Urban crops and livestock: The experiences, challenges, and opportunities of planning for urban agriculture in two Canadian provinces

Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Urban crops and livestock: The experiences, challenges, and opportunities of planning for urban agriculture in two Canadian provinces Dilys Huang a,∗ , Michael Drescher b a b

School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University, 138 Union Street, Robert Sutherland Hall, Room 539, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 School of Planning, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 21 February 2014 Received in revised form 9 October 2014 Accepted 19 October 2014 Keywords: Urban agriculture Urban planning Municipal policy Food system Ontario British Columbia

a b s t r a c t While many municipalities globally are currently undertaking initiatives to support urban agriculture, policies and zoning regulations can act as barriers, with the former usually not integrated with planning. Extensive research has been conducted on urban agriculture policies in the global South, but much less is known about associated practices and policies in the global North. This is especially true for the Canadian context and therefore the present study aims at improving our overall understanding of the urban agriculture situation in two Canadian provinces. Relevant policies, such as official plans or official community plans, alternate policy documents and guidelines, zoning by-laws, and animal-related by-laws were reviewed for 10 municipalities in Ontario and in British Columbia, all varying in socio-economic and climatological characteristics. Additional key informant interviews were conducted with municipal planners, community garden coordinators, and other municipal staff familiar with urban agriculture policies from six of the selected municipalities. In line with global trends, our results suggest that urban agriculture is becoming more widespread in the two provinces. However, even though all studied municipalities consistently support urban agriculture, they vary significantly in their approach, with some municipalities focusing much more narrowly on certain types of activities than others. Overall, community advocacy and municipal council support are the most important drivers in the policy process. Key informants expressed a need to bridge existing gaps between policy adoption and implementation of tools, emphasize public education and public awareness, create inventories of land available for urban agriculture, incorporate urban agriculture in the development review process, and focus on the commercial potential of the practice. Encouragingly, despite the many challenges that need to be addressed, we found that many opportunities exist that municipalities could consider when creating improved local urban agriculture policies and tools to enhance the urban food system. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The practice of urban agriculture is not new and is especially widespread in the global South (Lovell, 2010). However, in the recent years, it has also grown in popularity in many cities of the global North (Broadway, 2009; Fairholm, 1998; Mendes, 2012; Mougeot, 2000; Voigt, 2011). Contributing factors include population growth, food security concerns, sustainability concerns, and climate change (Bouris et al., 2009; Broadway, 2009; Mees and

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 613 770 8585. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Huang), [email protected] (M. Drescher). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.011 0264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Stone, 2012; Roehr and Kunigk, 2009). While a number of municipalities are encouraging urban agriculture initiatives by creating relevant policies, a review of the literature reveals that planning policies and zoning provisions can sometimes act as barriers to these initiatives (De Zeeuw et al., 2000; LeJava and Goonan, 2012; Richter, 2012; Roehr and Kunigk, 2009). Most of these studies refer to cases from cities in the global South (Tornaghi, 2014) or in the United States. On the other hand, the studies that do concentrate on case examples from Canada tend to address urban agriculture or urban food production within larger cities or regions and do not cover the existing breadth of socio-economic situations and agricultural suitabilities (e.g. see Black (2013) and Roehr and Kunigk (2009) for Metro Vancouver, Desjardins et al. (2011) for the Region of Waterloo, and Thibert (2012) for Toronto and Montreal).

2

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

Therefore, by using Ontario and British Columbia as case examples, this study aims to fill this knowledge gap by exploring the relationship between urban agriculture and mainstream planning in cities of varying size, geography, socio-economic conditions, and climate. The primary objective of the present study is to contribute to knowledge regarding the urban agriculture situation in the two Canadian provinces. It aims to investigate whether issues are similar in cities with varying characteristics and in different regions, explore policies with regard to opportunities and challenges of urban agriculture, identify the similarities and differences between municipalities in terms of urban agriculture policies, and examine the experiences of municipalities during the process of creating such policies. The article begins with a review of the literature, thus providing a background of urban agriculture within the planning context. Specifically, this review examines the influence from stakeholders, the connection between urban agriculture and planning, hindrances to implementing urban agriculture initiatives, and planning instruments and tools for urban agriculture. Following a description of the research approach, we present an overview of the findings of the policies that support urban agriculture, factors for adding urban agriculture policies, and strengths and challenges. We then discuss the key themes that emerged from the key informant interviews and offer a series of recommendations that might be considered by other municipalities when creating policies and implementation tools in support of urban agriculture.

Background of urban agriculture within the planning context Influence and roles of stakeholders Much of the existing literature addresses the relationships between the food system, urban agriculture and the local planning context. Many different actors have been identified that are involved in the development of urban agriculture activities (Mougeot, 2000). These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, citizenry at large, non-governmental organizations, governments and public authorities, municipal departments, academic and research institutions, and private firms (Dubbeling and Merzthal, 2006; Smit et al., 2001). This variety of actors is due to the many linkages of the practice to different urban systems, such as health, land use, waste management, and transportation. Four key roles that these stakeholders are responsible for are regulating, facilitating, providing, and partnering (Smit et al., 2001). While some stakeholders take on only one or few of these roles, governments undertake the most comprehensive and complex tasks by influencing urban agriculture through all four roles. As noted by Dunn (2013), land use planning is important in the success of local food systems and municipalities “make local land use planning decisions that respond to local conditions and which are appropriate for the future of their communities” (p. 5). However, as highlighted in their research on urban agriculture policy-making processes in New York City, Cohen and Reynolds (2014) found that besides government bringing forward conventional policy plans for urban agriculture, collaborative decision making is also occurring among a range of participants, such as advocates, practitioners, and researchers in “new political spaces” (p. 224). Similarly, but more specifically for planners, opportunities exist to support the discourse on community food systems and food security (Campbell, 2004). Among a number of suggestions in her article on food system conflicts in the United States, Campbell (2004) recommends that planning practitioners promote the local food system by making changes to community land use plans and regulations. For instance, planners can eliminate

