The Relational Infrastructure of Food System Policy Development

Abstract

The process of developing food system policies (FSP) that comprehensively address systemic issues requires the inclusion of a diverse array of actors from all parts of the food system. Drawing on literature on collaborative governance, we argue that interpersonal relationships, and the factors that facilitate their development and maintenance, are essential to FSP development. Based on this assertion, we ask: how do interpersonal relationships shape collaborative food systems policy processes? Specifically, we explore: (1) what motivates the emergence of interpersonal relationships in FSP; (2) what are the characteristics of social environments that foster such interpersonal relationships; and (3) what traits/activities foster interpersonal relationships in food systems policy processes.

This research draws on qualitative analysis of 26 semi-structured interviews in four preeminent examples of FSP development in the United States identified by Growing Food Connections (GFC), an FSP research group: Seattle, WA; Lawrence/Douglas County, KS; a five-county region in Minnesota; and Marquette County, MI. Following an inductive description of key cross-case themes responding to the previous questions, we discuss the implications of these findings for equity and ethics in FSP development. This discussion highlights that, while equity did not appear as an explicit motivation for developing interpersonal relationships, practices of humble listening by policy practitioners foster inclusive engagement as a basis for equitable collaboration.

1 Introduction

Despite relatively long historical roots in planning practice and scholarship (Vitiello and Brinkley 2014), food system policy (FSP) has only gained widespread attention relatively recently (Goddeeris 2013, Raja et al. 2018b, Clark et al. 2015). Since the landmark works of Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999, 2000), much research has focused on documenting the types of plans and policies that communities have implemented to address the myriad negative local impacts resulting from our current global food system.

The type of problems FSP attempts to tackle – often termed “wicked” problems – require significant collaboration across sectors, communities, and issues. Wicked problems are particularly pernicious because they encompass myriad interconnected, conflicting, and/or contradicting perspectives and objectives (Rittel and Webber 1973). In response, scholars point to diverse, collaborative networks as critical to addressing such problems in order to reconcile tradeoffs and realize potential synergies (Booher and Innes 2002, Emerson et al. 2012, O’Toole 1997). Moreover, the diverse nature of these networks elevates the importance of interpersonal relationships as critical mechanisms for developing and sustaining FSP collaboration. While assessing plans and policies is important, we argue that the interpersonal processes of this diverse collaboration are essential to FSP development and, thus, deserve more scholarly attention in order to provide insight into strategies for developing FSP.

Towards this end, we draw on qualitative analysis of 26 in-depth interviews with FSP practitioners in four locations in the United States (U.S.) to inductively answer the question: how do interpersonal relationships shape collaborative food systems policy processes? Within the context of this question, we focus on (1) understanding key motivations for developing interpersonal relationships in FSP development, (2) the characteristics of the social environment that foster such relationships, and (3) the traits/activities that lead to them.

In this chapter, we begin by elaborating on the nature of FSP problems that give rise to the need for collaboration and that make interpersonal relationships particularly important to the process. We then present our research methods, findings, and discussion of implications of those findings for equity and ethics in FSP development. This discussion highlights that, while pursuit of social equity did not appear as a motivation for engaging in collaboration, it did manifest in reflexive practices of the policy professionals coordinating FSP collaboration.

2 Food System Policy as Relational Governance

While many policy issues deal with wicked problems, thus requiring collaboration among diverse participants, the problem space of FSP is particularly complex. Before discussing how interpersonal relationships shape FSP, we start by discussing the foundations of the collaboration in FSP, the nature of the problem space encompassed by FSP, the associated range of participants relevant to collaboration on the topic, and the implications for how that collaboration is developed and sustained.

FSP, following community development planning, has from its inception utilized broad, inclusive, collaborative arrangements, rather than government-only approaches.¹ Perhaps this is a result of the timing of when FSP was placed on the local government agenda (after the governance revolution in the 1990s), or the systems-nature of FSP (from field to fork), or it could be the rising advocacy and expertise in civil society pressuring for planning processes and demanding a seat at the table. Or, it could be all three (Andrée et al. 2019, Raja et al. 2018b). The American Planning Association (2007) highlights collaboration as its first policy in the “Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning.” Yet, to understand why collaboration is so central to FSP development, and the complexity of that collaboration, it is useful to look at the nature of the issue area.

As a policy issue, FSP attempts to tackle a variety of different, yet interconnected problems. Thus, rather than describe the food system as a (singular) wicked problem, we might better think of it as a universe of interconnected wicked problems. Correspondingly, the types of issues and associated actors relevant to collaboration on FSP is vast. To help clarify this problem space, we outline relevant FSP issues and actors along three dimensions depicted in Fig. 19.1 of what we term the food system “universe”. The first dimension includes various stages of the food supply chain, from production and processing, to distribution, consumption, and waste disposal. The second outlines prominent priorities related to the three dimensions of sustainability; social, economic, and ecological. The first two dimensions of sustainability serve as broad categories for motivating factors to develop FSP, such as increasing community and environmental sustainability and resilience (Feenstra 2009, Tagtow and Roberts 2011, Schiff 2008), supporting the viability of small and midsize farms (Kirschenmann et al. n.d.), and fostering food equity and democratic participation in local communities (Fiser et al. 2003, Hodgson 2012, Renting et al. 2012).

These two dimensions can be used as a heuristic to think about both categories of issues and associated people/organizations that are potentially relevant to FSP. These two dimensions speaks to both categories of issues and types of organizations that might represent those issues. For instance, an issue area related to distribution and social sustainability might be represented by a food bank or other organization concerned with equitable access to food.

