Hamline University
From the SelectedWorks of K. Valentine Cadieux
2013
Survey and Communications Tool Exploring Different People’s Understandings of Current and Ideal Food Systems: Stage 1. Report to the SE MN Food Planning Initiative K. Valentine Cadieux, Hamline University
Available at: https://works.bepress.com/kvalentine-cadieux/40/ Survey and communications tool exploring different people’s understandings of current and ideal food systems K. Valentine Cadieux, reporting on the SEFPI review, survey, and evaluation sections for the SE Minnesota Regional Partnerships, September 2009—May 2013
Summary and Overview / Table of Contents:
As part of the SE MN FPI, the team1 coordinated by Valentine Cadieux was asked to provide information on how people have come to understand their local and regional food system in particular ways, and how these ways of understanding the value of local food and agriculture have related to food and agriculture practices—in addition to understanding what goals and constraints people identify in relation to their food needs in the region. We repeated encountered three core questions and consequently have organized this report around them: What values are people prioritizing to build a healthy food system in the SE MN region? How can people work together to develop community food networks to translate between different food system values in inclusive and reciprocal ways? What do we need next to be able to connect the knowledge we develop together to the decision making structures that help us build a healthy food system for all in the region?
Our report on the SE MN Food Planning Initiative builds on a significant prior history of collaborative multi-sector research around transformative and sustainable food systems governance in Southeast Minnesota.2 Our goal in this project was to understand some of the key features of what people are trying to support and improve in the SE MN food system. Our secondary goal was to understand how to make this research more actively usable—for example, by requesting an active role of the readers in identifying how any parts of the research described here could be expanded or reported to connect to needs in the region. (We have highlighted several sections where we would be particularly interested in gaining feedback from our collaborators, and would be happy to set up short research workshops, particularly in conjunction with other gatherings interested people might already be attending.) Many of the previous research projects we built upon were archived upon completion and remain largely unused by those who would find them most useful.3 As we attempted to review all of the work that had asked questions similar to those posed to us, we realized that the outcomes of our project needed to reach beyond the delivery of a set of survey results—and even beyond the development of a survey tool that can be used in an ongoing way, although we do provide those.
Consequently, we have attempted to develop a prototype of an arena for concerned people from all parts of the SE MN food system to articulate their concerns with the current food system and their vision of the ideal. Divergent viewpoints and specific goals are often perceived as impassible obstacles in dialogue among different parties. We, however, believe that addressing differences in perspectives can be valuable, particularly as many diverse perspectives help to paint a picture of the food system that is much more complete, inclusive, and accurate—and hence a much better platform for attempts to continue to support and improve the SE MN food system—and also because there is much more common ground than disagreement about the value of building a healthy food system for all. Although people may vary in how much they think the food system needs to be changed to provide healthy food access for all (and this difference appears to be significantly related to how much exposure people have had to problems in the food system), most people share a vision of a future food system that is healthy, fair, and supporting a vibrant agricultural culture in the region. Our project attempts to invite people further into conversation about how to achieve that food system by highlighting these areas of agreement and putting contentious topics or complementary perspectives into context in order to enable people across the region to facilitate future dialogue, translate between perspectives, and build food system institutions that embody the diverse values of the region.4
1 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
Outcomes/tools to organize report around: What was done in this part of the project: A. we reviewed as many statements as we could find in the region about what the food system is and what it should be B. we surveyed people in as many different parts of the food system as we could about what they thought the food system was like and what it should be like C. we facilitated discussions around how to assess and support the various activities that people use to try to support and improve the food system, with a focus on how to: o Explore how the food system works and how different values have been incorporated into the food system, o Negotiate and Translate between different perspectives on which food system values should be prioritized in what ways, o and Build Institutions that better incorporate diverse perspectives on how to maintain healthy food systems for all.
Central contributions from this part of the project / Tools that might be useful for further food and policy work in the region: a prototype of an illustrated index of existing research available on SE MN Food (interactive: users can add to this index and see how different parts of the food system—and the research process related to it—relate over time) a survey tool that can be used to assess what people prioritize in their understanding of current and ideal food system conditions an interview archive and process that could be used to assess food system priorities and compare over time connections to the policy, program, and evaluation parts of this project that suggest some ways to use the research conducted and collected as part of the SEFPI to support continued social organizing around healthy, sustainable, and transformative food systems
Key themes: Interview process and results: data building on existing rich description on how and why people have developed particular food and agriculture practices in the region, including values, perceptions, accomplishments, specific reasons for shifts in practices, challenges, and next steps; dialogue-building benefits of oral history collection and sharing Network analysis of SE MN food system, as perceived from different perspectives, with focus on points that present challenges, where different perspectives are in tension Survey process and results (develop survey with larger team to assess salient information from participants)
Navigation: 1. Explanation of our project ...... p. 3 2. Research process ...... p. 4 2A. Review of regional statements about what the food system is and what it should be . . . . p. 4 2B. Survey of people in diverse food system sectors about what they thought the food system was like and what it should be like ...... p. 5 Working groups: ...... p. 6 Sampling: ...... p. 7 Analysis and results: ...... p. 10 2C. Facilitating discussion of how to explore, negotiate and translate between, and build food networks and institutions: Why we concentrated on reviewing aspirations for the SE MN Food System ...... p. 10
List of Appendices ...... p. 12 Notes ...... p. 12 2 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
1. Explanation of our project
Our work was framed as being part of the process of exploring what it would mean to develop a regional food network, as a venue for the many residents of SE Minnesota who have turned significant attention to the ways they get food, to the practices they use to sustain their families‘ food needs, and to the ways these practices have changed over time – both for the better, and for the worse. When we began our project, particular attention was being focused on the category of local or regional food: food produced within the region where it is also consumed. Over the course of this project, this focus was refined to the category of healthy food access for all within the region, recognizing that healthy people, food, economies, soil and agroecosystems are all part of what people want and value in local food.
Recognizing that support for a healthy food system represents significant common ground, but that there is also considerable difference of opinion about how to produce a regional food system, we were interested in exploring: how people understand their food systems in particular ways, how these ways of understanding the different values embedded in food systems relate to support for specific food and agriculture practices, and what goals and constraints people identify and prioritize in relation to their food needs in the region.
Recognizing that regional food systems are valued for a broad range of reasons,5 from livelihood and health to quality and culture to resilient agricultural and ecological systems, we suggested that better understanding the range of goals for food systems held by a broad range of SE Minnesota residents could help participants in regional food system networks address the difficult questions: what are the problems that regional food systems might successfully address – and how might particular attempts to improve or support food systems address these problems?
Understanding what is shared – and what is different – in the goals and values associated with specific interventions in food systems may help develop and prioritize broader support for the benefits offered by many programs of work attempting to improve SE MN‘s food system, while also building legitimacy for sub-goals related to food access, ecology, and economy often subsumed under the symbolic umbrella of local food. For example, although the original intent of the SEFPI was very focused around local food, just what local meant, or why particular kinds of local food should be supported over other kinds of food production was not always made clear or explicit: although local scales of food system organization may help address many of the problems of current mainstream food systems – such as inequalities in access to healthy food, safe and fulfilling employment, financing, and land and markets that support sustainable agro-ecological practices – just being local does not necessarily ensure that these important values will be achievable in a system of food production.6
As a range of different producers and processors claim different meanings in their uses of labels such as ―local,‖ ―healthy,‖ and ―fair,‖ unpacking what values people want to support in the food system may help address issues that are important to the way that people meet their food needs. Finding out how commonly used assumptions about local food practices play out across the population may also help cultivate dialogue across many different boundaries of ―us‖ and ―them‖ that have created obstacles to cooperation in food systems.
The historical context of SE Minnesota provides a rich setting for this assessment of regional food systems. The region is host to a diverse set of historical trajectories of food and agriculture practices. And for almost all of its post-settlement history, it has also been host to negotiations between local and more geographically distributed food systems. Exploring and publicizing a broad range of perspectives on what food practices mean and how these food practices have developed and changed will provide a much clearer sense of how and why a range of people are acting in relation to goals associated with regional foodsheds. This work will build on recent work promoting local food systems (particularly within the region, such as the work of Gary Holthaus) in a collaborative process with local stakeholders, and will 3 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013 aim to facilitate productive dialogue within food communities in the region about how to encourage practices that meet widely-held goals, such as local food sourcing in institutions.
2. Research process
Our analysis had three central parts: A. we reviewed as many statements as we could find in the region about what the food system is and what it should be B. we surveyed people in as many different parts of the food system as we could about what they thought the food system was like and what it should be like C. we facilitated discussions around how to assess and support the various activities that people use to try to support and improve the food system, with a focus on how to: o Explore how the food system works and how different values have been incorporated into the food system, o Negotiate and Translate between different perspectives on which food system values should be prioritized in what ways, o and Build Institutions that better incorporate diverse perspectives on how to maintain healthy food systems for all.
2A. Review of regional statements about what the food system is and what it should be We reviewed existing research and other statements about regional food systems across the region, starting with a number of documents that had been collected to inform the SEFPI process, including Ken Meter and Jon Rosales‘ 2001 Finding Food in Farm Country 2001, work by the Winona EDA Local Foods Subcommittee, the Land Stewardship Project, Gigi DiGiacomo, Rob King, the Bush Foundation, the Food Alliance Midwest, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Many feasibility studies, local production studies, and projections of economic and health impacts associated with increasing consumption of local food have been produced; however, most of this prior research is neither reviewed in ways that would make it legitimate to audiences beyond those that commissioned the work, nor systematically available to diverse stakeholders. In addition, we reviewed a recent surge of academic literature on alternative agri-food practices, particularly focusing on local and institutional projects, using the categories found in the academic literature to help guide our search for broad representation across the SE MN Food System. We listed all sources reviewed,7 consulted with the broader research team and community collaborators for additional sources (our goal was to review the framing of each idea from at least three different sectors of the food system, to help understand the phrasing that would appeal to the largest audience and to demonstrate the cross-cutting nature of concerns about the food system), and engaged in an extensive process of collating and combining the kinds of things that people said about the food system into one list.
