PLANNING FOR PLACE AT THE TABLE: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDYOF
LOCAL FOOD SYSTEMS AND COMMUNTIY RESILIENCE IN TERRACE AND
PRINCE RUPERT, BC
by
Scott A. Brown
B.Pl., University of Northern British Columbia, 2020

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
December, 2024
© Scott Brown, 2024

Abstract
This thesis examines the pivotal role of local food systems in enhancing community resilience,
focusing on the Northern British Columbia communities of Terrace and Prince Rupert. There are
increasing vulnerabilities within global food supply chains that are accentuated by climate
change and socio-economic instabilities. Given this context, this study investigates how localized
food systems can contribute to a community's resilience, or the capacity to withstand and adapt
to external and internal pressures. Set within a qualitative case study approach, this research
includes a detailed policy analysis and semi-structured interviews with key community
informants that are involved in local food systems. Key informants include policymakers,
Indigenous community members, food producers, and not for profit organizations.
Findings highlight the importance of integration of local food systems with community resilience
through three resilience drivers: social learning, person-place connections, and innovation. The
study reveals that local food systems and Indigenous foodways not only bolster food security,
but strengthen community bonds, preserve cultural and traditional knowledge, and encourage
socio-ecological innovations. The analysis of policy across municipal, regional, and First Nation
sources shows varying degrees of recognition and support for local food systems. While western
policy sets focus on agriculture and community gardens, Indigenous policies provide a more
place-based recognition of traditional foodways and ecological knowledge. Key informant
interviews reveal the community's perception of resilience, showing a strong linkage between
local food practices and resilience strategies. These include the adaptation of traditional
harvesting methods, the revival of communal food networks, and grassroots initiatives that foster
resilience through educational and community-building activities.
The findings highlighted above illustrate that local food systems are not merely sources of
sustenance, but crucial to shaping resilient community structures through continuous learning,
cultural reaffirmation, and adaptive governance. This research contributes to the broader
discourse on sustainable community planning and climate adaptation by demonstrating the
essential role of local food systems in enhancing community resilience. Policymakers must
recognize and integrate food systems planning more prominently within resilience planning
frameworks, highlighting the multifaceted benefits they provide.

ii

Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................v
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................. vii
1: Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Focus and Scope ............................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Research Objective & Questions................................................................................... 7
1.3 Case Study Community Context ................................................................................... 8
1.3.1

Case Study Community Climate Profiles ......................................................................................... 12

1.4 Relevance & Importance ..............................................................................................15
1.5 Overview of Chapters ...................................................................................................17
2.

Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 19
2.1 Resilience Theory .........................................................................................................19
2.1.1

Risk and Vulnerability .................................................................................................................... 20

2.1.2

Community Resilience ................................................................................................................... 24

2.1.3

Drivers of Resilience ...................................................................................................................... 27

2.2 Food Systems ................................................................................................................32
2.2.1

Global Industrial Food Systems ...................................................................................................... 37

2.2.2

Alternative Food Systems .............................................................................................................. 38

2.2.3

Local Food Systems........................................................................................................................ 41

2.2.4

Indigenous Foodways .................................................................................................................... 45

2.2.5

Indigenous Food Sovereignty ......................................................................................................... 53

2.2.6

Mainstreaming Food Systems Planning .......................................................................................... 55

2.3 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................58
3.

Methods ........................................................................................................................... 61
iii

3.1 Positionality Statement .................................................................................................61
3.2 Case Study ....................................................................................................................63
3.3 Case Study Methodology ..............................................................................................63
3.3.1

Case Study Selection ...................................................................................................................... 64

3.4 Data Collection: Policy Matrix.....................................................................................66
3.5 Data Collection: Semi-structured Interviews ..............................................................68
3.6 Data Analysis: Policy Matrix .......................................................................................71
3.7 Data Analysis: Semi-structured Interviews .................................................................73
4.

Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 75
4.1 Community’s Concept of Resilience ............................................................................75
4.2 Bringing Community Together ....................................................................................89
4.3 More than Agriculture and Gardens ......................................................................... 102
4.4 Doing Old Things in New Ways ................................................................................. 110

5.

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 125
5.1 Overview of Study Findings ....................................................................................... 125
5.2 Limitations to Study Findings .................................................................................... 131
5.3 Recommendations for future research ...................................................................... 133
5.4 Implications of the Findings to the Planning Profession ........................................... 135

References.............................................................................................................................. 139
Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 164

iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Prince Rupert climate profile....................................................................................... 13
Table 2. Terrace climate profile ................................................................................................ 13
Table 3. Selected policy documents for matrix analysis ............................................................ 68
Table 4. Examples of policy statements that relate to drivers of resilience................................. 76
Table 5. Examples of policy recognition of the food system function ........................................ 96

v

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Northern reaches of the Pacific Northwest region of British Columbia,
Ts'msyen Territory ......................................................................................................................9
Figure 2. Case study community of Terrace .............................................................................. 10
Figure 3. Case study community of Prince Rupert .................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Conceptual Framework.............................................................................................. 60
Figure 5. Food systems planning analysis (drivers of resilience): Region. ................................. 77
Figure 6. Food systems planning analysis (drivers of resilience): Prince Rupert. ....................... 79
Figure 7. Food systems planning analysis (drivers of resilience): Terrace. ................................ 79
Figure 8. Comparison of "Western" and First Nation recognition of drivers .............................. 81
Figure 9. Food system policy analysis (Food system functions): Region ................................... 96
Figure 10. Food system policy analysis (Food system functions): Prince Rupert ....................... 97
Figure 11. Food system policy analysis (Food system functions): Terrace ................................ 98
Figure 12. Distribution of food system functions in regions policy (n=233) .............................. 99
Figure 13. Food system function comparison between "Western" and First Nation policy sets 106

vi

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.
Mark Groulx, who has provided invaluable mentorship since the start of my academic journey at
UNBC. His patience, understanding, and unwavering support have been instrumental in guiding
me through the many challenges of this process and helping me reach the finish line.
My appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Kent Mullinix and Dr. Sinead Earley,
knows no bounds. I am grateful for their time, insightful feedback, and encouragement. Their
contributions have significantly enhanced this work, and I am fortunate to have had such a
dedicated and thoughtful team.
I am deeply thankful to everyone I had the opportunity to speak with, spend time with,
and who guided my understanding of the local food systems in Terrace, Prince Rupert,
Kitsumkalum, and Kitselas. Your shared time and knowledge profoundly enriched this research,
and I am forever grateful for your contributions.
To my wonderful wife Amy, thank you for your continued love, patience, and empathy
throughout this journey. Your belief in me provided the encouragement I needed to get through
the rough patches. To my son Oliver, whose wonderful laugh and beautiful smile brought me
light at the end of some difficult days, I hope my passions are fruitful in your future. I love you
both more than I ever knew I could.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, BC
Real Estate Foundation and Northern Scientific Training Program and the University of Northern
British Columbia for their financial and institutional support, which made this research possible.
This work is dedicated to all those striving to bring meaningful change to your
communities. It’s the unsung heroes that provide for us, to feed us, to spread love amongst us,
even when it seems like an uphill battle.
vii

1: Introduction
Northern communities in British Columbia (BC) have experienced profound environmental,
social, political, and economic change. At present, research shows they exhibit a unique
vulnerability with respect to the stresses and shocks of climate change (Kipp et al., 2019). In
2019, the federal government released Canada’s Changing Climate Report. This national climate
assessment highlighted the fact that communities in the Canadian north are much more
susceptible to climate change impacts then the rest of the country (Bush & Lemmen, 2019).
Northern communities share characteristics of being under-resourced in terms of social and
physical infrastructure, of existing in a remote geography, and of having limited transportation
infrastructure that increases their sensitivity to the shocks and stresses of climate change events
(Kipp at al., 2019).
In 2021 and 2022 communities in the Pacific Northwest region of British Columbia
experienced some of these significant climate events, specifically heat domes in the summer
months and flooding in the spring and fall. The Canadian Climate Institute identifies the 2021
heat wave in BC as the deadliest disaster in provincial history. It exposed critical gaps in the
province's infrastructure and response and highlighted the vulnerability of marginalized groups
in communities across the province (Depner, 2023). In 2022, the City of Terrace responded with
its Climate Projections for the City of Terrace (2022). This document outlined the impacts of the
unprecedented heat dome events of 2021 and 2022 and mapped potential infrastructure and
community responses to increase the area’s climate resilience.
With growing environmental and economic uncertainties related to climate futures, northern
British Columbians have become more aware of potential short- and long-term impacts. This
1

includes a growing awareness of risks to the future of the province’s food security. As outlined in
Local Food Futures for British Columbia (2015), residents of BC have become increasingly
concerned about “where their food comes from, how it is produced and (what) its ecological and
social impacts (are)” (Sussman & Feeney, 2015, pg. 2). Perhaps most notably, the COVID-19
pandemic emphasized how our current globalized food system is susceptible to shocks and
stresses, highlighting community vulnerability and the need for stronger food security. Citizens
and scholars are calling for change from reliance on long supply chains and are asking for an
increase in local food security (Hobbs, 2020).
With increased recognition of the importance of local food systems, many municipalities,
regional districts and First Nations have begun to implement food systems policy. Often this
policy is integrated into their sustainability and climate change adaptation and resilience plans
(Pfefferbaum et al., 2017). The communities of Terrace and Prince Rupert offer compelling case
studies of food systems planning within two northern regions in Ts’msyen (Tsimshian)
traditional territory (upper Pacific Northwest of BC). The City of Terrace’s 2050 Sustainability
Strategy (2009) has identified the need to re-localize food systems and “[p]romote a highly
productive food network that supplies Terrace and its neighbouring communities with a majority
of their produce, meat, and dairy needs” (pg. 24). In 2018, the City of Prince Rupert released
HAYS 2.0, which includes its 2030 Sustainable City policy objectives. This plan recognizes the
need for policy development that encourages the use of “local urban agriculture, community
garden, and urban farm food products by food service providers and local food producers” (pg.
22).
Local food systems are made up of multiple linked social and ecological subsystems that
integrate functions of production, distribution, accessing, consumption, and waste recovery
2

(Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999; Kasper et al., 2017). Blay-Palmer et al. (2018) show that a
strong local food system promotes food security and food sovereignty. While additional research
is needed, studies also suggest that local food systems could be a fundamental part of building
community resilience. As the literature shows, resilience has increasingly become a benchmark
in community planning and development (Berkes & Ross, 2013; Folke et al., 2010; Meerow et
al., 2016; Pfefferbaum et al., 2017). In the context of Northern British Columbian communities,
the relationship between local food systems and community resilience is a critically
underexplored linkage (Drolet, 2012).
My thesis offers an exploration of the intricate relationships between local food systems and
community resilience in BC’s Northwest. I draw findings from a blend of policy analysis and
qualitative insights from the communities of Terrace and Prince Rupert. The study illuminates
how the local food systems in these communities are not merely mechanisms of food production,
but pivotal foundations for fostering resilience and sustainability. The findings from local policy
analysis and semi-structured interviews with actors in the local food system revealed a profound
connection between the local food systems and a triad of resilience drivers recognized in the
literature: social learning, person-place connection, and innovation. The relationships between
these drivers and the functions of the food system were not isolated, but intertwined. Each driver
feeds into and reinforces the others, creating an intricate fabric that supports community
resilience. Findings within my thesis align closely with and build upon established research in
the fields of sustainability, resilience, and community planning to illustrate the capacity of local
food systems to enhance these realms.
This exploration offers an important contribution to current research in resilience and
community planning by showing the critical role local food systems and Indigenous foodways
3

play in fostering adaptability and long-term sustainability. The study reveals that these systems
provide not just physical nourishment, but also support for social bonds, connection to place, and
innovative solutions that are vital for northern communities facing unique challenges. In
connecting these drivers to the food systems of Terrace and Prince Rupert, the research
underscores the power of local initiatives in shaping a stronger, more resilient future.
1.1 Focus and Scope
The approach to my research is place-based. Gruenewald (2003) describes this as a focus
on understanding a region's unique geographical, cultural, and environmental characteristics to
inform policies and practices that are most relevant to the people living there. In the context of
Canada, understanding "the North" is critical to developing effective strategies for resilience,
community development, and sustainability. In the context of my approach, I sought to embody
Gruenewald’s vision for place-based research. Canadians define the north in a variety of ways from the simple geographic boundary of the 60th parallel to more nuanced considerations that
include shared conceptual ideas of remoteness and a rugged landscape. These definitions offer
impressions of what their North is. Someone in Montreal might consider Val-d'Or or
Chibougamau "up north", while geographically speaking, they are closer to the 50th parallel, on
par with Kelowna, BC (Coates & Morrison, 2008).
Even though these areas may not align with formal geographic definitions of the North,
they embody what "northern living" means to the people residing there. Northern Canadian
identity is shaped by both the vast, rugged landscapes and a shared cultural perception of the
North as an idealized wilderness. Robinovitch (2011) describes the image of people from “the
North” as a defining symbol of Canada’s vastness, solitude, and resilience, where the untamed
4

rivers, forests, and tundra create a deep sense of place and community. This "Idea of North," as
Glenn Gould famously phrased it, connects Canadians through a collective imagination of a
remote frontier that embodies not only their environment but also what can be called their
national character; strong, enduring, and profoundly tied to the land (Robinovitch, 2011).
Recognizing that this imagery is based in a colonial or nationalistic view, the North is not a “vast
uninhabited wilderness” but home to many settler communities and hundreds of First Nation
communities that have lived in this region since time immemorial (Islam & Berkes, 2016).
Statistics Canada provides a more structured definition of Northern. They consider
factors like the southern limits of the boreal forest, the presence of permafrost, heating
requirements, community isolation, and the cost of living (StatsCan, 2016). This multidimensional view of the North captures the challenges and realities of living in remote and often
harsh environments. In BC, Northern communities stretch from the coastal islands to the interior,
and into the foothills of the Rockies. This region has a population of just over 200,00 people,
including over 50 First Nation communities that span three primary planning areas – Haida
Gwaii, Northwestern BC and Northeastern BC. (Government of BC, 2021). Harris (2009) writes
that the people of Northern BC have developed a unique understanding of their region, shaped by
the vast natural landscapes and a way of life that is more relaxed and community-focused,
offering a sense of belonging that is distinct from the urban south.
Northern BC also embodies what Tourism BC describes as "supernatural British
Columbia" with its trees, rivers, mountains, and fresh air (Destination BC, 2021). Its
communities range from small villages like Hudson’s Hope to bustling hubs like Prince George.
Across this diverse range of settings, they share a close-knit, supportive culture (Coates &
Morrison, 2008). Living and Working in Northern B.C. (Province of British Columbia, 2024)
5

writes that living in the North involves adapting to the region's unique environmental and social
conditions, which give rise to a distinctive sense of place that shapes the way people work, live,
and interact with their surroundings.
Although there are many strengths in Northern communities, years of boom-bust cycles
of resource extraction, impacts of settler colonialism on First Nations, and current “fly in, fly
out” work practices have made their negative mark on the North (Markey et al., 2018). Evidence
of environmental degradation from industry and extractive economies dot the landscape. Poverty
and food insecurity exists throughout communities that have relied on dwindling forestry and
fishing employment (Markey, et al., 2018). Similar to many urban areas across North America,
the victims of the housing and drug crises inhabit the streets of regional hubs. Coates and
Morrison (2008) write that understanding these nuances and concerns is essential for tailoring
policies and practices that support the resilience and development of Northern communities.
For my thesis the geographic boundaries of Northern British Columbia were delineated
by the established southern boundaries of the Regional Districts of Fraser-Fort George, BulkleyNechako, Kitimat-Stikine and North Coast. Regional districts are unique to British Columbia and
are made up of electoral districts and municipalities that contribute to region-wide planning and
development of regional growth strategies (Government of BC, 2021). These boundaries also
constitute the Northern Health Authority border, establishing a collective designation as to what
constitutes Northern British Columbia (NHA, 2021). The selection of Terrace and Prince Rupert
was based on specific, purposive sampling criteria including geographic location, urban status,
and the presence of sustainability or climate adaptation plans that incorporate local food system
planning. A systematic application of these criteria during case selection ensured that the cases

6

offer a reasonable representation of Northern British Columbia's diverse contexts and challenges
in food system planning and community resilience.
1.2 Research Objective & Questions
The objective of my research was to explore and understand the relationship between
local food systems and community resilience. A related objective was to map key resilience
building pathways – or drivers – that can be enabled by local food system functions such as
production and processing. Although a resilient food system is a noteworthy goal for a
community, this research did not attempt to measure food system resilience itself. It focused
instead on exploring how an active local food system contributes to community resilience.
Social-ecological resilience thinking identifies multiple drivers of community resilience
that create transformative capacity. This work focuses on three known drivers, including personplace connections, social learning, and allowance for experimentation and innovation (Burch et
al., 2014; Quinn et al., 2015: Wamsler et al., 2014). The following research questions were
addressed through a comparative case study of two urban communities in Northwestern British
Columbia, the interior City of Terrace (pop.13,663) and the coastal City of Prince Rupert
(pop.11,773) (Stats Can, 2016). These two communities provide a rich opportunity for learning
because of their growing local food policy regimes, geographic context, and network of local
knowledge holders working in an active local food system. My guiding research questions are:
1)

How are local food systems contributing to social learning amongst key players
within the food system, including community members?

2)

In what ways are emerging local food systems shifting community members’
relationship to land and the environment?

3)

How does the local food system facilitate innovative change at the community level?
7

My research utilized case study methodology, which is suitable for exploring complex
phenomena within real-life contexts (Yin, 2009). The case study approach is particularly suited
to investigating how community resilience is influenced by local food systems in Northern
communities. I chose case study research for its ability to provide in-depth analysis, focus on
specific details, and effectively handle diverse data sources, as highlighted by Baxter (2016) and
Yin (2018). Grounded in the structured methodology suggested by Yin, I ensure methodological
rigor, which is essential for thoroughly understanding the dynamics of local food systems and
their impact on resilience.
My approach included a detailed literature review and policy analysis providing a strong
foundation for field research in Terrace and Prince Rupert, BC. Data collection integrates
qualitative tools, such as policy analysis and semi-structured interviews with key informants in
the community’s food system. The use of multiple knowledge sources allowed me to explore
both the structure of food systems and the roles of policy within the case study communities.
This dual focus on policy documents and key informant perspectives strengthens the
triangulation of data, enhancing the validity and depth of my findings while weaving a
compelling story of the importance of local food system to community resilience.
1.3 Case Study Community Context
My research involved two case study communities located within the same geographic region
of Northwestern BC. Both the City of Terrace and the City of Prince Rupert have recently
completed sustainability plans that include food system objectives and goals. Terrace is located
inland and is known for its unique bio-climatic zone and surrounding agricultural lands. Prince
Rupert is a coastal community that has grown from its fishing and canning past to become a large
8

supply port for the north of the province. Both communities are located in Ts’msyen (Tsimshian)
traditional territory. As shown in Figure 1, each community sits in a different regional district Terrace in Kitimat-Stikine Regional District and Prince Rupert in North Coast Regional District
(Government of BC, 2021).

Figure 1. Map of Northern reaches of the Pacific Northwest region of British Columbia,
Ts'msyen Territory
Originally incorporated in 1927, Terrace existed as a small sawmill community until the
1950’s. Post World War II, Terrace experienced a boom in resource extraction industries,
including forestry and mining (City of Terrace, 2021). Currently, economic prospects are
predominantly linked to tourism, services, and energy-related developments in the nearby
community of Kitimat. The city is located at the juncture of Highway 16 and Highway 37. It is
also intersected by the Canadian National Railway and home to the Northwest Regional Airport,
which has made Terrace a transportation hub within the region. Terrace boasts a population of
almost 14,000 residents within its municipal boundaries (City of Terrace, 2021).

