policy coalition. The first clear collaborations are between the Ministry of Agriculture and Interior Health working to influence the City of Kelowna, the main policy maker. The formation of a coalition would facilitate more active work in influencing urban agriculture policy, but until the policy actors can address the barriers they face of limited 118 financial and human resources, and until they begin to prioritize the formation of partnerships between each other, urban agriculture policy will continue its slow progression. My research suggests that the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community sees potential in the Central Okanagan Food Policy Council and the City of Kelowna’s Agriculture Advisory Committee as the most appropriate entities to coordinate and facilitate the formation of a policy coalition and its potential collaborative work in urban agriculture policy.  119 References Agricultural Land Commission. (2016). Annual report 2015-2016. Retrieved from http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/assets/library/commission-reports/annual_report_2015-2016.pdf Agricultural Land Commission. (2014a). About the ALC. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/about-the-alc Agricultural Land Commission. (2014b). ALR History. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/alr-maps/alr-history Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. A. J. (2001). Food Insufficiency and American School-Aged Children’s Cognitive, Academic, and Psychosocial Development. Pediatrics, 108(1), 44–53. Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R. A., & Kruger, D. J. (2008). Fruit and Vegetable Intake among Urban Community Gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 40(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2006.12.003 American Planning Association. (2007). Policy guide on community and regional food planning. Retrieved from https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/foodplanning.pdf American Society of Landscape Architects. (2016). Landscape Architecture Education and Career Development. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=12206&PageTitle=Education&RMenuId=54 Baldwin, B., & Mellows, S. (2013, May). Okanagan Wine Tourism Economic Impact Report. Okanagan College. Retrieved from 120 http://www.okanagan.bc.ca/Assets/Departments+(Administration)/Public+Affairs/Documents/News/WineTourismEconomicImpact.pdf Balmer, K., Gill, J., Kaplinger, H., Miller, J., Peterson, M., Rhoads, A., … Wall, T. (2005). The Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority. Portland State University. Retrieved from http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=usp_murp BC Healthy Communities. (2016). Our Approach - Healthy Communities Movement. Retrieved July 28, 2016, from http://bchealthycommunities.ca/healthycommunities BC Ministry of Health. (2006). Model Core Program Paper: Food Security. Retrieved from http://www.vch.ca/media/Model_Paper_Food_Security.pdf Bellows, A. C., Brown, K., & Smit, J. (2003). Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture. Retrieved from http://foodsecurity.org/UAHealthArticle.pdf Bish, R. L., & Clemens, E. G. (2008). Local Government in British Columbia (4th Ed.). Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Retrieved from http://www.ubcm.ca/assets/library/Publications/Local~Government~in~British~Columbia/LGBC-All.pdf Bouchons Bistro. (2005). Bouchons Bistro. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.bouchonsbistro.com/ British Columbia. (2014, March 28). Certificate of Incorporation. Brown, K. H., & Jameton, A. L. (2000). Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3343472 121 Cairney, P. (2014). Paul A. Sabatier, “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein.” Retrieved from https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/9780199646135_balla-ch33.pdf Canada Revenue Agency. (2016, January 27). Canadian registered charity - detail page. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/charity-eng.action?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresult-eng.action%3Fk%3Dokanagan%2Bfruit%2Btree%2Bproject%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue&bn=819840778RR0001 Canadian Institute of Planners. (n.d.). Healthy Communities - Practice guide. Retrieved July 13, 2016, from https://www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Healthy-Communities/CIP-Healthy-Communities-Practice-Guide_FINAL_lowre.aspx Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2010, May 26). Citizen engagement. Retrieved May 4, 2017, from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41592.html Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology. (2012). Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines/Canadian Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines: Your plan to get active every day. Retrieved from http://www.csep.ca/cmfiles/guidelines/csep_guidelines_handbook.pdf Capital Regional District. (2014, June 25). Clean Air Bylaw. Retrieved July 13, 2016, from https://www.crd.bc.ca/project/past-capital-projects-and-initiatives/proposed-clean-air-bylaw Catteneo, C. (2014, November 1). How Okanagan’s wine industry is taking on the world. Financial Post. Retrieved from 122 http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/how-okanagans-wine-industry-is-taking-on-the-world Central Okanagan Community Farms. (2016). Central Okanagan Community Farms | Facebook. Retrieved September 14, 2016, from https://www.facebook.com/grow.feed.teach/ Central Okanagan Community Food Bank. (2016a). About Us. Retrieved December 30, 2016, from https://cofoodbank.com/about-us/ Central Okanagan Community Food Bank. (2016b). Plant a row grow a row. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://cofoodbank.com/donate__trashed/plant-a-row-grow-a-row/ Central Okanagan Community Gardens. (2014). History | Central Okanagan Community Gardens. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from http://www.centralokanagancommunitygardens.com/about-us/history/ Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission. (2015). Central Okanagan Economic Profile for Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.investkelowna.com/sites/default/files/uploads/agriculturalprofile_centralokanagan_2015-11-20.pdf Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. (2008, October 8). Minutes: Oct 8, 2008. Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. (2011, July 14). Meeting minutes. Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. (2013a, January 16). COFPC Jan meeting/AGM. Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. (2013b, February 25). Minutes - COFPC Board meeting 2. 123 Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. (2013c, September 24). Food Forest Installation Part 1 Complete! Retrieved June 5, 2016, from http://www.okanaganfood.com/2013/09/24/food-forest-installation-part-1-complete/ Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. (2013d, December 23). Central Okanagan Food Policy Council Minutes for December 23rd, 2013. Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council. (2008a). Community Food Action Plan. Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council. (2008b, June 3). Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council minutes: Tuesday, June 3, 2008. Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council. (2008c, September 9). Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council, Minutes: Tuesday, September 9, 2008. City of Kamloops. (2010). Sustainable Kamloops Plan: Foundations for Sustainability. City of Kamloops. Retrieved from http://www.kamloops.ca/communityplanning/pdfs/11-SustainableKamloopsPlan-Foundations-12-11.pdf City of Kelowna. (1998, December). Agriculture plan. Retrieved from http://apps.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs/Strategic%20Planning/Agriculture%20Plan.pdf City of Kelowna. (2009). Community Gardens. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/page2489.aspx City of Kelowna. (2010, March 8). Bylaw No. 10300: Text Amendment No. TA10-0002 - City of Kelowna, Urban Agriculture Amendments to Zoning Bylaw No. 8000. Retrieved from http://apps.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs/Council/Meetings/Council%20Meetings%202010/2010-03-08/Item%204.2(b)%20-%20BL10300%20(TA10-124 0002),%20City%20of%20Kelowna,%20Urban%20Agriculture%20Amendments%20to%20Zoning%20Bylaw%20No.%208000.pdf City of Kelowna. (2015a). Healthy City Strategy. Retrieved September 7, 2016, from http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page4889.aspx City of Kelowna. (2015b, April 13). Terms of Reference - Agricultural Advisory Committee. Retrieved from http://apps.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs/%5CCouncil%5CCommittees%5CAgricultural%20Advisory%20Committee/Terms%20of%20Reference%20%2D%20Agricultural%20Advisory%20Committee.pdf?t=075451728 City of Kelowna. (2016a). Agricultural development. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/page582.aspx City of Kelowna. (2016b). Agriculture Plan. Retrieved September 7, 2016, from http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page4902.aspx City of Kelowna. (2016c). Committees. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page59.aspx City of Kelowna. (2016d, March 8). About Kelowna. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.kelowna.ca/CM/Page67.aspx City of Kelowna. (2016e, May 19). Community gardens. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from https://www.kelowna.ca/parks-recreation/parks-beaches/community-gardens City of Kelowna. (2016f, May 19). Healthy City Strategy. Retrieved January 6, 2017, from https://www.kelowna.ca/our-community/planning-projects/current-planning-initiatives/healthy-city-strategy 125 City of Kelowna. (2016g, July 12). Bicycle Routes. Retrieved July 13, 2016, from http://www.kelowna.ca/cm/page370.aspx City of Kelowna. (n.d.). Kelowna Map Viewer. Retrieved September 3, 2016, from http://maps.kelowna.ca/public/mapviewer/ City of Minneapolis. (2011, April 15). Urban agriculture policy plan: A land use and development plan for a healthy, sustainable local food system. City of Minneapolis. Retrieved from http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/convert_276069.pdf City of Toronto. (2010, May). Cultivating Food Connections: Toward a healthy and sustainable food system for Toronto. City of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-30483.pdf City of Vancouver. (2008). Policy report - Development and building: Urban Agriculture Design Guidelines for the Private Realm. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/urban-agriculture-guidelines.pdf City of Vancouver. (2015, February 5). How you can support the ban on food in the garbage [text/xml]. Retrieved July 13, 2016, from http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/food-isnt-garbage-2015-organics-ban.aspx City of Vancouver. (2016, March 17). Learn the rules for backyard chickens, and register your chickens with the City [text/xml]. Retrieved June 22, 2016, from http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/backyard-chickens.aspx Cityfood Magazine. (2009, March 25). Raudz Opens in Kelowna. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.cityfood.com/restaurant/previews/raudz-opens-in-kelowna 126 Clapson, D. (2014, August 14). 5 Wineries to Explore in Kelowna, BC. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://www.foodnetwork.ca/dining-out/blog/5-wineries-to-explore-in-kelowna-bc/31067/ Colebatch, H. K. (1998). Policy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Community Nutritionists Council of BC. (2004, June). Making the Connection - Food Security and Public Health. Retrieved from http://bcfoodsecuritygateway.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Making_the_Connection.pdf Connell, D. J., & Frisque, J. (2012). Economic and Social Benefits Assessment, Final Report: Kelowna Farmers’ and Crafters’ Market. BC Association of Farmers’ Markets and School of Environmental Planning, University of Northern British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.bcfarmersmarket.org/sites/default/files/files/BCAFM%202012%20Market%20Benefits%20Final%20Report%20KELOWNA.pdf Considine, M. (1994). Public policy: a critical approach. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. Cook, B. (2008). Food Security Issues in a Public Health Context: Synthesis Paper. National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health. Retrieved from http://deslibris.ca.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ID/214667 Corbett, J., Hamilton, C., & Wright, S. (2016). You are where you eat: Developing an online tool for community food mapping. In Sustainability Planning and Collaboration in Rural Canada (pp. 269–294). Saskatoon, SK: Houghton Boston Printers. Retrieved from 127 https://books.google.ca/books/about/Sustainability_Planning_and_Collaboratio.html?id=XyK9DAAAQBAJ Coyne, K., & Knutzen, E. (2010). The Urban Homestead (Expanded & Revised Edition): Your Guide to Self-Sufficient Living in the Heart of the City (Revised Edition edition). Port Townsend, WA: Process. Davidson, A. (2015). Social determinants of health: a comparative approach. Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. De Schutter, O. (2010). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter (Human Rights Council, Sixteen Session No. A/HRC/16/49). United Nations Human Right Council. Retrieved from http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf Deelstra, T., & Girardet, H. (2000). Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gundel, U. Sabel-Koschella, & H. De Zeeuw (Eds.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (pp. 43–65). Feldafing, Germany: German Foundation for International Development (DSE). Dietitians of Canada. (2005). Individual and Household Food Insecurity in Canada: Position of Dietitians of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Public/householdfoodsec-position-paper.aspx Dietitians of Canada. (2007). Community Food Security: Position of Dietitians of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Public/cfs-position-paper.aspx Diner en Blanc. (n.d.). Dîner en Blanc - Okanagan. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://okanagan.dinerenblanc.info/ 128 Diversability Inc. (2016). Diversability Inc. Empowering community connections. Retrieved December 30, 2016, from http://www.diversabilityinc.org/ Dixon, L. B., Winkleby, M. A., & Radimer, K. L. (2001). Dietary Intakes and Serum Nutrients Differ between Adults from Food-Insufficient and Food-Sufficient Families: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. The Journal of Nutrition, 131(4), 1232–1246. Donald, B., & Blay-Palmer, A. (2006). The Urban Creative-Food Economy: Producing Food for the Urban Elite or Social Inclusion Opportunity? Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1901–1920. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37262 Dubbeling, M., & Santandreu, A. (2003). Urban agriculture and food sovereignty (Guidelines for municipal policymaking on urban agriculture No. No. 8). International Development Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Guideline%208%20Urban%20Agriculture%20and%20food%20sovereignty.pdf Dunn, W. N. (1981). Public policy analysis: an introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Eagle, A. J., Eagle, David E., Stobbe, T. E., & van Kooten, G. C. (2015). Farmland protection and agricultural land values at the urban-rural fringe: British Columbia’s agricultural land reserve. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(1), 282. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau098 Ellis, F., & Sumberg, J. (1998). Food production, urban areas and policy responses. World Development, 26(2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)10042-0 129 Enns, J., Rose, A., de Vries, J., & Hayes, J. (2008, June). A seat at the table: Resource Guide for Local Governments to Promote Food Secure Communities. Provincial Health Services Authority. Retrieved from http://www.ubcm.ca/assets/Resolutions~and~Policy/Policy/Healthy~Communities/A%20Seat%20at%20the%20Table-Resource%20Guide%20for%20Local%20Governments%20to%20Promote%20Food%20Secure%20Communities-2008.pdf Farm Folk City Folk. (2016). Okanagan | Feast of Fields. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.feastoffields.com/okanagan/ Field, J. (2008). Social Capital (2 edition). London; New York: Routledge. Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., & Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods - PUBLIC POLICY (Public Administration and public policy 125) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis Th.pdf. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Retrieved from http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/PUBLIC%20POLICY%20(Public%20Administration%20and%20public%20policy%20125)%20Handbook%20of%20Public%20Policy%20Analysis%20Th.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2002). The State of Food Insecurity 2001. Retrieved January 21, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4671e/y4671e06.htm Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Setting up and running a school garden: A manual for teachers, parents and communities. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/a0218e/a0218e.pdf 130 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2016). Urban Agriculture. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from http://www.fao.org/urban-agriculture/en/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). Urban and peri-urban agriculture. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/coag/coag15/x0076e.htm Food Banks Canada. (2016). Hungercount 2016: A comprehensive report on hunger and food bank use in Canada, and recommendations for change. Toronto: Food Banks Canada. Retrieved from https://www.foodbankscanada.ca/getmedia/6173994f-8a25-40d9-acdf-660a28e40f37/HungerCount_2016_final_singlepage.pdf Foulds, C. (2016, June 14). Kamloops council approves urban hens in the city. Retrieved June 22, 2016, from http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/kamloops-council-approves-urban-hens-in-the-city/ Gerring, J. (2006). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press. Golden, S. (2013, November 13). Urban agriculture impacts: social, health, and economic: A literature review. University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Retrieved from http://asi.ucdavis.edu/programs/sarep/publications/food-and-society/ualitreview-2013.pdf Government of British Columbia. Public Health Impediments Regulation (2010). Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/50_2009 131 Government of British Columbia. Local Government Act, Pub. L. No. Part 9, Division 2, Section 304 (2016). Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96323_09#section304 Government of British Columbia. Public Health Act, Pub. L. No. Part 6, Division 6, Section 83 (2016). Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_08028_01#division_d2e8486 Government of British Columbia. Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act (2017). Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96131_01 Green City Acres. (n.d.-a). Local Restaurants. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.greencityacres.com/get-our-produce/local-restaurants/ Green City Acres. (n.d.-b). The Farm. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.greencityacres.com/about/the-farm/ Green City Acres. (n.d.-c). The Farmers. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.greencityacres.com/about/the-farmers/ Halligan, S. (2016, March 31). New city ordinance forces family to destroy their vegetable garden. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from http://www.kshb.com/news/region-missouri/new-city-ordinance-forces-family-to-destroy-their-vegetable-garden Halpenny, D. R. (2012). President & CEO Report to the Board. Interior Health. Retrieved from https://www.interiorhealth.ca/AboutUs/Leadership/BoardOfDirectors/Documents/CEO%20Report%20-%20July%202012.pdf Hamilton, C. (2009, July 10). Food System GeoWeb Mapping for the Central Okanagan. Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. 132 Hamilton, C. (2010a, July 12). Vision, Current Reality and Accountable Initiatives. Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council. Hamilton, C. (2010b, October 5). Meeting Minutes. Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council. Hamilton, C. (2010c, November 2). Meeting Minutes. Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. Hamilton, C. (2011, November 10). Central Okanagan Food Policy Council, Minutes for Nov 10th, 2011. Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. Hamilton, C. (2012). 2012 Minutes. Central Okanagan Food Policy Council. Hamilton, C. (2015, September). OGOPOGO Rotary Presentation Sept 2015. Presented at the OGOPOGO Rotary. Hamm, M. W., & Bellows, A. C. (2003). Community food security: background and future directions. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35(1), 37–43. Harper, A., Shattuck, A., Holt-Gimenez, E., Alkon, A., & Lambrick, F. (2009). Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned. Institute for Food and Development Policy. Retrieved from http://foodfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/DR21-Food-Policy-Councils-Lessons-Learned-.pdf HB Lanarc - Golder. (2013). The Urban Farming Guidebook: Planning for the Business of Growing Food in BC’s Towns & Cities. EcoDesign Resource Society. Retrieved from http://www.refbc.com/sites/default/files/Urban-Farming-Guidebook-2013.pdf Health Canada. (2004, July 26). Canada Health Act - Health Care System [landing page]. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/cha-lcs/index-eng.php 133 Health Canada. (2006, October 5). It’s Your Health - Obesity [publication]. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/obes-eng.php Health Canada (Ed.). (2007). Eating well with Canada’s Food Guide: a resource for educators and communicators. Ottawa: Health Canada. Retrieved from http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/hcan-scan/eating_well-e/H164-38-2-2007E.pdf Health Canada. (2011). Eating well with Canada’s food guide. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/food-guide-aliment/view_eatwell_vue_bienmang-eng.pdf Health Canada. (2012, July 25). Household Food Insecurity In Select Provinces and the Territories in 2009-2010. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/insecurit/prov_ter-eng.php Healthy Families BC. (2012a). Communities Program. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from https://www.healthyfamiliesbc.ca/your-community/communities-program Healthy Families BC. (2012b). Healthy Families BC is the provinces health promotion plan for British Columbians. Retrieved July 13, 2016, from https://www.healthyfamiliesbc.ca/home/about-us Healthy Families BC. (2012c, May). Healthy Families BC Communities Initiative: Interior area local government consultations feedback summary. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from https://www.healthyfamiliesbc.ca/hfbc/files/documents/IHA_Feedback_Summary.PDF 134 Heflin, C. M., Siefert, K., & Williams, D. R. (2005). Food insufficiency and women’s mental health: Findings from a 3-year panel of welfare recipients. Social Science & Medicine, 61(9), 1971–1982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.014 Hickton, C. (2005). Transformations in the Okanagan wine industry and Reflections on communication, diffusion of innovation and social capital in the case of the Okanagan wine cluster. Simon Fraser University. Higgins, A. (2011, July 27). When the government regulates your garden. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/home-garden/when-the-government-regulates-your-garden/2011/07/19/gIQAh3tscI_story.html Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems (2nd ed). Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press. Interior Health. (2012, August). Healthy Communities in Interior Health: A collaborative approach. Retrieved from https://www.interiorhealth.ca/YourHealth/HealthyLiving/Documents/Healthy%20Communities%20in%20Interior%20Health.pdf Interior Health. (2016). Buying, Cooking & Preserving Food. Retrieved July 4, 2016, from https://www.interiorhealth.ca/YourHealth/HealthyLiving/FoodSecurity/Pages/BuyingCookingPreservingFood.aspx James’s Liberty file collection index. (n.d.). Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism. Retrieved January 8, 2017, from http://jim.com/anarchy/ Joughin, B. (2008, November). Community food charters: What they are and when to use them. Retrieved from 135 http://www.vch.ca/media/Population%20Health_Community%20Food%20Charter%20Vancouver.pdf Kamloops Food Policy Council. (2007, February). Best Practices in Urban Agriculture. Retrieved from http://kamloopsfoodpolicycouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Best-Practices-in-Urban-Agriculture2.pdf Kelowna Capital News. (2012, May 28). Kelowna woman launches crusade to celebrate diverse abilities. Retrieved July 28, 2016, from http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/155143775.html Kelowna Capital News. (2014, September 5). From surplus to supply: How a gleaning project became a community-building life force. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/274151301.html kelownafoodnotbombs. (2013). kelownafoodnotbombs. Retrieved September 14, 2016, from https://kelownafoodnotbombs.wordpress.com/ Kelowna’s Gospel Mission. (2016). Kelowna’s Gospel Mission | About Us. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from https://kelownagospelmission.ca/about-us/ Kelsey, T. W., & Vaserstein, G. (2000). Farming and Non Farming Neighbors: Conflict, Coexistence, and Communication. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55(4), 462–466. Knizhnik, H. (2012, August). The Environmental Benefits of Urban Agriculture on Unused, Impermeable and Semi-Permeable Spaces in Major Cities with a Focus on Philadelphia, PA. University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=mes_capstones 136 KPMG. (2013). Financial Statements of Interior Health Authority - Years ended March 31, 2013 and 2012. Retrieved from https://www.interiorhealth.ca/AboutUs/Accountability/Documents/Audited%20Financial%20Statements%202013.pdf Kuyer, L. (2009, March 13). Meeting minutes. Central Okanagan Healthy Food Council. Lalonde, M. (1981). A new perspective of the health of Canadians: a working document. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/pdf/perspect-eng.pdf Landscape Architects Network. (2015, May 27). What’s the Problem with Urban Agriculture? Retrieved May 15, 2017, from https://landarchs.com/whats-the-problem-with-urban-agriculture/ Leppo, K., Ollila, E., Pena, S., Wismar, M., & Cook, S. (Eds.). (2013). Health in All Policies: Seizing opportunities, implementing policies. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/188809/Health-in-All-Policies-final.pdf Living Wage Canada. (2013). Living Wage Canada: What is a Living Wage? Retrieved July 29, 2016, from http://www.livingwagecanada.ca/index.php/about-living-wage/what/ MacLeod, A. (2016, May 12). New Bill Lets Owners Keep Land in ALR for Tax Breaks, Critic Says. Retrieved August 27, 2016, from http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/05/12/New-Bill-Lets-Owners-Keep-Land/ Marsh, J. H. (2007, November 28). Kelowna. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kelowna/ 137 McDonald, J. (2016, January 8). Agri-biz in Kelowna under pressure from near and far. Retrieved September 5, 2016, from http://infotel.ca/newsitem/agri-biz-in-kelowna-under-pressure-from-near-and-far/it26623 Mendes, W. (2007). Negotiating a Place for ‘Sustainability’ Policies in Municipal Planning and Governance: The Role of Scalar Discourses and Practices. Space and Polity, 11(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562570701406683 Mendes, W. (2008). Implementing Social and Environmental Policies in Cities: The Case of Food Policy in Vancouver, Canada. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 942–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00814.x Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Animal Husbandry. Retrieved June 5, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal%20husbandry Michaels, K. (2014, July 4). Close-up: Kelowna farm to table movement flourishing. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/265833601.html Mickleburgh, R. (2012, September 17). B.C. farmers’ anger turns to support for Agricultural Land Reserve. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-farmers-anger-turns-to-support-for-agricultural-land-reserve/article4547579/ Miewald, C., Barbolet, H., Cudderford, V., Kurbis, S., de la Salle, J., & Whiting, D. (2007, May). Community Food Assessment Guide for British Columbia. Centre for Sustainable Community Development, Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from https://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/cscd/PDFs/researchprojects_food_security_communityfoodassessmentguideforbc.pdf 138 Mikkonen, J., & Raphael, D. (2014). Social determinants of health: The Canadian Facts. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from http://www.thecanadianfacts.org/ Miller, H. T., & Demir, T. (2007). Policy Communities. