Citation
Urban agricultural policies for Denver food production

Material Information

Title:
Urban agricultural policies for Denver food production
Creator:
Washington, Taylor
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Notes

General Note:
This client-based project was completed on behalf of the Manager of Food Systems Development at the City of Denver and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Dr. Wendy Bolyard and second faculty reader Dr. Chris Weible. This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver Collections
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
Running Head: URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
1
Urban Agricultural Policies for Denver Food Production Taylor Washington
University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs
This client-based project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colorado
Summer
2017


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
2
Capstone Project Disclosures
This client-based project was completed on behalf of the Manager of Food Systems Development at the City of Denver and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Dr. Wendy Bolyard and second faculty reader Dr. Chris Weible. This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.....................................................................4
Introduction..........................................................................5
Literature Review and Statement of Purpose............................................7
Methodology..........................................................................14
Results..............................................................................17
Discussion...........................................................................23
Recommendations......................................................................25
Conclusion...........................................................................25
References...........................................................................27
Appendices...........................................................................30


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
4
Executive Summary
Since 2002, the United States has developed 8.5 million acres of farmland, removing a large portion of food producing lands in America (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015). At the same time, the majority of the food produced has been further concentrated in a few states, leaving people dependent on an industrial food system which they do not come into contact with or see flourishing in their own communities (Nordahl, 2014). Urban Agriculture is one way to create a more diversified and equitable food system, however, many cities do not currently have strong policies to support viable, financially sustainable Urban Agriculture (Brown & Jameton, 2000). This study aims to discover the most effective policy that the city of Denver, Colorado could implement in order to support urban food production. The findings inform the Manager of Food Systems Development at the City of Denver, the client for this project, on which policies might be worthwhile to pursue. Six potential policy interventions to support viable, financially sustainable Urban Agriculture are analyzed in this study. They are: 1) tax incentives, 2) use of public land, 3) use of land trusts, 4) agritourism and education, 5) real estate-food projects, and 6) permits for season extension. Individual interviews were conducted with seven participants who were identified by the client as key stakeholders in Urban Agriculture in Denver. Interviews were coded for major themes to determine the policy the stakeholders identified as having the most benefit for urban food production. Then, the results were analyzed using these methods: a multiple streams analysis was completed to understand the window of opportunity for this policy; a force field analysis was completed to identify the strength of support or opposition from key stakeholders; and, a messaging analysis was completed to identify communication methods needed to persuade stakeholders to support a potential policy. One key finding emerged from this research and analysis: revised Zoning permits for season extension is the policy option that


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
5
would most impact the viability and financial sustainability for farmers in the city of Denver at this time. From these findings, two recommendations are being offered to Denvers Manager of Food Systems Development. First, collaborate with the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council to create a policy working group that advocates for season extension permits in Denver. Second, conduct research on changes to the zoning and/or building codes that fix discrepancies and clarify season extension options. If implemented, these recommendations will lead to more effective policy addressing Urban Agriculture concerns in the Denver area.
Keywords: Urban Agriculture, policy, Denver, food systems


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
6
Urban Land Policies for Denver Food Production
Concerns over food production and growing urban centers have existed since the Industrial Revolution, notably dating back to the research of Malthus, a Protestant minister and social theorist, whose research found that the exponential growth of population could not be matched by the linear rate of growth of food production (Brown & Jameton, 2000). Recently, however, new challenges face farmers who are trying to continue to feed the growing urban population due to the lack of policies addressing not only population growth, but a decrease in the number of farms in and near urban areas like Denver (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014). In the global North, few cities have integrative policies around Urban Agriculture that allow for farmers to be competitive in the marketplace and sell locally within the city they farm. A mixture of issues could be at the center of this. One possible reason in Denver is the 25% increase in property values, resulting in the inability for farmers to purchase or rent a plot of land large enough to profit from its agricultural production (Svaldi, 2017). Another may be limitations to the level of community support and limitations on the ability of city residents to purchase local food, which tends to be more expensive. Increased property values may also be limiting customers ability to pay for higher food costs.
Rural areas have traditionally been used for agriculture, and more affordable land remains in rural areas that could be used for food production. Even so, Urban Agriculture has additional value in community economic development, food security for growing city populations, and the preservation of green space (Brown & Jameton, 2000). Urban individuals may choose to grow food in their yards, porches, or window sills to be able to access fresh produce locally. Additionally, Urban Agriculture allows for abandoned city lands and buildings


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
7
to be given a productive, healthy use by growing food for the community (Brown & Jameton, 2000). These benefits will be discussed in depth in the literature review below.
The Issue
This research focused on operational farms that are nonprofit organizations or private agricultural companies in Denver, Colorado whose primary mission is to grow food. This research aimed to address the gaps in research concerning viable, sustainable urban farming.
While seemingly obvious, most urban food production requires land and there is often a pervasive barrier for farmers to be able to acquire enough land for Urban Agriculture. In some cases, land is leased or provided by the city, with yearly renewal processes, but that land is often reclaimed when it is needed for housing or commercial development (Brown & Jameton, 2000). Public policy addresses stable land access to encourage farmers to consider Urban Agriculture. Urban Agriculture is one way to take control of ones environment and be able to provide for oneself instead of depending on Big Ag-the practice of corporate farming, which has a history of neglecting workers and sacrificing quality for profit (Big agriculture vs. big education, 2012). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one in eight people in Colorado struggle with hunger and one in five children are food insecure, meaning they may not know when or where they will get their next meal (Coleman-Jense, Rabbitt, Gregory & Singh, 2015). Self-reliance through Urban Agriculture is often proposed as one method for addressing food insecurity through increased household and local food production.
The purpose of this research paper is to analyze potential policies that address the viability and sustainability of Urban Agriculture and that have been successfully implemented around the country in cities similar to Denver, Colorado. The Denver Manager of Food Systems Development was interested in gathering these data in order to assess which policies they might


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
8
be able to successfully advocate for moving forward. The intention was to assess whether or not Denver has the stakeholder and political support needed to implement a similar Urban Agriculture policy in order to support food security and food production within the city limits. This capstone is organized into eight sections as follows: literature review, methods, results, discussion, recommendations, conclusion, references, and appendices.
Literature Review and Statement of Purpose
Overall, the literature demonstrates that there are many policy options to encourage an increase in urban farming within city limits. The review is organized into seven sections as follows: an overview of the client, property tax incentives, use of public lands, land trusts, agritourism, commercial development, and permits for season extension. Each policy was identified by the client as potentially viable and in need of assessment in regards to the level of support from stakeholders in Denver.
The Denver Food Systems Manager and the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council
The client for this project is the Denver Manager of Food Systems Development, who works within the Office of Economic Development. Denvers Office of Economic Development has expressed interest in analyzing the potential for policy to be implemented that addresses the issue of affordable land use for Urban Agriculture within the city limits. While there are many definitions of Urban Agriculture, in general Urban Agriculture refers to both commercial and noncommercial activities, within or near a city center, that produce food and non-food items to serve an urban area (Mougeot, 2000). The product of this research benefits both Denvers Manager of Food Systems Development and the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council (SFPC). The purpose of the Denver SFPC is to educate, raise awareness and build support for our food system; advise the city on laws, policies and programs; and promote food security and


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
9
foster a Sustainable Food System (Bylaws, 2011). The SFPCs 2017 Policy Platform identified increasing food production through land access as a top priority. In a 2015 policy brief, the SPFC stated that the goal of a land access policy would be to Preserve land dedicated to urban food production through zoning changes, public land/green space policy, financial incentives, landscaping standards, the formation of land banks and land trusts, and other policies (Brock & Shelton, 2015, p. 1).
This capstone project aimed to inform policies that could be implemented in order to further viable farming production within city limits. The Denver Manager of Food Systems Development was hired by the Office of Economic Development to align efforts and lead planning efforts to create a more vibrant, robust and sustainable food system for future generations of Denver residents (Angelo & Goldstein, 2016, p. 5). Specifically, this literature review will look at property tax incentives, use of public land, land trusts used in perpetuity, farming tourism/education, real estate projects, and permits for season extension.
Property Tax Incentives
In the early 2000s, the idea of smart growth came to Denver. In general, this idea aims to integrate mixed-use and transit oriented urban centers and has seen results with lower loss of farmland in cities (Goetz, 2013). One of the ways that governments have encouraged farmers to buy land within the city is to provide them with tax incentives for the purchase of land for food production (Nelson, 1992). State and local governments have recognized the impact that urban sprawl is having on the green space of their municipalities and are looking to take action to protect or preserve some form of nature within a city. Each year, more than three million acres of U.S. farmland are destroyed to urban sprawl and commercial development, which may have alarming impacts on air quality and food access in the future (Belden, 1979). In 2002, a study


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
10
was released that suggested the United States loses two acres per minute of agricultural land (Becker, 2002). All states currently offer some form of incentive for farmland, but the ability for farms to remain viable and financially sustainable is still a challenge (Daniels, 1997). Therefore, while tax incentives provide some relief to urban farmers, current research suggests it is not enough to keep farms viable.
In 2012, Salt Lake City, Utah passed SB 122, which allows for land to be assessed at lower property tax rates than the land is used to grow crops for sale at a profit, as long as production is greater than 50 percent of average production for similar land. Before Utahs passage of the Urban Farming Assessment Act (2012), tax incentives for farmland were based on the size of the land, not the amount of food produced on the land. However, tax incentives have existed since 1969 in Utah and had to be expanded upon in order to create stronger Urban Agriculture systems within the cities. Considering that there are tax incentives nationwide to encourage land use for agriculture, additional property tax incentives are likely needed to bring vibrant, sustainable farming into Denver.
Use of Public Lands
Another way cities have encouraged Urban Agriculture is by partnering with their local departments of Parks & Recreation or Open Space to establish farms on public property. Currently, only a handful of states provide the majority of the countrys fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains (Nordahl, 2014). One benefit of using public land for food production is the diversification of locations where food is produced, which leads to a more resilient food system. Historically, cities have worked against people who were trying to grow food in public places. For example, in a TedTalk in 2013, Ron Finley talks about South Central Los Angeles giving him a citation for planting food along abandoned lots, traffic medians, and street curbs (Finley,


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
11
2013). Over the past decade, cities have slowly begun to embrace new ideas, like food forests in public parks and permits for people to farm on public lands. The addition of food to existing public spaces can provide more value to spaces that people already enjoy.
Finley (2013) was working towards the creation of a food forest in the city of South Central. The concept of urban food forests has grown out of the practice of agroforestry, which combines sustainable forestry and agricultural practices. Agroforestry has been known to offer opportunities to stop land degradation and provide agricultural services to low-income people (Nair, 2007). A food forest considers the potential role of perennial trees that produce food, such as pear trees and apple trees, in cities to augment urban sustainability through a multifunctional approach that combines Urban Agriculture and forestry. A study of fruit and vegetable consumption for city residents showed that there is significant untapped potential to meet the recommended fruit intake for all residents in a major city (Clark & Nicholas, 2013). For example, a case study in Burlington, Vermont found that there are 60 species of food plants that could be integrated into city planning of public spaces to help alleviate food insecurity (Clark & Nicholas, 2013).
Land Trusts
Another possible method for supporting Urban Agriculture is a land trust. Land trusts are comprised of lands that have a mandate that focuses on the preservation and conservation of urban land through community identified practices (Bunce & Aslam, 2016, p. 24). Land trusts exist to serve many different missions and may be small or very large, so long as they are committed to preserving the original state of the land. For example, the Nature Conservancy has assets and a budget that compete with the worlds largest environmental nonprofits, while other land trusts are individually run with almost no budget (Lieberknecht, 2009). Land that is