regulatory barriers that hinder community gardens and commercial urban agriculture in order to enhance the development of local food systems. Another example is to adopt mixed-use zoning to improve local food access to food sources, such as community gardens and farmers’ markets, in residential zones (Dunn, 2013). As summarized by Adin and Kurnicki (2014), “municipal planners have an important role to play in the creation of policies and programs that will take a broader view of food security, working to reduce social inequality and environmental impacts while increasing residents’ quality of life” (p. 11). Integration of urban agriculture and planning Some scholars have noted that urban agriculture, including the food system as a whole, is often not fully integrated with planning (see Bouris et al., 2009; Lovell, 2010; Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999; Rydin et al., 2012; Thibert, 2012). Consequently, while many cities are becoming more involved with food system activities, these initiatives are often isolated and piecemeal (Bouris et al., 2009). Thibert (2012) offers several reasons for this lack of integration: (a) agriculture has traditionally sat uncomfortably within the realm of planning as the latter is largely based on separating “incompatible” land uses; (b) land use planning tends to focus on the “highest and best use” of land excluding agriculture as valuable land use from the urban context; (c) the development of urban agriculture policies is not neatly captured within a specific subfield of planning because it is related to many disciplines; and (d) many planners believe they should not intervene in the area of food policy because it is not their expertise or they do not see the importance of the problems associated with the food system. But though nutrition, food access, food supply, food preparation, and waste disposal are understudied by the planning community, they are integral parts of urban food system issues (Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999). Unfortunately, by not paying close attention to these problems, the connection between food and other issues (i.e. political, ecological, social, and economic) often remains unaddressed (Bouris et al., 2009). Hindrances to implementing urban agriculture initiatives Policies, regulations, and zoning by-laws can also hinder the implementation of urban agriculture initiatives, as noted by Castillo et al. (2013), Roehr and Kunigk (2009), and Voigt (2011). An example of these hindrances is the keeping of hens in urban areas. According to Pollock et al. (2012), it was common in the past for North American residents to keep urban birds in their backyards, but the practice then fell into disfavour and was discouraged by municipalities. As a result, some municipalities prohibit urban hens through planning and city by-laws because of public health concerns, including the spread of diseases, the attraction of pests, and other nuisances (e.g. noise and odour) (Pollock et al., 2012). On the other hand, there are municipalities that regulate the keeping of livestock through other means, such as limiting the numbers of animals and setting minimum lot sizes and setbacks (Butler, 2012; McClintock et al., 2014; Voigt, 2011). However, the keeping of urban livestock is regaining popularity today, as demonstrated by several municipalities now permitting the keeping of animals such as rabbits, goats, ducks, geese, and hens. In a recent study conducted by McClintock et al. (2014), survey responses from urban livestock owners revealed that there are a number of social and environmental benefits associated with owning livestock, a practice that owners view as “an integral part of a sustainable food system” (p. 437). Benefits include higher quality food products compared to those produced conventionally and fostering a sense of community with neighbours. Findings also suggest that today, owners consider their urban livestock as pets or

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

3

companions as opposed to traditional livestock (McClintock et al., 2014; Pollock et al., 2012). Therefore, planners might contemplate creating more appropriate setbacks and determine the number of animals permitted based on lot size (McClintock et al., 2014). Overall, urban agriculture is increasingly receiving more recognition as a planning method and tool to improve community health and facilitate urban sustainability (Talukdar and Hossain, 2011; Thibert, 2012; Wakefield et al., 2007). Due to issues such as rising food prices and food insecurity, municipalities, planners, and businesses are becoming more inclined to use urban space for food production purposes (Mees and Stone, 2012).

Planning instruments and tools for urban agriculture Planners and local governments can facilitate urban agriculture by adopting a variety of planning policy instruments and tools. For example, in a study conducted by Desjardins et al. (2011) on the process and shaping of the Waterloo Regional Official Plan’s food-related land use policies, land use planning is noted as a significant tool used to promote a sustainable and healthy food system. Furthermore, De Zeeuw et al. (2000) suggest that municipalities should review existing policies and by-laws in order to remove legal restrictions on the practice that are unsubstantiated. Local governments can also integrate urban agriculture into zoning by-laws, encourage the use of vacant public and private lands for urban agriculture, combine urban agriculture with other land use functions (e.g. recreation and nature conservation), and incorporate food production spaces within new developments and social housing projects (De Zeeuw et al., 2000). Other strategies include municipalities creating municipal policy statements that support urban agriculture, using land inventories to identify potential sites for urban agriculture, offering renewable leases on these identified lands, and permitting rooftop gardens on public buildings (Mendes et al., 2008; Quon, 1999; Thibert, 2012). Overall, “local governments and planning authorities have an important role to play in integrating UA [urban agriculture] within existing planning frameworks and enabling UA through appropriate regulatory measures,” according to Thibert (2012, p. 349).

Research methods In order to investigate the urban agriculture situation and policy framework in two Canadian provinces leading in the practice, we selected 10 cities for consideration – five from Ontario (Toronto, Guelph, Waterloo, Ottawa, and Kenora) (Fig. 1) and five from British Columbia (Vancouver, North Vancouver, Victoria, Kamloops, and Dawson Creek) (Fig. 2). We decided to focus on Ontario and British Columbia because they are considered to be at the forefront of urban agriculture development. Research by MacRae and Donahue (2013) on food policy initiatives across Canada indicates that these initiatives are concentrated in the two provinces. However, it should be noted that outside of these provinces, Montreal in Quebec is also a leader in urban agriculture; since developing a community gardening program in 1975, the program eventually evolved into the largest one in Canada (Broadway, 2009; City of Montreal, 2012). Because one of our aims was to investigate potential differences between municipalities with different characteristics in each province, we selected cities of different sizes to explore. The 10 municipalities are worthwhile examples to examine as they are active in urban agriculture activities and have supporting policies that are either already established or currently being developed. Table 1 provides an overview of the municipalities, including information on population, climate, area, economy, and administrative structure.

Fig. 1. Geographic location of the five municipalities in Ontario, Canada selected for this study.

This study included a policy review and interviews with key informants for purposes of triangulation and increased confidence in the reliability of our results. Official plans or official community plans, alternate policy documents and guidelines, zoning by-laws, and animal-related by-laws were reviewed in order to identify existing planning policies and tools that pertain to urban agriculture policies, and to distinguish the variations between the municipalities. The initial search for documents was mostly conducted through the Internet; however, additional documents and references were added if they were mentioned by the key informants. In addition to the policy document review, we conducted semistructured interviews with municipal planners, community garden coordinators, and staff in six of the 10 municipalities – Toronto, Guelph, Waterloo, Vancouver, North Vancouver, and Victoria. The key informants either had (a) experience creating or drafting policies related to urban agriculture or (b) knowledge about urban agriculture initiatives in their respective cities. The open-ended questions mainly related to the municipalities’ experiences of

Fig. 2. Geographic location of the five municipalities in British Columbia, Canada selected for this study.

4

Table 1 Overview of socio-economic and climatological characteristics of the 10 municipalities selected for this study.

