University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Winter 2018 Food Democracy: Public Participation in New England Food Policy Councils Cathryn Porter University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Porter, Cathryn, "Food Democracy: Public Participation in New England Food Policy Councils" (2018). Master's Theses and Capstones.edu/thesis/1253 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact Scholarly.
FOOD DEMOCRACY: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN NEW ENGLAND FOOD POLICY COUNCILS BY CATHRYN PORTER Bachelor of Science, Environmental Studies, University of Vermont, 2012 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Natural Resources December 2018 This thesis has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Natural Resources by: Thesis Director, Dr. Ashcraft, Assistant Professor, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment Dr. Mary Adamo Friedman, Principal Lecturer, Program Coordinator for Community and Environmental Planning, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment Dr. Miriam Nelson, President, Hampshire College On November 28, 2018 Approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School.
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for my advisor, Dr. Ashcraft for her continuous support, motivation, and invaluable help on my thesis research project. Thank you for inspiring me to become a better researcher and providing me opportunities to do so. Thank you to my committee members, Dr.
Mary Adamo Friedman and Dr. Miriam Nelson for their robust feedback and guidance. I would also like to thank my colleagues at UNH Cooperative Extension for inspiring me and for providing me the opportunity to pursue my academic goals. Thank you also to my colleagues in the Environmental Planning, Policy and Sustainability lab for your friendship and for making my time at UNH enjoyable.
I would like to thank my family and friends for their tireless support and patience during my time in this graduate program. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Stephen, for always being there for me and encouraging me to achieve this goal. I couldn’t have done it without you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMITTEE PAGE.
iii LIST OF FIGURES. vi LIST OF TABLES. vii LIST OF ACRONYMS. ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.3 Research Design and Methodology .33 CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS OF NEW ENGLAND FOOD POLICY COUNCIL SURVEY 2.2 Survey Response Rate.3 Data and Analysis .1 Characteristics of New England Food Policy Councils .2 Policy Priorities and Efforts .51 CHAPTER 3: PORTLAND, MAINE SCHOOL FOOD SECURITY ASSESSMENT 3.2 Portland, Maine School Food Security Assessment Case Overview.
Data and Analysis of Effective Public Participation.1 Process and Fairness .3 Information and Resources .4 Analysis of Attributes of the Food Policy Councils and Policy Process .1 Food Policy Council Attributes .2 Attributes of the Policy Process .88 CHAPTER 4: MASSACHUSETTS FOOD SYSTEMS PLAN 4.2 Massachusetts Food Systems Plan Case Overview .3 Data and Analysis of Effective Public Participation.1 Process and Fairness .3 Information and Resources .4 Analysis of Attributes of the Food Policy Councils and Policy Process .1 Food Policy Council Attributes .2 Attributes of the Policy Process .130 CHAPTER 5: CROSS CASE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.2 Food Policy Council Attributes. Analysis of Effective Public Participation .1 Process and Fairness .3 Information and Resources. Analysis of Attributes of the Food Policy Councils .6 Recommendations for Food Democracy .7 Reflections on this Research Study.159 APPENDICES Appendix A: IRB Approval .162 Appendix B: Modifications to IRB Consent Form .163 Appendix C: New England Food Policy Council Survey.164 Appendix D: Interview Protocol – Massachusetts Food Policy Council Members and Stakeholders .181 Appendix E: Interview Protocol for Portland Food Council Members, Cumberland County Food Security Council Members or Portland Public Schools Food Security Task Force Members .186 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Ladder of Citizen Participation Figure 2.1: Survey Response Rate Figure 2. FPCs by State Figure 2.
FPCs by State and Geographic Area Figure 2. FPCs by Organization Type Figure 2. FPC Staff Capacity Figure 2. FPC Membership Figure 2.7 Membership Seats Reserved by Food Policy Council Figure 2.
Food Policy Council Recruitment of Under-represented Groups Figure 2. Food Policy Council Workgroups Figure 2. Food Policy Councils and Policy Efforts Figure 2. Food Policy Councils and Policy Priorities Figure 2.
Food Policy Council Policy Efforts Figure 2. Public Participation Methods Figure 2. Sectors & Stakeholders Engaged by Food Policy Councils Figure 2. Under-represented Groups Engaged by Food Policy Councils Figure 2.
Perceived Satisfaction of Public Participation Opportunities by Respondents, Council Members, and Public Participation Participants Figure 2. Shaping Outcomes and Decisions Figure 3. Organizational Chart of the Portland Public Schools Food Security Task Force Figure 3. Overview of the Portland Public Schools Food Security Assessment Figure 4.
Organizational Structure of the Leadership of the Policy Process Figure 4. Overview of the development of the Massachusetts Local Food Action Plan vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation Table 1. Elements of Effective Public Participation Table 1. Food Policy Council Attributes Table 1.
Elements and Metrics of Effective Public Participation Table 3. Attributes of the Portland Food Council and the Cumberland County Food Security Council. Members of the Portland Public Schools Food Security Task Force Leadership Team.3 Elements of Effective Public Participation: Portland Public Schools Food Security Task Force. Portland Public Schools Food Security Assessment Public Participation Opportunities Table 3.
Portland Public Schools Food Security Assessment Interview Participants Table 4. Attributes of the Massachusetts Food Policy Council Table 4. Members of the MA Local Food Action Plan Planning Team Table 4. Elements of Effective Public Participation: Massachusetts Food Systems Plan Table 4.