The third dimension of the universe outlines prominent societal sectors; public, private, nonprofit, and community representatives, particularly community members from diverse socio-economic, racial, and cultural perspectives within a given community. This dimension adds further complexity to understanding who might be relevant to collaborative discussions on issues of FSP. To return to the previous example, an issue area related to distribution and social sustainability might be filled by a nonprofit (such as a food bank). However, public organizations, such as a public school providing free/reduced price lunches, might also be relevant. Moreover, community representatives of neighborhoods with high levels of food insecurity also have important insight into the subject (Fig. 19.1).

Fig. 19.1

The universe of food system issues and actors

The third dimension of the universe, particularly the inclusion of community representatives, speaks to the strong emphasis within FSP literature on civic engagement, democratization of power, and diverse inclusion of citizens in the policy process (Hanagan 2014, Hassanein 2003, Renting et al. 2012, Raja et al. 2014). Within FSP literature, the issue area has significance not only as a problem that needs to be solved, but as an opportunity for empowering communities and enhancing democratic engagement (Hanagan 2014, Hassanein 2003). This carries implications for what it means to create equitable FSP. At least in theory, an equitable policy might be developed by a limited group of participants. However, FSP as democratic empowerment highlights the importance of equitable engagement in the FSP development process.

To frame our study of collaborative FSP development, we draw on the concept of collaborative governance, which refers to the processes and structures that facilitate multi-sector, multi-stakeholder engagement in solving public problems (Kettl 1997, Kettl 2002, Emerson and Nabatchi 2015, Emerson et al. 2012, Huxham et al. 2000, Klievink et al. 2016, Ansell and Gash 2007). Collaborative governance – which encompasses such topics as collaborative planning (Bentrup 2001, Selin and Chevez 1995), network management (Klijn et al. 2010b, Milward and Provan 2000), and environmental governance and conflict resolution (Agrawal and Lemos 2007, Emerson et al. 2009) – entails the constructive engagement of diverse government, nongovernment, and citizens in collective public decision-making and management processes to address public issues (Emerson et al. 2012). Collaborative governance emphasizes the inclusion of a broad array of potential participants, mirroring the diverse universe of potential participants in FSP development. As a governance strategy, it offers a means of responding to increasingly complex problems and changing societal relationships towards government (Emerson et al. 2012, p. 2) and build local capacity of the participants and the community at large to deal with wicked problems (Ansell 2016).

From early on, FSP has relied on collaborative governance strategies to support food system development. Planning scholars have long argued for planners to develop multi-stakeholder forums to engage professionals and citizens in FSP development (Reece 2018, Raja et al. 2018a). Food policy councils (FPCs) – a type of collaborative multi-stakeholder body – have long served as “link tanks” to bring together diverse stakeholders, typically as advisory councils for local policy makers and planners (Clancy 1994, Clancy et al. 2007, Schiff 2008). FPCs also function as community engagement forums, emphasizing the inclusion of community representatives, particularly of traditionally disenfranchised groups (McCullagh and Santo 2014). This discussion illuminates two broad motivations for engaging a diverse array of participants in collaboration. First, FSP is a complex issue area requiring diverse viewpoints to adequately understand and translate into cohesive policy (O’Toole 1997). Second, FSP as an opportunity for democratic enhancement brings forward the need for diverse community representation (Hassanein 2003, Coplen and Cuneo 2015, Schiff 2008). Yet, broad inclusion emphasized in FSP scholarship fosters significant challenges for developing equitable FSP collaboration for two reasons.

First, effective collaboration rests on a different foundation of logic compared to conventional “expert-based” policy development. Innes and Booher (2016) describe the underpinnings of such a capacity building approach by articulating a “collaborative rationality.” A traditional “rational” approach to public problem solving assumes a solution to the problem exists (a non-wicked problem) and adopts a stepwise, linear logic to objective and quantitative analysis that arrives at that solution. In a traditional rational approach, the planner is the expert providing solutions to the community. Collaborative rationality, however, is based in the process of deliberation, in which all affected interests equitably engage in face-to-face discussion on the problems they confront. Consensus is sought, though not always achieved. Knowledge is jointly constructed through interaction and co-learning, and is not limited by an outside agenda. Fostering this collaborative rationality in a group can be challenging, but it is further complicated by the nature of diversity in FSP development.

As previously discussed, the network of participants relevant to collaborative FSP development is extremely diverse, with potential participants representing numerous different professional viewpoints. In such conditions, the sustained collaboration of participants oftentimes cannot be coerced by a higher authority (Murdoch 2000). Rather, the ability of such a diverse group to collaborate depends on mutual respect and trust derived from interpersonal relationships (Murdoch 2000, Kneafsey et al. 2001, Agranoff and McGuire 2001, Seppänen et al. 2007). In these conditions, where participants span institutional, organizational, and cultural boundaries, trust serves as the “lubricant” for collaboration (Williams 2002). This trust begins with individual participants adopting collaborative rationality by recognizing and being open to the different experiences of other participants and being willing to adjust their own positions and beliefs.