Municipal structure

Guelph

Waterloo

Ottawa

Kenora

Vancouver

North Vancouver

Victoria

Kamloops

Dawson Creek

2,615,060 4.5

121,688 5.9

98,780 1.3

883,391 8.8

15,348 1.1

603,502 4.4

48,196 6.7

80,017 2.5

85,678 6.6

11,583 5.4

630.2 −4.2

87.2 −7.4

64.0 −7.0

2790.2 −10.5

211.75 −17.3

115.0 4.8

11.8 4.8a

19.5 4.1

299.2 −4.2

24.4 −14.7

22.2

19.6

20.2

21.0

19.5

18.1

18.1a

15.2

21.0

15.2

834

905

907

914

661

1588

2044

883

278

482

Business and financial services; information technology; film and television; design; education 38 City divisions (e.g. City Planning; Parks, Forestry and Recreation) report to 3 Deputy City Managers; 8 administrative divisions report directly to City Council or City Manager

Manufacturing; agri-food and life science; environmental services; education

Technology; education; financial services; manufacturing

Federal government, technology, agriculture, tourism

Mining, forestry, tourism

International trade and commerce; natural resources; tourism; technology

Waterfront industries; finance and insurance; retail and service

Tourism; government services; maritime; technology; education

Forestry, tourism, ranching, mining, agriculture

Agriculture, oil and gas, forestry, retail, tourism

Departments and divisions under 5 key service areas (i.e. Community and Social Services; Planning, Building, Engineering and Environment) carry out Council policies

Chief Administrative Officer Office oversees 3 City departments (i.e. Corporate Services, Community Services, Integrated Planning and Public Works) and provides advice to Council

Most City services provided by 13 departments grouped under 2 portfolios (i.e. Planning and Infrastructure, City Operations); 6 additional departments report directly to City Council or City Manager

City services are grouped under approximately 7 areas/entities (e.g. Planning and Development); overseen by Chief Administrative Officer

10 City departments (e.g. Planning and Development Services, Community Services) directed by Office of the City Manager to carry out Council policies; the Park Board is an elected body

Chief Administrative Office oversees 8 City departments (e.g. Community Development; Engineering, Parks and Environment)

Directors in the 11 departments (e.g. Sustainable Planning and Community Development; Parks, Recreation and Culture) report to the City Manager

The Chief Administrative Officer oversees 6 departments (e.g. Development and Engineering Services; Parks, Recreation and Culture); Business and Client Services team provide liaison services to departments

City administration is made up of 6 departments (e.g. Development and Regulatory Services); Corporate Administration provides communication link between City Council and residents

Sources: Statistics Canada (2011); The Weather Network (2014). a North Vancouver uses the same weather station as Vancouver.

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

Population Population change (% from 2006 to 2011) Area (Sq. Km.) Average temperature in January (◦ C) Average temperature in July (◦ C) Average yearly precipitation (mm) Main economic sectors

Toronto

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

developing urban agriculture policies. At least one key informant from each municipality was selected to participate. Key informants were identified by contacting the local planning departments. For a couple of municipalities, potential participants suggested alternate staff members who they thought were more suitable. Key informants were initially contacted via email with an information letter containing details of the study. We followed up with participants by telephone within a week of sending the emails to schedule appropriate times for interviews. Ultimately, eight key informants were interviewed in-person, by telephone, or via email over a three-month period. The in-person and telephone conversations, which lasted for approximately 30–45 min each, were audio-recorded and transcribed. Following the policy review and interviews, we analysed the results by (a) comparing the municipal documents and finding key distinctions and (b) drawing upon the similarities and differences expressed by the key informants. The Office of Research Ethics of the University of Waterloo reviewed the study design and research activities were initiated once the Office of Research Ethics granted approval.

Results and analysis Policies that support urban agriculture In terms of official plans (OPs) or official community plans (OCPs), the more recently updated plans place greater emphasis on urban agriculture by including specific objectives and policies that help to promote the practice. Prior to being amended, many plans did not include such policies. As mentioned by a planner from Guelph: “I think we acknowledge in our Official Plan five-year review that our existing urban agriculture policies were non-existent. And that was out of step with best practice planning practices” (City of Guelph planner, personal communication, January 25, 2013). Similarly, as part of North Vancouver’s CityShaping process for updating the existing OCP, a discussion paper states that “access to adequate, appropriate, affordable food is essential for any community yet it is rarely mentioned in the City’s [current] guiding documents” (Smith, 2010, p. 21). Therefore, the forthcoming OCP aims to reflect community values as well as societal trends, including the recent attention given to the importance of food security. Citizens are also becoming more interested in having access to community gardens and engaging in activities that might not have been permitted in the past such as hen or beekeeping (City of North Vancouver planner, personal communication, December 17, 2012). We also noticed that municipalities approach the theme of urban agriculture quite differently. For example, the OPs for Toronto, Waterloo, and Kenora appear to focus more on community gardens and rooftop gardens, whereas other municipalities, such as Guelph and Victoria, take a broader approach to urban agriculture by mentioning a wider range of activities. Alternate policy documents and guidelines vary substantially between all of the municipalities in terms of scope and type. They include food strategies, i.e. plans that assist local governments “integrate a full spectrum of urban food system issues within a single policy framework” (Mansfield and Mendes, 2013, p. 38), food charters, community gardens policies, parks plans, urban agriculture guidelines, social plans, sustainability plans, and official development plans. When compared to other cities, Toronto and Vancouver as the larger municipalities have significantly more documents that help facilitate urban agriculture. Together with Guelph and Victoria, they also have specific guidelines for implementing community gardens. Vancouver is unique in that two of its official development plans (i.e. East Fraser Lands [City of Vancouver, 2006] and Southeast False Creek [City of Vancouver, 2007]), which guide the development of particular areas, include specific urban

5

agriculture provisions for the neighbourhoods. For example, a location within a park is set aside for a community demonstration garden and green roofs for urban agriculture are encouraged on buildings in Southeast False Creek, a high-density community that incorporates a range of sustainability goals as part of the development process (Holland Barrs Planning Group, 2007). After the creation of the two official development plans, Vancouver City Council also adopted urban agriculture guidelines for the private realm, which inform how the practice should occur on private lands. Food strategies have been adopted by Toronto, Vancouver, and North Vancouver. As part of Kamloops’ current process of developing an urban agriculture and food systems strategy, the City has mapped locations of key urban agriculture and community food system assets on public and private lands. These include community gardens, edible landscaping, and properties with potential for urban agriculture. Waterloo and Kenora do not have additional policy documents related to urban agriculture. With regard to zoning by-laws, urban agriculture provisions are largely lacking in the by-laws. While Toronto, Guelph, and Kamloops currently do not have any, Waterloo makes one reference to roof gardens, permitting them in its Mixed Use Commercial Centre zone. The zoning by-laws that address community gardens more comprehensively are the ones for Ottawa, Kenora, and Dawson Creek. These three municipalities generally permit community gardens in a number of zones, ranging from residential, commercial, and institutional zones. The zoning by-laws for both Vancouver and North Vancouver contain hen-keeping provisions, and Victoria is the only municipality that permits urban agriculture as a home occupation. In order to align regulations with its new OP, Guelph will be performing a comprehensive review of its zoning by-law (City of Guelph planner, personal communication, January 25, 2013). Provisions that relate to urban agriculture in the animal-related by-laws address the keeping of poultry and hobby beekeeping. Waterloo, Ottawa, Kenora, and Kamloops allow domestic poultry only in rural areas or properties with very large lots (e.g. lots need to exceed one acre in Kamloops). Waterloo also allows property owners to have backyard chickens only if they had them before the enactment of its animal control by-law in 2009. Conversely, Guelph (despite requiring a setback of 50 feet from neighbouring dwellings), Vancouver, North Vancouver, and Victoria permit hens in urban areas (Dawson Creek will soon amend its animal control and zoning by-laws to allow backyard chickens); however, Guelph and Victoria are the only cities that do not have restrictions on the number of hens. Many municipalities across British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada stopped allowing residents to keep chickens around the 1960s and 1970s. In contrast to this, not only did Victoria never impose such regulations, but this city has no limit on the number of chickens either (City of Victoria planner, personal communication, December 20, 2012). With respect to beekeeping, only the municipalities in British Columbia, except for Dawson Creek, have local hobby beekeeping by-laws. Table 2 offers a comparison of the various municipal policy documents and bylaws with urban agriculture provisions between the 10 selected cities.