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis (pp. 137–147). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Retrieved from http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/PUBLIC%20POLICY%20(Public%20Administration%20and%20public%20policy%20125)%20Handbook%20of%20Public%20Policy%20Analysis%20Th.pdf Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, & Agricultural Land Commission. (2008). Strengthening Farming Report: The agricultural land reserve and its influence on agriculture in the City of Kelowna - A review from 1973 to 2006 (No. 800.100-3). Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/agricultural-land-and-environment/strengthening-farming/800-series/800100-3_alr_and_influence_on_ag_in_kelowna.pdf Ministry of Health. (2011, September 17). Healthy communities support Healthy Families BC. Retrieved from https://www.healthyfamiliesbc.ca/hfbc/files/documents/Healthy_Communities_NR.pdf Ministry of Health. (2016). 2016/17-2018/19 Service Plan. Ministry of Health. Retrieved from http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2016/sp/pdf/ministry/hlth.pdf Mitham, P. (2013, May 6). Shaped by Legislation: A History of Wine in B.C. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.bcbusiness.ca/natural-resources/shaped-by-legislation-a-history-of-wine-in-bc 139 Moore, W. (2010, April 27). Council not egg-static about chickens - Kelowna News. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/54185/Council-not-egg-static-about-chickens Moore, W. (2016, August 9). ALR and RVs: a failed test - Kelowna News. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/172719/ALR-and-RVs-a-failed-test Mougeot, L. J. A. (2000). Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks, and Policy Challenges. (Cities Feeding People Series No. 31). International Development Research Centre. Retrieved from https://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/26429/12/117785.pdf National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy. (2010). How can we make healthy public policies? Retrieved July 9, 2016, from http://www.ncchpp.ca/en/ Nelson, K., Cunningham, W., Andersen, R., Harrison, G., & Gelberg, L. (2001). Is Food Insufficiency Associated with Health Status and Health Care Utilization Among Adults with Diabetes? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(6), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016006404.x Nieoczym, A. (2011, May 26). Pedal power takes Kelowna farmer’s crops to market. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/pedal-power-takes-kelowna-farmers-crops-to-market/article581083/ Nordahl, D. (2009). Public produce: the new urban agriculture. Washington: Island Press. Retrieved from http://GW2JH3XR2C.search.serialssolutions.com/?sid=sersol&SS_jc=TC0000540505&title=Public%20produce%20%3A%20the%20new%20urban%20agriculture 140 Okanagan Fruit Tree Project. (2014, February 8). Gratitude. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://fruittreeproject.com/gratitude/ Okanagan Fruit Tree Project. (2015, March 25). Board meeting - 25th Mar 2015. Okanagan Fruit Tree Project. (2016a). Okanagan Fruit Tree Project - Welcome. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://fruittreeproject.com/ Okanagan Fruit Tree Project. (2016b, February 22). City of Kelowna Project Evaluation 2015 for the Okanagan Fruit Tree Project. Okanagan Greens. (2016). Organic Okanagan Festival. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.okanagangreens.ca/our-festivals Okanagan Historical Society. (1926). First annual report of the Okanagan Historical and Natural History Society. Vernon, BC. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ohs/items/1.0132183 Okanagan Life. (2016). Best Winery Restaurant, Best of the Okanagan. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://okanaganlife.com/guide/voted-best/best-winery-restaurant/ Okanagan Nation Alliance. (2010). The Syilx People. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.syilx.org/who-we-are/the-syilx-people/ Okanagan Wine Festivals Society. (2016). Okanagan Wine Festivals. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.thewinefestivals.com/ Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition. (n.d.). Values and Principles of Community Development. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from http://www.ohcc-ccso.ca/en/courses/community-development-for-health-promoters/module-one-concepts-values-and-principles/values- 141 Ostrey, A. (2010, August). Food for Thought: The Issues and Challenges of Food Security. (A. Rose & J. Enns, Eds.). Population and Public Health Program, Provincial Health Services Authority. Retrieved from http://deslibris.ca.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ID/225112 Pan American Health Organization. (2011). Integration of background documents for the strategy and plan of action on urban health in the Americas. Retrieved from http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?gid=20363&option=com_docman&task=doc_view Pollan, M. (2007). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (1 edition). New York: Penguin Books. Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (1999). Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of municipal institutions in food systems planning. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 213–224. Provincial Health Services Authority. (2008, March). Community food assessment guide. Retrieved from http://www.phsa.ca/Documents/communityfoodassessmentguide.pdf Public Health Agency of Canada. (2001). The Population Health Template Working Tool. Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/pdf/template_tool-eng.pdf Public Health Agency of Canada. (2008, June 3). Healthy living can prevent disease. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/healthy_living-vie_saine-eng.php Public Health Agency of Canada. (2011a, May 23). Physical Activity, Benefits of physical activity. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hp-ps/hl-mvs/pa-ap/index-eng.php 142 Public Health Agency of Canada. (2011b, October 21). What Determines Health? Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/determinants/ Public Health Agency of Canada. (2012, February 7). What is the Population Health Approach? - Population Health. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/approach-approche/index-eng.php Public Health Agency of Canada. (2013, July 10). Canadian Best Practices Portal – Population Health Approach: the organizing framework. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from http://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/population-health-approach-organizing-framework/ Radical action with migrants in agriculture. (2016). Radical Action with Migrants in Agriculture. Retrieved September 14, 2016, from http://www.ramaokanagan.org/ Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. (2016, August 25). ALR changes on the horizon | Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. Retrieved August 27, 2016, from http://www.rebgv.org/alr-changes-horizon Reynolds, R. (2012, May 30). Working Board vs. Governing Board. Retrieved September 11, 2016, from http://www.nonprofit-knowhow.com/1/post/2012/05/working-board-vs-governing-board.html Robbins, J. (2012, June 28). Kelowna’s Waterfront Wines makes waves. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://vacay.ca/2012/06/making-waves-at-waterfront-restaurant-and-wine-bar/ Rule, M. (2008, May 6). Heathy Food Council Meeting minutes of May 6th, 2008. Rutty, C., & Sullivan, S. C. (2010). This is Public Health: A Canadian History. Canadian Public Health Association. Retrieved from http://www.cpha.ca/uploads/history/book/history-book-print_all_e.pdf 143 Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sharp, J. S., & Smith, M. B. (2003). Social capital and farming at the rural–urban interface: the importance of nonfarmer and farmer relations. Agricultural Systems, 76(3), 913–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-2927(02)00083-5 Shore, R. (2014, November 8). Okanagan Fruit Tree Project brings in more than 36,000 pounds of food from backyards. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Okanagan+Fruit+Tree+Project+brings+more+than+pounds+food+from+backyards/10364124/story.html Skogstad, G. (2005). Policy networks and policy communities: Conceptual evolution and governing realities. In Canada’s Contribution to Comparative Theorizing. London, Ontario: Department of Political Science, University of Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/Skogstad.pdf Smith, J. (2012, June 15). Waste not, want not: Kelowna starts gleaning and processing tree fruit. Kelowna Capital News. Retrieved from http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/159210515.html Smysnuik, S. (2015, May 14). OK, Kelowna is actually pretty cool. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.westender.com/eat-drink/beer/ok-kelowna-is-actually-pretty-cool-1.1934313 Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE. Statistics Canada. (2012a, February 8). Focus on Geography Series, 2011 Census: Census metropolitan area - Kelowna, British Columbia. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from 144 http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=915 Statistics Canada. (2012b, February 8). Focus on Geography Series, 2011 Census: Census subdivision of Kelowna, CY - British Columbia. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-CSD-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CSD&GC=5935010 Statistics Canada. (2013, February 11). Fruit and vegetable consumption, 2011. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2012001/article/11661-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2016, March 7). Physical activity during leisure time, by sex, provinces and territories (Percent), CANSIM, table 105-0501, Catalogue no. 82-221-X. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health78b-eng.htm Stewart, N. (2015, December 12). Couples having to change wedding plans because of ALR crackdown on farm weddings. Retrieved August 27, 2016, from http://globalnews.ca/news/2398079/couples-having-to-change-wedding-plans-because-of-alr-crackdown-on-farm-weddings/ Stringer, S. M. (2010, February). FoodNYC: A blueprint for a sustainable food system. Retrieved from http://www.hungeractionnys.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/FoodNYC_stringer.pdf Stuff, J. E., Casey, P. H., Szeto, K. L., Gossett, J. M., Robbins, J. M., Simpson, P. M., … Bogle, M. L. (2004). Household Food Insecurity Is Associated with Adult Health Status. The Journal of Nutrition, 134(9), 2330–2335. 145 Tarasuk, V. S. (2001). Household Food Insecurity with Hunger Is Associated with Women’s Food Intakes, Health and Household Circumstances. The Journal of Nutrition, 131(10), 2670–2676. Tarnapol Whitacre, P., Tsai, P., & Mulligan, J. (2009). The Public Health Effects of Food Deserts: Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12623 The Aquaponic Source. (n.d.). What is Aquaponics. Retrieved June 5, 2016, from http://www.theaquaponicsource.com/what-is-aquaponics/ The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (n.d.). Education in Canada: An Overview. Retrieved July 3, 2016, from http://cmec.ca/299/Education-in-Canada-An-Overview/index.html#03 The Stop Community Food Centre. (n.d.). Urban Agriculture. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from http://thestop.org/programs/fight-hunger/urban-agriculture/ Torjman, S. (2005, September). What is Policy? Caledon Institute of Social Policy. Retrieved from http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/544ENG.pdf UK Healthy Cities Network. (2011). The Healthy Cities Movement. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://www.healthycities.org.uk/the-healthy-cities-movement.php?s=196 Union of British Columbia Municipalities, & British Columbia (Eds.). (2012). Local government in British Columbia: a community effort. Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Let’s glean! United we serve toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda_gleaning_toolkit.pdf 146 US Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, March 30). Heat Island Effect [Collections and Lists]. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/heat-islands Vachon, D. (2005, June). Father of Modern Epidemiology. Retrieved July 11, 2016, from http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/fatherofepidemiology.html Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dam001 Waters, A. (2015, November 17). Kelowna council split on ALR exemption request. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/351202921.html Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2007). A Guide to the Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods (pp. 123–136). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Retrieved from http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/PUBLIC%20POLICY%20(Public%20Administration%20and%20public%20policy%20125)%20Handbook%20of%20Public%20Policy%20Analysis%20Th.pdf Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2011). Advocacy Coalition Framework. In B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser, & L. Morlino, International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com/Reference/intlpoliticalscience/n7.xml Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & deLeon, P. (2011). A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 349–360. 147 Wilde, P. E., & Peterman, J. N. (2006). Individual Weight Change Is Associated with Household Food Security Status. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(5), 1395–1400. Wines of British Columbia. (2016). BC VQA Wine Awards. Retrieved September 7, 2016, from http://www.winebc.org/press_room/awards/ World Health Organization. (1986). The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. In WHO. Ottawa, ON. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/previous/ottawa/en/ World Health Organization. (2013). Health Promotion 2013 - Health in All Policies. Retrieved July 9, 2016, from http://www.healthpromotion2013.org/health-promotion/health-in-all-policies World Health Organization. (2016). Social determinants of health. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/ World Health Organization. (2017). What are social determinants of health? Retrieved May 4, 2017, from http://www.who.int/social_determinants/sdh_definition/en/ Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of Case Study Research. SAGE. Zielinski, J. (2014, August 7). Fruit for the less fortunate. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/120604/Fruit-for-the-less-fortunate Zucker, D. M. (2009). How to Do Case Study Research. University of Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=nursing_faculty_pubs 148 Appendices: Appendix A – Email communications Introduction email Dear (name of participant): I would like to invite you to participate in an interview for my graduate research project entitled “Urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna”. I am conducting my research through the University of British Columbia | Okanagan Campus as part of the Faculty of Health and Social Development in the School of Health and Exercise Sciences under the supervision of Dr. Alan Davidson, who is the Principal Investigator and my thesis supervisor for this study. I am studying the urban agriculture policy community in the City of Kelowna.  I am defining urban agriculture simply as growing food within a city – in this case the municipal boundaries of the City of Kelowna.  A policy community is a group of policy actors (stakeholders) who work to influence and/or develop policy in a particular area. The purpose of my research is to describe the characteristics and functions of this policy community. I would like to determine who the policy actors are, how they are involved in urban agriculture policy development, how they work together, what their beliefs are, and to understand the urban agriculture priorities and what influences these priorities in the community of Kelowna. You have received this email because your work/volunteerism/pastime is either directly involved in or relates to urban agriculture policy in the City of Kelowna area. If you choose to participate, your involvement would include participating in a recorded interview of approximately one hour in length at a location and time of your choosing. Privacy and confidentiality will be maintained at all times. I have attached a research consent form for you to review in order to assist you in determining if you wish to participate in my study. It outlines in further detail what my research is about, how it is being conducted, and what your involvement in my study would look like.  If you are interested, please reply to this email with three possible dates and times that you are available for an interview. (deleted two sentences here). If I do not receive a response within two weeks of the date of this email, I will send a follow up email. If you believe that there may someone more appropriate in your organization for this interview or if you know someone who in the Kelowna urban agriculture policy community, I would appreciate if you could forward this request onto them, and they may contact me if they choose to participate. Regards, 149 Casey Hamilton, RD, B.Sc. Graduate Student | Faculty of Health and Social Development | School of Health and Exercise Sciences The University of British Columbia | Okanagan Campus 3333 University Way | Kelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7 cassandraleehamilton@gmail.com http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/hes/welcome.html      Follow up email (if no response from intro email) Dear (name of participant): I am following up regarding the email I sent (DATE) requesting your participation in my research study entitled “Urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna”. I would like to offer you one more opportunity to participate. Please refer to the email below and the attached consent form. If you are interested in participating, please reply to this email with 3 possible dates/times when you would be available for an interview. Thank you for your time, Casey Hamilton, RD, B.Sc. Graduate Student | Faculty of Health and Social Development | School of Health and Exercise Sciences The University of British Columbia | Okanagan Campus 3333 University Way | Kelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7 cassandraleehamilton@gmail.com http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/hes/welcome.html        150  Transcript review email Dear (name of participant): Thank you for participating in an interview for my graduate research project entitled “Urban agriculture policy community in Kelowna”. As discussed following the interview, please find attached a copy of your interview transcript. I am providing you the opportunity to review your interview transcript, should you wish to do so. If you do, please review the transcript to ensure that it accurately reflects what you intended to communicate during your interview. I have transcribed the interview verbatim. Please note that spoken language is distinctly different from written language, and that reading how you speak may be a new experience for you. This is normal. If there is any information in the transcript that you would like to change or clarify, please communicate that in a format that suits you. This may be through tracked changes on the word document, by sending them separately in an email, or you may wish to communicate them to me verbally (if this is the case, please let me know when and at what phone number I may reach you). As a reminder, you have 30 days following the date of your interview to exit this study. Your interview was held on (DATE) and your last day to exit the study is (DATE). Again, thank you very much for your participation in my research. Regards, Casey Hamilton, RD, B.Sc. Graduate Student | Faculty of Health and Social Development | School of Health and Exercise Sciences The University of British Columbia | Okanagan Campus 3333 University Way | Kelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7 cassandraleehamilton@gmail.com http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/hes/welcome.html   151 Appendix B – Fact Sheet and Informed Consent for Semi-Structured Interviews  School of Health and Exercise Sciences 3333 University Way Kelowna, BC   Canada   V1V 1V7 Tel: (250) 807-9270  Urban Agriculture Policy Community in Kelowna  Fact Sheet and Informed Consent for Semi-Structured Interviews Of Urban Agriculture Policy Actors     Principal Investigator:  Dr. Alan Davidson, School of Health and Exercise Sciences                (250) 807-9270 Graduate Student:   Casey Hamilton, Graduate Student, UBC O                   cassandraleehamilton@gmail.com  Fact Sheet Questions and Answers Why am I being asked to participate in this study? You are being asked to participate because your work, volunteerism, and/or pastime is either directly involved in or relates to urban agriculture policy in the City of Kelowna area. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to define the characteristics and functions of the urban agriculture policy community in the City of Kelowna area. The researcher would like to investigate how policy actors in this area are working together to develop policies that govern urban agriculture, how urban agriculture is defined, and how urban agriculture policy is formed. For the purposes of this study, urban agriculture is defined as growing food in the city. A policy community is a group of policy actors (stakeholders) who work to influence and/or develop policy in a particular area.  Research Objectives 1. To identify the policy actors in the City of Kelowna urban agriculture policy community and to describe the relationships between them. 2. To describe the policy actor’s definition(s) of urban agriculture, their experience with urban agriculture in Kelowna, and the direction in which urban agriculture policy and practice may be headed. 