Edible Green Infrastructure in the United States: Policy at the Municipal Level

Abstract

Urbanization can negatively affect the capacity of ecosystems to provide services that support human life. Edible green infrastructure (EGI) can increase cultural and environmental services in urban and peri-urban communities. Instrumental in the use of EGI are local governments, who are in a position to pass supportive policies. For this research, we completed a qualitative study of EGI policy processes in U.S. cities and a mixed-methods study of EGI challenges and opportunities in small towns. Our first objective was to understand how and why EGI policy develops. We interviewed twelve policy actors from six U.S. cities that have formalized EGI ordinances. Major drivers of EGI policy were: 1) improving public health; 2) securing land tenure; 3) managing vacant lands; 4) accommodating for population growth; and 5) the local food movement. Common policymaking steps included: 1) local communities initiate EGI policy process; 2) city governments respond by working with communities to draft EGI ordinances; 3) abrupt changes to land use policies result in a policy image supportive of EGI as a public land management strategy; and 4) during emergence of the new land use paradigm, incremental changes reinforce this image. We also learned how certain challenges and policy actor recommendations for minimizing obstacles affect the policy process. Our second objective was to understand EGI adoption in small towns. We surveyed 68 mayors of small towns (<25,000) in Virginia to study local leader perspectives regarding implementation and policy. The greatest perceived barrier to EGI adoption was long-term maintenance, whereas opportunities included civic benefits such as education and community-building. Most towns had not intentionally used EGI on public land, nor did they have compatible land use codes. Open-ended responses suggest that mayors have different views about the role policy should play in EGI adoption. We used mayoral perceptions about the constituent support for public green space, the implementation of edible woody perennial species, and available public space for EGI to group towns into unique types. Four groups were identified in a K-means cluster analysis: 1) Ambivalent and Resource-Poor; 2) Optimistic and Capable; 3) Doubtful and Unsupported; and 4) Unsure with Potential. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post-hoc analysis (α=0.05) showed that Optimistic and Capable were significantly more likely than Doubtful and Unsupported to intend to plant EGI and benefit from government support for edible, woody perennials on public land. EGI may be more practical for towns with greater backing for public green space, more available land, and higher rates of favorable attitudes.