In many US states, the power to regulate urban agriculture (UA) rests in local governments. Although there has been increased interest in UA, some local governments have been slow to adopt policies or ordinances to foster food production in urban areas or have actively sought to limit UA in their municipalities. To learn more about the disconnect between resident interest and local government policy, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension and Center for Public Issues Education conducted a statewide survey of local government stakeholders (LGS) to assess their attitudes toward UA, subjective knowledge of UA, perceived benefits of and barriers to the implementation of UA and educational needs. Responses were collected using 5-point semantic differential and Likert-type scales. Overall, respondents displayed positive attitudes and moderate knowledge of UA, and they identified a number of benefits of and barriers to implementing UA in their communities. The findings of this study support the hypothesis that lack of basic knowledge about UA is one difficulty in fostering UA. Despite being positively disposed toward UA, LGS may not fully understand how to effectively develop and implement policies to foster UA. This finding may also help explain reluctance to adopt local government policies to support UA. Efforts to provide LGS key information and enhance their knowledge of UA may support the development of UA activities.

There is increasing awareness that community food policies and programs can address issues of equity, sustainability, profitability, and resilience in food systems. Community coalitions, local governments, food policy councils, cooperative extension, and other stakeholders seek to improve community food systems through policy and programmatic development. However, these groups often do not know what types of policy or program models exist to help achieve their goals. This research identified expert consensus on three important topics related to community food systems resilience: (1) values that should guide adopting and implementing poli­cies and programs to facilitate community food systems resilience, (2) benefits of adopting policies and programs that support community food sys­tems resilience, and (3) policies, programs, and ini­tiatives that are indicators of resilience. These indi­cators can be used to assess the resilience of communities and to help communities identify pol­icy options to achieve specific goals and objectives. The results of this study were used to create a com­munity food system resilience audit tool that com­munity groups can use to assess the current resili­ency of their food system, identify priorities, and set goals. The audit tool focuses on seven core themes that contribute to community food systems resilience: agricultural and ecological sustainability, community health, community self-reliance, dis­tributive and democratic leadership, focus on the farmer and food maker, food justice, and place-based economics. The individual indicators in this audit tool provide specific policies and practices that can be adopted by local governments, sup­ported by cooperative extension agents, and advo­cated for by food policy councils and community-based organizations.

Local food production (LFP) can play an impor­tant role in ensuring access to food during supply chain disruptions. Because the drafting, adoption, and implementation of policies regulating LFP is under the purview of local governments in many U.S. states, researchers at University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Exten­sion conducted a study to assess whether COVID-19 affected local government stakeholders’ (LGS) (N=92) perspectives on LFP and the role that LFP can play in responding to public health emergen­cies. LGS who oversee the drafting, adoption, and implementation of LFP policies include staff responsible for code enforcement, sustainability initiatives, and planning, as well as elected and ap­pointed leaders, such as mayors, city and county managers, and city and county commissioners. The survey assessed LGS’ attitudes and knowledge about LFP. The survey also asked LGS about their perceptions and awareness of LFP in their commu­nities, including their perceptions of the benefits of and barriers to LFP and the ways in which LFP producers were using the food they produced. Sur­vey questions also focused specifically on COVID-19 and the role of LFP in public health emergen­cies. In particular, survey questions asked whether LGS perceived a change in their own attitudes, knowledge, and perspectives; whether there had been a change in the LFP activi­ties in their communities following COVID-19; and what they thought the role of LFP was in responding to public health emergencies. Direct comparisons of LGS who responded to a 2019 survey (N=43) were assessed for statistically sig­nificant changes in overall attitudes, knowledge, or perceived benefits of LFP following COVID-19. This study found that LGS have generally positive attitudes and perceptions of benefits of LFP, including its role in public health emergencies, but have limited knowledge about LFP or awareness of barriers to its implementation. The results of this study indicate that LGS understand the potential benefits of LFP in public health emergencies but would benefit from information and training to support the development of policies and programs in their communities.

The global trend of urbanization coupled with an increasing awareness of the importance of food systems resilience, has led to an increasing interest in urban agriculture to sustainably feed the rapidly growing urban population and mitigate against food supply chain disruptions. While home and community gardens have been long studied, there has been relatively little empirical research focused specifically on commercial urban agriculture (CUA) operations. The purpose of this study was to characterize commercial urban farms, and to identify their primary barriers to business development and expansion, their perceptions of future opportunities, and their specific informational needs. Because CUA has received relatively less attention in previous empirical research, a qualitative approach was used for this needs assessment to collect rich, contextualized information to help differentiate the specific barriers, opportunities and needs of CUA operations as opposed to their rural counterparts. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n= 29) of CUA producers in Florida. These interviews revealed that CUA operations face many of the same barriers that are common to establishing and growing small farms, with additional barriers due to local government regulations and tensions associated with farming on land that is not traditionally used for agriculture. Despite these difficulties, CUA operators believe their urban location is a key benefit to their operation and they see a variety of opportunities for future business and market expansion.

Florida, like much of the southeastern United States, is rapidly urbanizing. With this urbanization, there is an increasing interest in commercial urban agriculture (CUA) as an important sector for agriculture in the state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture does not report data about CUA operations, thus limiting the knowledge about the status of CUA operations regarding basic features such as farm size, operator demographics, production systems, sources of revenue, barriers to business operations and profitability, and future opportunities for development. Because previous research has found differences in urban farmers’ demographics and their perceptions of barriers and opportunities, the purpose of this research was to characterize CUA operations in Florida and to understand the urban farmers’ perceptions of the primary needs, barriers, and opportunities for developing CUA, as well as CUA operators’ informational needs and preferred informational formats. We performed a cluster analysis to identify salient groups of urban growers in Florida to identify subgroups based on shared characteristics that revealed three distinct groups of urban farmers with differing perceptions of barriers, opportunities, informational needs, and preferred informational formats.