Appendix A lists all of the sources we reviewed; Appendix B relates our process for transforming a large field of possible statements into a set of 44 statements that summarized the main points that described the food system as it is or how people wish it to be, using language that would be clear and relatively neutral—i.e. that would be most likely to result the most diverse sample possible completing our survey without being offended by the assumptions of our survey or the time required to complete it. (For example, we use a maximally inclusive definition of ―a regional food system,‖ including any versions of what people envisioned as ideal qualities of a food system operating for or in the region, again, with whatever definitions participants chose to use. Our pilot study included mapping exercises drawn from work on Participatory Geographic Information Systems, in which we asked participants to indicate where they thought significant portions of their diet came from on a series of nested maps with increasingly large geographic scale—but this was not successful and appeared disproportionately onerous for participants, so we have deferred this discussion of the scale of the region. We note that parallel studies have found discussions of scale can be more useful to analyze and support the functions of various system components—rather than as a parameter used to limit or circumscribe a particular foodshed.)
4 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
Figure 1: Maps used to try to solicit understanding of where significant portions of food come from.
At the same time, we collected the central methodologies of all of the studies we were reviewing, and organized the questions and methods according to an interpretive scheme drawn from the American Planning Association‘s Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning (one of the framing documents of the SEFPI RFP), and echoed in the Center for Whole Communities‘ and Community Food Security Coalition‘s Whole Measures for Community Food Systems: Values-Based Planning and Evaluation tool (see note 5). Using the six categories that organize both the APA and Whole Measures frameworks (of thriving economies, health, ecology, fairness, cultures, and policy and planning) as a starting place to help balance the content of our survey to represent the range of things that people value in the food system, we built a set of interpretive categories that we would continue to refine over the next year and would use to interpret (by qualitative ―coding,‖ or ―tagging‖ by theme) the interviews we conducted. We also used this process of reviewing diverse perspectives on the food system to explore the ways that different people talked about similar and different goals and aspirations for a healthy regional food system. As much as possible, we organized our questions and tools around familiar phrasing and data developed in the region. (If readers are interested, we could elaborate this process more in Appendix B.8)
2B. Survey of people in diverse food system sectors about what they thought the food system was like and what it should be like
Piloting our process with ERC board members, SEFPI colleagues, and prominent food system representatives, we developed an interview and survey process that could be conducted in-person (we created field-note kits for and trained four researchers, who completed 25 in-person interview/surveys) or online (we conducted an additional 37 online interview/surveys). By the time we started conducting interviews and surveys in the summer of 2010, we had participated in over a dozen meetings with the core SEFPI group and many community collaborators, 9 and had focused our questions around the questions 5 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013 they had agreed were most central—mainly about the values and actions people felt should be prioritized to improve the food system.10
Our survey tool was a ―Q-method‖ survey instrument designed to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on what people in different positions in the food systems of SE Minnesota think about the current food system—and their ideal food system. Building on the categories described above and using sentiments about the food system taken directly from the review of the region‘s diverse food system constituents, we sought to assess how different groups prioritize and are acting on goals for local food systems, and what kinds of information they are using—or need—to meet these goals. We hoped that this information could help address some of the significant challenges facing food system planning: namely, identifying some of the key goals and motives of food system work; understanding how different goals and motives relate to each other; and connecting the functions attributed to various food interventions to supporting evidence of what those interventions accomplish.
Figure XXXX shows the process used to conduct the survey (which is archived on the U of M server, and can be made available as a tool in either the long or short version*).
In addition to asking the questions in note 11 and conducting this ―Q-sort‖ survey (so called because it involves sorting the statements about the food system into the normal triangular distribution pictured in the figure above), we also requested basic demographic information from participants (so that our research would be comparable to the food consumption model work conducted by Yuki Wang and Rob King), as well as a survey of where people procure their household food (by 10% increments).
Working groups: Our development of this tool coincided with the development of the five SEFPI working groups (and it was partly in these working groups that some of the work for the Healthy Eating Minnesota regional food networks was developed). These working groups met and discussed our interim 6 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013 findings at the Red Wing meeting on September 22, 2010, where we presented the top ten things that people in the region had identified they wanted most to change between the current and ideal food system (in order of importance): Healthy food is accessible and affordable to all residents of SE MN. Most farmers grow only a few crops to increase efficiency and profit on the farm. Government policy strongly influences what farmers grow. (people wanted this to be less true) Food prices allow for decent wages for farm workers or food processors. Most people in the SE Minnesota community eat a diet that includes adequate fresh vegetables and unprocessed foods. Healthy food is available to less mobile populations like the elderly, agricultural workers, and people without cars. Farm policy supports the implementation of sustainable agricultural practices. Our region's existing agricultural system is healthy and resilient enough to produce quality food without much pesticide use. Dangerous food and agriculture jobs are done disproportionately by immigrant and migrant workers. Regional farms are significant sources of food for institutions like schools, hospitals, and government agencies.
These working groups (which we discuss here largely because they seem like logical audiences for and users of the knowledge tools described in this report—and also because they seem to be one of the most important outcomes of the SEFPI process) identified focal activities coinciding with the categories we have discussed:
1. Infrastructure and Markets (focus on Thriving Local Economies & Vibrant Farms) Processing / storage Transportation / distribution (working with & cultivating distributors) o Education & outreach about processing, procurement: inspector education/coordination; food safety; efficacy; small-scale-friendly for producers & processors Addressing bottlenecks: financial/capital support; processing; education; regulations; transportation/distribution; Access; pricing/value, cost of production; equity; culturally appropriate foods Develop policies that encourage success in small and mid-scale farming venture Include processing and distribution facilities that are efficient, ecologically sound, safe, culturally relevant, and locally run Support local food processing and distribution efforts that are viable and that create safe, healthy, and meaningful livelihoods for all those who work in the food system.
2. Policies and Regulations (focus on all six fields) ID local supportive decision-makers Direct decision-maker contact ID success stories & consider messaging ID & support pilot projects with policy implications Do site visits to successful pilot projects with decision makers o Messaging: Economic Development, Public Health, Youth o Strategy – political timing (e.g. Hitting green politicians right off – just as they come in) See opposition; understand arguments Survey regional and statewide partners Develop policies that encourage success in small and mid-scale farming venture
3. Education and Outreach (focus on Strong Communities) Identify and educate about the values of regional food system 7 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
Develop knowledge base: speaking points, including insights about and understanding of obstacles and oppositions & response to opposition Communication/Networking – keep food systems issues alive in minds, in news (manage ongoing knowledge base & outreach to public) Articles/Letters to Editors Speakers Bureau Increase knowledge of the connections between food quality, healthy environments, and healthy people Commit resources to teach people of all ages the skills and knowledge essential to food production, preparation, nutrition, and enjoyment
4. Food access / justice / health (focus on Healthy People & Justice and Fairness) Ensure access for all community members to fresh, healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food. Uphold dignity and quality of life for all who work in the food system. Describe a clear vision of and moves towards creating fair alternatives to unjust food systems. Support local food processing and distribution efforts that are viable and that create safe, healthy, and meaningful livelihoods for all those who work in the food system. Support community resilience to social and environmental threats like food insecurity, violence, disease, illiteracy, and fuel and energy shortages and costs.
5. Steering Committee / Organizational Task Force (focus on Strong Communities) Be useful to others‘ goals Define Mission, Vision, Values Create Strategic Plan (Regional Activities)/ Goals & Objectives Governance of Group Outreach to strategic partners (including partnerships with food access / health partners)
Sampling: People from each of the working groups were included in our survey. We attempted to survey people bringing perspectives from all aspects of food and agriculture within the region.
Some of our survey/interviews (especially at the beginning) were conducted alongside other research and food activities planned via the Regional Partnership‘s foodshed analysis in SE Minnesota and other food activities in the region. Our goal was to sample as diverse a group as we could across the regional food system, so we attempted to vary our sampling—particularly by location (dividing the region into six quadrants, roughly shown on the map below plus the TC Metro area), age (younger: below 44; medium: 45-64; and older: 65+), gender, residential history (urban, rural, small town, or metropolitan region/suburban), position in the food system (particularly relying on occupation relative to food), and income (low = less than $35k; med = 35k-75k; high = more than $75, based on MN median of $51,410 from 2005 American Community Survey; 25% percentile = $28,000; 75% percentile = $83,900). Despite extensive efforts (Figure 2 shows the distribution of the majority of our cases into a nested table of sampling categories), our sample remains very light on agricultural laborers, food distributors, and people who might be considered not to have any particular interest in the food system, as well as non-white people and low-income older people (particularly important in considering regional food security and access).
Figure 2 (next page): Nested sampling analysis, showing distribution of interviews into five sampling categories (note: the left half shows female participants; the right, male; then genders are separated into age categories, which are further separated into income categories. The location and race of the noted participants are tallied in the final two rows.)
8 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
gender f m youn med old young- med old- age ger -ium -er er -ium er income low med high low med high low med high low med high low med high low med high 8192 7126 7121 1148 1165 8311 1161 7122 7263 7207 7063 1113 1155 7206 1136 1281 7272 6112 6102 7203 1151 7125 7261 7062 6131 1153 8191 7061 1155 7553 1212 6107 1131 61274116 1164 1163 7262 ID #s 6101 1144 7202 7271 1111 1169 7064 5131 7066 6111 6221 6103 90 6121 7128 1251 6171 1134 6105 6102 2289 7201 1168 6104 1163 7264 1 1 1 6 3 1 6 3 4 1 1 6 3 3 2 2 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 quad 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 6 4 1 3 3 3 6 1 2 6 4 1 1 3 4 4 3 6 3 3 6 3 2 w white 1 white race white white white white white white white white white "Euro white white white white/mixed other "
Figure 3 is a map showing survey participants in red, people interested in the project and survey but not represented in the current results in yellow, and people involved in the project but not represented in the survey results (yet) in blue.