Without this collaborative “readiness,” particularly among community leaders, FSP collaboration is unlikely to be successful, even where communities express an eagerness to work on food system issues (Clark et al. 2017). Indications of this readiness manifests in the type of interpersonal relationships collaboration participants develop as part of the process and their motivations for developing those relationships. Recognizing this social aspect of collaborative governance, numerous scholars note trust development as a key feature of collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015, Emerson et al. 2012, Ansell 2003, Ansell and Gash 2018, Ansell and Gash 2007, Siddiki et al. 2017, Getha-Taylor et al. 2018). In addition, a shared understanding of purpose and a belief that problem-solving could not be done alone, commitment to process, and “thick” communication are cornerstones of collaborative governance (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015, Innes and Booher 2016).

While formal institutional structures such as FPCs can facilitate collaboration, we argue that collaborative governance in the context of FSP rests on interpersonal relationships rooted in collaborative logic. However, little to no scholarship explores the nature and influence of interpersonal relationships in FSP development. This lack of attention to a critical foundation of FSP motivates our exploratory question of how interpersonal relationships shape collaborative food systems policy development.

3 Data and Methods

To answer our research question – how do interpersonal relationships shape collaborative FSP processes? – we use an inductive qualitative approach to the study of the relational context of collaborative food system governance. Research draws on in-depth interviews with participants involved in planning and policy development in four case study locations in the United States. The following describes the data collection process and methods of analysis. Interview data for this research was collected by researchers with Growing Food Connections (GFC),² a collaboration among leading food system policy and planning researchers and practitioners in the United States. After soliciting 299 potential cases of innovative food system planning from professionals and academics, GFC researchers conducted exploratory interviews in 20 cases and ultimately selected four cases – Staples Region, MN, Seattle, WA, Marquette County, MI, and Lawrence and Douglas County, KS – based on inclusion criteria used to define an established, successful, food system planning effort. GFC researchers then conducted further in-depth interviews with multiple community members in each case. The research in this paper draws on a total of 26 exploratory and in-depth interviews with 20 different people across the four cases. (See Table 19.1 for a breakdown of interview participants by case.) These include two multi-person interviews and seven people who were interviewed twice, once for an exploratory interview and again for an in-depth interview. Participants were significant government and non-government figures involved with food system planning. Table 19.1 provides a breakdown of participants and interviews. Researchers used two different interview protocols; one for nongovernment food system policy participants and a second for government actors involved in food system policy.

Interview transcripts from the cases described above were coded in NVivo, a qualitative analysis software, focusing on interview references to relationships and interactions with other actors in the food system policy development process (QSR International 2012). Transcript text was inductively coded for references to such relationships as well as for references to the participants’ perceptions of other actors, motivations for relationships, barriers and/or challenges, and relational features or actions of the policy development process.³

Because this research was concerned with subjective perceptions, fidelity to the original text was paramount. Therefore, whenever possible, analysis used “in vivo” coding, or the use of short phrases derived directly from the text, to convey the meaning of the referenced portion of the transcript (Saldaña 2015). Resulting codes were thematically clustered by identifying and grouping together similar or overlapping codes. The process of “themeing” the data involved frequently returning to the original interview transcript to maintain fidelity to the meaning of the interview participant’s comments (Saldaña 2015, p. 198). We related subsequent themes to each other using concept mapping to provide initial explanation of factors that contributed to the development of positive relationships among participants and associated outcomes. In addition to low-inference analysis through in-vivo coding (Johnson 1997), other steps to ensure research rigor included frequent debriefing with a research partner (Lincoln and Guba 1986, Johnson, 1997). Furthermore, rich description of actor perceptions aids with transferability of findings by providing sufficient context to understand how they might translate to other settings (Lincoln and Guba 1986).

Table 19.1 Case interview summaries

4 Study Site Descriptions

The following provides a brief overview of each of the four cases of collaborative food system governance from which interview participants were drawn. These four cases represent preeminent examples of food system policy development.⁴ Table 19.2 provides a summary of key characteristics of each community. Figure 19.2 provides a map of the locations of these case studies.

Table 19.2 Summary of case study sites

Fig. 19.2

Location of four case studies

City of Lawrence/Douglas County, KS (“Lawrence”)

Food system planning and policy in Lawrence is a city-county collaboration aimed at supporting community-based programs and initiatives. Coordination for food system efforts utilize the 23-member, joint city-county FPC. FPC members represent public and private sectors across the food system, are appointed by city and county commissioners, and are tasked with advising on and providing coordinative oversight for food system efforts in the county. Within the FPC, a city-funded sustainability coordinator and a joint city-county health department funded food system coordinator fill policy analysis and program management roles (Fodor and Hodgson 2015). Other policy and planning accomplishments include the Common Ground Community Gardening and Urban Agriculture Program (Pictured in Fig. 19.3) established in 2012, which leases underutilized space in the City of Lawrence to residents to start urban agriculture and community gardens.

Principal among the community groups is the LiveWell Coalition, a multi-sector public-private partnership developed by a community foundation in 2009 to support physical activity and nutrition in the community. LiveWell endorsed and works to implement elements of the Douglas County Community Health Plan, with support of the health department. Plan development involved extensive community outreach that helped the steering committee – assembled by the health department’s director – to identify five key areas of work.

“Staples” Region, MN

Staples Region is a five-county region in Minnesota composed of Cass, Crow Wing, Morrison, Todd, and Wadena Counties (Pictured in Fig. 19.3). Food system planning efforts in this rural region are coordinated by the Region Five Development Commission (R5DC) in collaboration with local governments, food hubs, healthcare providers, schools, and producers. Food system collaboration was motivated by the 2009 R5DC Resilient Region plan, which identified food system sustainability as a key issue for the region.