9

Figure 2. Case study community of Terrace
In addition to being a transportation hub, Terrace acts as the regional service hub for the
Kitimat-Stikine area. The city services surrounding communities, bringing the Greater Terrace
Area population to a little over 18,000 residents (City of Terrace, 2021) - with 25.3% (4,940)
identifying as Indigenous (StatsCan, 2021). Among the communities that access services in
Terrace are the neighbouring First Nation communities of Kitsumkalum and Kitselas.
Kitsumkalum (pop, 722) to the south of the municipal boundary proclaims that they have a
“connection to the land, the rivers and the ocean that is central to their social, cultural and
political life” (Kitsumkalum, 2021: para. 5). Members of the Kitsumkalum First Nation have
subsisted from the beneficial foods the area has provided for innumerable generations, and they
continue to frequent sites that have been maintained to gather ocean and land foods
(Kitsumkalum, 2021). Kitselas (2021) has a population of approximately 700 people with a
“deep spiritual connection to the lands and resources” (para. 5). Kitselas describes itself as a
progressive Nation that draws their resilience from their commitment to one another (Kitselas,
2021). The greater Terrace area experiences bio-climatic characteristics that are suitable to
10

agriculture and as a result there is an extensive history of successful agricultural practices in the
area that are unique to Northwestern British Columbia (City of Terrace, 2021).
The City of Prince Rupert, officially incorporated on March 10, 1910, was once
envisioned as the western end of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, although this desired plan
never materialized (City of Prince Rupert, 2021; Leonard, 1996). With the opening of the
Canadian Fish and Cold Storage plant in 1912, the fishing industry became very important to
Prince Rupert’s economy and the city was once considered the “Halibut Capital of the World”.
At the end of World War II, Prince Rupert experienced a boom with the development of a pulp
mill on nearby Watson Island, which officially opened in 1951 (City of Prince Rupert, 2021).
This industrial development led to a more diverse economy over the following 40 years, with
forestry and fishing industries flourishing in the area.
In the 1990s, the forestry and fishing industries suffered a significant downturn and
Prince Rupert has experienced years of transitions, particularly as the shipping port was
developed and tourism started to become a focus for employment in the area (Wilson &
Summerville, 2008). The city's port capacity is now comparable with the Port of Vancouver's
(Prince Rupert Port Authority, 2021), and there is less traffic congestion than most west coast
ports with equivalent or shorter marine trade routes to Pacific Rim markets. Prince Rupert has
also become a starting point for many wildlife viewing trips and the ferry terminus for the
Northwest Passage and Haida Gwaii.

11

Figure 3. Case study community of Prince Rupert
As a result of its transitions, Prince Rupert now boasts a population of 13,462, with over
a third (40.5%) of the population identifying as First Nations (Stats. Can, 2021). Metlakata First
Nation community is located 5 km north of Prince Rupert with a population of just under 1,000
people. The Metlakatla First Nation “depends on its capacity to adapt to the changing
circumstances of the Northwest Coast Region. Metlakatla members continue to enjoy their
inherent rights and freedom to harvest traditional food and honour our history on the land.”
(Metlakatla, 2021: para 1).
1.3.1 Case Study Community Climate Profiles
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) identifies several factors that are
important in building community resilience to climate change impacts. Among these is the
recommendation to include a community climate profile that can assist in recognizing how the
climate is projected to change and the types of impacts that climate change will have on the
community (FCM, 2022). Compiling climate information by producing climate profiles can
support communities in their resilience and adaptation planning efforts. The following climate
12

profiles provide brief summaries of historic and recent climatic conditions and deliver data about
climate change impacts with a focus on specific areas within environmental, social, and
economic spheres (ICLEI Canada, 2017).
The Climate Atlas of Canada uses global climate models to provide data on two potential
emissions futures - a “Low Carbon” (RCP4.5) and a “High Carbon” (RCP8.5) scenario (Climate
Atlas, 2022). The High Carbon scenario (RCP8.5) assumes that there is no change to use and
burning of fossil fuels and that the world continues its current emissions. The Low Carbon
scenario (RCP4.5) adopts an assumption that by the end of the century, drastic measures will
have been taken to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG’s). Using the Climate
Atlas of Canada’s (2021) climate assessment tools, I constructed climate profiles (Table 2 & 3)
for Prince Rupert and Terrace. These provide context and an understanding of what a climate
future may look like for these case study communities.
Table 1. Prince Rupert climate profile
Climate Profile: Prince Rupert BC
Climate Variable

Historic (1976-2005)

High Carbon (RCP8.5) 2021-2050
Low

Mean

Low Carbon (RCP 4.5) 2021-2050

High

Low

Mean

High

Annual Percipitation (mm)

2556

2196

2702

3196

2211

2669

3171

Annual Mean Temp (°C)

7.2

7.7

9

10.3

7.4

8.7

10

Summer Mean Temp (°C)

12.9

13.3

14.7

16.1

14.6

16.4

18.3

Very Hot Days (+30°C)

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

Very Cold Days (-30°C)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Annual Frost Free Days

209

209

255

307

203

249

301

13

Table 2. Terrace climate profile
Climate Profile: Terrace, BC
Climate Variable

Historic (1976-2005)

High Carbon (RCP8.5) 2021-2050
Low

Mean

Low Carbon (RCP 4.5) 2021-2050

High

Low

Mean

High

Annual Percipitation (mm)

1360

1147

1446

1750

1141

1432

1753

Annual Mean Temp (°C)

6.7

7.3

8.6

10

6.9

8.3

10.8

Summer Mean Temp (°C)

15.6

15.8

17.6

19.5

15.7

17.4

19.2

Very Hot Days (+30°C)

5

1

11

23

2

10

21

Very Cold Days (-30°C)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Annual Frost Free Days

181

185

223

263

179

217

256

Table 1 shows that Prince Rupert is projected to not experience drastic changes from
current levels in temperature increases or the number of very hot days. What is important to
highlight is the increased amount of annual precipitation, with high level increases between
400mm to 600mm even within a low carbon future scenario (RCP 4.5). With heightened risk of
potential flooding in the area, there is a possibility that increased flow in the Skeena River and
other local tributaries could contribute to a barrier for returning salmon. Changes could also
damage stream beds, increasing impacts on dwindling spawning numbers (Plan 2 Adapt, 2020).
Sea level rise is also a concern with the limited coastal farmland being affected by soil salination,
as well as the potential for upwelling of irrigation water sources (Plan 2 Adapt, 2020). Across
North America, a common forecasted impact is that pests in the area may be more successful and
invasive species may increase. There is cause for widespread concerns regarding what responses
may be needed to manage this, both in the agriculture and livestock industries (Plan 2 Adapt,
2020).
The climate profile shows that agriculture in Terrace has the potential to benefit from
some climate change impacts, including a higher mean temperature and a longer growing season
(Plan 2 Adapt, 2020). However, increases in very hot days can impact growing conditions for
14

local farmers. As discussed previously, this was emphasized in June and July of 2021 and 2022,
when several farms in Terrace were severely affected by the “heat dome” that caused early crop
loss of some produce items (Slepian, 2021). Terrace is also not immune to flooding and an
overall increase in precipitation could cause waterlogged soil and delays in harvesting wherever
flooding causes infrastructure degradation and potential crop contamination (Plan 2 Adapt,
2020). Increased heat and high temperature days could also cause fluctuations in species ranges,
changes in migration routes, impacts on breeding behaviors, and ultimately potential declines in
the amount of local wildlife (Plan 2 Adapt, 2020).
1.4 Relevance & Importance
Within wider themes of sustainability, climate change adaptation, and community
development, my thesis focuses on local food systems and their ability to influence community
resilience. The current discourse on food systems and community resilience, particularly in
Northern regions, highlights the potential for local food systems to play a vital role in enhancing
resilience against environmental and economic disruptions (Valencia, et al., 2022). Research on
resilience has evolved from focusing on infrastructure and ecological factors to a more integrated
approach that includes social and ecological dimensions (Folke et al., 2010; Meerow et al.,
2016). Scholars have also identified the ability of local food systems to foster resilience by
enhancing food security, reducing reliance on external supply chains, and reinforcing social
networks (Wamsler, 2015). In Northern communities, where access to fresh, affordable food is
often limited due to geographic isolation, food systems planning has the potential to strengthen
the community’s capacity to adapt and thrive in the face of these challenges. Despite this

15

potential, the integration of food systems into resilience planning remains underexplored in both
academic and practical applications.
There is some research connecting food systems to resilience, but significant gaps
remain. A key shortcoming in the literature is the lack of recognition of food systems as central
to community resilience. Much of the research on resilience in the North, for instance, focuses on
infrastructure or climate-related challenges. These studies look at ‘the resilience of the food
system’, while the ways that the local food systems can help in building adaptative capacity and
sustainability is often overlooked. There has also been little progress in developing a conceptual
framework that specifically addresses how food systems planning can enhance resilience,
particularly in the context of the Northern provincial communities. This is a significant gap, as
food systems in these regions face unique challenges related to remoteness, climate, and social
dynamics.
Further research is urgently needed to address the aforementioned gaps and provide a clearer
understanding of the ways that local food systems can contribute to resilience in Northern
communities. The importance of place in shaping food systems and community practices has
been well-established (Cook, et al., 1998; Evans, et al., 2008; Franklin, et al., 2011; Harris, et al.,
2016; Marshal, et al., 2012), but its specific application in food system planning in the provincial
North remains underdeveloped. Additionally, while some studies have highlighted the
significance of Indigenous foodways in supporting cultural and environmental resilience (Soma
et al., 2024), there has been limited exploration of the importance of wild and ocean food sources
to the broader population. Addressing these gaps will require interdisciplinary approaches and
the development of targeted frameworks that can inform policy and planning efforts in these
regions.
16