Figure 3: Map showing sampling locations – the numbers for location quadrants (with county population data and aggregate population) 1 (total = ~130k) = Rice (61,980), Goodhue (45,807), Wabasha (22,282) 2 (total = ~130k) = Steele (36,221), Dodge (19,770), Freeborn (31,636), Mower (38,666) 3 (total = ~140k) = Olmsted (137,521, 8th) 4 (total = ~90k) = Winona (49,288, 19th), Fillmore (21,151), Houston (19,832) 5 (for nearby context) Scott = (124,092); Dakota = (388,001) 6 Twin Cities metro
9 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
The implications of our survey sampling means that while we are confident that we have talked to farmers, food processors, food advocates, legislators, public employees, and consumers from a range of different backgrounds, ideologies, scales and philosophies of production—and consequently can meet our goals of a broad and diverse (not representative) sample—we recognize that some uses of this information would be aided by supplementing our survey to make it more representative and to include voices from undersampled parts of the population.
Analysis and results: We are grateful to our collaborator Jerry Shannon for following the Q Method listserv for many months and helping us learn the PQ analysis software. This software is designed to show how different ways of sorting the items in our survey differ in ways that are systematically different, revealing three central categories along which participants differed from each other. We also used SPSS to conduct cluster and factor analyses of the participants‘ sorting patterns and the patterns of responses to individual items; the key findings I present here are from an exploratory factor analysis across both sorts. (Thanks are also due to Colin DeYoung for considerable statistics training and support.) The three most useful things to emerge from this analysis (which should be analyzed in workshop form with interested people in food networks in the region to determine what these findings mean and what to do with them— as well as how to connect these findings to the 44 interviews we have coded [i.e. tagged with the key themes noted in Appendix C]*) include: revealing which items people prioritized changing as they moved from describing current to ideal food systems, which items they most felt described the current food system, and, perhaps most usefully, three key categories along which people differ and that appear to help explain significant differences in competing perspectives on what should be done with food in SE MN: o Systemic perspective / structural awareness o Confidence in consumer action potential o and Eco-social empathy
Appendix D discusses these factors in more detail. Many people have asked whether it would be possible to get instant feedback on their sorting, and these three scales could provide a basis for developing that feedback mechanism (which would be a relatively straightforward programming task).
2C. Facilitating discussion of how to explore, negotiate and translate between, and build food networks and institutions: Why we concentrated on reviewing aspirations for the SE MN Food System
―The goals of the SEFPI were formulated by a diverse base of citizens who, via numerous events and meetings, articulated a set of priorities to create some level of regional self-reliance in our food system. Meaningful, broad-based research is one way to start ‗connecting the dots‘ of over ten years of small-scale, localized projects that have not, as yet, shifted our overall food environment.‖11
A significant part of our proposal involved creating a collaborative partnership among participants as a foundation for long-term, ongoing work around strengthening and expanding SE MN regional food systems. We identified forming these relationships and negotiating the roles of those involved as an ongoing process as the partnership forms, and received considerable positive feedback from public partners for the Partnership‘s expression of interest in cultivating a space for forging relationships between university and community partners interested in advancing collaborative work on regional food issues.
At the outset of this project, we developed a project proposal in collaboration with a broad group of university and community stakeholders, including the Winona EDA Local Foods Subcommittee, the Center for Rural Design, the Center for Regional and Urban Affairs, Renewing the Countryside, the SE 10 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
Minnesota Food Network, and the Land Stewardship Project. We understood that the ERC Board might determine that a hybrid of the proposals they received would better meet the goals of their RFP and the needs of the SE MN region, and encouraged the review committee to incorporate other willing partners besides those we originally suggested. As this was what did occur, we report here briefly on the process that was used to contribute to the building of a long-term, participatory, and sustainable community- university co-learning partnership with the capacity to address the challenges of strengthening and expanding the regional food system in the region.
The original RFP for this project (March 6, 2009) describes the task at hand: ―This RFP promotes a robust approach to public engagement that is highly dialogic and respectful, engages with community stakeholders throughout the project and allows for mutually- beneficial knowledge transfer and outcomes. Applicants must have a clear idea of what constitutes engagement, a willingness to design and conduct participatory research models with community leaders as co-investigators, and an openness to multiple models of dissemination and research impact.‖
The organizing principle and methodology for our project responded to the ERC‘s desire for a participatory program of research (above) by including: a community-based research approach that seeks to create a collaborative relationship between University and community partners leading to action-oriented research that builds community capacity, creates social change, and transforms public policy; an action-research program to facilitate local sourcing and strengthen the food system infrastructure, starting with existing or emerging programs in Winona area institutions, to serve as a provisional focus for developing a collaborative process to govern the broader project; and a collaboration between different teams of the larger research group and working groups, to consider information that would help tie the pieces together, and that could be collected along with, or as part of, our interviews and Q-survey (for example, survey information about food provisioning decision making, or about approval of a range of values and goals associated with local food). (*Part of the ongoing process of this work will be to continue to address the need for institutionalizing knowledge sharing processes that make work such as this more transparent and inclusive.)
In addition—and we propose that this may form the backbone of an online interface for organizing the large archive of food system knowledge potentially useful to regional food networks—we used the various descriptions of the regional food system we reviewed (as well as the data developed over the course of the SEFPI) to develop a conceptual map of the SE Minnesota food system as a network. (We have currently organized the information summarized in Appendix A by food system value area, although we would like to develop an alternative geography-based entry point, in which users could click through the layers of the interface based on their geographic location to see which organizations and individuals working on various aspects of the food system are located nearest them.)
This network concept map focused on identifying the variety of actors who convene at particularly significant nodes in the network, and has been designed to help organize the large amount of research we 11 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013 located in a usable form—as well as to facilitate dialogue about goals and practices at these junctures where different food system values or activities come together. Our ongoing challenge with this interface is to figure out how can different understandings of the food system can be brought together to encourage improved outcomes, mutual learning, and healthy food communities and environments. Our next step, as we move our prototype concept map online (it was developed in the free educational concept mapping software Visual Understanding Environment), is to incorporate into this interface one of our additional research outputs: a set of almost two dozen double-sided color handouts describing the various pieces of the SEFPI research and planning process with information on key findings and on where to find and how to use the research summarized. We would also like to make it possible for people to link their own research, interviews, or other information to this database as it grows, and are seeking additional funding to support the development of an advisory board to help steer this website to be most useful to food networks in Minnesota. (For more information on the Illustrated Index, please see Appendix E.)
The mixed-methods approach we have described here is useful from both a research and practical point of view, and while we recognize that there are many parts, we encourage readers to start with the parts that most interest them and to explore the connections (something that will be easier via this web interface). We have not systematically collected perspectives on local food across a broad population sample, and results from this broad sample relate to many claims that are often made about local food. A broad and diverse view of what is important about the relationship between food production and consumption in the region should be able to help refine economic analyses. And this kind of work can help continue to provide opportunities to build the distinct regional food infrastructure, and to create spaces for people with diverse interests to share ideas about this food system.
List of appendices that follow notes:
Appendix A (attached): Sources reviewed (Excel spreadsheet, attached) Appendix B (p. 16–18): “Q-sort concourse‖ and process – our set of 44 statements that summarized the main points that described the food system as it is or how people wish it to be (below), following a revised and condensed version for future use (further translated to streamline the list to 22 items for use in meetings, as many participants suggested that this could be a useful tool for supporting discussion of food system work in the region). (Jake Overgaard has written up a description of our process for transforming a large field of possible statements into this set, which could be included here in more detail if readers were interested.*) Appendix C (p. 19–24): Coding Manual used to mark up interviews Appendix D (p. 24–26): Explanation of 3 key factors from survey Appendix E (attached): Development of Illustrated Index (Pdf of slides attached)
1 This team included: Jerry Shannon, UofM Graduate Fellow, Geography, Environment, and Society; Jacob Overgaard, UofM Graduate Student, Horticulture and Extension; Natalie Ross, UofM Graduate Student, Landscape Architecture; Ruth Styles, UofM Undergraduate Student, Geography, Environment, and Society; Maria Frank, UofM Undergraduate Student, Food Science and Nutrition; Marnie McGregor, UofM Undergraduate Student, Anthropology; Alice Yonke, UofM Undergraduate Student through the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program; Eddie Krakhmalnikov, UofM Graduate Student, Landscape Architecture; Molly Turnquist, UofM Graduate Student in Public Health Nutrition and staff at Renewing the Countryside, where Jan Joannides remained engaged in the progress of the project as well; and, finally, two group of students in Nick Jordan‘s 2010 Agronomy 5321 course and Valentine Cadieux‘s spring 2012 Food, Culture, Society course who researched past ERC food projects whose links needed updating and descriptions needed more information to be legible as part of our collection of sources. In addition, Clara McConnell, UofM Graduate Student, Public Policy, and Julianna Olsen Tietge, UofM Graduate Students, Public Health Nutrition, participated regularly in our group meetings during their parts of the project. This group was also closely linked to Yi Cao‘s work through the support, planning, and analysis of evaluation and planning exercises. In addition, the team is centrally grateful for
12 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
the coordinating work of Erin Meier and for the work of the many participants of this study (many of whom requested to be included by name for their participation – and will be named in relation to their specific contributions in more detailed reports, but in the meantime are named here: David Kraemer, Karen Sundal, Mera Colling, and Joe Adams).