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
12
protected through a land trust can be used for a variety of different reasons, including protecting natural land, forests, waterways, historic landscapes, and working farms (Lieberknecht, 2009).
Due to the decline in state and federal funding for land acquisitions, land trusts have worked to bridge the gap where there is a lack of protection for land preservation (Lieberknecht, 2009). In addition to public service work, land trust coalitions have lobbied for innovative funding programs and furthering sophisticated tools for planning and development (see the Land Trust Alliance for more information). Many trusts also supplement protections of greenways that were initiated by government programs. In a few cases, local governments have made loans or operated as the bonding authority for income-generating projects that help establish land trusts within their city limits. These lands must maintain the conservation value of the project, but can be developed or partially sold so long as they remain protected (LaBelle & Watson, 1997).
Community Land Trusts (CLTs), a subset of land trusts, exist all over the world. According to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a CLT is a nonprofit, community-based corporation with a place-based membership, a democratically elected board, and a charitable commitment to the use and stewardship of land on behalf of the local population (as cited in Yuen, 2014, p. 3). In the past, CLTs have been used for affordable housing in places like Israel, India, and the United States. A benefit of the CLT model is that the ownership is shared by and for the community, so every action taken on the land is community defined and adaptable to changing conditions (Yuen, 2014).
CLTs exist in different formats. For example, the Southside CLT (SCLT) in Cranston, Rhode Island is a 20-acre farm leased through the state. SCLT manages the farm and encourages young farmers to start businesses by leasing out seven start-up plots at nominal rates. While the long-term ground lease can be challenging to draft and implement, there is greater security than


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
13
fee-simple ownership. Fee-simple ownership charges for ownership rights to meet all mortgage payments and tax obligations. It allows for the greatest number of stakeholders to participate in communal garden projects. In Roxbury, Massachusetts, Dudley Neighbors Incorporated redeveloped a contaminated site into a 10,000-square-foot greenhouse. Participants are charged a small fee, which goes to a food-based nonprofit that handles the logistical part of programming and maintenance (Yuen, 2014).
Farming Tourism/Education
Increasing urban farm tourism and education may be another method for improving the viability and sustainability of urban farms. One way to attract farming tourism and education in a city is to establish an Agricultural district, which is
A mechanism to identify large areas of operating farms and take measures to keep them in operation, limiting extension of utilities and expansion of roads through them, especially by use of eminent domain ("condemnation") and protecting farm operations against "nuisance" complaints by nonfarmers ("right to farm" laws). (LaBelle & Watson, 1997, p. 66)
In Chicago, municipal planners have designed the largest agricultural district in the nation as a part of Chicagos Department of Housing and Economic Developments Green Healthy Neighborhoods initiative. The City designated 13 square-miles that had been riddled with vacant lots and crumbling buildings to become a center for food production (Rotenberk, 2012). The goal of the district is to put the vacant land to use and create entrepreneurial and job opportunities. It will double as a tourist destination for people interested in farming and growing food (Rotenberk, 2012). A former railroad line forms the spine of the farm district, as it will be turned into a park with foot and bike trails, and importantly, farm stands for the new growers. The City


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
14
of Chicago Plan Commission approved the 10 to 20 year project for the Green Healthy Neighborhoods Plan on March 20, 2014 (Burch, 2014).
Other cities have tried creating farming districts, however, and failed. Chicago is hopeful because they are not suffering from an economic collapse, as Detroit and Cleveland were when they created farming districts. Chicagos farming district will incorporate housing, industry, and business. Additionally, Chicago has already seen success from two job training farms that already exist in the district, called Growing Home and Perry Street Farm (Rotenberk, 2012).
As cities serve as a main hub for tourism within the United States, adding farm tourism options to popular destinations may augment profits for farmers within city limits. Farm tourism allows farms to remain sustainable without making farmers dependent on government programs and tax incentives (Potocnik-Slavic & Schmitz, 2013). In California, a tourist can stay overnight on a farm, wake up and milk cows, and attend a feast on farm-to-table foods served under a blooming orchard. Activities are family friendly and sport a pick-your-adventure setup that allows people to select an array of different experiences. Through the website farmstayus.com people can search by state for farms that allow for room and board for tourists, though none currently exist in Denver. Additionally, the Colorado Heritage and Agritourism Committee works to celebrate Colorados agricultural heritage, but has not established visible agritourism within Denver (District Plan, 2016).
As shown in the National Register of Historic Places, Denver suburbs have a rich history of hog and truck farms (farms that grow produce for market) through the 1900s. This historical trend makes sense, considering the United States was founded as an agrarian society that produced food in every nook and cranny of our towns (Nordahl, 2014, p. 7). In a promising development near Denver, the 140-year-old Bromley Koizuma-Hishinuma farm, in Brighton,


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
15
Colorado, was purchased by the city of Brighton and restored to function as an event center, agricultural education center, and a working honeybee farm (Mitchell, 2016). It is anticipated to open in 2017 (Brighton, 2011).
Real Estate and Agriculture
Real Estate development shapes the way tenants and homeowners are able to access local, fresh food. As urban sprawl continues to decrease the amount of farmland available (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014), developers can be more creative in integrating community agriculture into housing and commercial developments. There is value in collaboration for real estate developers: by working with chefs, farmers, restaurants, and homeowners, developers are able to create unique destinations that specifically cater to the desires of their clients while supporting sustainability and equity (Urban Land Institute, 2016). This is already being done in major cities across that nation. From New York to Texas to Denver, real estate projects have begun to incorporate Urban Agriculture into their developments (Urban Land Institute, 2016). Season Extension
The increased demand for extended season farmers markets across the nation means that farmers need to be able to cultivate produce earlier and grow later into the traditional growing seasons of four-season climates (Conner, Montri, Montri & Hamm, 2009). Season extension techniques, such as hoop houses and green houses, provide a solution for limited seasonal growth and allow farmers to add to their annual income by selling at extended farmers markets in their communities and extended CSA shares (Conner et al., 2009). A CSA share is a community supported agriculture share, meaning that investors give money to a farmer before the growing season to support production and in return get a share of the produce the farmer has each week during the cultivating season.


URBAN LAND POLICES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
16
Building and zoning codes can unintentionally create barriers for urban farmers to implement season extension techniques into their growing practices. Utah provides one example of progressive policy for season extension. In 2015, Utah created an exception to the municipal regulation requiring a building permit for a high tunnel (see Figure C3), which was defined as,
(a) is not a permanent structure; (b) is used for the keeping, storing, sale, or shelter of an agricultural commodity; and (c) has a: (i) metal, wood, or plastic frame; (ii) plastic, woven textile, or other flexible covering; and (iii) floor made of soil, crushed stone, matting, pavers, or a floating concrete slab. (Utah Code, 2015)
Locally, Wheat Ridge, Colorado has taken steps to update building codes in order to ease the restrictions surrounding hoop houses. Hoop houses must not exceed 400 square feet in floor area, and are not open to the general public, meaning they are still considered private property (Ordinance 1494, 2011). Extending the season has been shown to effectively increase farm sales and farm profits leading to enhanced urban farm viability and sustainability (Conner et al.,
2009).
Literature Review Summary
In summary, the literature shows that many possible options have been attempted around the country to support urban food production. Overall, there are several options that the City of Denver could consider implementing to create vibrant and sustainable Urban Agriculture within the City. The key drivers of any policy agenda concerning Urban Agriculture are city council support and public advocacy (Huang & Drescher, 2015) and every city is unique in its current economic status, stakeholder buy-in, and other variables. Therefore, the viability of policy implementation in Denver must be assessed to see if there is an open window for policy change at this point in time.


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
17
Methodology
To assess the potential viability of policy options in Denver, stakeholder feedback was collected and analyzed. The remainder of this paper focuses on the methods and results of that stakeholder engagement.
Research Questions
Stakeholder engagement was guided by two main research questions:
1. What is being done across the nation in cities similar to Denver to support affordable, sustainable food production within city limits?
2. What is the best policy that Denver could pursue to make farming viable within the city limits?
The literature review provided an initial screen to determine if policy options were likely to be effective. For example, property tax breaks are likely not sufficient to incentivize local farms to purchase urban land for farming. Each interviewee responded to questions about each policy in order to gain their expert opinion. Once a policy was selected to have the highest probability of success, multiple policy assessment tools were used to analyze the likelihood of that policy having enough support to be implemented. This was done through a stakeholder assessment, a policy stream analysis for local implementation, a force field analysis, and a messaging analysis.
Data Collection
Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in Denver, as identified by the client. These laid the groundwork for the stakeholder assessment that needed to be done for the multiple streams assessment in the end, and also informed the messaging analysis for the selected policy. A list of eight questions was compiled to evaluate each local


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
18
stakeholders buy-in for each of the six suggested policy interventions. Interviews were coded for key themes to support one of the propositions. These key themes will inform the researcher about which policy intervention to pursue. Propositions are as follows:
P0- There is no preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
PI Tax incentives are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
P2- Public Lands are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
P3- Agritourism/education is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
P4- Land Trusts are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
P5- Food and Real Estate is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
P6- Permits for season extension techniques is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
Sampling Plan
Fifteen invitations were sent out to interviewees, with a goal of about half of the invitations being accepted. Interviews were scheduled with purposive sampling through the recommendations of the client. Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and were coded for key themes. Emphasis was placed on measures of success and policy impact.
Validity and Reliability
Considering the specific nature of the case, validity and reliability were a challenge. History and maturation are both threats to validity that exist in this research. The interview questions are an instrument that can be replicated, and therefore add to the strength of the validity. In order to control for confounding variables, all participants will be from the same


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
19
region (Denver), and work in the same field (agriculture). While this limits generalizability, it controls for confounding factors. Additionally, there was only one person coding the interviews. The results of the coded interviews could be stronger if another person coded the interviews as well, and the codes were checked for intercoder reliability. While there were more stakeholders who could have been interviewed, many of the interviewees described similar sentiments towards each of the policies. The point of saturation may not have been met completely, but key themes were recurrent throughout multiple interviews.
Data Analysis
Interviews were recorded and transcribed in order to ensure accuracy. Each relevant statement from an interview was coded according to the code form to assess the positive, neutral, or negative information regarding each policy. The full code form is provided in Appendix B. The code form seeks to code statements in support of a policy only as it addresses the viability and financial sustainability of urban farming. Other social benefits that may be gained from a policy were not coded as part of this study. The policy that is coded with the highest percentage of positive statements from interview transcriptions was selected to be analyzed further.
Multiple policy assessment tools were used to analyze the likelihood of that policy having enough support to be implemented. Current trends in support and opposition were analyzed, using Hunger Free Colorados findings from their 2016 survey regarding citizen support for food security initiatives and the 2016 findings from the Department of Agriculture of Colorado Attitudes on Agriculture research. All potential stakeholders, from farmers to people enrolled in Community Shared Agriculture programs to citizens who eat and vote in Denver, was labeled as strongly opposed, opposed, neutral, in favor, or strongly in favor. Additionally, the analysis helped the client to assess the viability of the policy being successful in the current


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
20
social and political environment. Analysis included a stakeholder assessment, a policy stream analysis for local implementation, a force field analysis, and a messaging analysis. The author collected evidence to support the selected propositions through the multiple streams theory, which looks at the problem stream, the political stream, the policy stream, and the policy entrepreneurs to determine the policy window and potential policy output.
Results
Interviews were conducted with seven stakeholders in the Denver Urban Farming community. Overall, 34% of codes were negative, 15% were neutral, and 51% were positive. Neutral codes were not considered to be in support or against a policy. Neutral codes were applied when statements included facts, or suggested the interviewee did not know enough about the policy to comment. Each policy had close to the same amount of input, meaning there were roughly the same number of statements coded for each policy (i.e. interviewees had as much to say about Proposition 1 as they did every other Proposition). The results from interview coding provide evidence to support Proposition 6, which would allow for farmers to obtain permits for season extension techniques such as greenhouses and hoop houses, as the preferred policy intervention for Denver for the stakeholders who were interviewed. For complete results, see Appendix C, Table Cl.
The following section summarizes the relevant findings for each proposition.
P0- There is no preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
There is evidence to suggest that there is a preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The feedback for each policy ranged from 37.5% positive to 83% positive, with Policy 6 having the most support. Therefore, the research shows that there is a preferred policy intervention for Urban Agriculture in Denver.