Factors for adding urban agriculture policies The two main factors that support the inclusion of urban agriculture policies in planning documents are council or staff support and public advocacy. However, the role played by each of these factors is different for each municipality. For instance, in a grass-roots process, public advocacy and public interest appear to have had the greatest influence in Toronto and Victoria. As noted by the Toronto key informant:

Official Plans (OPs)/ Official Community Plans (OCPs)

6

Table 2 Comparison of municipal policy documents with urban agriculture policies. Guelph

Waterloo

Ottawa

Kenora

Vancouver

North Vancouver

Victoria

Kamloops

Dawson Creek

Year: 2010

Year: 2012

Year: 2012

Year: 2013

Year: 2010

Does not have an OCP, but planning and land use management guided by other plans and strategies

Year: 2014 (draft)

Year: 2012

Year: 2004 (amended in 2011 to include the Social Plan (2009) policies)

Year: 2009

Does not explicitly mention the term “urban agriculture” (UA), but supports and encourages community gardens and rooftop gardens

Provides definition for UA (permits small-scale sales)

Provides definition for community garden

Recognizes the integration of community-based food production in both urban and rural areas through community gardens, edible landscapes, and urban/rural farms as a strategic direction

Has a section dedicated to UA

More comprehensive policies to enhance food security and to expand UA are incorporated in the updated OCP

Includes policies that support and encourages UA and food production activities

Considers the use of public and development lands for food production

Has a section dedicated to Sustainable Food System

UA permitted in all land use designations except for Natural Heritage System Has a section dedicated to UA

Promotes community and rooftop gardens

Encourages community/rooftop gardens in various land use designations and in development initiatives

Limited policies for UA and community gardens in 2002 OCP

Has a section dedicated to Food Systems

Encourages local food self-reliance through community gardens

Policies aim to increase food production within City limits

Permits gardens in wide range of land use designations

Supports UA by identifying sites, providing infrastructure support, and seeking partnership opportunities

Promote agriculture and food production in schools through school gardens

Has a section dedicated to community gardens Policies must conform with the Regional OP (2009) Alternate Policy Documents and Guidelines

Has a Food Strategy/ Charter

Policy and procedure for implementing community gardens

N/A

Has a Community Garden Action Plan with specific recommendations (i.e. identification/access to community garden space, supporting capacity development, provision of operational support, and monitoring/evaluation of the proposed model

N/A

Has a Food Strategy/ Charter

Food Security and UA Strategy supports more UA opportunities on public and private land – has a number of action items

Policy and procedure for implementing community gardens

Social Plan (forms part of the OCP) recommends supporting the Kamloops Food Policy Council and UA initiatives

Social Plan supports the development of initiatives and policies that contribute to UA

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

Toronto

Policy and procedure for implementing community gardens UA mainly found in action and environmental plans (e.g. Parks Plan)

Ambitious food and UA targets in Sustainability Strategy UA included in two Official Development Plans

Sustainability Plan identifies food security initiatives

Has developed a Community Garden Location Criteria

Agriculture Area Plan’s goals and policies intended to increase local food production Currently developing an Urban Agriculture and Food Systems Strategy and food system asset maps

Guidelines for keeping urban chickens

UA guidelines for the private realm Zoning By-laws

UA-related uses not mentioned

UA-related uses not mentioned

One reference to roof gardens in Mixed Use Commercial Centre

Community gardens permitted in a number of zones if certain provisions are met

Community gardens are a permitted use in 11 zones

Outlines provisions for the keeping of hens

Keeping of hens permitted in One-Unit Residential zones

UA permitted as a home occupation

UA-related uses not mentioned

Community gardens permitted in all residential zones and some public zones

Animal-Related By-laws

No policies/bylaws regarding the keeping of animals for food purposes

Ducks, geese, poultry, and pigeons permitted 50 feet away from neighbouring dwellings–very few regulations

Chickens not permitted unless in agricultural areas or property owner had them prior to By-law’s enactment

Livestock, including domestic fowl, not permitted in urban areas

Domestic poultry not permitted except in areas zoned “Rural”

Hens permitted (max. 4)

Chickens permitted (max. 8)

Poultry permitted (no limit)

Poultry permitted only on lots larger than 1 acre

No policies/bylaws regarding the keeping of animals for food purposes

Hobby beekeeping permitted

Hobby beekeeping permitted

Beekeeping permitted

Beekeeping in urban areas permitted

New by-law will be drafted to allow and govern backyard chicken husbandry

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

Guidelines for implementing community gardens in parks and on City-owned land

UA mentioned in Parks Plan

7

8

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

Over the last several years, there has been growing public concern about food safety, healthy lifestyles, and global climate change. Urban food systems are increasingly viewed as an integral part of addressing these concerns. In addition, several community agencies have advocated for urban agriculture as a way to address food insecurity. The rising popularity of “foodie” culture and “locavore” movements has also contributed to making food and urban agriculture a public issue. (City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation staff member, personal communication, January 9, 2013). In Victoria, the OCP included food-related policies because the public brought up the topic of urban agriculture during the OCP consultation process that involved more than 6000 people (City of Victoria planner, personal communication, December 20, 2012). On the other hand, council support and staff initiatives seem to be the key drivers in Waterloo and North Vancouver. Waterloo city staff recommended the incorporation of urban agriculture policies in the OP to support a healthy and complete community (City of Waterloo planner, personal communication, February 11, 2013). Similarly, according to a planner from the Region of Waterloo: I don’t think there was a push from the local community. That’s changed now. I mean there’s been a local food movement that’s been happening over the last few years. But I think what we were doing, it was coming from Public Health, it came through Planning, and then we were advocating into the community. And as part of that process, we had public meetings, we had open houses, and we got good feedback. The community supported what we were proposing. (Region of Waterloo planner, personal communication, January 18, 2013). In North Vancouver, City Council and specifically the Mayor, has been very supportive of the reports on urban agriculture prepared by staff. Overall, the Mayor “sees the benefits in terms of bringing the community together and inter-generational mixing . . . and he sees so many community benefits that come out of community gardens principally, but also any urban agriculturerelated activities” (City of North Vancouver planner, personal communication, December 17, 2012). Conversely, staff in Guelph and Vancouver expressed interest in food policy at the beginning with community members generating additional interest resulting into simultaneous pressure from the bottom and top. During Guelph’s five-year OP review, the City investigated opportunities for more supportive urban agriculture policies (City of Guelph planner, personal communication, January 25, 2013). It received submissions from community groups such as the GuelphWellington Food Roundtable, which included suggested revisions to the draft policies that were considered by staff. As remarked by a Vancouver planner: We know that we have a very robust and engaged citizenry in Vancouver around food. So there’s a lot of people doing amazing things out there. They pressure the City to create and do different things like the Food Charter, and we’ve been working very collaboratively with them on the Food Strategy as well. (City of Vancouver planner, personal communication, January 11, 2013). In order for issues to be considered by council, there are three essential components that have to work together, as summarized by the Victoria key informant on the City’s OCP updating process: To get things on the policy agenda at City Hall, it takes the public pushing for it, it takes the planners really understanding it, and being able to do a lot of education both inside with the staff but also outside. And then finally it takes the politicians to be supportive and I think you need those three factors, and when it came to food for the OCP, the timing was right. We