2 Key sources of information we build on included: DiGiacomo, G. (2008). Minnesota grocery store demand for local, organic farm products. Retrieved from http://misadocuments.info SE 20Regional 20Partnership 20Analysis.pdf / Food Alliance Midwest. (2009). Marketing study of opportunities for foods grown locally or sustainably in Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.auri.org/2009/06/local-foods-market-report/ Grimsbo, J.J., and Braaten D. (2005). Local foods: Where to find it, how to buy it. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture. Hartman, L. (2003). Asset survey for the experiment in rural cooperation, a University of Minnesota Sustainable Development Partnership in Southeast Minnesota. (Unpublished) Headwaters Group. (2007). Opportunities for leadership, learning, and impact in ecological health and sustainable communities. Retrieved from www.bushfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Web_Content/Publications/PDF_Files/Reports/Ecolo gical_Health_Final_Report_2007.pdf/ Holthaus, G. (2009). From the Farm to the Table: What All Americans Need to Know about Agriculture. The University Press of Kentucky. Hultberg, A. (2008). Mapping MN’s Local Foods System [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.regionalpartnerships.umn.edu/public/Feb-4_GIS_FINAL.pdf/ Land Stewardship Project. (2003). Getting a handle on the barriers to financing sustainable agriculture: The gaps between farmers & lenders in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://www.sare.org/content/download/57235/763727/Caroline_vanSchaik.pdf. Land Stewardship Project. (2008). LSP mythbuster: Sustainable farming methods cannot feed the World. Retrieved from http://landstewardshipproject.org/about/libraryresources/mythbusters Mayerfield, D.B. (2004). Matter of scale: Small farms in the North Central Region. Retrieved from http://ssfin.missouri.edu/report.htm/ Meter, K, and Rosales, J. (2001). Finding food in farm country. Retrieved from http www.crcworks.org ff.pdf / Minnesota Department of Health. (n.d.) Grantee support. Retrieved from http://www.health.state.mn.us/healthreform/ship/index.html/ Minnesota School Nutrition Association and Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. (2008). MN School Food Service Director Survey: Farm to School. Retrieved from http://www.iatp.org/documents/2008-minnesota-school-foodservice-director-survey-farm-to- school/ Nelson, S. (2009). Winona County local foods inventory final report. Retrieved from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/43814441/Outline-Local-Foods-Inventory-Final-Report/ Renewing the Countryside. (2009). Communities of a Plate. http://communityofaplate09.wordpress.com/ Stark, M., Abazs, D., and Syring, D. (2010). Defining the agricultural landscape of the Western Lake Superior Region: Realities and potentials for a healthy local food system for healthy people. Retrieved from http://www.hfhl.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/.../cfans_asset 402 4.pdf / University of Minnesota Extension. (2009). Minnesota toolkit for school foodservice. Retrieved from http://www1.extension.umn.edu/food/farm-to-school/toolkit/ van der Linden, T. and Kathy Greden Christensen. (2009). Faces of our farmers: Using the power of photography to connect citizens with farmers. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/nutrition/components/M1270-1.html
In addition, we drew on the considerable expertise of other SEFPI participants and Steering Committee, particularly Rob King and Steve Roos, as well as others who have worked in the region on food system questions, including Jan Joannides, Pat Nunnally, Megan O‘Hara, and Helene Murray – as well as on several unpublished Minnesota Institute of Sustainable Agriculture (MISA) reports, including Julie Ristau 13 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
and Karen Lehman‘s (2000) Regeneration Partnership A Sustainable Food System in Southeast Minnesota: Linking the Land Grant University and Communities through the Southeast Regional Partnership to Maximize Opportunities and Address Challenges in an Age of Globalization. 3 Several things contribute to the difficulty in making research usable. Research is often conducted in and by particular food sectors that may not share basic assumptions or methods with other sectors of the food system. University-based research units often have a troubled history of equitable and trusting relationships with communities organized around healthy food, given their historical roles as knowledge brokers in agri-food regimes oriented toward concentration and rationalization. And even when there is significant cross-sector community investment in food system research, projects are often archived in offices or on websites where public access is difficult to facilitate and maintain.
4 As demonstrated in this first section, in order to make this research report easier to digest, we have used endnotes in each section for details—to be available to those interested in the details or needing them for future research or action, but ignorable for those who just want the key points.
5 Whole Measures for Community Food Systems: Values-Based Planning and Evaluation http://www.wholecommunities.org/pdf/WholeMeasuresCFS.pdf Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning (APA Policy Guide) http://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/food.htm
6 Born, B., & Purcell, M. (2006). Avoiding the Local Trap Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(2), 195–207. doi:10.1177/0739456X06291389
7 See note 2 and Appendix A
8 For example, at an intermediate point in our research, we had identified these following questions as key preoccupations of what we were reviewing: 1. How does investment and knowledge currently flow within the current food networks, how do they flow within local food networks? What are the consequences. 2.Where are there efficiencies in the food network, where are there bottlenecks? 3. In what ways does local/regional/national infrastructure dictate the structure of our food system? 4. What factors affect the ability for those who want to, to become (and remain) farmers? 5. How are changing land uses for housing or natural reserve affecting agriculture? 6. How does/will government regulation play into local food production? (seed patents, USDA certification…)? 7. Should food policy be addressed through Federal/ State/ Metropolitan or regional bodies? 8. Is there a correlation between locally grown food and a reduction in health care costs? 9. How does regionalism play into the local food movement? (regional economies, governance, communication and collaboration)? 10. Are there enough farmers that want to produce local food (and are willing and able to do so in a way consumers would prefer)? How many are enough? 11. In what ways do small scale producers react to consumer demand? In what ways do small scale producers inform consumer demand?
9 Meetings our team participated in, with public-participation-focused meetings in bold March 16, 2009 HFHL, west bank March 18, 2009 working group April 3, 2009 SERP, St. Paul April 8, 2009 Winona EDA Local Foods Subcommittee April 20, 2009 CURA November 6, 2009 Review of matrix December 3, 2009: UM SE RSDP/ERC SE Foodshed Planning Initiative Steering Committee & Study Circle gathering – Yuki presenting 14 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
December 11, 2009 Jules and Clara December 14, 2009: St. Paul Dec 22, 2009: Foodshed models and methods planning, considering how to incorporate SEFPI Feb 10, 2010: St. Paul: project check ins from Clara, Yuki, Valentine, David Mulla Feb 24, 2010: St. Paul March 16, 2010: Models and Methods for Foodshed Analysis Symposium, co-organized by SEFPI March 18, 2010: Evaluation with Randy Hanson May 14, 2010: St. Paul – Grace and Steve presenting May 19, 2010: Evaluation team August 9, 2010: St. Paul – Evaluation and Planning meeting, Yi presenting September 22, 2010 Red Wing – working group development meeting November 16, 2010 ERC Board meeting December 2, 2010: Rochester January 20, 2011: Planning meeting January 26, 2011: St. Paul, next steps planning – working group governance June 23, 2011: St. Paul, Valentine and group presenting September 20, 2011: St. Paul, David Mulla and Jake Galzki presenting November 20, 2011: St. Paul, Steve Roos presenting
10 - pre-survey question (1.) In this survey, we talk about "food systems" to mean the process by which food is grown, delivered, and consumed. What parts of this system seem most important to you? - pre-survey question (2.) What are the parts of the food system that you think could be improved the most? - pre-survey question (3.) What kinds of actions do you think should be prioritized to improve the food system? - Please use this space for any thoughts or comments you'd like to share about the first card sort, answering the question: How much do you think each of these statements describes the current food system? - Please use this space for any thoughts or comments you'd like to share about the *second* card sort, answering the question: How much do you think each of these statements describes the *ideal* food system? - post-survey question (1.) What do you think was most important about what you changed between the first ("current food system") and second ("ideal food system") card sorts? - post-survey question (2.) What kinds of experiences and activities of yours do you think have led you to your perspectives on the food system? - post-survey question (3.) If you could change the food system in the ways you indicated in the card sorting survey, how do you think your experience (for example, as a consumer or a producer or a distributor) would be different? - post-survey question (4.) Now that you've done the card sorting survey, are there any other parts of the food system that seem important to include (or parts that you wouldn't emphasize as much)? - post-survey question (5.) Are there recognizable groups of people who you think would have significantly different opinions about how to sort these statements? - 6. Do you have any ideas for things that could help facilitate dialogue between people with different perspectives on what should be done with the food system? - 6b. Are there specific people we should be talking to? - 7. Would you like to make any comments about this survey process?
11 From the project description page: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/rsdp/southeast/docs/SEFPI_Short_Info_Flyer.pdf
15 | Cadieux et al. SEFPI 2013
2A Food system2B Food integ system2C in Local econ viability markets7 development (issues for of7 local(gov.scale) foods policy6 People/Comm/Culture & programs)Health 4 Environment (inclusive5A Food decision-making)5B security Food-related5D Working Planningecon conditions opportunities / Integration AMPI x x x Bush Foundation x x x x x x x x
Center for International x x x x x x x Food & Ag Policy Center for Urban & x x Regional Affairs Channel One, Inc. x x x County of Olmsted x x x x x x x x DiGiacomo x ERC x x x x x x x Faegre Baker Daniels Farmers' Legal Action x x x x Group, Inc. Humphrey School of x x x x x x Public Affairs Institute for Ag & Trade x x x x x x x Policy Institute of Food x x x x x Technologists
Land O'Lakes Internat. x x x x Development Land Stewardship x x x x x x x x x Project Local Harvest Supply x x x x
Marshfield Clinic x Research Foundation Meter & Rosales x x x x x Millions against x x x x Monsanto MN MN Academy of x x x x x x x Nutrition & Dietetics MN Agri-Growth x x Council MN Corn Grower's x x Assoc. MN Department of x x x x x x Agriculture MN Department of x x x x x Health MN Farm Bureau x x x x x x x x MN Farmer Assistance x x Network MN Farmers Market x x x x Assoc. MN Farmers Union x x x x MN FFA x x MN Grocers Assoc. x x x x x
MN Institute of x x x x x x x x x x Sustainable Ag (MISA) MN Medical Assoc. x x x x MN Milk Producers x x x x x x Assoc. MN Obesity Center x x MN Pork Producers x x x Assoc. MN School Nutrition x x x Assoc. MN State Cattlemen's x x x x x x Assoc. MN Vet Med Assoc. x x National Assoc. of x x x x Convenience Stores
National Cooperative x x x x x Grocers Assoc. National Gardening x x x x x Assoc. x x x x x x x National Grocers Assoc. x National Sustainable x x x x x x x x x x Ag. Coalition Organic Field School x x x x x x x Promoting Modern x x x x x Agriculture Renewing the x x x x x Countryside RTC: Green Routes x x x x x RTC: Local Food Hero x x x x x
Rochester Downtown x x x Farmers Market SE MN Ag Alliance x x x x x Slow Food x x x x x x x x x x SnoPac Frozen x x Vegetables Sustainable Farming x x x x x x Assoc. of MN USFRA x x x x x Wapasha Community x x x x Garden Western Lake Superior x Region Winona Co. EDA x x x Appendix B: “Q-sort concourse‖ and process
Set of 22 survey items as revised based on people’s use of the survey—to be used to help map out different kinds of work being done in the food system:
A. People are interested in forms of farming that will be viable in the long term B. Many people are working to ensure that food businesses (such as those engaged in production, processing, distribution, and food-related events) contribute significantly to the regional economy by generating more food and jobs at a range of skill levels in SE Minnesota. C. People are concerned to make sure there is adequate access to lending for farmers and food and agricultural entrepreneurs (particularly for those just starting out). D. People would like the regional food and agriculture industry to provide opportunities for local youth to make a decent living in SE Minnesota as they become adults. E. People in SE Minnesota are trying to understand how consumer demand functions to support a regional food system, and how food consumption practices can be better aligned with healthy food production practices. F. People are eager to promote healthier eating habits via regionally produced food, but these may be more accessible to people who can afford to pay a premium. G. People are working to ensure that healthy food, including adequate produce, is accessible and affordable to all residents of SE Minnesota, including the elderly and others with limited mobility. H. Agricultural practices are used to protect regional water quality via soil conservation and nutrient management. I. Food production in SE Minnesota uses much more energy per acre than the global average, although people across the food system are working to address this. J. Combining new technology and innovative practices with existing regional knowledge helps make food production more sustainable. K. Various groups trying to improve the food system in this region are working to address the difficulties of communicating or working together. L. People work to address concerns that different kinds of growing and processing practices decrease health and safety for consumers. M. People are working to make community decision making processes in SE Minnesota more inclusive of people from all levels of wealth and all ethnic backgrounds. N. People work to make food operations more transparent (as well as more accountable in terms of working conditions, pay, and social and environmental impacts); they point to the social relations and accessibility possible with locally owned farms in contrast to nationally and globally managed farm operations. O. Pressure to increase efficiency and profit has reduced farm and industry diversification and increased concentration, meaning, for example, that most farmers grow only a few crops. P. Regional farms are working to become significant sources of food for commercial and institutional food vendors, like restaurants, schools, hospitals, and government agencies. Q. People are working to make fresh produce more available to all throughout the region. R. People are building regional food economies that enable healthy, fair, and transparent social relations between different sectors of the food system. S. People are working to make the region's agricultural system healthy and resilient enough to produce quality food without expensive or toxic inputs. T. People are working to ensure that agricultural and food jobs pay decent wages and are safe and fair for all. U. Gardening, gathering, and hunting are a significant source of food in this region. V. There are accessible training opportunities in my region for people to learn how to grow food crops and enter other food sectors.