1.5 Overview of Chapters
The remainder of this thesis is organized into the following 4 chapters.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The literature review examines the current state of knowledge on community resilience,
food systems, and their intersection. It takes a particular focus on northern and provincial areas.
It evaluates key concepts such as social learning, person-place connection, and niche spaces for
innovation, as well as the ways these concepts contribute to resilience. This chapter also
identifies gaps in the existing research, particularly in the lack of comprehensive food system
planning in Northern regions and the need for a conceptual framework linking food systems to
resilience.
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter outlines the case study methodology employed in the research, drawing on
the structured approach advocated by Yin (2018) and the constructivist perspectives of Stake
(1994). It details the research design, including data collection methods such as policy analysis
and semi-structured interviews with key informants in Terrace and Prince Rupert. The chapter
also discusses the rationale for selecting these communities as case studies and explains the
process for data analysis and triangulation.
Chapter 4: Results & Discussion
This chapter presents and unpacks four major themes identified from the policy analysis
and interviews: Community's Concept of Resilience; Bringing Community Together; More than
Agriculture and Gardens; and Doing Old Things in New Ways. The results reveal insights into
how local food systems are perceived and interacted with at the community level. These themes
highlight the multifaceted nature of food systems as more than just agricultural activities,
17

suggesting they are integral to cultural identity, community cohesion, and innovative adaptations
to contemporary challenges. This chapter synthesizes and examines the findings from the case
studies and situates them within the broader theoretical framework of community resilience. It
evaluates the extent to which local food systems in Terrace and Prince Rupert enhance resilience,
using the concepts of social learning, person-place connection, and niche spaces for innovation.
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations
The final chapter provides a summary of the key findings and their implications for food
systems planning and community resilience in Northern communities. It outlines practical
recommendations for policymakers and planners on integrating local food systems into resilience
strategies, emphasizing the need for more comprehensive food system planning and the
development of a conceptual framework to guide future research. The chapter concludes by
identifying areas for future research, including the importance of expanding the geographical
scope and conducting longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of local food systems
on resilience. The chapter also addresses the gaps identified in the literature, offering new
insights into how food systems planning can be improved to support community resilience in this
Northern region.

18

2. Literature Review
2.1 Resilience Theory
In a time when global ecological challenges like flooding, prolonged periods of drought, and
food insecurity are critical to address, social-ecological resilience offers an approach to problem
solving with particular relevance to community planning and design. With its roots in systems
ecology and inter-disciplinary systems thinking, social-ecological resilience theory provides a
basis for assessment and analysis of community and societal needs (Wilkinson, 2011). Unlike
similar concepts such as engineering resilience, which focuses on infrastructure elements and
strives to get the system to revert to its stable state, social-ecological resilience looks at the
capability to adapt, transform, and self-organize in response to emerging circumstances (Berkes
et al., 2003; Folke, 2006).
With a community system comprising both ecological and social elements, there has been a
movement to identify and promote key drivers of social-ecological resilience as a way to build
community resilience (Cutter et al., 2008; Folke et al., 2010; Pfefferbaum et al., 2017). As
defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), a driver is any natural or humaninduced factor that directly or indirectly causes a change. The literature has identified a variety of
resilience drivers, including adaptive capacity (Folke et al., 2010; Meerow et al., 2016), cobenefits (Wamsler, 2015), knowledge systems (Reid et al. 2009; Ross et al., 2014), and
collaboration (Brink et al., 2016; Burch et al., 2014; Ross et al., 2014). This latter example
involves aspects of social learning (Reid et al., 2009), person-place connection (Quinn et al.,
2015), and allowance for experimentation or innovation (Burch et al., 2014).

19

To build resilience and adaptability within a community, it is imperative to research and
understand what the underlying causes of vulnerability may be and what community functions
might contribute to resilience building. To better understand their relationship to one another,
and to understand the implications this relationship has on vulnerable communities, it is also
important to understand the conceptual landscape of resilience thinking and how resilience
thinking has progressed into planning and social science discourse. The following review takes a
thematic approach to understanding this landscape, examining the interrelated concepts of risk,
vulnerability, resilience, social-ecological resilience, and adaptive capacity. The review also
outlines the evolution of these terms, highlighting the disciplinary trajectories that have taken
these theories into the realm of community resilience planning.
2.1.1 Risk and Vulnerability
Over the last three decades scholars have paid considerable attention to a system-based
approach when considering risk, vulnerability, and resilience. A growing literature thus seeks to
empirically measure or expand theoretical understandings of risk, vulnerability, and resilience
(Adger, 2000; Cutter et al., 2008; Folke et al., 2010; Lewis, 1999; Timmerman, 1981). Although
the term risk is used within a variety of disciplines, this review predominately considers
literature that evaluates risk as it relates to disaster management and planning. In 1992, the
United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs defined risk as "expected losses (of lives,
persons injured, property damaged, and economic activity disrupted) due to a particular hazard
for a given area and reference period” (Kelman, 2018, pg. 285). This definition provides some
specific, quantifiable measurements of risk, but Tierney (2014) searches for a more qualitative
measure of risk, theorizing risk in relation to three questions: “What can go wrong? How likely
is it? And what are the consequences” (pg. 34).
20

With the consideration of what is at risk within a community, the questions Tierney poses
can really be asked as who is at risk and who is most vulnerable? Framed as such, an
understanding of risk captures the dimension of what Hewitt (1995) describes as the social
construction of disaster. For Hewitt, the main problem for researchers studying disaster lies in
the social conditions that shape how disasters are thought about and acted upon. Disaster has
differential effects on different communities. An example would be that food scarcity will impact
those who are less affluent first, and more dramatically.
Closely coupled to the concept of risk, vulnerability has been predominantly used in disaster
and hazards reduction literature to assess the potential for loss of life and damage that occurs
because of natural disasters (Cutter, 1996). Within an early study of disaster risk, Gilbert (1995)
outlined three classifications. The first perspective views disaster as a replication of war, where
the catastrophe is blamed on an external force, and human communities respond collectively to
this perceived attack. The second interpretation sees disaster as a reflection of social weaknesses
that arise from internal dynamics within the community and are shaped by social and systemic
factors. The third approach understands disaster as a plunge into uncertainty, emphasizing the
difficulty of distinguishing between actual and perceived threats, especially after the disruption
of the mental frameworks we rely on to interpret reality (Gilbert, 1995).
Gilbert (1995) underscores the importance of social vulnerability in that disaster or risk is
studied through a crisis that progresses within a community. Gilbert’s work reveals that social
vulnerabilities can be a result of disorder within society, rather than some outward force.
Accordingly, actions to reduce vulnerability should focus on the capacity of political actors or
decision makers and their ability to implement plans and policies that can manage critical
situations (Eriksen & O’brien, 2007). In this sense the answer to disasters may lie directly in
21

exploring how the organization of human communities is formed, particularly in “[w]hat kind of
links of solidarity can make a community out of different social groups?” (Gilbert, 1995, pg.
239).
Within the study of vulnerability and social construction, Timmerman (1981) viewed
vulnerability as the degree to which a system acts towards influencing the impact of a hazardous
occurrence. In this definition, a system is a set of elements working together or working within
an interconnecting network (Timmerman, 1981). Using nature as an example, a system could be
an ecosystem containing elements such as air, water, and plants that move and work together to
flourish or perish (Meadows, 2008). Pijawka and Radwan (1985) expanded this thinking by
describing vulnerability as the interaction between risk and preparedness, the degree of danger
towards a particular population, and the community capacity to reduce any risk that exists. For
example, Christensen and Stack (1992) examined vulnerability and climate change by assessing
food security in Zimbabwe. Their research found that increases in community capacities like
farming education programs improved the community’s recovery from food crises.
In more recent work theorizing vulnerability, Wisner et al.’s (2011) progression of
vulnerability framework goes on to break down how the interconnected scales of social
vulnerability impact one another. The framework proposes that societal scales interact over time,
with dynamic pressures (e.g., a lack of appropriate skills) translating root causes of vulnerability
(e.g., access to resources) into forces that shape societal structures, institutions, and social groups
(Wisner et al., 2011). Cutter et al. (2008) also emphasizes interacting scales, describing
vulnerability as the pre-event that creates harm within social systems. In their view
“[v]ulnerability is a function of the exposure (who or what is at risk) and sensitivity of the
system (the degree to which people and places can be harmed)” (Cutter, et al., 2008, pg. 599).
22

Finally, Adger (2000) describes social vulnerability as the exposure of individuals and
groups of people to stress or impacts from environmental change. The capacity to manage this
stress is resilience, referred to by some (but certainly not all) as the antonym of vulnerability
(Adger, 2000). Adger goes on to state that contemporary research claims that the interaction
between social dynamics within a social-ecological system is the key to knowing vulnerability
and that understanding these dynamics is important for actions that seek to build resilience
(Adger et al, 2012). This view recognizes that vulnerable people are often left out of decisionmaking processes, and often have limited capacity and access to power and resources.
When creating policy interventions that seek to reduce vulnerability, it is imperative to
identify current vulnerabilities within social ecological systems and to recognize that the societal
mechanisms that are in place may be the cause of vulnerability in the first place (Adger, 2006).
Walker et al (2006) addresses this need by not just looking at who may be left out of decision
making, but at the resilience of the system itself and how one system regime may be desirable for
one segment of society and not another. Cote and Nightingale (2012) similarly question the use
of ecological principles to analyze social dynamics, as doing so can lead researchers and policy
makers to ignore important aspects of the role of power and culture in adaptive capacity. When
applying resilience theory to the social realm, questions such as “resilience of what” and
“resilience for who” need to be asked (Cote & Nightingale, 2012). Cote and Nightingale (2012)
conclude that resilience thinking is worthy of developing, but only if approaches engage with
questions around agency, power, and knowledge that are brought forth from social science
critiques.