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
21
PI- Tax incentives are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
There is no evidence to support that tax incentives are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 24% of the statements made regarding tax incentives were positive while 52% were negative. Negative feedback included statements that suggested that tax incentives would not provide enough financial benefit in the current land market, and that tax incentives would benefit hobby farmers more than they would help career farmers.
P2- Public lands are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
There is no evidence to support public lands are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 47% of the statements made regarding public lands were positive, which mirrored the 47% of comments that were negative. Neutral comments comprised 6% of the coded statements. Often, interviewees brought up the benefits that could be gained from farming on Denver Public Schools land, but the City of Denver does not have control over that land and therefore is unable to propose policy to make that possible.
P3- Agritourism/education is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
There is no evidence to support that agritourism is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 61% of the statements made regarding agritourism were positive while 23% were negative. Neutral comments comprised 16% of the coded statements. Here, many interviewees brought up the challenges of farming and simultaneously educating or entertaining. For example, raised beds must have bigger walkways


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
22
so that tourist do not destroy the crops, and time spent educating is time spent away from production.
P4- Land Trusts are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
There is no evidence to support that land trusts are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 40% of the statements made regarding land trusts were positive while 38% were negative. Neutral comments comprised 22% of the coded statements. Interviewees often cited other land trusts as examples, but were not certain that they could work in Denver.
P5- Food and Real Estate is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
There is no evidence to support that real estate/food projects are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 37.5% of the statements made regarding real estate/food projects were positive while 37.5% were negative. Neutral comments comprised 25% of the coded comments. While most interviewees agreed that it was overall a good idea for citizens to be able to grow their own food, they did not see this policy as having a large impact on the city, overall.
P6- Permits for season extension techniques is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture
There is evidence to suggest that permits for season extension are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 83% of the statements made regarding permits for season extension were positive, while 7% were negative. Neutral comments comprised 10% of the coded comments. Policy 6 has the highest percentage of positive codes and the lowest percentage of negative codes. The following sections of this


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
23
paper will explore the likelihood of the viability of a policy to implement permits for season extension.
Multiple Streams Analysis
In order to assess the viability of implementation of permits for season extension techniques, a policy stream analysis was conducted. This process informs the client on the feasibility of passing policy related to permits for season extension techniques. The Multiple Streams Analysis method was adopted to fit the needs of this research, and broke down the possibility of an open policy window to community buy-in, political stream, and the policy stream (see Appendix C, Figure Cl) (Protopsaltis, 2011). The section of this paper labeled, The Issue details the problem stream, therefore it is not discussed here.
Community
When assessing the current attitude that Denver community members hold towards policies that promote Urban Agriculture and food security, there are two essential sources to analyze. The first is the Colorado Public Attitudes on Agriculture survey, which was most recently conducted in 2016 by the Colorado Department of Agriculture (Chriestenson, Martin, ThilmanyMcFadden, Sullins, & Jablonski, 2016). Surveys were sent out online, and completed by 1,000 Coloradans in proportions that reflect Colorado race, income, and gender demographics. The report details that more than one third of Coloradans grow their own food, to some extent (p. 10). This suggests that at least one third of Coloradans might support policies that help people grow their own food. Additionally, about 38% of respondents said that they prefer to buy products grown and harvested in Colorado over other locations (p. 15), which suggests that they would support a policy that would increase the amount of food grown in Colorado. About 43% of respondents said they would buy more local vegetables, depending on


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
24
price (p. 17), also suggesting the respondents would support a policy that would increase the amount of food grown in the state.
Another source of information comes from Hunger Free Colorado, which is a nonprofit in Denver that addresses hunger issues across the state. A poll of 400 registered voters in Colorado was conducted through telephone interviews in 2016. The results show that four out of seven, about 57%, voters feel that the government is doing too little on the issue of hunger, which suggests that voters would support government policy to increase local food production to combat hunger. Additionally, more than half of voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate who prioritizes hunger (p. 2). Therefore, the mood of the state seems to support a policy for season extension permits.
Politics
There is currently evidence to suggest that there is political support for a policy that allows for permits to use structures that extend growing seasons. The Mayor, Michael B. Hancock, has approved the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Councils strategic priority called City Land, City Food, which aims to identify ways that Denver can increase urban food production. Additionally, the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council was created as part of the Mayors commission, therefore Mayor Hancock may support a policy to support urban farmers in Denver. However, at this point, there is no identified champion on Denvers City Council that has advocated for this issue for urban farmers.
Policy
The policy aspect of the analysis is the most ambiguous. While a method has been identified, permits for season extension, there remain many questions about the details on the policy. Current Denver building code requires that a structure be under eight feet tall and 200


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
25
square feet in area to be considered a temporary structure, and therefore not qualified for needing any permitting. The structure can also not be covered for longer than six months without requiring a permit and more intensive review (Goldhammer, 2017). Both Denvers Zoning Department and Building Department will need to be engaged in order to permit season extension practices within the city.
Force Field Analysis
A Force Field Analysis of the political and social environment was completed in order to understand and strategize for optimal support to pass season extension policy. Force Field Analysis was done to help identify factors that need to be addressed and monitored for the policy to be successful (Lewin, 1951). The Force Field Analysis considers those who are strongly opposed, those who are moderately opposed, those who are neutral, those who are moderately in favor, and those who are strongly in favor. Each stakeholder was rated as strongly opposed, moderately opposed, neutral, moderately in favor, or strongly in favor (see Appendix C, Figure Cl).
While there are many identified parties in support of a potential policy, there are also key stakeholders whose level of support is unknown. Those parties include: Registered Neighborhood Organizations (RNOs) across Denver; the Inter neighborhood coalition (INC); public safety advocates; Historic Preservation Advocates; the Department of Community Planning and Development; the Mayor; and City Council.
Messaging Analysis
There remains a barrier in crafting messaging around the policy at this point since the specific details of the policy are still not clear. The more specific the policy is, the easier the messaging is to craft for the populations that are moderately in favor, uncertain, and strongly


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
26
opposed. It is probable that messaging does not need to be crafted for those strongly in favor, since they are already in support. However, consistent messaging may be helpful to create clarity.
From the results of the Force Field Analysis, themes emerge that suggest which stakeholders are strongly in favor of a policy that allows permits for season extension practices on urban agricultural land, and which are strongly opposed. See Appendix C, Table C2 for more detail.
Discussion
The results show that the majority of feedback regarding the six policies proposed was positive, however stakeholders do have concerns about the impact of each individual policy. While all had some negative feedback, the policy regarding permits for season extension techniques received the fewest negative codes, resulting in the lowest percentage of negative codes, and the highest percentage of positive codes. Some stakeholders called this policy low hanging fruit, in that the return on investment for the amount of energy that would be needed to pass such a policy is low and the profit impact for the farmers would be meaningful. Season extension would give farmers an extra month on each end of the season to make profit, meaning they could sell their produce to customers, CSA members, and at farmers markets two extra months out of the year. Currently, stakeholders report that the permit process is unequipped to meet the needs of farmers. Hoop houses and greenhouses are required to meet permit regulations that are unnecessary for the stability of such structures, and tailored more for permanent sheds or garages. Therefore, a proper permit process for season extension would make such techniques a more feasible option for urban farmers.


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
27
While there were not many parties identified as oppositional to this policy, it would behoove the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council and the Denver Manager of Food System Development to strategize messaging in order to persuade stakeholders to support the policy. A cost/benefit analysis may be one way to overcome major opposition to this policy, as it would show the return on investment for the policy implementation. Additional messaging strategies can be found in Appendix C, Table C2.
Limitations
There are several limitations of this study. One limitation is the number of people interviewed due to time constraints. A small sample of stakeholders were interviewed for this project, but many other farmers in Denver could be interviewed in order to increase confidence in the results of this study. Another limitation was the constrained policy options that were outlined for the interviewee. There may be a seventh or eighth policy option that could have a greater impact on Urban Agriculture in Denver that was not considered. The scope of the problem was also a limitation. While permits for season extension may help farmers be more viable and financially stable, it is unlikely that this is the only action that needs to be taken for urban farming to be completely self-sufficient and economically profitable for farmers.
Moving forward, it would benefit the client to continue to get feedback, either through interviews, site visits, or surveys, to validate the results. The Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council should do a needs assessment in order to understand the full impact of this policy. Therefore, a more exact cost/benefit analysis could be created to show the value of the policy. Recommendations
There are multiple recommendations that come from these findings. The first is to continue analysis that allows the Manager of Food Systems Development to better understand the


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
28
discrepancies of current zoning and building codes in order to form a specific policy to permit season extension techniques for urban farmers.
The results of this study suggest that some of the current needs of urban agricultural farmers can be addressed by passing legislation that allows for season extension techniques within the city limits through permits. Further analysis of the viability and probability of such a policy being supported suggests that the City of Denver should recommend a policy to encourage season extension through a new permit with relaxed requirements. Therefore, at this moment, it is recommended that the City of Denver and the Denver Manager of Food Systems Development continue to pursue the possibility of such a policy being brought forward.
Conclusion
The implementation of policy that would allow for season extension techniques for urban farmers in the city of Denver would have a lasting impact on the farmers ability to run a financially stable and viable business. This spring, multiple hail storms threatened the crops of urban farmers in Denver, Colorado. Not only do season extension techniques add a month to each end of a farmers growing season, it protects young crops from irreversible hail damage. Farmers who are able to start growing seedlings in greenhouses are able to begin production up to a month earlier in Colorado. This means that the farmer is able to offer CSA shares and sell at farmers markets a month earlier, adding an entire month of income to their salary. They are also able to protect from frost in the early fall, which adds another month of income to their salary due to produce grown in the extended season.
In conclusion, season extension not only adds essential income to a farmers annual salary, it is a policy that is supported by the farmers who are growing in the city. Through the multiple streams analysis and the force field analysis, the City of Denver should be confident it


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
29
has the public and political support to pass a policy that would permit season extension techniques and have a large, positive impact on urban farming.