Fig. 19.3

Saint Mathius Farm in Brainerd, MN within “Staples” Region. (Photo courtesy of Jennifer Whittaker)

Due to limited financial and human capital resources, many efforts rely on largely informal relationships and collaborations. For instance, collection of data on the local food system by R5DC involves pulling together resources from myriad actors, including hospitals, various governmental departments, and food access non-profits. Several notable projects in the region are described below.

Seattle, WA

Food system planning in Seattle and the surrounding Puget Sound region aims to improve equitable access to healthy food while supporting local agriculture. The Local Food Action Initiative Resolution (LFAIR), adopted by the Seattle City Council in 2008, established the core framework for food policies, provides direction on food related issues to city departments, and created the interdepartmental food system team and food policy coordinator position to help coordinate food programs and policies. The broad objectives established by LFAIR are further detailed in the Seattle Food Action Plan (SFAP). Within Seattle City government, the Office of Sustainability and Environment is tasked with coordination among departments and organization and facilitation of food system efforts. In addition to the City of Seattle, Seattle Tilth, a longstanding nonprofit in the region that has been advocating on food and agriculture since the 1970s, played a key role in developing and shepherding food system projects in collaboration with the City.

Seattle has had a long history of urban-agriculture and community gardening since the launch of its P-Patch community garden program in 1973 (Pictured in Fig. 19.4), which involves community members in gardening and stewarding a total of nearly 34 acres across the city. More recently, the SFAP included explicit objectives to support urban agriculture in the city as part of developing equitable access to healthy food. For a more in-depth description and analysis of Seattle’s food system planning, see Hodgson et al. in this volume.

Fig. 19.4

P-Patch Garden in Seattle, WA. (Photo courtesy of Kristie McLean at the City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment

Marquette County, MI

The Marquette case is a largely rural county in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The County’s plan and zoning review process, which is a state mandated review process wherein municipalities are required to submit city plans to the county for review, provides a means of fostering and supporting food-related plan development. County feedback on municipal plans is informed by the Marquette County Local Food Supply Plan (MCLFSP), which was primarily developed by one planner in the County Planning Division, with informal consultation with nonprofits and the Marquette Food Co-op. This planning document serves as an educational document for fostering attention to local food resiliency issues. County-level plans are echoed by cities, such as the City of Marquette and Chocolay Township, which included food as part of their mater plan updates.

Unlike other cases, local governments in the area tend not to be the leading motivators behind food system efforts, though the previously mentioned plan review process helps advance county-wide food system efforts. A prominent institutional actor in food system issues is the Marquette Food Co-op, which provided informational support on the development of the MCLFSP. Additionally, the co-op’s education and outreach staff were key to promoting food system planning in the County and beyond. Similarly, Transition Marquette, a local group started by a university professor focused on sustainability and climate change issues, facilitated community outreach.

5 Findings and Their Implications for Equity and Ethics

In keeping with the theoretical expectations at the outset of this chapter, interviewees frequently noted the importance of interpersonal relationships as key to FSP development. In Seattle, for instance, despite the existence of a formalized coordinating entity (the Office of Sustainability and Environment), much of the food systems policy work in the city depended on one-on-one relationships; “most of the more specific work happens in smaller group meetings with different members of different departments or one-on-one relationships… I just talk to a lot of them on the phone frequently.” Furthermore, development of these relationships was a key starting place for the development of FSP. As another participant described; “we were really interested in ways that we could help build the connections between government and community, and community and community, and government and other governments, and you know, there’s all this different stuff going on.” As this quote emphasizes, participants described the development and maintenance of inter-personal relationships as an important activity in linking and supporting existing work in the community into a cohesive, integrated food system plan.

These cases demonstrate significant commonalities concerning the role and nature of interpersonal relationships. Here, we describe the findings on how interpersonal relationships shape FSP development in three parts. The first elaborates on base motivations for developing interpersonal relationships around FSP and resulting challenges. The second part describes five important characteristics of the relational environment that facilitate the creation of interpersonal relationships in the context of FSP development. The final section describes the practice of humble listening in developing cross sector relationships and two associated activities, education and interorganizational coordination. Table 19.3 provides a summary of thematic categories and example codes. Text in quotation within Table 19.3 indicates language drawn directly from relevant quotations.

Table 19.3 Thematic coding categories, associated sub-themes, and example codes^a

5.1 Motivation for Developing Interpersonal Relationships

In all four cases, primary motivations for developing interpersonal relationships rested on desires to develop integrated approaches to policy while leveraging existing projects and creativity in the community. As a Seattle city councilperson described, “both the opportunity, and the greatest challenge, is how to integrate all [of the work related to the food system] and really work on a large system scale,” a sentiment echoed by other interview respondents. Due to the conventional, siloed approach to policy development, system integration fosters a second, related motivation; breaking down conventional issue boundaries and departmental boundaries.

Crossing conventional issue boundaries is partly a manifestation of the subject of food – which connects to myriad social equity, economic, and environmental issues – and partly a means of leveraging available financial, human, and creative resources. The universal importance of food, and its connection to myriad topics situates it as a connector issue. As a Marquette County interviewee described:

We don’t look at an agency and go, ‘hm, they have nothing to do with food, we’re not going to even approach them.’ We’re going to find that everybody eats and everybody has a connection to food, so what is it that we can do to partner with a really broad range of agencies so that we can bring so many different resources to the table that it eventually works?