23

2.1.2 Community Resilience
Resilience thinking (resilience theory) is one of the major conceptual tools in environment
literatures that discusses means of change at multiple levels of organization (e.g., local to global)
(Berkes & Ross, 2013). A resilience thinking approach explores how interrelating systems of
people and nature, also known as social-ecological systems, can be managed in a way that
safeguards a resilient and sustainable supply of the needed ecosystem services on which a
civilization relies (Folke et al., 2010). There are many competing notions and definitions of
resilience, including engineering resilience, in which a system is understood in the context of its
ability to recover from a disturbance and maintain persistency of service dependability (Folke,
2006). In the social–ecological systems stream of resilience thinking, resilience is the capacity of
the system to continually change and adapt while functions key to the health of elements in the
system (and the system itself) remain within critical thresholds (Adger et al., 2014; Folke et al.,
2010; Wilkinson, 2011). As Walker et al. (2004) state, resilience “may be formally defined as the
capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still
retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” (pg. 4).
Ecological resilience literature was brought to the forefront by C. S. (Buzz) Holling (1973),
who developed the notion of resilience based on the observations of the changing aspects of the
boreal forest ecosystem. Holling (1973) referred to resilience as the ecosystem’s capacity to
persist through stress and continue to operate in its original state. In his seminal work, Holling
sought to characterize the capacity of a system and describe the process of self-renewal and
maintenance in the face of disturbance. A major contribution of this work was the recognition
that a changing system could remain within critical thresholds in a given stable state, or

24

transform into a new regime with a different function, structure, identity, and set of feedbacks
(Berkes & Ross, 2013).
As an early pioneer in social science who helped to translate resilience from the ecological
realm into the social sciences realm, Adger (2000) describes resilience as a system’s buffer
capacity, or its ability to absorb shocks and strains. A key contribution from this work recognizes
that social resilience is connected to the social capital of communities and the interrelationship of
social systems and the ecosystem (Adger, 2000). Importantly, the relationship between
ecosystems and communities includes a dependence for economic activities and livelihoods that
support community members, suggesting that the ability of these groups to acclimatize to social,
political or environmental stresses is the community’s resilience (Adger, 2003).
Since Holling’s original work, the development and application of resilience theory has
transitioned from ecosystem science into the social sciences, along with a broader recognition
that social systems and biophysical ecosystems are interdependent (Adger, 2000; Havko et al.,
2017; Scott, 2013; Tierney, 2014). Folke (2006) theorizes that resilience scholarship often
focuses on the capability of a social-ecological system to “absorb shocks and maintain function”,
but he also recognizes that resilience can involve the capacity for “renewal, re-organization and
development.” (p.253). This thinking captures the capacity to transform the stability landscape
itself to become a different kind of system, and to create a fundamentally new system when
ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable.
Berkes and Ross (2013) add that in the environmental domain, resilience is a systems
concept that recognizes how units operate within an integrated and interdependent social–
ecological system. As such, it is expected that the analysis of community resilience is sensitive to
the principles of complexity, including feedback loops, unpredictability, and social and
25

geographical scale (Berkes & Ross, 2013). Indeed, in an early contribution to scholarship that
has shaped understandings of community resilience, Hewitt (1995) points to relationships
between government, communities, and social action as a basis for risk management and the
production of vulnerability. Moreover, as Cutter (1996) explains, vulnerability discussions often
center around loss potential, but not on what that loss is, nor who would lose.
Recognizing that vulnerability and risk are not solely a function of environmental (and other)
hazards, community resilience planning must consider how experiences of vulnerability exist and
interact across multiple scales. It must also consider how such experiences are expressed as
distinct spatial outcomes, and over what differing timescales vulnerability or losses occur (Cutter
1996). As Maclean et al. (2014) state, awareness and understanding of the properties of social
resilience allows managers and resource users to design policies that maximize sustainability of
the goods and services derived from the ecosystem, while minimizing the impact on people.
Examples of social properties that have been linked to resilience of social ecological systems
include policy or governance vision, leadership and trust, capacity to monitor and respond to
environmental feedback, and development of social networks (Folke, 2006; Berkes & Ross,
2013).
Lastly, Pfefferbaum et al. (2017) point to the social capital that emerges from improved
social connections and networks as great contributors to community resilience. It is this
knowledge and the understanding of shared and differing relationships to risk, vulnerability, and
social-ecological resilience that can provide community organizations and the community itself
the necessary tools to build a resilient community. Accordingly, as understood relative to this
research project, community resilience is the ‘‘existence, development and engagement of

26

community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by
change, uncertainty, unpredictability and surprise” (Magis, 2010, pg. 401).
2.1.3 Drivers of Resilience
As noted above, resilience has often been viewed historically through an engineering lens
that predominately looked at infrastructure resilience to risk (Cutter et al., 2008). This view has
evolved with consideration of social vulnerability and social-ecological resilience, with planners
developing a greater understanding of the multidimensional nature of resilience and its
components (Adger et al., 2014). In understanding the inter-relationship of risk, vulnerability and
resilience, as well as its disciplinary trajectories into the realm of social science, the importance
of social capacity building has come to the forefront. When considering the community system,
it is particularly important in planning and community development to recognize that a
community’s resilience to disaster is only as strong as its greatest vulnerability (Havko et al.,
2017).
As one type of social-ecological system, a community’s resilience is often understood as the
capacity of its social system to come together to work toward a communal objective and adapt to
change as necessary (Berkes & Ross, 2013). In resilience literatures, this is often described as
adaptive capacity, or the capacity of actors in a system to influence resilience, often through
work done in social networks and learning communities (Folke et al., 2010). As a system
property, adaptive capacity operates at multiple levels, from the individual, to community, and
sometimes to higher levels of organization (Brown & Westaway, 2011). Community resilience
relies not only on existing cultural adaptations, but also on the ability to put together knowledge
from different sources through a co-production process that reveals new and beneficial
information (Armitage et al. 2011).
27

As stated above, community resilience can be built through a variety of drivers that assist and
enable a community in addressing its vulnerabilities and adapting to changes to transform the
system (Cutter et al., 2008; Folke et al., 2010; Pfefferbaum et al., 2017). A driver is defined by
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) as any natural or human-induced factor
that directly or indirectly causes a change. Throughout the literature, multiple drivers of
resilience have been identified, including but not limited to:
•
•
•
•

adaptive capacity which can include economic resources, infrastructure and institutions
(Folke et al., 2010; Meerow et al, 2016);
co-benefits, including ecosystem services and landscape diversity (Wamsler, 2015);
knowledge systems, which comprises expert, Indigenous and local knowledge (Reid et al.
2009; Ross et al., 2014);
and collaboration, which includes community engagement, governance networks, social
learning, person-place connection and space for innovation and experimentation (Brink et
al, 2016; Burch et al, 2014; Ross et al, 2014).

Where collaboration is linked to community resilience in the literature, it is often described
as a problem-solving process that includes the integration of various knowledge, expertise, and
values systems through participatory approaches that themselves capitalize on the effectiveness
of policy and governance objectives (Berkes & Ross, 2013; Burch et al., 2014). Collaboration
usually requires the formation and preservation of mutual trust throughout the development and
maintenance of relationships (Brink et al., 2016). Scholars have identified community resilience
drivers that relate to collaboration, including community empowerment (Reid, 2002), community
engagement (Ford et al., 2015), governance networks (Meerow et al., 2016), and social learning
(Ahren, 2013; Reid et al., 2009).
Within the context of collaboration or collaborative planning, Berkes and Ross (2013) point
to scholarship that has highlighted the role of social learning in not just the preservation of a
social–ecological system, but ultimately its potential transformation. The extension of social
28

capital, including social learning, to the community level focuses on recognition of a
community’s assets, and how these strengths contribute to an overall process of facing
challenges (Kulig et al., 2008). Ahren (2013) describes social learning as a participatory process
of problem solving, active reflection, and learning by doing. Reid et al. (2009) similarly note that
social learning involves a shift in understanding and behaviours through social interactions
within social networks. They state that through these interactions within the social network,
social learning transcends the individual to become embedded within the larger society or
communities of practice.
Another well documented driver of community resilience is person-place connection (Berkes
& Ross, 2013; Ross et al, 2014; Quinn et al., 2015). Geographers and anthropologists often
differentiate the study of place between place as a location (a spatial unit amongst other spatial
units) and place as a cultural artifact (a center of meaning for both individuals and groups)
(Tuan, 1975; Yan, 2000). Stemming from human geography and environmental psychology,
research into people’s relationship with place has been described using several often overlapping
concepts. These include sense of place (Relph, 1976), place dependence (Stokols & Shumaker,
1982), place identity (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983), place attachment (Brown &
Perkins, 1992), and place satisfaction (Stedman, 2002). Ultimately, considering person-place
connection as a driver of resilience refers to an emotional connection to a place, as well as
dimensions of self that define an individual's identity in relation to the physical environment
(Fresque Baxter & Armitage, 2012; Quinn et al., 2015). As Mang (2009) writes, for human
beings, places are meaningful. They help in providing a sense of rootedness and our identity
within the world.