URBAN LAND POLICES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
30
References
Angelo, B., & Goldstein, B. (2016). Denvers food system 2016: A baseline report for planning purposes only. Retrieved from: www.denvergov.org/foodplan.
Becker, E. (2002). 2 farm acres lost per minute, study says. New York Times, 4.
Belden, J. (1979). New directions in farm, land and food policies: A time for state and local action [USA], Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies.
Big agriculture vs. big education. (2012). Beef, Retrieved from https://0-search-proquest-com, skyline.ucdenver.edu/docview/1009042709?accountid=14506
Brighton, Colorado. (2011) Phases of project. http://brightonco.gov/929/Phases-of-project
Brown, K. H., & Jameton, A. L. (2000). Public health implications of Urban Agriculture.
Journal of Public Health Policy, 20-39.
Bunce, S., & Aslam, F. C. (2016). Land trusts and the protection and stewardship of land in Canada: Exploring non-governmental land trust practices and the role of urban community land trusts. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 25.
Burch, J. (2014). Planning for Green and Healthy Chicago Neighborhoods, http://www.cmap. illinois.gov/programs-and-resources/lta/ghn-chicago
Chriestenson, C, Martin, M, ThilmanyMcFadden, D, Sullins, M, & Jablonski, B. (2016). Public attitudes about agriculture in Colorado. The Colorado Department of Agriculture.
Clark, K. H., & Nicholas, K. A. (2013). Introducing urban food forestry: A multifunctional
approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 28, 1649-1669.
Brock, A. & Shelton, W. (2015). City Food, City Land. Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council.


URBAN LAND POLICES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
31
Coleman-Jense, A., Rabbitt, M., Gregory, C., Singh, A. (2016). Household Food Security in the United States in 2015. Economic Research Report No. ERR-215. United States Department of Agriculture.
Conner, D. S., Montri, A. D., Montri, D. N., & Hamm, M. W. (2009). Consumer demand for local produce at extended season farmers' markets: guiding farmer marketing strategies. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(4), 251-259.
Daniels, T. L. (1997). Where does cluster zoning fit in farmland protection? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 129-137.
District Plan. (March, 2016). Adams County, Colorado.
Finley, R. (2013). Ron Finley: A guerilla gardener in South Central LA. TED Talks.
Goetz, A. (2013). Suburban sprawl or urban centres: Tensions and contradictions of smart growth approaches in Denver, Colorado. Urban Studies, 50, 2178-2195.
Goldhammer, D. (2017, May 21). Email interview.
Huang, D., & Drescher, M. (2015). Urban crops and livestock: The experiences, challenges, and opportunities of planning for Urban Agriculture in two Canadian provinces. Land Use Policy, 43, 1-14.
Hunger Free Colorado. (2016) Poll: Colorado Voters Care About Hunger. https://www. hungerfireecolorado.org/colorado-voters-care-about-hunger/
LaBelle, J. M., & Watson, A. E. (1997). An introduction to planning and land use management in the United States, with comparisons to Canada and England. Environments, 24, 66.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science : Selected Theoretical Papers.
Lieberknecht, K. (2009). Public access to US conservation land trust properties: Results from a national survey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75, 479-491.


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
32
Mitchell, M. (2016, December 14). Restored 140-year-old farm in Brighton digs into
agrotourism. The Denver Post, retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/2016/
12/14/brighton-farm-agrotouri sm/
Mougeot, L. J. (2000). Urban Agriculture : definition, presence, potentials and risks. Growing cities, growing food: Urban Agriculture on the policy agenda, 1-42.
Nair, P. K. (2007). The coming of age of agroforestry. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87, 1613-1619.
Nelson, A. C. (1992). Preserving prime farmland in the face of urbanization: Lessons from Oregon. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 467-488.
Nordahl, D. (2014). Public Produce: Cultivating Our Parks, Plazas, and Streets for Healthier Cities. Island Press.
Ordinance 1494. (2011). Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Potocnik-Slavic, I., & Schmitz, S. (2013). Farm tourism across Europe. European Countryside, 5, 265-274.
Protopsaltis, S. (2011). Multiple Streams Framework. In Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Second Edition. New York, New York: Published online.
Svaldi, A. (2017). Jeffco leads the pack of Colorado properties increasing in value in 2016. The Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/17/colorado-property-value-increase-2016/
Rotenberk, L. (2012). Chicagos urban farm district could be the biggest in the nation. Retrieved April, 23, 2017.
Urban Farming Assessment Act of 2013, S.B. 122, 197th Cong. (2013). Retrieved from https://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0122.htm


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
33
Urban Land Institute. (2016). Cultivating Development: Trends and Opportunities at the Intersection of Food and Real Estate. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). 2012 Census of Agriculture: U.S. Summary and State
Data. Volume 1. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume _l,_Chapter_l_US/usvl .txt
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015) Summary Report: 2012 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, http://www.nrcs. usda.gov/technical/nri/12summary
Utah code. (2015). 10-9a-525 High tunnels Exemption from municipal regulation.
Yuen, J. (2014). City farms on CLTs: How community land trusts are supporting urban agriculture. Land Lines, 1-9.


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
34
Appendix A Interview Protocol
Hi (name), thank you again for your time. Is now still a good time for us to talk for about 30 minutes? Before we get started, I just have to go over a few things with you for the purpose of informed consent. Participation in this interview for research purposes is voluntary, and you are free to end participation at any point. There will be no monetary compensation for your participation. By continuing in the interview you are agreeing to participate in the research being conducted by me for the University of Colorado at Denver. With your permission, I will audiotape and take notes during the interview. The recording is to accurately document the information you provide, and will be used for transcription purposes. If you choose not to be audiotaped, I will take notes instead. If you agree to being audiotaped but feel uncomfortable at any time during the interview, I can turn off the recorder at your request. Or if you don't wish to continue, you can stop the interview at any time. I expect to conduct only one interview; however, follow-ups may be needed for added clarification. If so, I will contact you by mail/phone to request this. Do you have any questions or objections?
Did you have a chance to look over the two documents I sent?
If yes: Great! That will provide a framework for our discussion.
If no: Okay, let me fill you in a little bit on what I am working on.
I am collaborating with Blake Angelo, the Denver Food Systems manager, to analyze policy options in the city that may make Urban Agriculture a viable, financially stable option. Weve analyzed research nationally, along with looking at local work being done by the Sustainable Food Policy Council and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. From there, weve identified six potential policies, which Im looking to hear your feedback on today. Well be going through


URBAN LAND POLICES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
35
each policy and Im looking for your initial thoughts, along with the impact that policy could have on the sustainability and viability of a farmer to be successful in Denver.
1. Provide property tax incentives that reduce property tax on working agricultural lands
a. For each policy:
i. What is the viability of food growth for this solution? What impact will this have on the ability to grow food?
ii. What local factors shape the viability of this solution?
iii. What resources are needed in order to make this solution viable?
iv. What are the tradeoffs for using one solution as opposed to another? Or do we need to combine aspects of multiple solutions?
2. Provide free land leases for agricultural on public lands
3. Finance land trust(s) to preserve urban farm land
4. City manages historically designated farms and hires contract farmers
5. Provide economic development incentives, like low cost loans, to developers integrating farms into projects
6. Season extension- allowing permits for hoop houses and techniques to extend the season Overall, which stands out to you? Or which combination of policies?
While were exploring the right policy or policies to advance, a successful policy change campaign will likely require advocacy outside of the city to mobilize supporters and push efforts. Therefore, were wondering how much support does Denver have from key stakeholders (consumers, farmers, community members, CSA participants, etc) to advocate for this sort of policy? In other words, would stakeholders be willing to mobilize and organize to support an


URBAN LAND POLICES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
36
Urban Agriculture policy? Do the policy changes we are contemplating provide enough return on investment for mobilizing the community of stakeholders?
Those are all of the questions I have, is there anything else youd like to add? Any questions you have?
From here, Ill be compiling and analyzing the data. When Ive finished with the project, Ill be sure to send you a copy of the results. Have a great day!


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
37
Appendix B Code Form
Positive
1. Speaks of individuals supporting policy option
2. Speaks of policy option being a good idea
3. Discusses positive impact a policy would have on amount of food produced
4. Discusses positive impact a policy would have on financial viability of farming in Denver
5. Mentions policy impacting affordability
6. Speaks of benefits that could be derived from policy
7. Speaks of people who would benefit from policy
8. Speaks of organizations in the city focusing on similar work
9. Mentions government support for urban farmers
10. Discusses potential success of policy when paired with another policy
11. Speaks of other cities/organizations doing similar work with positive impact
12. Speaks to a positive payout for the amount of effort needed to pass a policy Neutral
1. Discusses tradeoffs of a policy
2. Discusses facts of current situation regarding Urban Agriculture
3. Discusses uncertainty around a policy
4. Speaks of existing policies addressing Urban Agriculture
5. Speaks of necessary parameters for policy to be successful
6. Discusses necessary steps to preserve land for produce, not marijuana


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
38
7. Mentions impact for hobby farmers, but not for-profit farmers
8. Talks for use of DPS for farming on public land (instead of city land)
Negative
1. Speaks of individuals opposing policy option
2. Speaks of policy option being a bad idea
3. Discusses negative impact a policy would have on amount of food produced
4. Discusses negative impact a policy would have on financial viability of farming in Denver
5. Speaks of damage that could be caused by policy
6. Speaks of people who would be harmed by policy
7. Speaks of policy addressing a nonexistent issue
8. Speaks of organizations in the city doing opposing work
9. Discusses challenges of policies in urban (as opposed to peri-urban or rural) area
10. Mentions challenges of retaining farmers or having enough farmers
11. Speaks of other cities/organizations doing similar work with negative impact/failure to succeed
12. Speaks to negative payout for the amount of effort needed to pass a policy


URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
39
Appendix C
Table Cl Number of Total Coded Comments Results
Negative Neutral Positive Total
Policy 1 9 (60%) 3 (20%) 3 (20%) 15 (14%)
Policy 2 10(47.5%) 1 (5%) 10 (47.5%) 21 (20%)
Policy 3 4 (20%) 2 (10%) 14 (70%) 20 (19%)
Policy 4 4(20%) 6 (30%) 10 (50%) 20 (19%)
Policy 5 7(44%) 4 (25%) 5 (31%) 16(15%)
Policy 6 2 (14%) 0 (0%) 12 (86%) 14 (13%)
Total 36 (34%) 16(15%) 54 (51%) 106 (100%)
Note: This table shows the number of total coded comments throughout all interviews that were negative, neutral, or positive towards each policy. In parentheses are the overall percentages of coded comments for that policy with that stance (ie, Policy 1, Negative).


URBAN LAND POLICES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
40
Table C2
Strategic Messaging Analysis for P6
Position Desired State Who Message/Action Item
Strongly In Champion: Farmers Create consistent messaging from
Favor Advocates and Organizes Health Advocates RMFU DUG Sustainability Advocates Denver Manager of Food Systems Development and the Office of Economic Development for advocacy
Strongly Not opposed. Building Codes Motivated be a cost/benefit
Opposed Silent Zoning Codes analysis; motivated by social responsibility
Weak In Favor Educated to become Strong In Favor DPS Opportunities for students; discuss funding opportunities
Uncertain Discover opinion/ Educate them See above Develop educational literature on the issue
Figure Cl. Diagram of Multiple Streams Framework (Protopsaltis, 2011).