Respondents also connected integration across issues with the opportunity to leverage existing work and accomplish system-wide work in spite of scarce resources. Responding to a question about key barriers to food system planning, a Marquette government official lamented that “it’s always time. There is never enough time to do everything,” and a Staples Region nonprofit interviewee iterated: “let’s be really clear, there is no money paying for this coordination. Very, very little.” The prevalence of nonprofit, for-profit, and citizen groups with a stake in, and existing work related to the food system motivated local governments to function in a facilitator role:

[City government is] looking at opportunities to leverage work that’s already happening, so, whether that’s inside city government or whether that’s outside city government… [there’s some] leverage point where we can take something and make it bigger, or make a bigger difference with it.

Relatedly, interviewees frequently identified capitalization on creativity as a key motivation for reaching across conventional issue and departmental boundaries. A Staples Region official commented that, when developing plans to foster economic development around food system issues, good ideas came from unconventional places:

The very best ideas we had for economic development did not come from well established, fantastically knowledgeable economic development practitioners or professionals. The best ideas came from innovative thinking from transportation and affordable housing people. And so, we needed to ask who else cares and put a diverse group of people together in a room, and not just diversity in terms of gender and race and economic diversity, but diversity in terms of professional abilities and the silos we put ourselves in. And that was the best thing we could do, all of the sudden there were mutually beneficial goals between organizations that we had no idea connected.

Notably, these motivations did not emphasize developing social equity or equitable processes. However, this absence makes sense in light of the vast array of issues, actors, and associated motivations encompassed by the FSP universe. In this context, one person in the group may be motivated by environmental problems in the food system (e.g., food waste, pesticide use, etc.), another might be more concerned with the lack of access to culturally appropriate food within a community. While a different problem may motivate each participant involved in creating FSP, the shared motivation – the importance of which is discussed below – is a faith that pursuing their individual motivations collaboratively will yield better outcomes for the entire community.

5.2 The Relational Environment of Collaboration

Despite the strong motivations to engage in collaboration, interpersonal collaboration in practice faces significant barriers, principally protectiveness and resistance to change. One Staples Region interviewee commented that “I think for the mere fact that you can put those kinds of voices together in a room is… pretty challenging in itself.” Another Staples Region interviewee noted that the expertise of community members engaged in food systems planning produces its own challenge; “I think the coordination gets hampered by the individuals’ own different strengths. Where they feel like they need to protect and hide, or feel like they need to own and get paid for every single bit of [the work].” Similarly, interview participants in both Seattle and Marquette commented on resistance to FSP due to “fear of change,” particularly from political leadership. These challenges are emblematic of low trust conditions, particularly at the beginning of collaboration, when participants are uncertain about whether their contribution will be reciprocated.

Despite this resistance, five prominent features of the social environment around FSP development in these sites beneficially contributed to the fostering of interpersonal relationships among collaborators. These features include; a shared vision, interest and support from the community, passionate individuals who can champion and/or catalyze action, informal relationships, and professional latitude to collaborate and develop necessary relationships.

Shared Vision

Both across local government and within the community, shared vision and norms played an important part in facilitating a systems approach to policy development. As a Seattle official described;

I think there is an ethic here in this community that really values the environment and the health of the community, and I think a lot of individuals who were either working in government or elected to serve in government brought that ethic into the system with them… we all share these values, I think that really helps advance the cause.

Shared values and motivations facilitated systems work both by assisting with motivational alignment between organizations and departments of local government and by creating public pressure for local government to respond, as an interviewee in Lawrence County posited;

I think one of the great opportunities that we find ourselves at, is that there’s really great alignment in the community right now, where the health department is saying access to healthy foods is an issue, LiveWell Lawrence… is working on it and pushing for it. We have the Food Policy Council that is aligned toward the initiative. And the city and county commissioners are hearing from all three of these groups… related to improving access to healthy food.

Where shared vision was not prevalent, or where key community members and leadership did not share the vision, food system leaders frequently cited the need to “get buy-in” to the approach. As one Seattle figure noted, “there is a degree of education and buy-in that has had to happen over time.” This is a sentiment that was echoed by leadership in Staples Region where food system planners had to “tell [local government personnel] what we were doing, why it benefited the community, why that local unit of government should be invested in it, and we had to get their buy in.” The need for buy-in speaks to the importance of developing shared understanding of the vision and purpose of the systems approach, which was facilitated by education and outreach on the benefits of a systems approach to the community.

Notably, equitable participation and engagement does not appear in these comments about shared vision. Partly, this is because these comments reflect interviewee comments about how shared vision aided interpersonal relationships in FSP development. However, a critical view of these comments might also raise questions about the degree to which collaboration equitably engaged community members. For instance, while interviewee comments about the need to “get buy-in” reflect the importance of community/political support in FSP development (next section), it may also reflect a more classic, inform and consult approach to community engagement rather than a collaborate and empower approach (Arnstein 1969). Nonetheless, shared vision provided a key feature of the social environment that aided the development of interpersonal relationships in the collaborative process.

Community Support

A second, related, feature of the social environment that supported interpersonal relationships in these cases was the need for interest and support by the community, including both political leadership and the community at large. Beyond shared vision, support entailed the facilitation of action. While interviewees commented on the importance of political support, interviewees commonly noted that widespread community support was essential to pushing collaborative FSP development forward. For instance, a Seattle interviewee commented that “what really propelled [the FreshBucks⁵ program] forward was community-based interest.”