29

Within the literature, scholars recognize connections between people and place as a driver of
resilience in so far as such connections can lead to action to preserve emotionally significant
attachments and places that are relevant to one’s sense of self (Quinn et al., 2015). Berkes and
Ross (2013) highlight that in the case of communities that have historic knowledge of their lands,
as with many Indigenous groups, the health of the land can reflect the health of the people. This
concept comes through in the Australian Indigenous adage ‘‘healthy country, healthy people’’.
With consideration of the many aspects involved in person-place connections, Kelly and Bliss
(2009) state that like Indigenous communities, rural forestry, or agriculturally based
communities see a correspondence between the health and the resilience of communities and
their environments.
Maclean et al. (2013) maintain that organizations can manage for resilience by recognizing
and enhancing attributes of person-place connections and providing space for growth of
community strength. At the same time, some research suggests that person-place connections can
also be a determinant of resistance to change, showing that citizens’ unwillingness to change can
be a barrier to transformation (Daw et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2012; Quinn et al., 2015). Either
is likely possible for given individuals and groups at a given place and point in time. Indeed,
Quinn et al. (2015) assert that regardless of direction, the set of relationships between individuals
and their identities, their connection to place, as well as the structures of governance they are
situated within are at the core of the adaptive challenge of climate change.
The third driver of resilience that is highlighted in this research is niche spaces for innovation
and experimentation. Resilience literature highlights the need for communities to allow for niche
spaces that empower community members by providing opportunity for experimentation and
innovation across different sectors and scales (Brink et al., 2016; Burch et al., 2014; Ross et al.,
30

2014). O’Sullivan et al. (2014) stress the importance of empowerment, collaboration, and
innovation to such an extent that they have named them as core components that support
adaptive capacity and resilience in a community. Niche spaces can provide space for
technological innovation that is formed through collaborative interactions among actors and
institutions in a specific technological domain (Hekkert et al., 2007), contributing to the
development, spread, and use of new technology or products (Markard & Truffer, 2008).
With clear links to social learning processes, Benny and McWhorter (2019) also point to
social innovation that involves learning-by-doing, experimental approaches, and multi-scale
governance arrangements as a niche space activator. Social innovations can be described as
people coming together to initiate new ways of addressing social needs such as education,
community development, and health. This includes crowdsourcing, virtual learning, and circular
economy initiatives (Westley, 2013). Cheuy (2013) writes that Canada is a leader in social
innovation, known for tackling complex social and environmental issues while directing
collaboration among stakeholders toward creative solutions. Within this context, Community
Innovation stands out as a localized form of social innovation, targeting specific areas such as
communities (Chuey, 2023).
Grassroots innovations are early-stage, often home-grown solutions led by community
members who innovate at the margins (Lucarelli, 2023). These solutions are often naturally
frugal, grounded in a specific context, and potentially more relevant than top-down “solutions,”
given their proximity to the problem (Lucarelli, 2023). Smith and Seyfang (2013) indicate that
grassroots innovations often consist of networks of activists and organizations that create new
sustainable development solutions from the ground up. These solutions are tailored to local needs
and reflect the values and interests of the communities involved. What unites these efforts is a
31

shared commitment among participants to openness and inclusion in both the innovation process
and its outcomes (Smith & Seyfang, 2013).
Burch et al. (2014) agree, noting that at the community scale niche spaces for
experimentation may be developed, but may also be difficult to maintain without some degree of
provincial or federal goal alignment. Without such support, Burch and colleagues note that it is
unclear whether locally developed avenues of innovation can be used within other communities,
or implemented at a scale that would contribute to overall community resilience. Challenges
notwithstanding, O’Sullivan et al. (2014) declare that it is important to embrace innovation and
emergence as valuable attributes essential in community resilience. They state that “[t]his
acceptance and openness to possibilities that arise when emergence occurs is part of a culture
that encourages innovation and empowers the community to contribute” (O’Sullivan et al., 2014:
p.6).
2.2 Food Systems
A food system is described as a social–ecological system that is shaped through social and
biophysical factors that are linked through feedback mechanisms (Gregory et al., 2005; Tendall
et al., 2015). Food systems operate at varying scales, from simple local food systems like a
small-scale subsistence farm to a complex global industrialized food chain that has products
being shipped around the world (Millstone & Lang, 2003). The common definition of a food
system incorporates the functions of food production, processing, distribution, accessing,
consumption, and waste management (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 2000; Tendall et al., 2015;
Zerbe, 2010). To further understand the mechanisms that encompass a food system, Gregory et
al. (2005) established components of the food system, including: food availability (primarily
connected to production, distribution and exchange); food access (recognizing relationships with
32

affordability, allocation and preference); and finally, food utilization (which includes elements of
nutritional and social value as well as food safety).
Like Gregory et al. (2005), Sumner (2012) believes the definition above meets the basic
functions of a food system but lacks recognition of the active social network that food systems
operate within. Food systems can therefore be thought of as an interdependent web that
fundamentally involves dynamic entities that are constructed by people to meet and satisfy their
needs and requirements (Sumner, 2012). At each stage of a food system, regulatory institutions
and activities involved in system processes are also included in the food system itself (Barthel &
Isendahl, 2013). Ultimately, the food system is rooted in wide-ranging political, economic,
social, cultural, and environmental contexts (Zerbe, 2010). As Tendall et al. (2015) state, food
systems are inherently complex. They are made up of multiple processes, value chains, actors,
and interactions, and their outcomes impact a variety of stakeholders and sectors.
Given my project’s central focus, it is important to recognize that food systems around the
world are changing at a rapid pace as urbanization and globalization continue as dominant
growth patterns (Reardon et al., 2019). Most consumers today purchase the food they eat from
large multinational grocery store chains that are stocked with products that come from around the
world (Zerbe, 2010). In the last fifty years, with improvements in shipping and storage,
expanding consumer demand, and implementation of free-trade agreements, imports of food
products have grown exponentially (Martinez et al., 2010). Increasingly, food is produced in
distant locations, processed in central plants, and then transported across the continent to large
chain grocery stores to be bought and consumed (Zerbe, 2010). The long supply chains of the
global food system are vulnerable to breakdown, human error, climate change impacts, and
disease, among other things. The extreme complexity of having multiple key actors and
33

interconnected global businesses as the foundation of the global industrial systems leads to
cascading problems across sectors, and these problems have the potential to cause widespread
system malfunction (Anderson, 2015; Tendall et al., 2015). The pandemic caused by COVID-19
provided an insight to these vulnerabilities. A post pandemic study by Kubatko et al. (2023)
revealed that COVID-19 severely disrupted global food systems through trade restrictions,
supply chain disruptions, and reduced market and labor access. This led to increased food
insecurity, especially for vulnerable populations in low-income households and importdependent countries (Kubatko et al., 2023).
When considering climate change, the global food system finds itself in an unusual situation.
The global food system itself contributes almost one-quarter of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (Reay, 2020; Vermeulen et al., 2012). It is also incredibly susceptible to the
impacts of climate change, both in terms of agriculture production and supply chain
infrastructure (Challinor et al., 2014; Rosenzweig et al., 2014). Analysis shows that even if all
non-food system GHG emissions were eliminated, it is expected that global food system
emissions alone would surpass the 1.5-degree emissions limit established in the 2015 Paris
Agreement (Clark et al., 2020).
Studies that explore strategies for reducing GHG emissions from the global food system
predominately lean towards societal behavioral change, including adopting a plant rich diet,
avoiding red meat, adjusting per capita caloric intake, and reducing food loss and waste (Audsley
et al., 2010; Clark et al., 2020; Garnett, 2011). However, most global food system GHG
emissions emerge from food production and land being cleared for food production (Clark et al.,
2020; Frank et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2007).

34

Agricultural measures that are needed to decrease GHG emissions include improving crop
genetics and agronomic practices, as well as reducing the use of nitrogenous fertilizers and
implementation of more efficient technology (Clark et al., 2020). Agriculture and land use
sectors are faced with a difficult balancing act of lower emissions and providing protection for
soil and water ecosystems while also ensuring that there is a satisfactory quantity and quality of
food for the world’s population (Reay, 2020).
Three terms that are commonly used within food system literature are: food security, food
insecurity, and food sovereignty. These are distinct but related concepts and each carry nuanced
meanings and implications for global or regional food systems. The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations defines food security as a state "when all people, at all
times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that
meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life" (FAO, 1996). The
emphasis is not only on the availability of food. The concept also covers dimensions of
accessibility, utilization and culture. Understandings of food security have evolved over time,
incorporating considerations of stability and sustainability in food systems. Ultimately, the
notion captures the need to ensure that all people have the needed food available to them
(Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009). Food security is often measured through indicators such as food
availability, access, utilization, stability, and cultural appropriateness (FAO, 2008).
Conversely, food insecurity signifies the absence of reliable access to a sufficient quantity of
affordable, nutritious food. It is a multifaceted concept, comprising aspects of poverty,
inequality, and inadequate social structures (Coates et al., 2007). The Household Food Insecurity
Access Scale (HFIAS) is a measurement tool that is frequently used to assess the prevalence and
severity of food insecurity at the household level (Coates et al., 2007). Food insecurity displays
35

itself in various forms, ranging from chronic hunger to transitory food crises, and it is shaped by
economic, social, and political factors, not from insufficient food production (Webb et al., 2012).
Holt-Gimenez, et al. (2021) writes that hunger stems from poverty and inequality, not food
scarcity, as the world currently produces 1.5 times enough food to feed everyone. Global
production yields enough food to feed 10 billion people, the expected global population by 2050.
According to the United Nations Food Waste Index Report (2021), 931 million tonnes of food, or
17% of all food available to consumers, was wasted globally in 2019. The majority of this waste
occurs in households, which discard 11% of food. Food services and retailers account for 5% and
2% of waste respectively. Together, this waste contributes to 8%-10% of GHGs emissions,
further exacerbating climate change (UN, 2021).
Finally, food sovereignty diverges from the concept of food security by emphasizing the
rights of individuals and communities to control their own food systems. Rooted in the Via
Campesina movement, food sovereignty asserts the autonomy of people to determine their
agricultural policies, production methods, and food distribution systems (Patel, 2009). It calls for
democratic decision-making processes that prioritize local and traditional knowledge,
acknowledging the socio-cultural aspects of food production and consumption (Wittman et al.,
2010). Food sovereignty contends that communities should have the power to shape their food
systems, resisting external pressures that may undermine local autonomy (Desmarais, 2007).
Food security, food insecurity, and food sovereignty represent distinct conceptual
frameworks within the discourse on global food systems. While food security focuses on
ensuring access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food, food insecurity denotes the lack of such
access and is intertwined with issues of poverty and inequality. On the other hand, food