had all those three pieces . . . (City of Victoria planner, personal communication, December 20, 2012). Strengths and challenges A central strength expressed by several key informants is the fact that current and forthcoming OPs or OCPs contain language that supports urban agriculture. This is significant given that previous versions of the plans either contained no policies or only had a limited number of policies that address urban agriculture: There’s lots of language that I call “enabling language” where it explores the possibilities, seeks opportunities. It’s trying to be really open, like encouraging innovative forms of food projects. So you could interpret that really broadly. And that’s what we try to do to just make sure that different groups and people of different departments of the City could move the urban agriculture and food agenda forward. (City of Victoria planner, personal communication, December 20, 2012). Other strengths include food policy now receiving a higher profile in planning documents and policies that do not simply focus on urban agriculture, but on the entire food system and the connections between how food is grown, where food is grown, and how it is consumed. For example, food policy is now included as a significant topic together with other key areas such as transportation, engineering, and planning in Vancouver (City of Vancouver planner, personal communication, January 11, 2013). In terms of challenges and limitations, the key informants from Toronto and Waterloo both noted that policy implementation is more challenging than policy adoption. The informants mentioned that urban agriculture policies might be incorporated in plans and policy documents, but are not necessarily reflected in implementation tools, namely zoning by-laws. When a lot of details are left to the implementation tools, this can be especially challenging when resources are limited and several priorities are competing. At the same time, finding an appropriate balance when deciding the level of detail to include in the OPs can be difficult. Although having a flexible policy framework and broad language could be advantageous, a Waterloo planner remarked that they might undermine consistency. More broadly, Toronto, Vancouver, and Victoria also had to address the negative public perception of community gardens as a competing use with park space by having dialogues with the public, promoting public education and advocacy, and focusing on capacity building. In addition, the commercial aspect of urban agriculture has yet to be addressed in current policies (e.g. exploring ways to legitimize urban farming). Table 3 summarizes the responses from the key informants in six municipalities, while Fig. 3 illustrates how urban agriculture can be supported through policy as expressed in our findings regarding factors pertaining to challenges and opportunities. Discussion Based on the policy review and interview findings, we present four key themes. First, we find a trend of urban agriculture becoming a more prominent topic in policy and planning over the past few years. Apart from a few select policy documents or by-laws that address urban agriculture, most were developed relatively recently or are in the process of being developed. Our findings indicate that many municipalities are now incorporating specific policies in OPs and OCPs that encourage or support urban agriculture activities. At the same time, urban agriculture and food systems planning are topics that are emerging in various municipal policy documents. Given that many of the policies are very new, cities would need to evaluate whether the policies are effective by appraising them

Table 3 Comparison of key informant interview outcomes between municipalities.

Urban agriculture (UA) activities

Guelph

Waterloo

Vancouver

North Vancouver

Victoria

Wide range of activities (e.g. 57 community gardens, 12 allotment gardens, community farm, children’s garden/eco programs, demonstration/teaching garden) Mainly managed by the Parks, Forestry, and Recreation Division

Community Garden Program on City and school board lands

Community gardens

75 community gardens

Edible Garden Project (community organization that the City supports) and Loutet Urban Farm pilot project very successful

Wide range of activities (e.g. community gardens, UA demonstration sites, edible landscaping, fruit and nut trees; backyard chickens)

Support for private gardens

Not a lot of activity until recently

2010 new garden plots

Backyard chickens

City mainly works in partnership, but it initiated a few UA projects (e.g. First Nations food garden and Community Orchards Program)

Urban farms Urban orchards and edible landscaping

Beekeeping

Relevant policies in a range of documents

OCP update process reflects societal trends

City cannot ignore food issues

Currently drafting a food charter (endorsed by City Council in 2014 following the interview) UA and Food Strategy helps to remove barriers Strong support from City Council

Pressure from public advocacy

Mayor sees benefits of UA

Chickens

UA planning policies

OP supports UA at a high level

New OP supports UA at high level

UA also supported by many other policies

One of Canada’s first municipalities to permit hen keeping

OP and Regional OP address UA, but OP is more specific Policies will be reflected in Zoning By-law

Community Gardens Policy Factors for adding UA policies

Public interest and advocacy

Interest from both City Council and the community

Mainly staff initiation with public support

Public concerns about food Community agencies “foodie” and “locavore” movements Challenges when adopting policies

Update in 2013 for Community Gardens Policy UA brought up by the public during OCP consultation Supportive staff OCP research

Implementation harder than adoption

Finding a balance when incorporating OP policies

Finding a balance between flexibility and regulation

Competing space and land use interest

Zoning issues have yet to be addressed

Not a lot of public opposition

Amount of detail to include in OP and amount for implementation tools Policy implementation

Negative perceptions of community gardens

View of gardens as exclusive and interfering park uses Need to address these concerns and focus on benefits

City has always permitted the keeping of chickens Urban farming in single-family areas

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

Toronto

No significant challenges to date for food charter process because of strong City Council and public support

Public concerns about community gardens as a privatized use

Need to have conversations with the public

Need to focus on capacity building and dialogue on benefits

Public education and advocacy needed

9

10

Table 3 (Continued)

Strengths and limitations of policies

Toronto

Guelph

Waterloo

Vancouver

North Vancouver

Victoria

(+) OP contains UA polices, whereas they were absent before

(+) OP captures future UA research opportunities

(+) flexibility in policy framework

(+) new OCP will have more emphasis on UA compared to the one from 10 years ago

(+) broad enabling language

(+) measurable targets

(−) by-laws need to catch-up with OP policies

(+) UA appears throughout OP

(+) high profile of food policy in Sustainability Strategy (i.e. Greenest City 2020 Action Plan) (−) UA not codified in Zoning By-law

(+) enabling language

(−) urban farming not yet legitimized

(−) steps and time needed to establish a community garden

(+) focus on entire food system

(−) commercial transactions not permitted

(−) commercial UA remains as yet unresolved

(−) many details left to implementation tools (−) flexibility also reduces consistency Uniqueness of municipality

Long history of UA involvement

Corporate boundary is the same as the urban boundary

Regional OP first in Ontario, if not Canada, to include UA policies

Large size and diversity

Might be slightly behind, but has strong energy for UA A lot of potential

Strong regional Public Health Department

UA as part of mainstream parks planning Using marginal lands for community gardens