Broad community support also contributed “momentum” to the policy process. One interviewee commented that “there’s this community momentum right now that’s just… everywhere now. People are talking about local food and access to food… and our restaurants are featuring these local food items, and it just seems like there’s this great momentum.” While momentum facilitated action, it was also a resource that had to be maintained due to the long-term nature of the planning efforts. A Staples Region participant noted that a “challenge is… trying to sustain the momentum and vision for what is a really long-term goal… Capturing the attention of folks who are outside the choir and trying to bring them in to the fold and foster that energy…can be harder to do when you’re talking about that kind of long-term picture.” This interviewee’s comment points to the central difficulty of maintaining community interest in social mobilization efforts. Similar to shared vision, community support aided FSP development in these cases both by creating political pressure to develop FSP and by fostering a supportive social environment around FSP collaboration.

Passionate Champions

Beyond general community support, a third important feature of the relational environment was involvement of passionate “champions” and/or catalyzers to move ideas into reality. On the political level, governmental support often came in the form of individual political leaders. An interviewee in Lawrence commented that, “I think, as a city, we had a clear direction from our mayor and city manager to make it happen,” suggesting the importance of not only political support, but particular political champions with the authority to motivate action.

Passion of individual staff members was an often-cited component of the FSP development process. As one Marquette interviewee argues, “really, [support] hasn’t come from the government themselves…It’s been more of the individual personalities of the planners and their interaction with stakeholders and the community.” A government official in Marquette supported this assertion, noting that the impetus behind the development of the plan “started with passion from staff.” Individual passion for the work of FSP governance is likely critical to the work of coordinating community members. Across all four cases, interview participants described the importance of particular individuals, both within and external to government, that were critical to realizing FSP plans by personally pushing for policies, coordinating involved organizations and/or departments, and negotiating between groups in the community.

While individual passion and investment was critical to FSP governance, it also came with a cost. A Seattle interviewee described how support might come from political leadership “that might be all exciting and does stuff, but then they leave. And the agenda goes with them.” This comment speaks both to the influence of political leadership in motivating action, and also to the risk inherent when support is isolated to a singular individual. Similarly, while staff passion was essential to realizing FSP, it made it difficult to fill administrative positions when individuals left. For instance, a Marquette interview participant described a key figure on the County food plan that was leaving her position; “she’s so good and has such a thick skin, and she’s so well-versed. I mean just passionate, and knowledgeable, and driven, and is not going to take no for an answer. I think that comes with intrinsic passion and also the person is going to have such a learning curve coming in.” This comment points to the important role of individual passion in coordinating diverse participants. Yet, the final phrase suggests the difficulty of replacing such individuals.

Policy scholarship has long been recognized “public service motivation” as a critical factor in effective policy implementation (Bellé 2013, Perry and Vandenabeele 2015). However, this finding on passionate champions further extends the importance of such motivation – in the context of FSP – to catalyzing and motivating the development of policy. However, reliance on individuals to develop interpersonal relationships and build collaboration also carries a risk that the informal relationships of these individuals – which are essential to FSP development, as discussed in the following section – may end of end up excluding particular groups.

Informal Relationships

Informal relationships were essential features of the social environment of FSP collaboration. From the development of policy ideas to inter-departmental and inter-organizational coordination, interview participants frequently referenced informal interpersonal relationships as important. Part of the reason for the importance of informal interactions was that, in each case, no preexisting institutional structure existed that could be used to develop and coordinate system-wide policies. Thus, who to work with and how was largely a matter of perceived appropriateness, regardless of conventional reporting relationships. For instance, a Staples Region interviewee described how “one of the common phraseologies used in this region is, ‘who else cares about this work and can help me do this?’ You bring those people into your table, and a lot of this [work] happened over table-top conversations.” This description points to the need to creatively identify actors that were relevant to the work, regardless of the existence of formal structures for collaboration. Additionally, the participant’s use of “table-top conversations” implies that collaborative informality characterized this approach to developing relationships, rather than formalized partnerships, etc.

Informal relationships became important kick-starters for further collaborative ideas and projects. Another Staples Region interviewee described how informal relationships contributed to further ideas later on:

Once you have that relationship, you can start developing, “hey, what are other projects that we can work on, because we worked pretty well on this, how can we lead towards other things?” That’s been a pretty informal partnership… as we have ideas, and want to engage more of our community.

The role of informal relationships in facilitating future collaboration was further illustrated by Marquette, where city-county collaboration on a food hub feasibility study began with a phone call;

[Person X] called me… to let me know that the Kansas City Healthcare Foundation, that funded Kansas City to do a Food Hub Capability Study. And we had been in communication, and kind of thinking along the same path already. But it was really great timing that both grants were dispersed at the same time, it allowed us to synchronize our studies.

In this case, the opportunity to coordinate and collaborate on a shared project occurred only because of existing informal relationships.

Yet, informal relationships and reliance on individuals also has a dark side. Despite the benefits of informal social relationships as the basis for creative policy creation, and the potential of collaboration to inclusively engage underrepresented voices (Quick and Feldman 2011), reliance on the informal relationships of a small group of individuals also creates a risk of excluding traditionally underrepresented voices from policy creation with no avenue for publicly rectifying that exclusion. This exclusion need not be the result of nefarious intent. If policy or planning professionals in the position of organizing collaborative FSP development are simply unaware, or fail to consider the involvement of a particular group, then a representative of that group may be left out of the policy conversation.