Set of 44 survey items as administered: 1: Large scale farming is viable in the long term. (disagreement: Mean = -2.35; Std. Dev. = 1.894)
16 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
2: Food businesses and events contribute significantly to the area by generating more food, income, and jobs. 3: Regionally focused food processing and distribution provides many jobs at a range of skill levels in SE Minnesota. 4: There is adequate access to lending for farmers and food and agricultural entrepreneurs (particularly for those just starting out). 5: The regional food and agriculture industry provides opportunities for local youth to remain in their home region and make a decent living. 6: SE Minnesota does not have enough consumer demand to support a regional food system. 7: There is more demand for food in Minnesota than farmers can supply 8: Regionally produced food promotes healthier eating habits only for those who can afford to pay a premium. 9: Healthy food is accessible and affordable to all residents of SE MN. 10: Agricultural nutrient management practices protect regional water quality and promote soil conservation. 11: Food production in SE Minnesota uses much more energy per acre than the global average. 12: Most people in the SE Minnesota community eat a diet that includes adequate fresh vegetables and unprocessed foods. 13: New technology and innovative practices play a key role in making food production more sustainable. 14: Consumers improve the region's environmental quality when they buy food produced regionally. 15: Regionally grown food requires fewer inputs and transportation and energy costs. 16: Healthy food is available to less mobile populations like the elderly, agricultural workers, and people without cars. 17: People I know can find and purchase fresh produce conveniently. 18: Various groups trying to improve the food system tend to have difficulties communicating or working together. 19: Existing grocery stores adequately provide for all the food needs of SE Minnesota communities. 20: SE Minnesota is able to produce plentiful, affordable food for the region. 21: Organic growing practices decrease food safety for consumers. 22: Community decision making processes in SE Minnesota are generally inclusive of people from all levels of wealth and all ethnic backgrounds. 23: Programs designed to feed those in need improve access to fresh, sustainably grown food. 24: Food standards and certification processes are appropriate to the size and scale of farm or food processing operations. 25: Farm policy supports the implementation of sustainable agricultural practices. 26: Government policy strongly influences what farmers grow. 27: Demand for traceability of food products to their origin causes distributors to favor a few large farms over many smaller ones. 28: Small locally owned farms have more transparent operations than larger nationally and globally managed farm operations. 29: Most farmers grow only a few crops to increase efficiency and profit on the farm. 30: Changes in food prices are driven by large, global economic factors, not by regional supply and demand. 31: Regional farms are significant sources of food for institutions like schools, hospitals, and government agencies. 32: Consumers prefer to eat at restaurants that include regionally grown food in their menus. 33: Ensuring universal food access and food security is a priority in the region. 34: Regional food systems provide the freshest foods. 35: Food cooperatives make strong connections between regional producers and consumers. 36: Buying food regionally builds more understanding of how regional economies function.
17 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
37: Our region's existing agricultural system is healthy and resilient enough to produce quality food without much pesticide use. 38: Locally-owned farm and food operations provide better pay and working conditions than large, remotely-owned operations. 39: Food prices allow for decent wages for farm workers or food processors. 40: Dangerous food and agriculture jobs are done disproportionately by immigrant and migrant workers. 41: Gardening is a significant source of food in the region. 42: Organic and sustainable farming systems are a niche market luxury, not a large scale solution to feeding the world. 43: Land use policies support food production. 44: There are accessible training opportunities for people to learn food crop farming.
Informed consent and honorarium statements accompanying the survey: As part of the Southeast Minnesota Foodshed Planning Initiative, we are studying the food system in Southeast Minnesota and the way that people would like the food system to be. This research is meant to help different people who work in the food system understand each other's projects and perspectives better, and to understand how the food needs of the region are being met. Participation in this study is voluntary, and if there are questions you’d prefer not to answer or if you want to stop doing the survey for any reason, that’s fine. We’d also encourage you to ask questions or share comments at any point – this is pretty informal, although the food system is a big and complex thing to think about, so if you want to take a break at any point, that’s also fine. We have an honorarium (up to $40) to compensate participants for mileage and/or time, which will be available to all participants. If you’d like to take the honorarium, there’s a receipt we need you to fill out....
Q-method Survey description: In a Q-method survey, participants sort statements about what the regional food system currently does and what it could do in an ideal future. Using an online FlashQ interface to complete the survey, participants see a number of ―cards,‖ which can be dragged into ―piles‖ that represent how well each statement describes the food system. They are then asked to drag each statement to the location on the scale where they think it fits in response to the question, ―How well do you think each of these statements describes the current food system?‖ They are then given the opportunity to revise their sort in response to the question ―How well does each of these statements describe your ideal food system?‖
Through the process of creating and editing the Q-sort concourse, the goal was to have clear and concise statements that accurately represent the idea expressed in their source documents and the range of viewpoints in the region. At the same time we did not want to alienate and provoke the participants or avoid important issues that may be controversial. For example, one statement began as, ―The fastest and best way to improve access to sustainably produced food is by transforming federal nutrition programs designed to feed the poor.‖ This statement was later edited, replacing the word ―poor‖ with the phrase ―those in need.‖ We thought the statement could become muddled by differing definitions of ―poor;‖ saying ―those in need‖ seems much more innocuous. The idea was further edited with the removal of the mention of federal nutrition programs. We wanted to avoid the possibility that participants might have an attitude that placed the most importance on federal programs; by removing federal, we avoid some possibility of distortion. Also, we were moving to statements that could flexibly describe the current or an ideal situation. The final version of this statement read ―Programs designed to feed those in need improve access to fresh, sustainably grown food.‖
18 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
Appendix C: Coding Manual used to mark up interviews (and also to assess almost 700 Minnesota State Fair 2011 exhibit responses to questions about the food system; for that work, see Molly Turnquist’s 2011 MPH Thesis: Exploring Minnesotans’ Thoughts on the Food System: Where We Are and Where We Would Like to Be, A Technical Field Report.)
Code family code sub-code APA coding definitions I main actors as in the general "we should..." -- whereas the specific 1A the vague "we" "we" in context (or where the subject is implied) would be / "you" 1B including discussion of politics and power, struggles over decision making; (responsibility for problems or solutions could go here, although it should also be coded "problem" or "solution") * use whenever people indicate that they have some sense of who does or show have 1B who/what do responsibility, power, or ability to act in a particular people think has circumstance (contrasted with the more vague "people agency / power / should fix things" or "we should fix the farm bill" when ability or that clearly doesn't mean US, since "WE" aren't exactly responsibility / the ones who write the farm bill... 130111 also including knowledge gatekeeping / sense that people shouldn't important speak without certain level of expertise (note relationship knowledge APA1A, APA7 to 5B) [CONNECT to 4ib] Not just regulators -- governance in a broad sense. This is a big, open box, because the instruments and operation of governance are a big part of what we're trying to understand, in terms of what people imagine is happening and what they would like to happen (and what they critique). In addition, we're looking here for the way people understand specific regulations (official or not, including rules of thumb, of vocabulary, of moral economy, shaming, etc.), patterns of rule -- and the work done (preferably in relation to its intents...) 111122 (1203 MT V debate: [we could move to include under 4I (rename as 4Ib?) -- but I don't think we should MERGE 1C and 4I -- the government being an ACTOR (e.g. they need [Connect to 4ib]1C to do this, or they do that, is different enough from just any discussion of regulation that we'll want to be able to Government as separate them -- and so it might not make sense to go actor through the trouble to rename the code / recode]) 2 the food system Technological progress, including scale. Key words: Agribusiness, cost-price squeeze, large scale agriculture, big oil, ethanol, GMOs, school lunches, corporations, Monsanto, ethanol/fuel, antibiotics, "middle men," food companies, and fast food (also relates to 4f5 consumption practices) --- including scale, influences (of agribusiness), as well as technological progress, cost-price squeeze; 2A food system global context (we may need some practice and institutional additional filling in of this definition to differentiate it structures & from info/knowledge building around food systemics) -- big oil & ethanol have been included here (so partly institutional- because of that, 130224, we're deciding to also include systemic discourse APA1A ENERGY here, which hasn't been included before) 2B information / Sites and processes of knowledge production about the knowledge food system; including aggregation. Key words: Food building ? labeling
19 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
2C food Practices of production (including technology). Include production mention of gardening, backyard garden, friends'/neighbors' garden (related to 4d local), food processes and additives, "junk food," processed food, "natural foods," practices ? Antibiotic use, factory farming, hormone use, Mention of specific site or categories of sites and origins of food. Key words: restaurant name (including fast food APA1A, names), website name, farmers market sites, store 2D sites APA2C names, names of people where food comes from How food and food products are transported/delivered 2E distribution from place to place. Includes feeding programs such as food shelves/kitchens, meals on wheels program. Key networks and APA4A?; words/phrases: transportation, travel X miles, food agents APA2?; APA1? shelves, food kitchens 2F spatial issues Accessibility of food. Particularly referring to how food system is set up and problems related to that, including (including neighborhood accessibility of foods. Key words/phrases: accessibility) APA3B food deserts Any mention of other countries in relation to food, trade 2G global scale policies, etc.