More local planning for the food cycle

More diversified local farms and farmers markets Food hubs in the future light rail station areas

Gardens serving neighbourhood needs

Mapping under-utilized lands for UA Public-private partnerships

Highest area of parkland in Canada–many UA opportunities Future vision for UA

Using gardens as a community engagement tool

Food desert research

A lot of work done by citizens to create change

No agricultural land

Very urban and compact

City Council’s support not quite at the same level as Vancouver’s, but it is still supportive of food initiatives Has a very different culture

Undertaking many initiatives despite the small size of the City

Integrating community gardens in parks Edible fruits

Strengthening of urban farming as a legitimate business

Implementing UA and Food Strategy

Commercial UA

Drafting Food Charter for City Council approval (endorsed in 2014 following the interview) Incorporating UA in new developments

Employment training program combined with UA

Meeting the public demand for UA

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

(−) policy implementation

(+) focus on the entire food cycle

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

11

Fig. 3. Challenges and opportunities for implementing urban agriculture policies as identified in this study.

against their intended objectives and impacts (Jann and Wegrich, 2007). Consequently, an effective way to achieve this is through an ongoing review of plans and by-laws as they become more established in the coming years. For example, Victoria is developing a monitoring and evaluation program to assess the progress and outcomes of its OCP policies (City of Victoria, 2012). Municipalities can then ensure that any necessary changes are reflected during the statutory-required OP and OCP reviews every five years. In addition, compared to the smaller municipalities, Toronto and Vancouver have more documents that address urban agriculture. The only exceptions to this trend appear to be North Vancouver and Kamloops, which have several urban agriculture-related municipal documents despite being some of the smaller municipalities. We suspect that the extent of urban agriculture policies generated is generally dependent on the size of a city and thus its financial and staffing resources. However, this is not necessarily true in all cases and engaged municipalities can achieve comprehensive and wellintegrated policy packages without the benefits of many resources. For instance, even though Kenora and Dawson Creek were the smallest cities surveyed and are both situated in northern parts of their respective provinces, they still have adopted relevant zoning provisions and policy sections in their OCP and OP. Second, while many cities are actively implementing policies that facilitate urban agriculture, some take a narrower approach while others take a broader approach. We find that the municipalities in Ontario tend to place more focus on community and rooftop gardening. In contrast, the municipalities in British Columbia

appear to emphasize a wider range of activities including urban farms, edible landscapes, and backyard hens, which may be a reflection of the more temperate climate conditions year-round that allow for these activities. This is demonstrated by the fact that more cities in British Columbia allow the keeping of backyard chickens, whereas it is permitted in only one of the municipalities in Ontario. Consequently, the policies in British Columbia appear to be less restrictive in this regard. This conclusion reflects a similar finding by Desjardins et al. (2011), who mention that changing conditions, new information, and politics “[make] the issues and opportunities unique to every region, leading to parallel – but different – land use policy developments that are currently in progress in other jurisdictions throughout North America” (p. 135). Third, community advocacy and municipal council support are crucial. For all of the municipalities, these two elements played a key role in the creation and adoption of urban agriculture policies. Even though their exact role and level of influence varied for each municipality, they were nonetheless important in bringing urban agriculture to the forefront of municipal agendas. An example highlighting this point is that despite prohibiting backyard hens currently, Dawson Creek announced plans to amend its animal control and zoning by-laws to permit backyard chickens (Earl, 2014). This occurred after a resident, who received a violation letter following a complaint and was ordered remove her hens, brought her case forward and made a presentation at a recent city council meeting. City councillors also recommended looking at permitting other types of animals. Similarly, North Vancouver

12

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

now permits backyard chickens after amending its zoning and small creatures by-laws in 2012 when the local chapter of Canadian Liberated Urban Chicken Klub (CLUCK) advocated to City Council (City of North Vancouver planner, personal communication, December 17, 2012). Overall, public advocacy helps to generate sufficient interest in the topic, while support from council is instrumental in the adoption of related policies. Fourth, local advocacy is important; however, public education and increasing public awareness, possibly driven top-down, are essential in addressing concerns. Although there is generally a lot of community support for urban agriculture activities, the practice can even have more potential when certain negative perceptions, such as community gardens being a privatized or exclusive use in parks, are addressed. As noted by a Waterloo planner when speaking about the importance of public education and public advocacy when developing urban agriculture policies: The policies that we do can only go so far. They have to be accepted by the community. And if you want the policies to go further, you have to get the community to accept them and to want them. It’s very difficult for planners to impose a policy that somebody doesn’t want or support. (Region of Waterloo planner, personal communication, January 18, 2013). Therefore, the policy implementation process can benefit from strategies that enhance public knowledge about food-related issues through community learning, as concluded in the studies by Campbell (2004) and Roehr and Kunigk (2009) with respect to the role of education on the integration of urban agriculture and food systems. Recommendations and conclusions In this study, we sought to investigate the current situation of planning for urban agriculture in 10 Canadian municipalities. Drawing on the results and analysis, we propose a number of recommendations to further enhance the practice. These suggestions should not be seen as specific for these 10 cities, but may be applicable to other municipalities in Canada and elsewhere in the global North. Address the gaps between official plans or official community plans and implementation tools Although the majority of the OPs and OCPs that were reviewed are very recent, implementation tools such as zoning by-laws need to be adapted to reflect the urban agriculture policies. This is especially important given that the zoning by-law is the primary tool used to implement the objectives and policies laid out in a plan. Given that zoning by-laws for some of the selected municipalities do not make any reference to urban agriculture uses, specific provisions that help to facilitate urban agriculture should be identified in the by-laws, which is in accordance with the suggestions offered by De Zeeuw et al. (2000) for municipalities. Moreover, with regard to animal-related by-laws, cities that do not permit the keeping of urban livestock (e.g. backyard hens and bees) should perhaps give this topic further consideration. Even though concerns related to pests and public health need to be acknowledged, municipalities that allow residents to keep hens have not encountered a significant number of complaints. However, more public education might help to increase the level of community support for hens, and the resulting support from city councils. At the same time, some municipalities that do permit urban livestock should revisit their by-laws to ensure that regulations concerning minimum setbacks and lot sizes are appropriate. In the case of Guelph’s 1985 by-law that regulates the keeping of ducks, geese, poultry, and pigeons, pens are required to be located at

least 50 feet from a neighbour’s dwelling. The planner from Guelph acknowledged that this requirement might not be possible for some lots given the density in the urban areas. Therefore, the City might want to consider creating a less restrictive setback to allow more people to keep urban livestock. Ultimately, when creating animalrelated bylaws, planners need to take into account “the diversity of livestock ownership motivations and practices, lot sizes, and urban form within an individual city” (McClintock et al., 2014, p. 438).

Emphasize public education and public awareness Public education and public awareness are essential for the success of any policy proposal. As expressed by a Victoria planner, public support is one of the key factors necessary for urban agriculture to reach the policy agenda of local governments. Similarly, Roehr and Kunigk (2009) state that the degree of public awareness and acceptance affects how successful the practice of urban agriculture is integrated. They mention that public perception is an important factor because urban agriculture might be considered as an unsuitable activity in the city. Their findings are especially relevant in respect to the raising of backyard hens and the creation of community gardens. Consequently, initiating public education opportunities is important to ensure that community members are well-informed and to address any misconceptions about urban agriculture activities.