This risk is particularly elevated in cases where policy creation is spearheaded by a small group of people or a single individual, as this research suggests is often the case for FSP development. Thus, while passionate individuals appear to be essential to FSP development, they also create a risk that important voices could be excluded from a conversation. As collaborative approaches become the norm in FSP, a critical question becomes who is, and is not, part of these networks? Future research on FSP should attend to the role and nature of these boundary-spanning relationships, their distribution across communities and groups in a locality, and the impact of these relationships on FSP development and social equity.

Professional Latitude

Finally, essential to the ability to develop and maintain informal interpersonal relationships was professional “latitude”. Latitude – also described as “freedom to dabble” and/or “flexibility” – made it possible for collaboration participants, particularly those involved with developing and coordinating collaboration, to reach across organizational and/or issue barriers to develop informal relationships with community members. These descriptions were particularly applied to local government personnel;

At the county level, it seems to me anyway that [planners] have a lot more freedom to, as planners, determine, you know, where they’re going to put their time and energy. And [Person X] had been working on the issue of local food and local food policy for a long time, so she really was the logical fit. And so, she tends to be the county representative on many of these types of things. So, she just came to the table. When we asked who would like to be part of the policy committee, she stepped forward.

Supporting this observation, a planner described his/her work as permitting “a pretty good amount of latitude or autonomy in what I get involved with as long as I get my other work done.” Likewise, another planner in Marquette noted that “the county has acknowledged that [food planning is] important enough that, you know, their planner can sit on a food policy committee, for example, or, you know, try to, you really have the freedom to, you know, dabble into some of these different topics to try to improve the situation.” In this case, latitude appears to be an important factor in the ability of local government planners to engage in systems work on an ad-hoc basis that permits them to respond to issues and develop relationships as necessary to facilitate FSP governance. As such, while latitude is a separate feature of the relational environment of FSP development, it is functionally integral to the existence of informal social relationships.

Informal relationships and the professional latitude to develop them highlight an important tension between flexibility and structure that permeates the FSP development process. On one side, flexibility to “dabble” (as one participant phrased it) allows communities to capitalize on passionate individuals who champion FSP development (Raja et al. 2014). On the other, reliance on the interpersonal relationships of a single individual may inadvertently exclude relevant participants. The characteristic of FSP that helps practitioners navigate this tension comes down to the practice of listening.

5.3 Relationship-Building through Listening with Humility

In keeping with the previously described importance of interpersonal relationships, interviewees frequently commented on the practice of developing new relationships. A Staples Region participant described how she put effort into maintaining relationships with various groups in the region as a form of investment in potential future collaboration; “I stay engaged in a lot of circles so that when I need them they know and have some respect for me…I didn’t have to be part of the state food policy planning. But that allowed me to build the relationships that I needed…it is about those relationships.” In addition to identifying a key role of relationship development, this quote also identifies “respect” as important to fostering these relationships. This points to an important feature of the kinds of relationships developed by actors in FSP governance; namely that they rest on mutual respect and trust, and not solely strategic interdependencies or need. A Lawrence participant described how “simply creating the relationships you need to have that trust, you need to have that understanding.” This participant noted that developed “trust” and “understanding” were critical to the effectiveness of an important champion of FSP in the location and that the individual spent a significant amount of her time fostering this trust, similar to the description offered by the Staples Region participant.

One critical activity noted by participants in these cases was the importance of listening to other members of the community, both for gathering information and also as a demonstration of good faith to the community. A Staples Region participant described how food system planners “don’t know that some of these [participants] care about these [food related issues] until we break down the silos. Throw a bunch of people in a room, even if you don’t know how it’s going to be a value to them. And brainstorm and be humble enough to know that you don’t know it all.” One particularly important word in this description is “humble,” which suggests that those in power (city/regional planners, government officials, etc.) needed to employ an open-minded form of listening in order to effectively capitalize on resources and develop trust.

Supporting the importance of open-minded listening, a Marquette participant warned that failure to openly listen to community members imperiled effective food systems work; “don’t ever use the approach ‘build it and they will come.’ You absolutely need to do this the other way around. You need to have your ear to the ground. You need to have your eyes, ears, and heart open throughout the community, and you need to be able to listen, and listen well.” This suggests that, rather than serving as experts in the comprehensive design of FSP, government officials and planners in successful FSP governance served as mediators of public input, translating community ideas and aspirations into policy.

Importantly, serving as a mediator for public input required that leaders in the planning process were willing to put aside preconceived plans and act on public input. Reiterating the previously mentioned theme of humility, another Staples Region interview participant, describing her perspective on involving community members in a brainstorming session, iterated that “if you bring people together and they give you ideas, you better be humble enough to actually deploy and implement and think about utilization of those ideas… if you have a preconceived notion of the direction you’re going to go, for God’s sake do not ask anyone else’s opinion, it is insulting.”

Relationship-building through humble listening permeated several activities, including how practitioners approached education and inter-organizational coordination. Education was a key task, not only for developing buy-in, but for “embedding” motivations within government leadership and thus overcoming reliance on individual passion. As one participant noted; “I think really an important lesson for other municipalities is to find [ways] to build that education over time and embed it… how to embed it within the institution and not just within the people.” An implication of this quote is that local governments developing FSP, while depending on passionate individuals, also needed to “embed” shared values in order to ensure that FSP work would not remain dependent on individuals.