URBAN LAND POLICES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION
41
Force Field Analysis
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.**
///


&
A?
A



-1.5
C f
dv >5?
~ ^ /=// cAU .# j? j j> *





4r X-C-

KT

^ *cp
& A)
A
V

f[
Figure C2. Each stakeholders buy-in is graphed on a -2 to 2 scale, with -2 being strongly opposed, and 2 being strongly in favor.
Figure C3. Image of a high tunnel. Image from Simplified Building,
https://www.simplifiedbuilding.com/projects/hoop-house-and-high-tunnel-greenhouse-designs


GRANT OF PERMISSIONS
In reference to the following title(s):
Washington, T. Urban Agricultural Policies for Denver Food Production. 2017.
I, IQjl^ter 0- bOoSVu myhro______________________, as copyright holder or licensee
with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.
i. Bl/iOtj /W\$da ________, as client of the copyright holder
affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.
This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image- and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software.
This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial
7iWn
Date ot Signature
Tavlor Washington
Printed or Typed Name of Copyright Holder
_____________________
Signature of Copyright Holders Client Date of Signature
Blake Angelo
Printed or Typed Name of Copyright Holders Client
Permission form also available at: https://ucdenverdata.formstack.com/forms/capstone_repository_permission Attention:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. Mariner Auraria Library 11100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204 P: 303-556-5817 | matthew.mariner ucdenver.edu


Full Text

PAGE 1

Running Head: URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 1 Urban Agricultural Policies for Denver Food Production Taylor Washington University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs This clientbased project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colorado Summer 2017

PAGE 2

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 2 This client-based project was completed on behalf of the Manager of Food Systems Development at the City of Denver and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Dr. Wendy Bolyard and second faculty rea der Dr. C hris Weible This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions t o include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.

PAGE 3

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary .4 Introduction. 5 Literature Review and Statement of Purpose...7 Methodology..14 Results....17 Discussion. 23 Recommendations..25 Conclusion.25 References 27 Appendices.30

PAGE 4

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 4 Since 2002, the United States has developed 8.5 million acres of farmland, removing a large portion of food producing lands in America (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015). At the same time, the majority of the food produced has been further concentrated in a few states, leaving peop le dependent on an industrial food system which they do not come into contact with or see flourishing in their own communities (Nordahl, 2014). Urban Agriculture is one way to create a more diversified and equitable food system, however, many cities do not currently have strong policies to support viable, financiall y sustainable Urban Agriculture (Brown & Jameton, 2000). This study aims to discover the most effective policy that the city of Denver, Colorado could implement in order to support urban food production. The findings inform the Manager of Food Systems Development at the City of Denver the client for this project, on which policies might be worthwhile to pursue. Six potential policy interventions to support viable, financially sustainable Urban Ag riculture are analyzed in this study. They are: 1) tax incentives, 2) use of public land, 3) use of land trusts, 4) agritourism and education, 5) real estate-food projects, and 6) permits for season extension. Individual interviews were conducted with seve n participants who were identified by the client as key st akeholders in Urban Agriculture in Denver. Interviews were coded for major themes to determine the policy the stakeholders identified as having the most benefit for urban food production. Then, the results were analyzed using these methods: a multiple streams analysis was completed to understand the window of opportunity for this policy; a force field analysis was completed to identify the strength of support or opposition from key stakeholders; and, a messaging analysis was completed to identify communication methods needed to persuade stakeholders to support a potential policy. One key finding emerged from this research and analysis: revised Zoning permits for season extension is the policy option that

PAGE 5

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 5 would most impact the viability and financial sustainability for farmers in the city of Denver From these findings, two recommendations are being offered to Denvers Manager of Food Systems Development. First, collaborate with the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council to create a policy working group that advocates for season extension permits in Denver. Second, conduct research on changes to the zoning and/or building codes that fix discrepancies and clarify season extension options. If implemented, these recommendations will lead to mo re effective policy addressing Urban Agriculture concerns in the Denver area. Urban Agriculture, policy, Denver, food systems

PAGE 6

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 6 Concerns over food production and growing urban centers have existed since the Industrial Revolution, notably dating back to the research of Malthus, a Protestant minister and social theorist, whose research found that the exponential growth of population could not be matched by the linear rate of growth of food production (Brown & Jameton, 2000). Recently, however, new challenges face farmers who are trying to continue to feed the growing urban population due to the lack of policies addressing not only population growth, but a decrease in the number of farms in and near urban areas like Denver (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014). In the global North, few cities have integrative policies around Urban Agriculture that allow for farmers to be competitive in the marketplace and sell locally within the city they farm. A mixture of issues could be at the center of this. One possible reason in Denver is the 25% increase in property values, resulting in the inability for farmers to purchase or rent a plot of land large enough to profit from its agricultural production (Svaldi, 2017). Another may be limitations to the level of community support and limitations on the ability of city residents to purchase local food, which tends to be more expensive. Increased prope rty values may also be limiting customers ability to pay for higher food costs. Rural areas have traditionally been used for agriculture, and more affordable land remains in rural areas that could be used for food production. Even so, Urban Agriculture has additional value in community economic development, food security for growing city populations, and the preservation of green space (Brown & Jameton, 2000). Urban individuals may choose to grow food in their yards, porches, or window sills to be able to access fresh produce locally. Additionally, Urban Agriculture allows for abandoned city lands and buildings

PAGE 7

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 7 to be given a productive, healthy use by growing food for the community (Brown & Jameton, 2000). These benefits will be discussed in depth in the literature review below. This research focused on operational farms that are nonprofit organizations or private agricultural companies in Denver, Colorado whose primary mission is to grow food. This research aimed to address the gaps in research concerning viable, sustainable urban farming. While seemingly obvious, most urban food production requires land and there is often a pervasive barrier for farmers to be able to acquire enough land for Urban Agriculture. In some cases, land is leased or pr ovided by the city, with yearly renewal processes, but that land is often reclaimed when it is needed for housing or commercial development (Brown & Jameton, 2000). Public policy addresses stable land access to encourage farmers to consider Urban Agriculture Urban Agriculture is one way to take control of ones environment and be able to provide for oneself instead of depending on Big Agthe practice of corporate farming, which has a history of neglecting workers and sacrificing quality for profit (Big agr iculture vs. big education, 2012). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one in eight people in Colorado struggle with hunger and one in five children are food insecure, meaning they may not know when or where they will get their next meal (Cole man Jense, Rabbitt, Gregory & Singh, 2015). Selfreliance through Urban Agriculture is often proposed as one method for addressing food insecurity through increased household and local food production. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze potential policies that address the viability and sustainability of Urban Agriculture and that have been successfully implemented around the country in cities similar to Denver, Colorado. The Denver Manager of Food Systems Development was interested in gatherin g these data in order to assess which policies they might

PAGE 8

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 8 be able to successfully advocate for moving forward. The intention was to assess whether or not Denver has the stakeholder and political support needed to implement a similar Urban Agriculture policy in order to support food security and food production within the city limits. This capstone is organized into eight sections as follows: literature review, methods, results, discussion, recommendations, conclusion, references, and appendices. Overall, the literature demonstrates that there are many policy options to encourage an increase in urban farming within city limits. The review is organized into seven sections as follows: an overview of the client, property tax incentives, use of public lands, land trusts, agri tourism, commercial development, and permits for season extension. Each policy was identified by the client as potentially viable and in need of assessment in regards to the level of support from stakeholders in Denver. The client for this project is the Denver Manager of Food Systems Development, who works within the Office of Economic Development. Denvers Office of Economic Development has expressed interest in analyzing the potential for policy to be implemented that addresses the issue of affordable land use for Urban Agriculture within the city limits. While there are many definitions of Urban Agr iculture in general Urban Agriculture refers to both commercial and noncommercial activities, within or near a city center, that produce food and non-food items to serve an urban area (Mougeot, 2000). The product of this research benefits both Denvers Manager of Food Systems Development and the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council (SFPC). The purpose of the Denver SFPC is to educate, raise awareness and build support for our food system; advise the city on laws, policies and programs; and promote food security and

PAGE 9

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 9 foster a Sustainable Food System (Bylaws, 2011). The SFPCs 2017 Policy Platform identified increasing food production through land access as a top priority. In a 2015 policy brief, the SPFC stated that the goal of a land access policy would be to Preserve land dedicated to urban food production through zoning changes, public land/green space policy, finan cial incentives, landscaping standards, the formation of land banks and land trusts, and other policies ( Brock & Shelton, 2015, p. 1). This capstone project aimed to inform policies that could be implemented in order to further viable farming production within city limits. The Denver Manager of Food Systems Development was hired by the Office of Economic Development to align efforts and lead planning efforts to create a more vibrant, robust and sustainable food system for future generations of Denver residents (Angelo & Goldstein, 2016, p. 5). Specifically, this literature review will look at property tax incentives, use of public land, land trusts used in perpetuity, farming tourism/education, real estate projects, and permits for season extension. In the early 2000s, the idea of smart growth came to Denver. In general, this idea aims to integrate mixed -use and transit oriented urban centers and has seen results with lower loss of farmland in cities (Goetz, 2013). One of the ways that governments have encouraged farmers to buy land within the city is to provide them with tax incentives for the purchase of land for food production (Nelson, 1992). State and local governments have recognized the impact that urban sprawl is h aving on the green space of their municipalities and are looking to take action to protect or preserve some form of nature within a city. Each year, more than three million acres of U.S. farmland are destroyed to urban sprawl and commercial development, which may have alarming impacts on air quality and food access in the future (Belden, 1979). In 2002, a study

PAGE 10

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 10 was released that suggested the United States loses two acres per minute of agricultural land (Becker, 2002). All states currently offer some form of incentive for farmland, but the ability for farms to remain viable and financially sustainable is still a challenge (Daniels, 1997). Therefore, while tax incentives provide some relief to urban farmers, current research suggests it is not enough to keep farms viable. In 2012, Salt Lake City, Utah passed SB 122, which allows for land to be assessed at lower property tax rates than the land is used to grow crops for sale at a profit, as long as production is greater than 50 percent of average production for similar land. Before Utahs passage of the Urban Farming Assessment Act (2012), tax incentives for farmland were based on the size of the land, not the amount of food produced on the land. However, tax incentives have existed since 1969 in Utah and had to be expanded upon in order to create stronger Urban Agriculture system s within the cities. Considering that there are tax incentives nationwide to encourage land use for agriculture, additional property tax incentives are likely needed to bring vibrant, sustainable farming into Denver. Another way cities have encouraged Urban Agriculture is by partnering with their local departments o f Parks & Recreation or Open Space to establish farms on public property. Currently, only a handful of states provide the majority of the countrys fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains (Nordahl, 2014). One benefit of using public land for food produc tion is the diversification of locations where food is produced, which leads to a more resilient food system. Historically, cities have worked against people who were trying to grow food in public places. For example, in a TedTalk in 2013, Ron Finley talks about South Central Los Angeles giving him a citation for planting food along abandoned lots, traffic medians, and street curbs (Finley,