Create inventories of potential vacant and under-utilized lands for urban agriculture For many municipalities, it is generally up to a citizenry group that wants to create community gardens to identify a potential site that is suitable. This is an inefficient approach that could be improved by the use of urban agricultural land inventories. Consequently, for cities that do not currently have inventories of vacant and under-utilized sites, creating such inventories can help to increase the potential of urban agriculture as staff can identify available sites. The information would assist municipalities and local groups in locating new community garden sites and potentially simplifying the site selection process as currently outlined in community gardens policies. According to a key informant from Guelph: A problem currently with the Community Garden Program is that it’s up to the community to find a spot, and they [might not] know who owns what and we do. But we don’t really have the time to map all of that. But if we knew the lands that were available and suitable, I could see an explosion of the amount of land being used for food (City of Guelph Community and Social Services staff member, personal communication, January 25, 2013). A model that other municipalities can consider is the food systems asset maps created by the City of Kamloops, described in the “Policies that support urban agriculture” section. The maps serve as an inventory and allow staff and the public to easily identify where community gardens, edible landscaping, and lands suitable for urban agriculture (e.g. vacant properties and parkland), are located. Based on the study conducted by Mendes et al. (2008), public land inventories serve as a useful tool for informing urban agriculture policies and identifying the potential of urban agriculture. Using Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia as case studies, they found that these inventories helped to identify potential sites and increase the knowledge of planning for sustainable communities.

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

Promote opportunities for urban agriculture in the development review process Since there is usually a limited supply of urban land, and land is considered as a premium in many municipalities, space and opportunities for urban agriculture should be encouraged during the development review process for new multi-unit residential developments. Some of the municipalities included in this study require outdoor amenity areas, as stated in their OPs or OCPs. However, similar to Guelph, municipalities should encourage developers to provide space for community gardens, rooftop gardens, and edible landscaping in addition to the amenity area requirements. This offers additional urban agriculture opportunities for citizens who face limitations in terms of land access. The following quote speaks to the demand of people who want to grow their own food but do not have access to suitable land in Victoria: There’s a lot of demand . . . there’s 60 percent of people in Victoria who rent. That’s the second highest in Canada, which means the people who rent generally don’t have access to land . . . and then you have another percentage of people, the 40 percent who don’t rent who live in apartment buildings or in condos where they might not be able to put food gardens outside because they might have strict landscaping. And so what it means is there is actually a very small proportion of people who actually have a backyard that they can grow in. So this is something that I think Victoria and other cities need to grapple with. (City of Victoria planner, personal communication, December 20, 2012). A potential way of enhancing urban agriculture opportunities might be to apply the concept of land dedication to community gardens, as suggested by a Waterloo planner. This concept is similar to the principle of parkland dedication, where a developer is required to convey a certain amount of land for parkland or open space in exchange for a development. In addition to community building, focus also on the commercial potential of urban agriculture Given that many people engage in urban agriculture activities, such as community gardening and rooftop gardening, as a hobby, municipalities should focus on the commercial potential of urban agriculture. This includes urban farms and greenhouses, which promote local food production at a larger scale. A Vancouver planner mentioned that despite the presence of urban farms, the City does not recognize urban farming as a legitimate business. Therefore, municipalities should consider ways to address this issue by reviewing policies and by-laws to legitimize urban farming or the on-site sales of produce (e.g. creating a specific land use designation) since these types of uses are generally not reflected in current policy documents. When speaking to how the Toronto OP and zoning by-laws can better support urban agriculture, Nasr et al. (2010) note that small-scale urban agriculture commercial activities might not be an issue; however, permitting commercial ventures at a larger scale will involve substantial changes. In conclusion, studies exist that suggest that urban agriculture is often not integrated within the realm of planning, with policies, regulations, and zoning by-laws that can act as barriers (De Zeeuw et al., 2000; LeJava and Goonan, 2012; Richter, 2012; Roehr and Kunigk, 2009). While this is true, our findings indicate that there are several examples in Ontario and British Columbia where municipalities are attempting to address this issue by incorporating policies that facilitate urban agriculture over the recent years. By conducting a policy review and key informant interviews, we found that efforts for the adoption of urban agriculture policies are consistently increasing in all studied municipalities, although the scope and focus of the policies vary between them.

13

Recurring themes expressed by the key informants included policy implementation being more challenging than policy adoption, and the importance of addressing public concerns. Thus, it is crucial to address gaps between policy and implementation tools, and to further promote public education and awareness. On the other hand, distinct differences observed include the factors that influenced the incorporation of urban agriculture policies; advocacy from the public played a more prominent role for some municipalities, whereas staff interest and council support were the driving factors for others. The present study was intended to offer an overview of the urban agriculture situation in two Canadian provinces leading in urban agriculture, as well as to provide additional insights into the challenges and opportunities as encountered by different municipalities. These insights and lessons may also be relevant for other municipalities in Canada and the global North as urban agriculture is becoming more widespread. Ultimately, we hope that our findings will contribute to the international dialogue about urban agriculture and can be considered by other cities as lessons learned or best practices for the development of urban agriculture policies at the local scale. Acknowledgments We would like to thank all of the key informants for contributing their time to participate in our study and for sharing invaluable information during the interviews. We also appreciate the constructive comments and feedback provided by the two anonymous reviewers that greatly helped to improve this manuscript. References Adin, E.K., Kurnicki, A.F., 2014. Urban farms in Canada. Plan Canada 54 (1), 10–15. Black, R.E., 2013. Taking space to grow food and community: urban agriculture and guerrilla gardening in Vancouver. Cuizine: J. Can. Food Cult. 4 (1.), http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1015492ar. Bouris, K., Masselink, D., Geggie, L., 2009. City of Victoria Food System Discussion Paper. Masselink Environmental Design, Pender Island, 134 pp. Broadway, M., 2009. Growing urban agriculture in North American cities: the example of Milwaukee. Focus Geogr. 52 (3), 23–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1949-8535.2009.tb00251.x. Butler, W.H., 2012. Welcoming animals back to the city: navigating the tensions of urban livestock through municipal ordinances. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2 (2), 193–215, http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.022.003. Campbell, M.C., 2004. Building a common table: the role for planning in community food systems. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 23 (4), 341–355, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0739456X04264916. Castillo, S.R., Winkle, C.R., Krauss, S., Turkewitz, A., Silva, C., Heinemann, E.S., 2013. Regulatory and other barriers to urban and peri-urban agriculture: a case study of urban planners and urban farmers from the greater Chicago metropolitan area. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 3 (3), 155–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.033.001. City of Montreal, 2012. État de l’agriculture urbaine à Montréal (State of Urban Agriculture in Montreal), City of Montreal, Montreal, retrieved from: http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/CHANTIER DEMOCRATIE FR/ MEDIA/DOCUMENTS/AGRICULTUREURBAINEMONTREAL 2012.PDF City of North Vancouver, 2012. Report: Updated Food Security and Urban Agriculture Strategy – File No. 6350-01. Engineering, Parks & Environment Department, North Vancouver, 7 pp. City of Vancouver, 2006. East Fraser Lands Official Development Plan, City of Vancouver, Vancouver, 56 pp. City of Vancouver, 2007. Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan, City of Vancouver, Vancouver, 52 pp. City of Victoria, 2012. City of Victoria Official Community Plan. City of Victoria Planning and Development Department – Community Planning Division, Victoria, 261 pp. Cohen, N., Reynolds, K., 2014. Urban agriculture policy making in New York’s “new political spaces”: strategizing for a participatory and representative system. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 34 (2), 221–234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14526453. De Zeeuw, H., Guendel, S., Waibel, H., 2000. The integration of agriculture in urban policies. Urban Agric. Mag. 1 (1), 161–180. Desjardins, E., Lubczynski, J., Xuereb, M., 2011. Incorporating policies for a healthy food system into land use planning: the case of Waterloo Region, Canada. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2 (1), 127–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/ jafscd.2011.021.003. Dubbeling, M., Merzthal, G., 2006. Sustaining urban agriculture requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders. In: Van Veenhuizen, R. (Ed.), Cities Farming for