3. To describe the views and positions of policy actors regarding the priorities and direction of urban agriculture in Kelowna and to describe how the City of Kelowna 152 has responded to these views and positions with respect to planning and policy development. 4. To make a contribution to the research literature area of urban agriculture policy communities in mid-sized cities. 5. To make a contribution towards the understanding of the City of Kelowna urban agriculture policy community.  What will I be asked to do? ● If you choose to participate in this study you will participate in an interview where you will be asked to share your involvement in/with the urban agriculture sector in Kelowna.  ● Your interview will be approximately 1 hour in length. Your interview will be audio recorded and transcribed by the researcher. The interview will be conducted at a time and place that is convenient for you. ● A copy of your interview transcript will be provided to you within two weeks of your interview. You will be asked to read the transcript to ensure that it accurately reflects your views.  Are there any risks involved with taking part in the interview? ● Taking part in the interview should not put you at risk. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed if you are in a position or share information that would make you easily identifiable. You will never be required to discuss any issues that make you feel uncomfortable or that you cannot share. Prior to the interview, guidelines outlining the process of maintaining a safe and confidential environment within and following the session will be presented to you. ● If you feel uncomfortable or distressed and you want to withdraw from the interview, your decision will be respected. If you wish, all the information you provide during the interview will be deleted from all research records and will not be used in any research report. You may withdraw from the interview at any time and will have up to 30 days following the interview to decide to withdraw. If you wish to withdraw, simply contact the interviewer via email to request withdrawal.  What will I get out of taking part in the study? Will I get paid? ● You will not be paid or compensated in any way. ● When the research is complete, the researcher will provide a summary report to urban agriculture policy actors. The summary report may provide an increased understanding of how the urban agriculture policy community operates in Kelowna.  Will people know I took part in the study? ● Your name will not be associated with the audio recorded interview or transcripts. A code number will be used.  ● The information will be stored in computer files that will be encrypted and password protected. Only the researcher will have access to the data. You will not be identified in any reports of this research. 153 ● Due to the small nature of the urban agriculture community in Kelowna, readers of the study or summary report may be able to speculate about your identity because of the information you provide during the interview.  Do I have to participate? Can I stop being in the interview whenever I want? ● Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You are free to leave or withdraw from the interview at any time, for any reason. You will have up to 30 days following the date of this interview to withdraw from the study. If you choose to withdraw from this study, all your interview information will be deleted. You do NOT have to explain why you wish to exit the study.  What if I have any questions about the study or my participation? ● If you have any questions or desire further information, please feel free to contact the Principal Investigator, Alan Davidson, at (250) 807-9270.    Who can I contact if I have complaints or concerns about the study? ● If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Services toll free at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office at 250-807-8832.  It is also possible to contact the Research Complaint Line by email (RSIL@ors.ubc.ca ).   By signing this consent form, you are agreeing to participate in an interview and acknowledge that you have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. By signing this consent form, you do not waive any of your legal rights.  Agreement statement: I have read the above information and I have had a chance to ask any questions about the study and my involvement. I understand what I have to do and what will happen if I take part in this study. I freely choose to take part in this study and have received a copy of the consent form.   Printed Name ___________________ ____________________________________  _____________________ Participant’s Signature     Date Email Address____________________ (For contact if need to clarify results)   154 Appendix C – Semi-structured Interview Guidelines and Script  Guidelines for maintaining a safe and confidential environment: - The interview is held at a date and time suitable for the participant. - The interview is held at a location that the participant chooses (e.g. office, meeting room, home) and is also in a location that is private and free from distraction. - The consent form will be reviewed in its entirety with the participant and any questions will be answered at that time. The participant will be given a copy of the consent form for their records. - The interview will be audio-recorded after obtaining consent from participant. - If the participant wishes to end the interview at any point they may do so without any explanation and will not be questioned further. - Upon completion of the interview, the participant will be asked if they have any further questions and will also be thanked for their time. Questions Script: 1. What is your understanding of urban agriculture? How would you define what it is? Could you provide examples of urban agriculture? 2. How are you involved in urban agriculture in Kelowna? 3. What type(s) of urban agriculture is currently being practiced here in Kelowna? Who is involved in this work? How about any work related specifically to urban agriculture policy development and planning? 4. Do you have a working relationship with any of the actors mentioned? Can you describe what your working relationship looks like? What are you working on together? 5. There are policies that govern urban agriculture here in Kelowna. What is your understanding of these policies? Can you think of any policies that are supportive of urban agriculture? How about policies that hinder urban agriculture in Kelowna? 6. Who is involved in the development of these policies? Can you think of any actors that are missing in urban agriculture policy development, if at all? 7. Do you see any working relationships or collaboration occurring between any of those you mentioned? 8. Do you think there is anything influencing urban agriculture in Kelowna? Anything local, provincial, or beyond? 9. What do you think are the priorities for this policy area? 10. Can you refer me to any work produced such as a plan or policy that you have worked on or that you know others have worked on? 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0347667/manifest

Comment

Related Items