Additionally, humble listening practices appeared in relation to inter-organizational coordination, which made system-wide work possible under conditions of scarce resources. As a Marquette participant explained, inter-organizational coordination was the “only way we can get anything done” and a Seattle participant explained that “the city itself is not gonna solve all this. I mean, one, it’s too big of a system problem, and two… we don’t have the revenue.” As this quote and others suggest, resource sharing was key motivation for collaboration.

The practice of planners and policy makers listening to community members and acting upon their input implies that civil society involvement in FSP processes can include a shift of power. As a result, collaboration in FSP development more closely resembles true collaboration than informing or consulting (International Association for Public Participation 2014, Forester 1988). Moreover, individual actions of relationship-building via listening with humility point to the role of that action and its practitioners in developing interpersonal trust, an important resource in collaborative networks (Chen et al. 2014, Gulati and Sytch 2008, Klijn et al. 2010a). An implication of this finding is that strength of relationship (i.e., level of trust) matters substantively for the results of taking a systems-oriented approach. Higher trust between participants better enables the flow of information during the policy development process while flexibility enables practitioners to develop trust-based relationships.

In spite of the lack of attention to equity as a topic in shared motivation, the practice of humble listening applied to education and coordination provides an important practice that fosters greater equity in FSP collaboration. An important takeaway from this research is the role of the motivations and ethics of the individuals and groups involved in spearheading FSP development. As a new area of policy action, leadership decisions on FSP development entail a high degree of uncertainty because there are few examples and no settled and established practices for such an approach. Not only is individual motivation central to FSP, but so too is individual ability to respond to conditions and deal with uncertainty and dynamism by exercising “reflexivity” in the form of humble listening.

Reflexivity entails the action of reflecting on professional work in order to adapt to undefined, evolving, and unique problems (Schön 1983). Reflexive individuals are able to assess not only what they do know and how it applies, but are better able to prompt self-reflection on what information they lack. This skill is foundational to FSP and the actions of passionate individuals – in the form of “humble listening” – mirror practices of reflexivity. The wicked problem universe of FSP precludes the possibility of any individual or like-minded group being able to understand the problems in that space. Moreover, the differing experience of traditionally underrepresented groups within this space add further complexity to this problem universe.

Engaging participants in collaborative FSP development processes, while maintaining their individual passion and motivation, requires that practitioners exercise a kind of “passionate humility.” This involves both a conviction that their work is correct, while remaining open to and willing to consider the diverse viewpoints they encounter (Yanow 2009). The findings of this research point to FSP development practitioners engaged in this kind of reflexivity, by being passionate about their work while “dabbling” in various issue areas and remaining open-minded to how those groups/individuals might be connected to FSP. This personal passion and motivation, combined with frequent reflection that prompts FSP coordinators to seek out new voices allows practitioners to navigate the previously discussed tension between informality/latitude and formalized structure.

6 Conclusion

In the face of complex, interconnected food system problems, many communities are turning to collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches to developing food system policies. Traditional siloed approaches to policy manifest in conflicting objectives, inefficiency, and negative externalities that impede or negate the resolution of complex problems. Much research in FSP has focused on documenting the types of plans and policies that communities have implemented as a result of these processes. However, we argue that the interpersonal relationships that make up the collaborative networks of participants in developing FSP are foundational to food system policy creation. This paper draws on literature in collaborative governance to propose that FSD development depends, in large part, on interpersonal relationships involved in the FSP development process.

Towards this end, we explored how interpersonal relationships shape collaborative food systems policy processes, including the motivations for developing interpersonal relationships, the characteristics of the environment that supported these relationships, and the activities that contributed to the development of interpersonal relationships in the FSP development process. To understand these issues, we conducted and qualitatively analyzed semi-structured interviews with policy practitioners in four U.S. cases.

Importantly, this research did not point to equity as a strong motivation for developing interpersonal relationships in the FSP development process. Nor was equity highlighted as a shared vision that facilitated the development of interpersonal relationships in the policy development process. However, this research sheds important light on the role of passionate individuals in the policy development process and practices of “humble listening” in maintaining an open-minded approach to engaging community members in the policy development process. Potentially, this humble approach may be a manifestation of the issue itself, the vastness of which exceeds the capacity of even the most capable professional. Whatever its origins, this “passionately humble” approach to policy practice opens the door for equitably engaging diverse voices in the policy development process.

This research provides a limited, yet important glimpse into how interpersonal relationships shape FSP development. However, many questions remain unexplored and we hope this research spurs further research into the interpersonal processes of developing equitable food system policy. For instance, while this research benefits from focusing on preeminent examples of FSP development in both urban and rural contexts, it does not identify how that context shapes the development of interpersonal relationships. Population size, level of rurality, and myriad other factors likely play a role in shaping interpersonal relationships that make up collaboration around FSP development. Future research can elaborate on this by attending to the role of context and its impact on the role and nature of interpersonal relationships.

A further question that arises from this research concerns the sustainability of FSP efforts. Limited formal structures and reliance on passionate individuals can improve creativity and help foster strong interpersonal relationships across institutional, issue, and cultural boundaries. Yet, these factors can also minimize the sustainability of efforts if an individual departs. A potential response to the issue of sustainability is the practice of “embedding” shared values, norms, and motivations across government agencies (Irish 2017), thereby facilitating both interdepartmental collaboration and reducing reliance on isolated individuals to push forward FSP. Future research on FSP development should devote greater attention to the role of cultural embedding in structuring and sustaining policy processes.