36

sovereignty advocates for the empowerment of communities to control their own food systems
and economy, emphasizing local autonomy and democratic decision-making.
2.2.1 Global Industrial Food Systems
Following World War II, the North American food system experienced a shift from an
emphasis on local food acquisition, to national and then global supply networks. Stimulated by
lower transportation costs and improvements in refrigerated trucking, specialization in regional
and global transport of goods reinforced a transition to a non-local food system (Martinez et al.,
2010; Rotz & Fraser, 2015). Improvements in transportation, and inexpensive fossil fuels
allowed for perishable items such as milk, eggs, meats, and fruits and vegetables to be shipped
across continents and oceans at a low cost (not withstanding externalized costs) that could easily
be passed on to the consumer (Pirog & Rasmussen, 2008). Some of these food imports compete
directly with locally produced goods, while others complement domestic production and provide
consumer access to fresh fruits and vegetables year-round (Martinez et al., 2010). Tropical
products such as bananas, mangos and pineapple have now become expected by temperate
climate consumers, and this shift in expectations has created reinforcing feedbacks that have
increased the reliance of global food imports (Giovannucci et al., 2010). As Zerbe (2010) states,
“the seasonality and regional characteristics which marked eating habits in various parts of the
country [were] obliterated by the industrialization of food” (pg. 9)
Research shows that cheap transportation and labour costs, capitalization of agriculture, and
consumer demand have coalesced to produce today’s global industrial food system –
a “corporate controlled, long distance-based food distribution and supermarket retailing system”
(Hinrichs, 2000: p. 298). Our current food system is defined by large scale, highly capital
intensive, centralized processing and marketing networks that rely on long distance
37

transportation (Anderson, 2015; Zerbe, 2010). Since the 1940’s the intensification of agricultural
production has also included profound changes in the way food systems are organized. Changes
in distribution, marketing, affordability, and preferences for particular food items are especially
noticeable across North America and Europe, where market globalization has shifted economic
and political power from farmers to retailers (Abate, 2008; Martinez et al. 2010).
Currently, there are added pressures within the global food system. These pressures stem
from slow, but major shifts caused by soil degradation, climate change, population growth, and
various economic and political crises (Tendall et al., 2015; Zerbe, 2010). With the ability to
source products internationally, the global industrial food system domain has provided some
protection from breakdowns. For example, if climate change impacts (a flood or drought) affect
the production capacity in one region, a wholesaler or processor simply uses goods sourced from
another region (Anderson, 2015). However, the vulnerability of long supply chains, the heavy
reliance on transportation which increases GHG emissions, and susceptibility to food borne
pathogens in large scale processing sites remains a challenge (Rotz & Fraser, 2015). Dominant
global-industrial processors and retailers also have no vested interest in supporting any specific
region or nation; they simply source from the lowest-cost producer. With the current integration
of food systems into an international market, when breakdowns do occur, their scope and impact
is much larger (Zerbe, 2010).
2.2.2 Alternative Food Systems
Presenting a counter to the large scale, industrialized systems of food production and
distribution run by transnational companies is what is often called the ‘alternative food system’.
Hinrichs (2000) describes an alternative food system as a network of face-to-face links between
producers and consumers. Several high-profile failures within the mainstream industrialized food
38

system, including the carcinogenic and birth defect causing pesticides on California grapes in the
late 1980’s and the numerous e-coli outbreaks that occurred throughout North America in the
mid-1990’s (Blay-Palmer, 2016), led to an interest in alternative food systems as a means to
promote safety and sustainability. Fears around contaminated unsafe food, as well as concerns
around environmental impacts, have created an increased level of consumer awareness of and
concern over food health and safety, animal welfare, GHG outputs, and regional development.
The economic failure of family farms, and consequent hollowing out of rural communities also
contributed significantly to the decline of availability of local food while emphasizing the need
for change (Hassebrook, 1999; Mullinix, 2006).
Studies in the late 1990’s revealed significant structural changes in U.S. agriculture, with the
number of family farms decreasing by 64% since the 1950’s (Hassebrook, 1999). The average
farm size increased by 127%, yet the corresponding farm population dropped to less than 2% of
the total. By 2000, the largest 9% of farms in the U.S. controlled two-thirds of farmland and 90%
of agricultural output now comes from just 522,000 farms. Further studies have shown that the
decline of small farms and growth in farm size negatively impact rural communities, prompting
recommendations to support small-scale agriculture through low-capital farming systems, local
food markets, and stronger connections between farmers and consumers to boost local
economies and food security (Apps, 2024; Hassebrook, 1999; Mullinix, 2006). These factors and
others contributed to a movement towards a fundamental restructuring of our food system (BlayPalmer, 2016; Mathijs et al., 2006; Zerbe, 2010). As Crivits and Paredis (2013) write, alternative
food systems were created as a reaction to the productivist paradigm of the dominant agro-food
system.

39

The literature identifies many diverse forms of alternative food systems that can vary in scale
and output. An alternative food system may be structured as a community supported farm, a fairtrade movement, or a school gardening project. Each of these examples differs in scale, yet all
would share some form of a vision based on a framework of social justice and environmental
awareness (Martinez et al., 2010; Higgins et al., 2008; Zerbe, 2010). Goodman et al. (2012) state
that because alternative food systems cover such a wide range of initiatives, identifying such
diversity under one category can be considered an oversimplification.
At the same time, visions for alternative food systems share a common bond in emphasizing
the importance of more nutritional and ecologically sustainable diets, the need to provide dignity
and social justice in food access, the goal of creating community empowerment through skill
building and knowledge acquisition, and the revitalization of strong small scale, local and family
run farms (Edge & Meyer, 2019; Apps, 2024). Many alternative food system advocates also
claim that alternative food systems play a substantial roll in reducing GHG emissions,
agrochemical pollution, packaging, and food waste. In the process, they can become a force for
increasing recycling or composting activities (Winter, 2003).
Urban agriculture, a city-focused alternative food system, encompasses the cultivation of
food and animal husbandry within urban areas. These initiatives are not only reshaping urban
landscapes, but experimenting with alternatives to capitalist urban life organization, occasionally
laying the groundwork for revitalizing the Commons (Tornaghi, 2014). Harvey (2011) describes
the Commons as referring to cultural and natural resources that are available to all members of a
society, encompassing elements like air, water, and a livable environment. Vivero Pol (2013)
adds that the idea of the Commons, as applied to food, transforms it from a purely private good
into an impure Commons. This reimagining proposes that food production and distribution can
40

be optimized through a hybrid governance system that integrates market rules, public
regulations, and collective actions (Vivero Pol, 2013).
Notwithstanding the notable range of positive characteristics of alternative food systems,
some scholars are critical of unintentional exclusionary aspects within community led alternative
food system projects (Edge & Meyer, 2019). Critiques include concerns that alternative food
system projects inadequately engage community members that live in the lowest income bracket,
and that racialized, marginalized, and/or vulnerable populations are not included in these food
systems’ planning and programming networks (Franklin et al., 2011). Indeed, Hinrichs and
Kremer (2002) considered a variety of alternative food efforts, from organics to sustainable
agriculture, and found that there is often a potential for exclusion. They point to a possible
misalignment between programmatic goals and actual outcomes as a core cause.
Heeding these warnings, some communities and non-profit organizations have come together
to address these concerns, creating accessible supermarket co-operatives through local food hubs
(Giacche & Retiere, 2019). Identifying the need for change, within the last decade a growing
movement to recognize the inclusion for food justice and equity within alternative food systems
is becoming normalized (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018; Hinrichs, 2014; Jones & Bhatia, 2011).
2.2.3 Local Food Systems
Local food system initiatives are typically grouped under the umbrella of alternative food
networks as programs that intend to counteract the economic, social, and ecological impacts of a
globalized food system (Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Franklin et al., 2011). Framed as a counteraction,
they are a comparatively recent phenomenon, as current industrialized system of agricultural
production practiced in North America are themselves relatively novel. Just 100 years ago most
of a North American community’s diet was grown, harvested, hunted, and processed locally
41

(Zerbe, 2010). Mathjis et al.’s (2006) definition of a local food system captures this arrangement,
focusing on relationships wherein food system components provide a more direct link between
consumers and producers. To illustrate the importance of relationships, Hinrichs (2000) makes a
comparison between the global food system where “producers and consumers are distant and
anonymous” and a local market where they are “immediate, personal and enacted in shared
space” (pg. 295).
As the development of food studies has evolved, scholars, food connoisseurs, chefs, and
others have highlighted and profiled multiple sub-sects of local food and the cultures that utilize
them (Shaw, 2002). Terroir, a French term used to describe the natural environment of any
viticultural site (or the soils that give rise to a particular wine’s taste) (Trubek, 2004), is one subsect that has been brought to North America to describe the “taste of place” (Trubek, 2008).
Taste is both a biological and a cultural sense, bringing about meaning, familiarity, and
sentimentality that is often attached to a particular locale (Watson & Caldwell, 2005). Even when
not specifically using the newest iteration of the term terroir, many scholars are interested in the
identification and understanding of place in relation to food. Cook et al. (1998) claim that when
asking “what food is this?” one is at least partially asking “where does this food come from?” (p.
163).
Zerbe’s (2010) definition expands earlier works by considering a geographical area in
defining the local food system. He writes that a local food system can be defined as the networks
and processes that are related to acquiring food within a specific community or area. While
capturing a spatial dimension is intuitive and relevant, across the literature there is little
consensus as to what specific distance or geographical space this community or area should be to
constitute “local” (Feenstra, 1997; Franklin et al., 2011; Hinrichs, 2000; Mathjis et al., 2006).
42