3 Food system problems and solutions (interventions / improvements / opportunities) interventions / improvements 3A cooperation In addition to things officially labeled as cooperation and and collective collective action, we're interested here in the broader action; realm of communicative action and practice. Key words/phrases: support farmers/neighbors/community, community farmers markets, CSAs, co-ops, community gardens. supports APA1A Connected to 4h2 and 4f2. Any mention of successful or unsuccessful examples of food system components/actions. Include feedback for MN State Fair display, both positive and negative. including precedents in other places (specific and also 3B models ? generic models) uses of evaluation / goal setting / benchmarks; includes a sense of progress. Also includes any discussion or 3C monitoring / demonstration of interventions or problems being evaluation / goal achieved, expected (only theoretical), planned, etc. 130109 - also interested in what people think about the setting / usefulness of being able to demonstrate (or critique) benchmarks APA2D progress 3D consumer Changing people's politics (may include educational education / "marketing); connected to 2B / Michael Pollan cluster. outreach / Any mention of teaching children how to eat, consumer education of food/eating/gardening/farming, exclude knowledge labeling (2b). Include mention of contacting sharing APA3C officials/legislators. Problems including low prices (cost-price squeeze), technological treadmill, access to finance, access to land, pests, weather. Anything related to employment/fair 3E problems that compensation NOT here - in 4f2 local job producers face APA2E? growth/livelihood instead. how do people value food? / competing values for food (and justifications for food system -- the way it is, and also the way people think it should be); also for efforts to or 4 values, justifications, reasons discussion of making space for under-explored values Any mention of quality in reference to food. Key words: 4A quality ? good, great 4A1 taste Key words: tasty, yum/yummy, delicious, taste
20 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
4A2 scientifically determined quality Any mention of food science, antibiotic use can go here Any mention of the word fresh or whole in reference to 4A3 freshness food (APA 3) Anything in relation to human and animal health. Key words/phrases: nutrition, nutritious, good for you, 4B health / safety APA3 body health, foodborne illness, bacteria, healthy, Any use of the words sustainable or organic. Efficiency discussions (+making sure we can extend practices into 4C sustainability & the future ex:"farmed for 100 years"). Key words/phrases: organics APA4 "saving the earth," sustainable, organic. Explicit mention of OR demonstration of local or regional emphasis (and reasons for promoting); Includes consumer / producer connection (ex: "know where your food comes from" - which connects to 3d Consumer education/outreach/knowledge sharing); short supply chains, justification for local food. 1203 MT: also about small-scale, noting that when people talk about small farms/person's own garden/backyard gardens, we may APA1A, want to assess overlap with 4f3 ideals / ideologies, 4e 4D local / regional APA2C diversity and food culture. Any mention of cultural influences, cultural foodways (including social / relational work around food) (APA 6)Mention of family; also includes "ways grampa/gramma did X" - tradition; loss of tradition; and also identity/personal histories. Include urban and rural identity. Include faith related comments. Key words/phrases: family mealtime, family farm (connected to 4c sustainability and 4f3 ideals), care/love (in reference 4E diversity & to food/raising food) 130109 recognizing that it clumps food culture APA6 culture and society, we're including gender here 4F economy / econ (APA 2) Any mention of economies, money, financial development considerations that do not fit in the more specific categories below. 4F2 local job Include anything related to earning a living/fair growth / jobs & APA2D, compensation to farmers and farm workers and farm- livelihoods APA2E related employment. Rural community economics. Including: free market; public benefit; self-sufficiency -- also includes a sense of progress / modernity. When there 4F3 ideals / seems to be a deeper meaning to the comment that can be organized around a particular thought or theme. ideologies / 130108: also including "whole systems" integrative frameworks APA2 perspective Anything related to commitments to make food systems 4F4 more equitable through internalizing costs of food decommodifying production -- recognizing that most of what's going to come closest to that is "self-sufficiency" narratives. food / creating Include mention of non-government control of food own economy system, creating own food networks/system
21 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
Includes shopping/purchasing habits (include use of words "buy/buying"), eating habits, consumer demand & consumer activism; how people talk about the power of consumption (to change things) and how we need to change what people want; Includes mention of vegetarianism, veganism, eating/liking specific foods, listing foods or food categories (produce/fruits and 4F5 vegetables), also any mention of food related waste, including packaging. (1203 MT: fast food may be included consumption here, although if it's a particular site, it will also be under practices ? 2D, and if relating to institutional structures also 2A) 4G ecology /environment /land (APA 4) Including general mention of GMOs here. 4G2 actor / active -- causal context for something; Mention of soil health, complexity and diversity of environment as plants/wildlife/eco- and agroecosystems, etc.; climate actor APA4A change. 4G3 land / Include role of land use planning. Mention of farming environmental techniques and consequences related to management APA2B, APA2C ecosystem/environment; sustainable inputs. 4G4 Environmental access Land access (APA 5) Any mentions of equality, equity, justice, exploitation, peace; fair trade belongs here -- also adding 4H equity/ justice (June 4, 2012) social responsibility 4H2 food access: cost / expense / Includes cost of food, affordability of food, access to food, affordability of APA5A, poor families/individual, everything relating to hunger. food APA5C Includes food kitchens/shelves.
4H3 racial Mention of race/ethnic groups or migrant workers and disparities APA5A unequal opportunities/access or unfair treatment. 4H4 equitable access to learning ops APA2E Via technology transfer training, extension Mostly for farmers, but for everybody when talking about economic issues/opportunities in the community as it 4H5 economic relates to food (1203 MT farmers access to loans? v: yes, opportunities APA5B farmers (but also everybody)) 4H6 work Any mention of "hard work" or working conditions of conditions APA5D farm/food related employment 4H7 animal Any mention of unfair/inhumane and humane treatment welfare of animals for food. (APA7) include full range of scales of governance --policies at all levels. Include mention of "banning" or "regulating" anything related to food. Any mention of things that government would require legislation to be carried out. Include mention of speaking with legislators about issues related regulation / to food. Key words/phrases: ban GMOs, subsidies, 4I policy policy APA7, APA1 political,
22 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
not just regulators -- governance in a broad sense. This is a big, open box, because the instruments and operation of governance are a big part of what we're trying to understand, in terms of what people imagine is happening and what they would like to happen (and what they critique). In addition, we're looking here for the way people understand specific regulations (official or not, including rules of thumb, of vocabulary, of moral 41b government economy, shaming, etc.), patterns of rule -- and the work as actor APA1A done (preferably in relation to its intents...) 111122 Any questions, confusion, or strong feelings toward anything related to the food system. Include negative or 5 mismatches & tensions & discussion of perspective ? confused comments toward state fair display explicit mention of OR demonstration of (note: this might require highlighting large portions of text, if there are tensions between things that are mentioned far away from each other in the text -- let's start with a standard protocol of looking at the beginning and end of a highlighted section for the salient tension / mismatch. Also, this suggests that we might want a way to add when there are NOTES -- we can just do that IN the text, say, in [square brackets, signing the note with our initials and date - kvc. 5A within paradoxes in 110520]) (1203 MT: when there are paradoxes in what perspectives what people say people say) a key part of what we'd like to get at in this or the next code = the way that different claims / perspectives when encounter others! What do they do there? How do they statements are contain or engage with critiques? (e.g. mainstream ag clearly calling animal welfare critics "lunatic fringe," and responding to undermining legitimacy & credibility as salience appears other to grow; or alt ag promoters calling into question knowledge of mainstream farmers) (1203 MT: when 5B between statements they statements are clearly responding to other statements perspectives disagree with they disagree with) to be used when there are clear gaps or lacks (things that are, for example, obviously unspoken, or something that's NOT said that would clearly make two different statements that ARE said make more sense -- the example that comes to mind is when a particular farmer said she doesn't have a problem with labor, in the context of conversations about labor being a significant challenge for farmers - and we found out later that all her labor comes from unpaid volunteers, but she didn't say that, and that 5C absences would be a salient "absence" in her discourse.) improvement, progress, modernization, redemption, decline, integration, connectivity -- we need to discuss some central categories here, including key methods of communicative practice (i.e. ways disagreement takes place, way expert vs. public knowledges are managed in their encounters, participatory framings, containments or liberations of critique, etc.) --- I'm uncertain about this, but we keep going back and forth about things like improvement, decline, etc., and I think it might be useful to assess some general things about the structure of the way that the food system is described -- these may be assessments of each interview, with perhaps some coding 6 rhetorical structure for good examples [kvc 111122] Two or more people commenting on same hangtag - about each others' comments; in the interviews, when 6B dialogue people call for or describe dialogue
23 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
Commonly used phrases such as: Feed the world, you are 6C cliche what you eat Comments urging people to eat a certain way or a certain food, shop at a certain place, or DO anything related to 6D food advice food 6E pictures, emoticons, including humor, emotion, rhyming, use of the words diagrams "make me happy" or just happy or Love (ex: I love ___!)