PAGE 11

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 11 2013). Over the past decade, cities have slowly begun to embrace new ideas, like food forests in public parks and perm its for people to farm on public lands. The addition of food to existing public spaces can provide more value to spaces that people already enjoy. Finley (2013) was working towards the creation of a food forest in the city of South Central. The con cept of urban food forests has grown out of the practice of agroforestry, which combines sustainable forestry and agricultural practices. Agroforestry has been known to offer opportunities to stop land degradation and provide agricultural services to low-income people (Nair, 2007). A food forest considers the potential role of perennial trees that produce food, such as pear trees and apple trees, in cities to augment urban sustainability through a multifunctional approach that combines Urban Agriculture and forestry. A study of fruit and vegetable consumption for city residents showed that there is significant untapped potential to meet the recommended fruit intake for all residents in a major city (Clark & Nicholas, 2013). For example, a case study in Burli ngton, Vermont found that there are 60 species of food plants that could be integrated into city planning of public spaces to help alleviate food insecurity (Clark & Nicholas, 2013). Another possible method for supporting Urban Agricul ture is a land trust. Land trusts are comprised of lands that have a mandate that focuses on the preservation and conservation of urban land through community identified practices (Bunce & Aslam, 2016, p. 24). Land trusts exist to serve many different missions and may be small or very large, so long as they are committed to preserving the original state of the land. For example, the Nature Conservancy has assets and a budget that compete with the worlds largest environmental nonprofits, while other lan d trusts are individually run with almost no budget (Lieberknecht, 2009). Land that is

PAGE 12

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 12 protected through a land trust can be used for a variety of different reasons, including protecting natural land, forests, waterways, historic landscapes, and working fa rms (Lieberknecht, 2009). Due to the decline in state and federal funding for land acquisitions, land trusts have worked to bridge the gap where there is a lack of protection for land preservation (Lieberknecht, 2009). In addition to public service work, land trust coalitions have lobbied for innovative funding programs and furthering sophisticated tools for planning and development (see the Land Trust Alliance for more information). Many trusts also supplement protections of greenways that were initiated b y government programs. In a few cases, local governments have made loans or operated as the bonding authority for incomegenerating projects that help establish land trusts within their city limits. These lands must maintain the conservation value of the p roject, but can be developed or partially sold so long as they remain protected (LaBelle & Watson, 1997). Community Land Trusts (CLTs), a subset of land trusts, exist all over the world. According to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a CLT is a nonprofit, community based corporation with a placebased membership, a democratically elected board, and a charitable commitment to the use and stewardship of land on behalf of the local population (as cited in Yuen, 2014, p. 3). In the past, CLTs have been used for affordable housing in places like Israel, India, and the United States. A benefit of the CLT model is that the ownership is shared by and for the community, so every action taken on the land is community defined and adaptable to changing conditions (Yuen, 2014). CLTs exist in different formats. For example, the Southside CLT (SCLT) in Cranston, Rhode Island is a 20acre farm leased through the state. SCLT manages the farm and encourages young farmers to start businesses by leasing out seven start-up plots at nominal rates. While the longterm ground lease can be challenging to draft and implement, there is greater security than

PAGE 13

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 13 fee-simple ownership. Fee-simple ownership charges for ownership rights to meet all mortgage payments and tax obligations. It allows for the greatest number of stakeholders to participate in communal garden projects. In Roxbury, Massachusetts, Dudley Neighbors Incorporated redeveloped a contaminated site into a 10,000-square-foot greenhouse. Participants are charged a small fee, which goes to a food-based nonprofit that handles the logistical part of programming and maintenance (Yuen, 2014). Increasing urban farm tourism and education may be another method for improving the viability and sustainability o f urban farms. One way to attract farming tourism and education in a city is to establish an Agricultural district, which is A mechanism to identify large areas of operating farms and take measures to keep them in operation, limiting extension of utilities and expansion of roads through them, especially by use of eminent domain ("condemnation") and protecting farm operations against "nuisance" complaints by nonfarmers ("right to farm" laws) (LaBelle & Watson, 1997, p. 66) In Chicago, municipal planners have designed the largest agricultural district in the nation as a part of Chicagos Department of Housing and Economic Developments Green Healthy Neighborhoods initiative. The City designated 13 square-miles that had been riddled with vacant lots and crumbling buildings to become a center for food production (Rotenberk, 2012). The goal of the district is to put the vacant land to use and create entrepreneurial and job opportunities. It will double as a tourist destination for people interested in farming and growing food (Rotenberk, 2012). A former railroad line forms the spine of the farm district, as it will be turned into a park with foot and bike trails, and importantly, farm stands for the new growers. The City

PAGE 14

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 14 of Chicago Plan Commission approved the 10 to 20 year project for the Green Healthy Neighborhoods Plan on March 20, 2014 (Burch, 2014). Other cities have tried creating farming districts, however, and failed. Chicago is hopeful because they are not suffering from an economic collapse, as Detroit and Cleveland were when they created farming districts. Chicagos farming district will incorporate housing, industry, and business. Additionally, Chicago has already seen success from two job training farms that already exist in the district, c alled Growing Home and Perry Street Farm (Rotenberk, 2012). As cities serve as a main hub for tourism within the United States, adding farm tourism options to popular destinations may augment profits for farmers within city limits. Farm tourism al lows farms to remain sustainable without making farmers dependent on government programs on a farm, wake up and milk cows, and attend a feast on farmto table foods served under a blooming orchard. Activities are family friendly and sport a pick-your-adventure setup that allows people to select an array of different experiences. Through the website farmstayus.com people can search by state for farms that allow for room and board for tourists, though none currently exist in Denver. Additionally, the Colorado Heritage and Agritourism Committee works to celebrate Colorados agricultural heritage, but has not established visible agritourism within Denver ( District P lan, 2016). As shown in the National Register of Historic Places, Denver suburbs have a rich history of hog and truck farms (farms that grow produce for market) through the 1900s. This historical trend makes sense, considering the United States was founded as an agrarian society that produced food in every nook and cranny of our towns (Nordahl, 2014, p. 7). In a promising development near Denver, the 140year -old Bromley Koizuma-Hishinuma farm, in Brighton,

PAGE 15

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 15 Colorado, was purchased by the city of Brighton and restored to function as an event center, agricultural education center, and a working honeybee farm (Mitchell, 2016). It is anticipated to open in 2017 (Brighton, 2011). Real Estate development shapes the way tenants and homeowners are able to access local, fresh food. As urban sprawl continues to decrease the amount of farmland available (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014), developers can be more creative in integrating community agriculture into housing and commercial developments. There is value in collaboration for real estate developers: by working with chefs, farmers, restaurants, and homeowners, developers are able to create unique destinations that specifically cater to the desires of their clients while supporting sustainability and equity (Urban Land Institute, 2016). This is already being done in major cities across that nation. From New York to Texas to Denver, real estate projects have begun to incorporate Urban Agriculture into their developments (Urban Land Institute, 2016). The increased demand for extended season farmers markets across the nation means that farmers need to be able to cultivate produce earlier and grow later into the traditional growing seasons of four-season climates (Conner, Montri, Montri & Hamm, 2009). Season extension techniques, such as hoop houses and green houses, provide a solution for limited seasonal growth and allow farmers to add to their annual income by selling at extended farmers markets in their communities and extended CSA shares (Conner et al., 2009). A CSA share is a community supported agriculture share, meaning that investors give money to a farmer before the growing season to support production and in return get a share of the produce the farmer has each week during the cultivating season.

PAGE 16

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 16 Building and zoning codes can unintentionally create barriers for urban farmers to implement season extension techniques into their growing practices. Utah provides one example of progress ive policy for season extension. In 2015, Utah created an exception to the municipal regulation requiring a building permit for a high tunnel (se e F igure C3 ), which was defined as, (a) is not a permanent structure; (b) is used for the keeping, storing, sale, or shelter of an agricultural commodity; and (c) has a: (i) metal, wood, or plastic frame; (ii) plastic, woven textile, or other flexible covering; and (iii) floor made of soil, crushed stone, matting, pavers, or a floating concrete slab. (Utah Code, 2015) Locally, Wheat Ridge, Colorado has taken steps to update building codes in order to ease the restriction s surrounding hoop houses. Hoop houses must not exceed 400 square feet in floor area, and are not open to the general public, meaning they are still considered private property (Ordinance 1494, 2011). Extending the season has been shown to effectively incr ease farm sales and farm profits leading to enhanced urban farm viability and sustainability ( Conner et al ., 2009) In summary, the literature shows that many possible options have been attempted around the country to support urban food production. Overall, there are several options that the City of Denver could consider implementing to create vibrant and sustainable Ur ban Agriculture within the City. The key drivers of any policy agenda concerning Urban Agriculture are city council support and public advocacy ( Huang & Dres cher, 2015) and every city is unique in its current economic status, stakeholder buy-in, and other variables. Therefore, the viability of policy implementation in Denver must be assessed to see if there is an open window for policy change at this point in time.

PAGE 17

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 17 To assess the potential viability of policy options in Denver, stakeholder feedback was collected and analyzed. The remainder of this paper focuses on the methods and results of that stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement was guided by two main research questions: 1. What is being done across the nation in cities similar to Denver to support affordable, sustainable food production within city limits? 2. What is the best policy that Denver could pursue to make farming viable within the city limits? The literature review provided an initial screen to determine if policy options were likely to be effective. For example, property tax breaks are likely not sufficient to incentivize local farms to purchase urban land for farming. Each interviewee responded to questions about each policy in order to gain their expert opinion. Once a policy was selected to have the highest probability of success, multiple policy assessment tools were used to analyze the likelihood of that policy having enough support to be implemented. This was done through a stakeholder assessment, a policy stream analysis for local implementation, a force field analysis, and a messaging analysis. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in Denver, as identified by the client. These laid the groundwork for the stakeholder assessment that needed to be done for the multiple streams assessment in the end, and also informed the messaging analysis for the selected policy. A list o f eight questions was compiled to evaluate each local

PAGE 18

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 18 stakeholders buy-in for each of the six suggested policy interventions. Interviews were coded for key themes to support one of the propositions. These key themes will inform the researcher about which policy intervention to pursue. Propositions are as follows: P0 There is no preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture P1 Tax incentives are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture P2 Public Lands are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture P3 Agritourism/education is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture P4 Land Trusts are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agric ulture P5 Food and Real Estate is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture P6 Permits for season extension techniques is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture Fifteen invitations were sent out to interviewees, with a goal of about half of the invitations being accepted. Interviews were scheduled with purposive sampling through the recommendations of the client. Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and were coded for key themes. Emphasis was placed on measures of success and policy impact. Considering the specific nature of the case, validity and reliability were a challenge. History and maturation are both threats to validity that exist in this research. The interview questions are an instrument that can be replicated, and therefore add to the strength of the validity. In order to control for confounding variables, all participants will be from the same