14

D. Huang, M. Drescher / Land Use Policy 43 (2015) 1–14

the Future: Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities. RUAF Foundation, IDRC, and IIRR, Silang, pp. 19–52. Dunn, B., 2013. Increasing Access to Local Food: Policies from Other Places as a Guide to Increasing Local Food Access Through Land Use Planning in Ontario. Canadian Environmental Law Association & Sustain Ontario, Toronto, Retrieved from: http://sustainontario.com/wp2011/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/PFTFBurgandy-Dunn-Increasing-Access-to-Local-Food Land-Use-Formatted-FINAL. pdf Earl, J., 2014, July. Dawson Creek Lays Plans For Chicken Bylaw, Retrieved from Northeast News: http://www.northeastnews.ca/dawson-creek-lays-plansfor-chicken-bylaw/ Fairholm, J., 1998. Urban Agriculture and Food Security Initiatives in Canada: A Survey of Canadian Non-Governmental Organizations. LifeCycles Project Society, Victoria, 104 pp. Holland Barrs Planning Group, 2007. Designing Urban Agriculture Opportunities for Southeast False Creek. Holland Barrs Planning Group, Vancouver. Jann, W., Wegrich, K., 2007. Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fischer, F., Miller, G.J., Sidney, M.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p. 43-62. LeJava, J.P., Goonan, M.J., 2012. Cultivating urban agriculture: addressing land use barriers to gardening and farming in cities. Real Estate Law J. 41 (Fall), 216–245. Lovell, S.T., 2010. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability 2 (8), 2499–2522, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3390/su2082499. MacRae, R., Donahue, K., 2013. Municipal Food Policy Entrepreneurs: A Preliminary Analysis of How Canadian Cities and Regional Districts are Involved in Food System Change. Toronto Food Policy Council, Vancouver Food Policy Council, & Canadian Agriculture Policy Institute, Retrieved from: http://tfpc.to/ wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Report-May30-FINAL.pdf Mansfield, B., Mendes, W., 2013. Municipal food strategies and integrated approaches to urban agriculture: exploring three cases from the global north. Int. Plan. Stud. 18 (1), 37–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2013.750942. McClintock, N., Pallana, E., Wooten, H., 2014. Urban livestock ownership, management, and regulation in the United States: an exploratory survey and research agenda. Land Use Policy 38, 426–440, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2013.12.006. Mees, C., Stone, E., 2012. Zoned out: the potential of urban agriculture planning to turn against its roots. Cities Environ. (CATE) 5 (1), 1–12. Mendes, W., Balmer, K., Kaethler, T., Rhoads, A., 2008. Using land inventories to plan for urban agriculture: experiences from Portland and Vancouver. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 74 (4), 435–449, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360802354923. Mendes, W., 2012. Municipal governance and urban food systems. In: Koc¸, M., Sumner, J., Winson, A. (Eds.), Critical Perspectives in Food Studies. Oxford University Press, Don Mills, pp. 290–309. Mougeot, L.J., 2000. Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks, and Policy Challenges. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, 58 pp.

Nasr, J., MacRae, R., Kuhns, J., 2010. Scaling Up Urban Agriculture in Toronto: Building the Infrastructure. Metcalf Foundation, Toronto, Retrieved from: http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/scaling-urbanagriculture.pdf Pollock, S.L., Stephen, C., Skuridina, N., Kosatsky, T., 2012. Raising chickens in city backyards: the public health role. J. Community Health 37 (3), 734–742, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9504-1. Pothukuchi, K., Kaufman, J.L., 1999. Placing the food system on the urban agenda: the role of municipal institutions in food systems planning. Agric. Hum. Values 16 (2), 213–224, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1007558805953. Quon, S., 1999. Planning for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and Strategies for Urban Planners. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, 81pp. Richter, C.A., 2012. Urban farming: zoning for growing and distributing food in Portland neighbourhoods. Plan. Law. (Spring), 3 and 9. Roehr, D., Kunigk, I., 2009. Metro Vancouver: designing for urban food production. Berkeley Plan. J. 22 (1), 61–70. Rydin, Y., Bleahu, A., Davies, M., Dávila, J.D., Friel, S., De Grandis, G., Groce, N., Hallal, P.C., Hamilton, I., Howden-Chapman, P., Lai, K., Lim, C.J., Martin, J., Osrin, D., Ridley, I., Scott, I., Taylor, M., Wilkinson, P., Wilson, J., 2012. Shaping cities for health: complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century. Lancet 379 (9831), 2079–2108. Smit, J., Nasr, J., Ratta, A., 2001. Urban Agriculture: Food Jobs and Sustainable Cities. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York. Smith, S., 2010. 2002 Official Community Plan Review: Discussion Paper. City of North Vancouver, North Vancouver, pp. 48. Statistics Canada, 2011. Census Profile – 2011 Census, Retrieved from: Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/ census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (07.08.14). Talukdar, M.H., Hossain, Z., 2011. Planning tools that can be used to facilitate urban sustainability. Manag. Res. Pract. 3 (4), 67–76. The Weather Network, 2014. Statistics, Retrieved from: The Weather Nethttp://www.theweathernetwork.com/forecasts/statistics/list/all/all work: (07.08.14). Thibert, J., 2012. Making local planning work for urban agriculture in the North American context: a view from the ground. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 32 (3), 349–357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11431692. Tornaghi, C., 2014. Critical geography of urban agriculture. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38 (4), 551–567, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132513512542. Voigt, K.A., 2011. Pigs in the backyard or the barnyard: removing zoning impediments to urban agriculture. Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 38 (2), 537–566. Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., Skinner, A., 2007. Growing urban health: community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promot. Int. 22 (2), 92–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dam001.