130223 added after coming to "emoticons" every time 6F emotions someone mentions the importance of emotion questionable usefulness / Anything that does not seem to be answering any of the x irrelevant questions or that we are unable to make sense of
Appendix D: Explanation of 3 key factors from survey
Factor 1: Systemic perspective / structural awareness Broad (vs. limited) analysis of structural and systemic links in food system
Key statements that characterize a broader systemic and structural perspective on the food system include agreeing with: Regionally produced food promotes healthier eating habits only for those who can afford to pay a premium. Various groups trying to improve the food system tend to have difficulties communicating or working together. Government policy strongly influences what farmers grow. Regionally grown food requires fewer inputs and transportation and energy costs.
And if you were agreeing with these following statements (this would be the other end, the more limited systemic of structural perspective), you might be more likely to be making claims about the system based on a privileged and less diverse experience of the food system:
The regional food and agriculture industry provides opportunities for local youth to remain in their home region and make a decent living. Land use policies support food production. Regionally focused food processing and distribution provides many jobs at a range of skill levels in SE Minnesota. Large scale farming is viable in the long term. and: Healthy food is available to less mobile populations like the elderly, agricultural workers, and people without cars.
Change notes: low scorers in this factor were least likely to shift much between current and ideal scenarios. People who are economically successful and feel they are able to eat well based on the current food system were most likely to score low in this factor, and these lower scorers were a distinct cluster separate from the majority of the participants.
Factor 2: Confidence in consumer action potential Degree of endorsement of potential for consumer action to support local-sustainable food benefits
24 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
Key statements that characterize confidence in the potential of consumer action to improve the food system include agreeing with: Consumers improve the region's environmental quality when they buy food produced regionally. Regionally grown food requires fewer inputs and transportation and energy costs. Small locally owned farms have more transparent operations than larger nationally and globally managed farm operations Food cooperatives make strong connections between regional producers and consumers. Locally-owned farm and food operations provide better pay and working conditions than large, remotely-owned operations. Buying food regionally builds more understanding of how regional economies function. Consumers prefer to eat at restaurants that include regionally grown food in their menus. Regional food systems provide the freshest foods.
And disagreeing with: Minnesota does not have enough consumer demand to support a regional food system. Organic and sustainable farming systems are a niche market luxury, not a large scale solution to feeding the world. Large scale farming is viable in the long term. Organic growing practices decrease food safety for consumers. Food standards and certification processes are appropriate to the size and scale of farm or food processing operations.
Key notes: Perhaps the most important finding of this factor is that while people who scored high in this factor were enthusiastic about the potential of consumer power to improve and support the regional food system in the ideal, they were highly critical of the efficacy of such measures in the current regional food system. This seems important because this group may risk being characterized as overly critical of the food system status quo by others who benefit from or support aspects of the current food system; however, it might help open conversations with others who might tend to feel defensive toward this critique if it was made clear that this criticism is applied equally (if not more vigorously) to the food system organizational methods promoted by the group high in this factor.
In addition, people high in this factor tended to arrange their surveys significantly differently than participants in public health, for whom the interventions of the state and the positive potential of regulations and public support were much more salient (whereas those high in the consumer action factor tended to be more critical and skeptical of state interventions).
Factor 3: Eco-social empathy / callousness Amount of attention to and concern about environmental and social (governance & educational) contexts of food (fairness)
Key statements people high in this eco-social factor (i.e. concerned specifically about ecological and social aspects of food systems) agreed with: Buying food regionally builds more understanding of how regional economies function. Food production in SE Minnesota uses much more energy per acre than the global average. Government policy strongly influences what farmers grow. Dangerous food and agriculture jobs are done disproportionately by immigrant and migrant workers.
Key statements people high in this eco-social factor disagreed with: Existing grocery stores adequately provide for all the food needs of SE Minnesota communities. Farm policy supports the implementation of sustainable agricultural practices.
25 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
Community decision making processes in SE Minnesota are generally inclusive of people from all levels of wealth and all ethnic backgrounds. Healthy food is available to less mobile populations like the elderly, agricultural workers, and people without cars. Most people in the SE Minnesota community eat a diet that includes adequate fresh vegetables and unprocessed foods. Healthy food is accessible and affordable to all residents of SE MN.
This factor appears to be an inverse of the first factor, but the first factor is more concentrated on the governance, policy, and structural components of food systems, while this third factor suggests more of an emphasis on social and ecological values, and on the specific consequences of the social relations organizing the current food system.
Appendix E: Development of Illustrated Index In an effort to further develop the network of regional resources and potential partnerships identified during the generation of the Q-method survey, and to increase usability of the end product, an illustrated indexed was created to act as an interactive method for user to explore existing research available on southeast Minnesota food. The goal of this phase of the project was to locate groups in the region who are discussing the same issue, whether they are perceived as similar or competing perspectives. In the end, this can serve as a resource for interested parties to locate who else in the region shares their area of concern, and which unexpected partnerships or dialogues may be pursued.
A comprehensive list of resources located during the first phase of research and during a subsequent review was compiled and categorized using the categories adapted from the American Planning Association work on food planning. The sources initially used to inform the development of statements for the Q-method survey (see note 2) were classified based on the previously determined APA category of the statement for which they were a source. Additional sources were located based on previous knowledge and networking of the principle investigator, area organizations with which a research assistant native to the region was previously familiar, or groups cited on the website, at the events, or by the recommendation of another source. An effort was made to locate resources specific to southeast Minnesota or the local chapter of a national organization; however, some relevant national or Twin Cities- based organizations are included. The list of resources encompasses a wide range of players in the food system, including non-profits, industry cooperatives, and commercial entities.
Each source was then placed into one or more APA statement clusters based on the area of interest of the organization or business. In general, this decision was based on a review of the mission, vision, and/or position statements located on the resource’s website. Likely areas of a website included pages named "About Us," "Legislative Priorities," or with similar titles. A spreadsheet was compiled, with resources listed in alphabetical order and a quote or summary of firsthand statements that best illustrated how a source fit into its statement cluster. URLs from which the quoted material was taken were recorded, as well as a summary of what types of resources are available from each group’s website. Screenshots, along with the date and time at which they were taken, were archived for each webpage quoted. In addition, a summary chart prefaces the detailed quote page to depict how the resources were allocated to their appropriate APA categories.
Please see the attached PDF slides for details.
26 | C a d i e u x e t a l . S E F P I 2 0 1 3 Appendices
Program and Policy Review: What Is Already Being Done?
Method/ Projects & Tools Strategy New York state (and San Francisco, Foodshed Western Lake beyond), Christian American Farmland Superior Analysis Peters et al Trust Maryland Food System Mapping, Food System Homegrown San Francisco Snohomish County, Johns Hopkins Planning Minneapolis Mayor’s Directive Washington Input-Output Economic Consumer Foodshed Models (IMPLAN) Expenditure Survey Calculators Modeling Supply Chain Northeast Ohio Appalachian Tools: Market Food Policy Council/ Sustainable Maker, Food Hub, Analysis OSU Development Local Dirt Cluster Burlington, Vermont Activities • Literature review conducted to ascertain the current state of global & alternative food systems, to identify key schools of thought in food system change, & to gain insight into what can be done to support the local food system in SE MN • Data produced by Clara McConnell • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: model programs in SE MN on successful methods and note challenges to avoid Foodshed Analysis
Overarching question: What is the capacity of the land in a designated region (foodshed) to provide food for the residents?
. Who facilitates the project? o University researchers; collaborations with community
. Who or what is it for? o Provides baseline information o Policy makers (eventually) • New York State Foodshed Analysis, Christian Peters . Challenges et. al o Data availability and applicability • Western Lake Superior • San Francisco, American o Defining components of the study Farmland Trust o Ensuring future utilization • Maryland Food System o Managing collaboration Mapping
• Literature review conducted to ascertain the current state of global & alternative food systems, to identify key schools of thought in food system change, & to gain insight into what can be done to support the local food system in SE MN • Data produced by Clara McConnell • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: model programs in SE MN on successful methods and note challenges to avoid Food System Planning
Overarching question: How can we create plans and policies that promote production and consumption of local foods?
. Who facilitates the project? o Planning bodies (municipal or county) o Food Policy Councils
. Who or what is it for? o Governmental agencies • Homegrown Minneapolis • o Local organizations, businesses, San Francisco Mayor’s Directive residents • Snohomish Country, Washington . Challenges • Maryland Food System o Ambitious in scope Mapping, Johns Hopkins o Managing public involvement o Need funding to carry out plans
• Literature review conducted to ascertain the current state of global & alternative food systems, to identify key schools of thought in food system change, & to gain insight into what can be done to support the local food system in SE MN • Data produced by Clara McConnell • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: model programs in SE MN on successful methods and note challenges to avoid Economic Modeling
Overarching question: What is the economic potential of producing and consuming more local foods in a designated region?
. Who facilitates the project? o University researchers
. Who or what is it for? o Understanding economic potential o Effecting policy
. Challenges • Consumer Expenditure o Data availability and usefulness Survey o Assumptions • Foodshed Calculators • Input-Output Models
(IMPLAN) • Literature review conducted to ascertain the current state of global & alternative food systems, to identify key schools of thought in food system change, & to gain insight into what can be done to support the local food system in SE MN • Data produced by Clara McConnell • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: model programs in SE MN on successful methods and note challenges to avoid Supply Chain Analysis
Overarching question: How can supply and value chains be optimized to positively impact the regional economy and boost local production and consumption?