PAGE 19

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 19 region (Denver), and work in the same field (agriculture). While this limits generalizability, it controls for confounding factors. Additionally, there was only one person coding the interviews. The results of the coded interviews could be stronger if another person coded the interviews as well, and the codes were checked for intercoder reliability. While there were more stakeholders who could have been interviewed, many of the interviewees described similar sentiments towards each of the policies. The point of saturation may not have been met completely, but key themes were recurrent throughout multiple interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcribed in order to ensure accuracy. Each relevant statement from an interview was coded according to the code form to assess the positive, neutral, or negative information regarding each policy. The full cod e form is provided in Appendix B. The code form seeks to code statements in support of a policy only as it addresses the viability and financial sustainability of urban farming. Other social benefits that may be gained from a policy were not coded as part of this study. The policy that is coded with the highest percentage of positive statements from interview transcriptions was selected to be analyzed further. Multiple policy assessment tools were used to analyze the likelihood of that policy having enough support to be implemented. Current trends in support and opposition were analyzed, using Hunger Free Colorados findings from their 2016 survey regardin g citizen support for food security initiatives and the 2016 findings from the Department of Agriculture of Colorado Attitudes on Agriculture research All potential stakeholders from farmers to people enrolled in Community Shared Agriculture programs to citizens who eat and vote in Denver, was labeled as strongly opposed, opposed, neutral, in favor, or strongly in favor. Additionally, the analysis helped the client to assess the viability of the policy being successful in the current

PAGE 20

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 20 social and political environment. Analysis included a stakeholder assessment, a policy stream analysis for local implementation, a force field analysis, and a messaging analysis. The author collected evidence to support the selected propositions through the multiple streams th eory, which looks at the problem stream, the political stream, the policy stream, and the policy entrepreneurs to determine the policy window and potential policy output. Interviews were conducted with seven stakeholders in the Denver Urban Farming community. Overall, 34% of codes were negative, 15% were neutral, and 51% were positive. Neutral codes were not considered to be in support or against a policy. Neutral codes were applied when statements included facts, or suggested the interviewee did not know enough about the policy to comment. Each policy had close to the same amount of input, meaning there were roughly the same number of statements coded for each policy (i.e. interviewees had as much to say about Proposition 1 as they did every other Proposition). The results from interview coding provide evidence to support Proposition 6, which would allow for farmers to obtain permits for season extension techniques such as greenhouses and hoop houses, as the preferred policy intervention for Denver for the stakeholders who were interviewed. For complete results, see Appendix C, Table C1 The following section summarizes the relevant findings for each proposition. There is evidence to suggest that there is a preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The feedback for each policy ranged from 37.5% positive to 83% positive, with Policy 6 having the most support. Therefore, the rese arch shows that there is a preferred policy intervention for Urban Agricultur e in Denver.

PAGE 21

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 21 There is no evidence to support that tax incentives are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 24% of the statements made regarding tax incentives were positive while 52% were negative. Negative feedback included statements that suggested that tax incentives would not provide enough financial benefit in the current land market, and that tax incentives would benefit hobby farmers more than they would help career farmers. There is no evidence to support public lands are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 47% of the statements made regarding public lands were positive, which mirrored the 47% of comments that were negative. Neutral comments comprised 6% of the coded statements. Often, interviewees brought up the benefits that could be gained from farming on Denver Public Schools land, but the City of De nver does not have control over that land and therefore is unable to propose policy to make that possible. There is no evidence to support that agritourism is the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 61% of the statements made regarding agritourism were positive while 23% were negative. Neutral comments comprised 16% of the coded statemen ts. Here, many interviewees brought up the challenges of farming and simultaneously educating or entertaining. For example, raised beds must have bigger walkways

PAGE 22

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 22 so that tourist do not destroy the crops, and time spent educating is time spent away from pro duction. There is no evidence to support that land trusts are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed tha t 40% of the statements made regarding land trusts were positive while 38% were negative. Neutral comments comprised 22% of the coded statements. Interviewees often cited other land trusts as examples, but were not certain that they could work in Denver. There is no evidence to support that real estate/food projects are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture. The data for this policy showed that 37.5% of the statements made regarding real estate/food projects were positive while 37.5% were negative. Neutral comments comprised 25% of the coded comments. While most interviewees agreed that it was overall a good idea for citizens to be able to grow their own food, they did not see this policy as having a large impact on the city, overall. There is evidence to suggest t hat permits for season extension are the preferred policy intervention for Denver Urban Agriculture.The data for this policy showed that 83% of the statements made regarding permits for season extension were positive, while 7% were negative. Neutral comments comprised 10% of the coded comments. Policy 6 has the highest percentage of positive codes and the lowest percentage of negative codes. The following sections of this

PAGE 23

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 23 paper will explore the likelihood of the viability of a policy to implement permits for season extension. In order to assess the viability of implement ation of permits for season extension techniques, a policy stream analysis was conducted. This process informs the client on the feasibility of passing policy related to permits for season extension techniques. The Multiple Streams Analysis method was adop ted to fit the needs of this research, and broke down the possibility of an open policy window to community buyin, political stream, and the policy stream (see Appendix C, Figure C1) (Protopsaltis, 2011). The section of this paper labeled, The Issue det ails the problem stream, therefore it is not discussed here. When assessing the current attitude that Denver community members hold towards policies th at promote Urban Agriculture and food security, there are two essential sources to analyze. The first is the Colorado Public Attitudes on Agriculture survey which was most recently conducted in 2016 by the Colorado Department of Agriculture (Chriestenson, Martin, ThilmanyMcFadden, Sullins, & Jablonski, 2016). Surveys were sent out online, and completed by 1,000 Coloradans in proportions that reflect Colorado race, income, and gender demographics. The report details that more than one third of Coloradans grow their own food, to some extent (p. 10). This suggests that at least one third of Coloradans might support policies that help people grow their own food. Additionally, about 38% of respondents said that they prefer to buy products grown and harvested in Colorado over other locations (p. 15), which suggests that they would support a policy that would increase the amount of food grown in Colorado. About 43% of respondents said they would buy more local vegetables, depending on

PAGE 24

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 24 price (p. 17), also suggesting the respondents would support a policy that would increase the amount of food grown in the state. Another source of information comes from Hunger Free Colorado, which is a nonprofit in Denver that addresses hunger issues across the state. A poll of 400 registered voters in Colorado was conducted through telephone interviews in 2016. The results show that four out of seven, about 57%, voters feel that the government is doing too little on the issue of hunger, which suggests that voters would support government policy to increase local food production to combat hunger. Additionally, more than half of voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate who prioritizes hunger (p. 2). Therefore, the mood of the state seems to support a policy for season extension permits. There is currently evidence to suggest that there is political support for a policy that allows for permits to use structures that extend growing seasons. The Mayor, Michael B. Hancock has approved the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Councils s trategic priority called City Land, City Food, which aims to identify ways that Denver can increase urban food production. Additionally, the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council was created as part of the Mayors commission, therefore Mayor Hancock may support a policy to support urban farmers in Denver. However, at this point, there is no identified champion on Denvers City Council that has advocated for this issue for urban farmers. The policy aspect of the analysis is the most ambiguous. While a method has been identified, permits for season extension, there remain many questions about the details on the policy. Current Denver building code requires that a structure be under eight feet tall and 200

PAGE 25

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 25 square feet in area to be considered a temporary structure, and therefore not qualified for needing any permitting. The structure can also not be covered for longer than six months without requiring a permit and more intensive review (Goldhammer, 2017). Both Denvers Zoning Department and Building Department will need to be engaged in order to permit season extension practices within the city. A Force Field Analysis of the political and social environment was completed in order to understand and strategize for optimal support to pass season extension policy Force Field Analysis was done to help identify factors that need to be addressed and monitored for the policy to be successful (Lewin, 1951). The Force Field Analysis considers those who are strongly opposed, those who are moderately opposed, those who are neutral, those who are moderately in favor, and those who are strongly in favor. Each stakeholder was rated as strongly opposed, moderately opposed, neutral, moderately in favor, or strongly in favor (see Appendix C, Figure C1). While there are many identified parties in support of a potential policy, there are also key stakeholders whose level of support is unknown. Those parties include: Registered Neighborhood Organizations (RNOs) across Denver; the Inter neighborhood coalition (INC); public safety advocates; Historic Preservation Advocates; the Department of Community Planning and Development; the Mayor; and City Council. There remains a barrier in crafting messaging around the policy at this point since the specific details of the policy are still not clear. The more specific the policy is, the easier the messaging is to craft for the populations that are moderately in favor, uncertain, and strongly

PAGE 26

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 26 opposed. It is probable that messaging does not need to be crafted for those strongly in favor, since they are already in support. However, consistent messaging may be helpful to create clarity. From the results of the Force Field Analysis, themes emerge that suggest which stakeholders are strongly in favor of a policy that allows permits for season extension practices on urban agricultural land, and which are strongly opposed. See Appendix C, Table C2 for more detail. The results show that the majority of feedback regarding the six policies proposed was positive, however stakeholders do have concerns about the impact of each individual policy. While all had some negative feedback, the policy regarding permits for season extension techniques received the fewest negative codes, resulting in the lowest percentage of negative codes, and the highest percentage of positive codes. Some stakeholders called this policy low hanging fruit, in that the return on investment for the amount of energy that would be needed to pass such a policy is low and the profit impact for the farmers would be meaningful. Season extension would give farmers an extra month on each end of the season to make profit, meaning they could sell their produce to customers, CSA members, and at farmers markets two extra months out of the year. Currently, stakeholders report that the permit process is unequipped to meet the needs of farmers. Hoop houses and greenhouses are required to meet permit regulations that are unnecessary for the stability of such structures, and tailored more for permanent sheds or garages. Therefore, a proper permit process for season extension would make such techniques a mo re feasible option for urban farmers.

PAGE 27

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 27 While there were not many parties identified as oppositional to this policy, it would behoove the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council and the Denver Manager of Food System Development to strategize messaging in orde r to persuade stakeholders to support the policy. A cost/benefit analysis may be one way to overcome major opposition to this policy, as it would show the return on investment for the policy implementation. Additional messaging stra tegies can be found in A ppendix C, Table C2 There are several limitations of this study. One limitation is the number of people interviewed due to time constraints. A small sample of stakeholders were interviewed for this project, but many other farmers in Denver could be interviewed in order to increase confidence in the results of this study. Another limitation was the constrained policy options that were outlined for the interviewee. There may be a seventh or eighth policy option that could have a grea ter impact on Urban Agriculture in Denver that was not considered. The scope of the problem was also a limitation. While permits for season extension may help farmers be more viable and financially stable, it is unlikely that this is the only action that needs to be ta ken for urban farming to be completely self sufficient and economically profitable for farmers. Moving forward, it would benefit the client to continue to get feedback, either through interviews, site visits, or surveys, to validate the results. The Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council should do a needs assessment in order to understand the full impact of this policy. Therefore, a more exact cost/benefit analysis could be created to show the value of the policy. There are multiple recommendations that come from these findings. The first is to continue analysis that allows th e Manager of Food Systems Development to better understand the

PAGE 28

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 28 discrepancies of current zoning and building codes in order to form a specific policy to permit season extension techniques for urban farmers. The results of this study suggest that some of the current needs of urban agricultural farmers can be addressed by passing legislation that allows for season extension techniques within the city limits through permits. Further analysis of the viability and probability of such a policy being supported suggests that the City of Denver should recommend a policy to encourage season extension through a new permit with relaxed requirements. Therefore, at this moment, it is recommended that the City of Denver and the Denver Manager of Food Systems Development co ntinue to pursue the possibility of such a policy being brought forward. The implementation of policy that would allow for season extension techniques for urban farmers in the city of Denver would have a lasting impact on the farmers ability to run a financially stable and viable business. This spring, multiple hail storms threatened the crops of urban farmers in Denver, Colorado. Not only do season extension techniques add a month to each end of a farmers growing season, it protects young crops from irreversible hail damage. Farmers who are able to start growing seedlings in greenhouses are able to begin production up to a month earlier in Colorado. This means that the farmer is able to offer CSA shares and sell at f armers m arkets a month earlier, adding an entire month of income to their salary. They are also able to protect from frost in the early fall, which adds another month of income to their salary due to produce grown in the extended season. In conclusion, season exte nsion not only adds essential income to a farmers annual salary, it is a policy that is supported by the farmers who are growing in the city. Through the multiple streams analysis and the force field analysis, the City of Denver should be confident it

PAGE 29

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 29 has the public and political support to pass a policy that would permit season extension techniques and have a large, positive impact on urban farming.