MA Food Systems Plan Public Participation Opportunities Table 5. Food Policy Council Attributes Table 5. Effective Public Participation: Process and Fairness Comparative Analysis Table 5. Effective Public Participation: Representation Comparative Analysis Table 5.
Effective Public Participation: Information and Resources Comparative Analysis Table 5. Effective Public Participation: Outcomes Comparative Analysis Table 5. Methods for Engaging with Under-represented Groups vii LIST OF ACRONYMS CCFSC: Cumberland County Food Security Council FPC: food policy council MA FPC: Massachusetts Food Policy Council MAPC: Metropolitan Area Planning Council MDAR: Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources PFC: Portland Food Council PPS: Portland Public Schools RFR: request for responses SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program viii ABSTRACT FOOD DEMOCRACY: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN NEW ENGLAND FOOD POLICY COUNCILS by Cathryn Porter University of New Hampshire Food insecurity is a persistent issue in New England. In 2016, food insecurity levels in New England ranged between 9% in New Hampshire and 13.
Food policy councils (FPCs) are one method to bring together community members and food systems stakeholders to address inequities in the food system, such as food access. However, implementing food democracy and, in particular, engaging under-represented groups in food systems decision-making remains challenging for FPCs. This research surveyed all 26 FPCs and networks in New England to identify how councils engage the public. Interviews and document analysis informed in-depth case studies of two food policy efforts: the Portland, Maine School Food Security Assessment and the MA Food Systems Plan.
Public participation opportunities in these two cases are analyzed based on four elements of effective public participation identified from the literature: process and fairness, representation, information and resources, and outcomes. Finally, attributes of FPCs and the policy process that influence effective public participation are analyzed. The landscape of New England FPCs is crowded and heterogeneous. Just over half of the councils, 15, work on policy efforts, which include school policy, food access, production, ix distribution and processing, and plans and assessments.
Of these 15, most operate at the municipal or county level, about half are housed in government, and many include multiple food system sectors and underrepresented groups in public participation opportunities. Like most of the New England FPCs, in both Massachusetts and Portland, Maine, policy efforts engaged diverse stakeholders through multiple methods. However, the case studies highlight interesting differences in how diverse stakeholders were engaged in the policy efforts, which had more of an impact on the public participation effectiveness than the FPC attributes. These differences include who was engaged (e.
professionals working in organizations providing services or underrepresented individuals themselves), the method by which they participated (e. working groups, leadership team, interviews, surveys), and their level of engagement (e. consultation or empowerment). These findings highlight important questions for FPCs to consider about representation and empowerment of underrepresented audiences in food policy efforts.1 Significance Food insecurity is a persistent issue in the United States and New England.
In 2016, the nationwide rate of food insecurity was 12. In New England, rates ranged from 9% in New Hampshire to 13. Access to food is one example of an inequity in the food system. Other inequities include lack of access to land and lack of livable wages in many food systems jobs (Harper et al.
These inequities disproportionally impact under-represented groups, including people of color, low income individuals and food insecure individuals. Food democracy is the concept that community members should be involved in shaping their food system. All members of the food system must have equitable access to participate so that no groups are excluded from healthy food systems (Hassanein, 2003; Harper et. Agyeman (2013) asserts that the food movement is led by white, upper-middle class members, and is also catered to the needs of the white upper-middle class, further marginalizing minority and low income populations.
There is concern that the local food movement has ignored some groups of community members at the local level, leading to a lack of participatory democracy in food systems decision-making (DeLind, 2011). The very people who are suffering from the “failings” of our current food system, such as lacking access to food, land or a livable wage, have little political or economic voice (Harper et al. Those with grievances in the food system must participate if meaningful change is going to take place (Allen, 2010; Hassanein, 2003). First started in Knoxville, Tennessee in 1980, food policy councils are one tool designed in theory to engage food systems stakeholders and community members, including under- represented groups, around food systems decision-making.
The purpose of a food policy council 1 is to gather stakeholders that represent different sectors of the food system (production, consumption, processing, distribution and waste) and community members together to discuss issues around food, evaluate and advocate for policies, and implement programs to educate the community about food systems (Harper et al. However, there is some debate whether food policy councils actually do, in practice, engage a broad group of stakeholders and the public, including under-represented audiences. There is evidence in the literature that there are two opportunities for councils to improve. One criticism is that membership of food policy councils is homogenous; many are comprised of educated white professionals that do not reflect their constituency (Horst, 2017; Packer, 2014).
Another issue identified is that councils have a desire to work on engaging diverse member of their community, but view public participation as a challenge (Agyeman 2013; Blackmar, 2014; Packer 2014). This research analyzes the following questions: 1. In what ways do New England FPCs (focused on policy) engage the public? 2. Are the strategies implemented by FPCs effective at engaging under-represented groups? 3.
What FPC attributes contribute to whether FPCs effectively engage under-represented groups? 1.2 Literature Review In the following literature review, I first focus on deliberative democratic theory and defining public participation and its benefits and pitfalls. Deliberative democratic theory is premised on the need to include citizens in decision-making. Policy processes that include public participation have several benefits such as transparency, building credibility, educating policymakers and citizens, increasing social capital and improving outcomes and decisions. However, not all public participation opportunities are effective.