. Who facilitates the project? • Northeast Ohio Food Policy o University researchers Council/OSU o Food Policy Councils • Appalachian Sustainable o Organizations and networks Development • Tools: Market Maker, Food . Who or what is it for? Hub, Local Dirt o All members of the food system
. Challenges o Managing collaboration o Creating infrastructure to support supply & value chain • Literature review conducted to ascertain the current state of global & alternative food systems, to identify key schools of thought in food system change, & to gain insight into what can be done to support the local food system in SE MN • Data produced by Clara McConnell • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: model programs in SE MN on successful methods and note challenges to avoid Interviewees, “Methods and Approaches to Food System Change” • David Abazs – CO-PI, Western Lake Superior Region foodshed analysis • Amanda Behrens – Project Manager, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future • Casey Hoy – Kellogg Endowed Chair in Agricultural Ecosystem Management, The Ohio State University • Mark Muller – Director, Food and Society Program Fellows, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy • Ryan Pesch – Community Economics Educator, University of Minnesota Extension • Christian Peters – Faculty, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University • Rich Pirog – Marketing and Food Systems Initiative Leader, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University • Meghan Sheradin – Executive Director, Vermont Fresh Network • Okey Ukaga – Executive Director, U of MN NE Regional Sustainable Development Partnership • Mark Winne – Former Food and Society Program Fellow; Food Policy Council Program Director, Community Food Security Coalition • Program & policy review “Methods and Approaches to Food System Change” compiled, literature review conducted to ascertain the current state of global & alternative food systems, to identify key schools of thought in food system change, & to gain insight into what can be done to support the local food system in SE MN • Data produced by Clara McConnell • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/fileMana ger.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/www/SEFPI • Next steps: initiate contact to follow-up on projects described in the review, inquire into present projects SE MN Foodshed • Land cover data acquired from NLCD, 5 km production zones created to summarize pasture and cropland data values • Data produced by David Mulla ([email protected]) and Jake Galzki ([email protected]) • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: use optimization software to identify location of foodsheds for each population cluster & determine if the region can be supported by its own perennial & cultivated cropland SE MN Foodsheds
Annually Cultivated Perennial Lands Lands SE MN Foodsheds • Research summary: Food demands of the entire SE MN region were determined from population data and an ideal diet based on food pyramid guidelines. Food supply was determined within a GIS using agricultural land availability and crop yields. • Access via David Mulla ([email protected]) and Jake Galzki ([email protected]) • Results: SE MN can sustain its entire population on locally grown foods using the ideal diet scenario. • Food for thought: Can environmentally sensitive land be taken out of production while still meeting the needs of SE Minnesota’s populations? Can a food surplus in the SE be distributed across the state so all Minnesotan’s can be fed by Minnesota grown foods?
Ethnic Consumer Focus Groups: Survey Results
What is most important when buying food? Do you grow/raise your 6 own food? 9
5 8 7
6 4 5
4 3 3
2 2 1
0 1 yes no
0 cost Freshness Health Appearance Taste Convience Latina Somali Hmong • 3 focus groups conducted: Latina in Dodge City, Hmong in Winona, Somali in Rochester; women completed survey, food frequency questionnaire, & discussion • Data produced by Julianna Olsen Tietge • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: create handout suggesting ethnically friendly changes a farmer can make, peer- reviewed paper, community discussion Ethnic Consumer Focus Groups: Food Frequency Questionnaire Results • The majority of Hmong families prepare and eat their meals at home. Hmong families consume rice, eggs, and vegetables at almost every meal. • Half the Latina families eat one meal outside their home per day. Latina families consume eggs, milk, and fresh fruits daily. • The majority of Somali families eat their meals at home; primary means of preparation is frying foods. Somali families consume rice, beef, bananas, and candies daily. They do not eat pork. • 3 focus groups conducted: Latina in Dodge City, Hmong in Winona, Somali in Rochester; women completed survey, food frequency questionnaire, & discussion • Data produced by Julianna Olsen Tietge • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: create handout suggesting ethnically friendly changes a farmer can make, peer- reviewed paper, community discussion Ethnic Consumer Focus Groups: Focus Group Question Responses
“Back in Laos, I know that we don’t have chemical[s] for our meat and produce, and I “You drive [a] car here, in Somali notice there is not much illness…but in America we walk from town to town…we there are chemicals in meat and produce and are more careful now [about our there are all sorts of sickness like diabetes and diet and health], as much as we high blood pressure, due to the chemical[s] in could” ~ Somali woman the food.” -Hmong woman
“I don’t really buy meat from the store because it only last 2 days before it goes smelly” ~ Hmong woman
“We don’t buy food from the “We prefer to eat our traditional food, but our kids farmers [markets] because sometimes don’t like all the food and they prefer to they don’t smile. I speak eat American food. We told them: ‘This is what to we Spanish and I think they don’t have to eat.’ Sometimes we have problems with our have time. They should smile kids because they prefer the food that they get from more.” ~ Latina woman the school.” ~Latina woman • 3 focus groups conducted: Latina in Dodge City, Hmong in Winona, Somali in Rochester; women completed survey, food frequency questionnaire, & discussion • Data produced by Julianna Olsen Tietge • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: create handout suggesting ethnically friendly changes a farmer can make, peer- reviewed paper, community discussion Visualizing the Food Climate of SE MN • Set out to create visualizations of food consumption dataset produced by Yuki Wang, also incorporated data from Economic Research Service & National Agricultural Statistics Service • Visualizations produced by Natalie Ross – See Excel Program set up by Yuki Wang at: • Access “SEfoodsys_visuals.pdf” at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: analyze trends depicted in visualizations, give context to mapping done by Center for Rural Design (Kinney and Roos) Visualizing the Food Climate of SE MN • Set out to create visualizations of food consumption dataset produced by Yuki Wang, also incorporated data from Economic Research Service & National Agricultural Statistics Service • Visualizations produced by Natalie Ross – See Excel Program set up by Yuki Wang at: • Access “SEfoodsys_visuals.pdf” at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/file Manager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm003/w ww/SEFPI • Next steps: analyze trends depicted in visualizations, give context to mapping done by Center for Rural Design (Kinney and Roos) Study Area & Incorporated Communities with Cropland Data Layer • GIS by Steve Roos ([email protected]) • Center for Rural Design • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/ fileManager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm 003/www/SEFPI • Next steps: compare to data generated by Yuki Wang & visualized by Natalie Ross Study Area – Local Food Producers • GIS by Steve Roos ([email protected]) • Center for Rural Design • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/ fileManager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm 003/www/SEFPI • Next steps: compare to data generated by Yu Wang & visualized by Natalie Ross Study Area – Retailers (Co-ops & Farmers’ Markets) • GIS by Steve Roos ([email protected]) • Center for Rural Design • Access at: https://netfiles.umn.edu/xythoswfs/webview/ fileManager.action?entryName=/users/tegtm 003/www/SEFPI • Next steps: compare to data generated by Yu Wang & visualized by Natalie Ross
• “Tangible Vision” of SE MN Agroecology by students of Nick Jordan’s 2010 AGRO 5321 • Access via Nick Jordan ([email protected]) and Valentine Cadieux ([email protected]) • Next steps: consider how to implement some of the highlights from the report, which were mostly about interviewees suggesting the need for a sustained knowledge-sharing feedback loop between the many parties involved
Foodshed Analysis: Defining the Agricultural Landscape of the Western Lake Superior Region
Geog. Focus: NE MN & NW WI Led by: U of MN – Duluth Constituency: Academic community, policy makers Goal: describe current & potential agriculture of a 14-county region Methods: GIS analysis , interviews, create “regional pattern” diet model & compare to standard American diet Opportunities: networking, tapping local knowledge of food production Challenges: prioritizing reform goals, locating reliable consumption data, coordinating with project partners • Text based on program & policy review: “Methods and Approaches to Food System Change,” McConnell, 2010 • Graphic from www.d.umn.edu/cla/gisl/main/projects_localfoods.php Summary of Program & Policy Review • Taken from program & policy review: “Methods and Approaches to Food System Change,” McConnell, 2010 Foodshed Analysis: New York State Foodshed Analysis
Geog. Focus: New York State Led by: Christian Peters, et al. at Cornell University Constituency: Academic community Goal: examine state food production & consumption patterns, present method for mapping foodsheds Methods: survey of state production data, interpolation of regional consumption data, comparison to USDA guidelines, GIS analysis Opportunities: ability to consider production & consumption simultaneously, application of model to other states, potential to shape policy Challenges: accessing data, relating to both rural & urban communities, conceptualizing a foodshed (determining boundaries, etc.) • Summary based on program & policy review: “Methods and Approaches to Food System Change,” McConnell, 2010 • See Vegetable Consumption, Dietary Guidelines and Agricultural Production in New York State – Implications for Local Food Economies, Peters et al. • See Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example, Peters et al. • See Mapping Potential Foodsheds in New York State: a spatial model for evaluating the capacity to localize food production, Peters et al. Food System Planning: Homegrown Minneapolis Initiative
Geog. Focus: Minneapolis, MN Led by: City of Minneapolis, Department of Health and Family Support Constituency: Residents of Minneapolis Goal: improve municipal sales, distribution, & consumption of fresh, locally grown foods Methods: meetings of stakeholders to develop recommendations & action plans for the City Opportunities: diverse group of stakeholders, city in leadership position, potential to affect policy & planning statewide Challenges: differing agendas of stakeholders, locating funds to implement recommendations Where can I find it? Klinger, K. (2009). Homegrown Minneapolis: Final report presented to the Health, Energy and Environment Committee of the Minneapolis City Council. Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support. What has been development of policies on creation of & public done already? access to school gardens, movement to increase availability of city land for community gardening, creation of a youth garden in Northside neighborhood, establishment of gardens at fire stations to feed employees & potentially others in the community Summary based on: program & policy review: “Methods and Approaches to Food System Change,” McConnell, 2010 • Quotes below taken from “Methods and Approaches to Food System Change,” Clara McConnell, 2010 (citing Kloppenburg et al., 2000).
Elements of a Healthy Regional Food System • Proximate – investment and growth of the system occurs on the regional level so that benefits and positive externalities are felt within the region • Self-reliant – not completely self-sufficient, but focused on an increased degree of self- reliance • Sustainable – with the goal of being an environmentally, economically, socially sustainable system • Relational - a relationally-oriented system would focus on more direct face-to-face contact between producers and consumers, risk-sharing, and the establishment of mutual support networks Fields of Thought in the Food System Change Movement • Sustainable Development: meet human needs while preserving environment to fulfill future needs • Community Food Security: infrastructure facilitates safe, nutritious, culturally acceptable diet for all residents • Community Food Assessment: grassroots analysis of food system • Foodshed Analysis: joins food system of an area to local geography & ecology • Food System Planning: helps balance efficiency with justice & sustainability • Public Health Sector: advocates for a sustainable food system that provides nutritional quality