PAGE 30

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 30 Angelo, B., & Goldstein, B. (2016). Denvers food system 2016: A baseline report for planning purposes only. Retrieved from: www.denvergov.org/foodplan. Becker, E. (2002). 2 farm acres lost per minute, study says. Belden, J. (1979). New directions in farm, land and food policies: A time for state and local action [USA]. Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies. Big agriculture vs. big education. (2012). Retrieved from https://0 search -proquest-com. skyline.ucdenver.edu/docview/1009042709?accountid=14506 Brighton, Colorado. (2011) http://brightonco.gov/929/Phases-ofproject Brown, K. H., & Jameton, A. L. (2000). Public health implications of Urban Agriculture 20-39. Bunce, S., & Aslam, F. C. (2016). Land trusts and the protection and stewardship of land in Canada: Exploring non-governmental land trust practices and the role of urban community land trusts. Burch, J. (2014). http://www.cmap illinois.gov/programsand resources/lta/ghn chicago Chriestenson, C, Martin, M, ThilmanyMcFadden, D, Sullins, M, & Jablonski, B. (2016). Public attitudes about agriculture in Colorado. Clark, K. H., & Nicholas, K. A. (2013). Introducing urban food forestry: A multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services. 1649-1669. Brock, A. & Shelton, W. (2015). Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council.

PAGE 31

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 31 Coleman -Jense, A., Rabbitt, M., Gregory, C., Singh, A. (2016). Economic Research Report No. ERR-215. United States Department of Agriculture. Conner, D. S., Montri, A. D., Montri, D. N., & Hamm, M. W. (2009). Consumer demand for local produce at extended season farmers' markets: guiding farmer marketing strategies. (4), 251-259. Daniels, T. L. (1997). Where does cluster zoning fit in farmland protection? 129-137. District Plan. (March, 2016). Adams County, Colorado. Finley, R. (2013). Ron Finley: A guerilla gardener in South Central LA. Goetz, A. (2013). Suburban sprawl or urban centres: Tensions and contradictions of smart growth approaches in Denver, Colorado. 2178-2195. Goldhammer, D. (2017, May 21). Email interview. Huang, D., & Drescher, M. (2015). Urban crops and livestock: The experiences, challenges, and opportunities of planning for Urban Agriculture in two Canadian provinces. 1-14. Hunger Free Colorado. (2016) Poll: Colorado Voters Care About Hunger. https://www. hungerfreecolorado.org/colorado-voters care-about-hunger/ LaBelle, J. M., & Watson, A. E. (1997). An introduction to planning and land use management in the United States, with comparisons to Canada and England. 66. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science : Selected Theoretical Papers. Lieberknecht, K. (2009). Public access to US conservation land trust properties: Results from a national survey. 479-491.

PAGE 32

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 32 Mitchell, M. (2016, December 14). Restored 140year -old farm in Brighton digs into agrotourism. retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/2016/ 12/14/brightonfarm -agrotourism/ Mougeot, L. J. (2000). Urban Agriculture : definition, presence, potentials and risks. 1-42. Nair, P. K. (2007). The coming of age of agroforestry. 1613-1619. Nelson, A. C. (1992). Preserving prime farmland in the face of urbanization: Lessons from Oregon. 467-488. Nordahl, D. (2014). Island Press. Ordinance 1494. (2011). Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 265-274. Protopsaltis, S. (2011). Multiple Streams Framework. In New York, New York: Published online. Svaldi, A. (2017). Jeffco leads the pack of Colorado properties increasing in value in 2016. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/17/coloradoproperty valueincrease -2016/ Rotenberk, L. (2012). Chicagos urban farm district could be the biggest in the nation. 2017. Urban Farming Assessment Act of 2013, S.B. 122, 197th Cong. (2013). Retrieved from https://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0122.htm

PAGE 33

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 33 Urban Land I nstitute. (2016). Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). Volume 1. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume _1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.txt U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015) Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. http://www.nrcs. usda.gov/technical/nri/12summary Utah code. (2015). 109a -525 High tunnels -Exemption from municipal regulation. Yuen, J. (2014). City farms on CLTs: How community land trusts are supporting urban agriculture. 1-9.

PAGE 34

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 34 Hi (name), thank you again for your time. Is now still a good time for us to talk for about 30 minutes? Before we get started, I just have to go over a few things with you for the purpose of informed consent. Participation in this interview for research purposes is voluntary, and you are free to end participation at any point. There will be no monetary compensation for your participation. By continuing in the interview you are agreeing to participate in the research being conducted by me for the University of Colorado at Denver. With your permission, I will audiotape and take notes during the interview. The recording is to accurately document the information you provide, and will be used for transcription purposes. If you choose not to be audiotaped, I will take notes instead. If you agree to being audiotaped but feel uncomfortable at any time during the interview, I can turn off the recorder at your request. Or if you don't wish to continue, you can stop the interview at any time. I expect to conduct only one inter view; however, follow -ups may be needed for added clarification. If so, I will contact you by mail/phone to request this. Do you have any questions or objections? Did you have a chance to look over the two documents I sent? If yes: Great! That will provid e a framework for our discussion. If no: Okay, let me fill you in a little bit on what I am working on. I am collaborating with Blake Angelo, the Denver Food Systems manager, to analyze policy opt ions in the city that may make Urban Agriculture a viable, financially stable option. Weve analyzed research nationally, along with looking at local work being done by the Sustainable Food Policy Council and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. From there, weve identified six potential policies, which Im looking to hear your feedback on today. Well be going through

PAGE 35

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 35 each policy and Im looking for your initial thoughts, along with the impact that policy could have on the sustainability and viability of a farmer to be successful in Denver. 1. Provide property tax incentives that reduce property tax on working agricultural lands a. For each policy: i. What is the viability of food growth for this solution? What impact will this have on the ability to grow food? ii. What local factors shape the viability of this solutio n? iii. What resources are needed in order to make this solution viable? iv. What are the tradeoffs for using one solution as opposed to another? Or do we need to combine aspects of multiple solutions? 2. Provide free land leases for agricultural on public lands 3. Finan ce land trust(s) to preserve urban farm land 4. City manages historically designated farms and hires contract farmers 5. Provide economic development incentives, like low cost loans, to developers integrating farms into projects 6. Season extension allowing permits for hoop houses and techniques to extend the season Overall, which stands out to you? Or which combination of policies? While were exploring the right policy or policies to advance, a successful policy change campaign will likely require advocacy outside of the city to mobilize supporters and push efforts. Therefore, were wondering how much support does Denver have from key stakeholders (consumers, farmers, community members, CSA participants, etc) to advocate for this sort of policy? In other words, would stakeholders be willing to mobilize and organize to support an

PAGE 36

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 36 Urban Agriculture policy? Do the policy changes we are contemplating provide enough return on investment for mobilizing the community of stakeholders? Those are all of the questions I have, is there anything else youd like to add? Any questions you have? From here, Ill be compiling and analyzing the data. When Ive finished with the project, Ill be sure to send you a copy of the results. Have a great day!

PAGE 37

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 37 1.Speaks of individuals supporting policy option 2.Speaks of policy option being a good idea 3.Discusses positive impact a policy would have on amount of food produced 4.Discusses positive impact a policy would have on financial viability of farming in Denver 5.Mentions policy impacting affordability 6.Speaks of benefits that could be derived from policy 7.Speaks of people who would benefit from policy 8.Speaks of organizations in the city focusing on similar work 9.Mentions government support for urban farmers 10.Discusses potential success of policy when paired with another policy 11.Speaks of other cities/organizations doing similar work with positive impact 12.Speaks to a positive payout for the amount of effort needed to pass a policy 1. Discusses tradeoffs of a policy 2. Discusses facts of current situation regarding Urban Agriculture 3. Discusses uncertainty around a policy 4. Speaks of existing policies addressing Urban Agriculture 5. Speaks of necessary parameters for policy to be successful 6. Discusses necessary steps to preserve land for produce, not marijuana

PAGE 38

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 38 7. Mentions impact for hobby farmers, but not forprofit farmers 8. Talks f or use of DPS for farming on public land (instead of city land) 1. Speaks of individuals opposing policy option 2. Speaks of policy option being a bad idea 3. Discusses negative impact a policy would have on amount of food produced 4. Discusses negative impact a policy would have on financial viability of farming in Denver 5. Speaks of damage that could be caused by policy 6. Speaks of people who would be harmed by policy 7. Speaks of policy addressing a nonexistent issue 8. Speaks of organizations in the city doing opposing work 9. Discusses challenges of policies in urban (as opposed to periurban or rural) area 10. Mentions challenges of retaining farmers or having enough farmers 11. Speaks of other cities/organizations doing similar work with negative impact/failure to succeed 12. Speaks to negative payout for the amount of effort needed to pass a policy

PAGE 39

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 39 9 (60%) 3 (20%) 3 (20%) 15 (14%) 10 (47.5%) 1 (5%) 10 (47.5%) 21 (20%) 4 (20%) 2 (10%) 14 (70%) 20 (19%) 4 (20%) 6 (30%) 10 (50%) 20 (19%) 7 (44%) 4 (25%) 5 (31%) 16 (15%) 2 (14%) 0 (0%) 12 (86%) 14 (13%) 36 (34%) 16 (15%) 54 (51%) 106 (100%) This table shows the number of total coded comments throughout all interviews that were negative, neutral, or positive towards each policy. In parentheses are the overall percentages of coded comments for that policy with that stance (ie, Policy 1, Negative).

PAGE 40

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 40 Champion: Advocates and Organizes Farmers Health Advocates RMFU DUG Sustainability Advocates Create consistent messaging from Denver Manager of Food Systems Development and the Office of Economic Development for advocacy Not opposed. Silent Building Codes Zoning Codes Motivated be a cost/benefit analysis; motivated by social responsibility Educated to become Strong In Favor DPS Opportunities for students ; discuss funding opportunities Discover opinion/ Educate them See abov e Develop educational literature on the issue Diagram of Multiple Streams Framework (Protopsaltis, 2011).

PAGE 41

URBAN LAND POLICIES FOR DENVER FOOD PRODUCTION 41 Each stakeholders buy-in is graphed on a -2 to 2 scale, with -2 being strongly opposed, and 2 being strongly in favor. Image of a high tunnel. Image from Simplified Building, https://www.simplifiedbuilding.com/projects/hoop -houseand high -tunnel-greenhouse-designs -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Force Field Analysis