Some have argued that a local food system is (in reality) more of a regional or bioregional food
system (Clancy & Ruhf, 2010; Mittal et al., 2018; Mullinix et al., 2016). The Government of
British Columbia takes it one step further, indicating in Bill M 222: Local Food Act 2015 that
local includes the whole province, such that local food means:
(a) food produced or harvested in British Columbia, including forest or freshwater food, and
(b) subject to any limitations in the regulations, food and beverages made in British
Columbia if they include ingredients produced or harvested in British Columbia.
Often left out of the description of local food systems, the Government of BC (2015)
recognizes the inclusion of forest and freshwater food as part of what local food includes. Food
harvested from the land and waters through hunting and harvesting is often referred to as wild
foods, or traditional/country foods. Traditional and country foods are most often connected with
Indigenous food systems (Judge et al., 2022). Wild foods can include food and medicinal plants
foraged or harvested from forests and grassland (Tiwari & Rani, 2004), fishing and harvesting in
fresh and ocean waters (La Cerva, 2020; Smith et al., 2019), and the hunting of land and sea
mammals and avian species (La Cerva, 2020; Smith et al., 2019).
Many people of all cultures engage in acquiring their foods from nature, yet this is often
overlooked in food systems planning, which can have a predominate urban and/or agricultural
lens (Issaac, et al., 2022).Wild foods are regularly discussed by scholars and food system
researchers with a tie to Indigenous communities, and it is only within the last ten years that
hunting and harvesting has begun to be recognized within food systems planning, predominately
in northern, rural and Indigenous communities.
Advocates make a variety of claims regarding the advantages of local food systems. Many
point to the enhanced social and economic activities for local communities that local food
systems provide (Crivits & Paredis, 2013). The economic importance is highlighted in the
43

Investment Agriculture Foundation’s (IAF) Study of the British Columbia Agriculture Sector
(2020). This work showed that in 2019, BC’s agricultural sector contributed nearly $8.5 billion
to the province's economy, including $4.6 billion in direct output and $3.9 billion from indirect
impacts like spending and wages for 55,000 workers. The sector plays a key role in food
processing, supplying 38% of inputs to local processors and generating $11.1 billion in valueadded outputs, making it vital to BC’s economy (IAF, 2020). These benefits span regional and
municipal boundaries with rural and remote farms contributing greatly to local economic
development (Mullinix, et al., 2021).
Research has also shown that local consumers believe they receive an assortment of benefits
from local food systems, including enhanced food quality and greater nutritional benefits
(Martinez et al., 2010). Supporters of local food systems similarly praise the environmental
benefits, pointing to statistics that show less pollution and GHG emissions caused by a reduced
transportation demand, or so-called food miles (Zerbe, 2010). There is a growing belief among
some advocates that local food systems have appropriate growth potential to transform the entire
food delivery system (Campbell, 2004; Feagan, 2007; Hinrichs, 2000; Sage, 2014). Such
scalability is important, as local food system projects are often designed to work toward holistic
solutions to food and agriculture challenges by involving community members in ways that
promote local food production and sustainable farming practices. This can in turn help improve
community economic vitality, food security, and community resilience (Campbell, 2004; Peters,
1997; Sage, 2014).
Understanding the multiple benefits of a robust local food system and its inclusion in land
use and community planning, it is important to note that there are also detractors of the local
food movement who claim that these activities neglect the needs of low-income consumers
44

(Hinrichs 2000). Recognizing existing inequalities and food insecurity within the global food
system, Statistics Canada notes that 18% of Canadian families reported experiencing food
insecurity in 2022 (Uppal, 2023). The critiques of alternative food systems are often centered on
the argument that only those with financial means can participate in many local food initiatives.
Franklin et al (2011) state that in some communities these local food system initiatives may be
described as inequitable and labelled as elitist.
To address concerns with inequity programs across North America focus on improving
market accessibility through payment systems that accept food vouchers from federal, state, and
provincial food assistance programs (Jones & Bhatia, 2011). Within BC, The BC Farmers’
Market Association operates a Farmers Market Nutrition Coupon Program (FMNCP) that is
supported through the Province of BC and the Provincial Health Services Authority. The
program provides vouchers to low income-families, pregnant people, and seniors (BCFM, 2021).
This has allowed a wider population of communities to access the local food provided by area
producers.
2.2.4 Indigenous Foodways
Given the diversity among Indigenous Peoples and cultures around the globe, experts agree
that there is not a universal definition for “Indigenous Food Systems”. The Pan-Canadian
Indigenous Food Systems Network’s description states that these food systems “include all of the
land, air, water, soil and culturally important animal, and fungi species that have sustained
Indigenous peoples over thousands of years” (Levkoe et al., 2019, p.102). This perspective
provides only a base to start to understand the concept of an Indigenous food system and what it
encompasses. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems are an outcome of deep knowledge and
concentrated experiences of the processes and effects of the natural world that have been
45

observed over millennia (FAO, 2021). This knowledge has been shared with generations and
communicated through personal, collective, and experiential processes (FAO, 2021).
In their introduction to “Indigenous food systems: Concepts, cases and conversations”, Settee
and Shukla (2020) state that across the globe, a common theme of Indigenous Peoples’ food
systems is the “integration and entrenchment” of relationships, respect, and reciprocity with the
land and water. This involves an integral belief that the community’s health and wellbeing is
intricately entwined with the surrounding environment’s health and wellbeing (Dawson, 2020).
In fact, the relationships of food, environmental health, and well-being are so linked to one
another that in some Indigenous communities, the understanding of the concept of health itself
stems from the ability to be involved in land-based activities, such as hunting, harvesting, and the
eating of acquired foods (Russel & Parkes, 2018).
With an understanding of the deep spiritual, environmental, and communal connections
Indigenous people maintain with their food, Indigenous scholars have begun to move away from
the colonial word of systems. In lieu, many have incorporated “ways of knowing” or more
specifically Indigenous foodways, which lends itself to a deeper understanding of what that
relationship is (Koberinksi et al., 2022; Whyte, 2017; Wilson & Shukla, 2020). The concept of
Indigenous foodways captures a core understanding that food is more than just nutrition. Food
sustains the body’s physiologically; foodways are everything else. Dawson (2020) describes it as
a social phenomenon that is both reflective of, and informed by community identity, cultural
principles, social relationships, and spiritual practices. Foodways can be understood as the
communal integration of culture, language, belief, and food. This can include sustainable
harvesting techniques and the medicinal use of plants, but also encompasses ceremonial practices
and cultural traditions (Koberinksi et al, 2022).
46

Michnik et al. (2021) describe how Indigenous foodways not only nourish peoples’ appetites,
but also sustain social, ecological, and cultural integrity of their community and lands.
Indigenous foodways include wild foods obtained from foraging, harvesting, cultivation, hunting
and fishing, but the methods and ceremony around acquiring them are steeped in traditional
wisdom and knowledge (Willows, 2005). It is these long held, established sustainable
relationships between the people and their environment that have led the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to consider Indigenous food “systems” as the key to
meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. The FAO state that Indigenous food “systems”
contribute to global food security, promote sustainability, and are more resilient to climate
change (FAO, 2021).
Neaufield and Richmond (2017) write that the strength of the land and the strength of the
people are intricately linked. The communities’ health is “nurtured through relationships to the
physical environment, which provides the basis for cultures, kinship systems, and traditional
ways of living to thrive” (p.94). Sustained rights and responsibility over natural resources are an
essential part of Indigenous foodways, with a continual relationship with land and water that
spans generations (FAO, 2021). Settee and Shukla (2020) describe it as a sacred relationship, as
well as a responsibility that includes not just the land and water but to the environment as whole.
It is a respectful, reciprocal relationship that provides a connection between family, community,
and the land (Dawson, 2020). With this knowledge, it is understood that land is a vital and
inseparable part of what encompasses Indigenous Foodways (Matties, 2016).
Dawson (2020) also writes that food is culture. She explains food as an expression of cultural
values and identities through the sharing of food and eating together in community. “Our
attitudes about food, and our practices and rituals around eating, reflect our most basic beliefs
47

about the world and ourselves” (Dawson, 2020, p.85). For Indigenous peoples, culture and food
are intertwined, and there are established cultural elements in both the procurement of food and
the eating of food (Whyte, 2017). Most community gatherings and ceremonies are centered
around food. Seasonal activities and celebrations are marked by the ebb and flow of food
sources, migration patterns, lifecycles, or growing periods (Martens, 2018). Food and language
are also intertwined. Some Indigenous communities’ names for months of the year are the food
source that is available at that time (Turner, 2007). Indigenous Foodways intersect food,
language, culture, tradition, and history (Dawson, 2020) and form the collective capacities of the
community’s food system (Whyte, 2015).
The traditional diets of the Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) are diverse
and nourishing. They include a range of flora and fauna obtained through local hunting and
harvesting or foods from other locales obtained through extensive trade networks (Kabrinski et
al., 2022). In a 1991 study within the PNW coastal area, Kuhnlein and Turner reported almost
300 animal food species, including marine and terrestrial mammals, marine and freshwater fish
and shellfish, and various birds as well as their eggs. Their research area was also home to over
150 different plant food species, which included root vegetables, fruits, seeds and nuts, seaweed
and fungi (Kuhnlein and Turner, 1991). All were identified in the study as having been
consumed by local Indigenous peoples in some form. Although many of these foods are not used
today, all have either been documented ethnographically or Indigenous Elders recalled their
harvesting and consumption within the last fifty years (Kuhnlein and Humphries, 2017).
Nancy J. Turner (2007) writes that at the broader scale, biodiversity and ecosystem variation
was an important aspect in the continual harvesting of foods for Indigenous peoples in the PNW.
Existence on the Northwest Coast depended on the diversity of food acquired through various
48

forms of hunting and gathering in varying habitats, “from the ocean and valley bottoms to the
high mountaintops” (Turner, 2007, p.2). Among these habitats, it was the relationship that First
Nation communities held with resources from the sea and rivers that was of principal
significance (Turner & Turner, 2007). There was extensive use of a variety of fishing methods
that included specifically adapted devices, such as nets, traps and weirs, which were designed to
match species, sea and river conditions (Turner & Turner, 2007).
Harvesting methods often included conservation methods, either allowing smaller fish not to
be ensnared, or designs such as the halibut hook, which would allow larger fish, often females
that would lay eggs, an opportunity to break free (Delisle, 2018). Salmon and oolichan (aka:
eulachon, ooligan, candle fish) have both been described as cultural keystone species to
Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest (Senkowsky, 2007). The importance of cultural
keystone species is exhibited in the way that this food source, or resource, plays a fundamental
role within the cultural identity of a people (Kuhnlein et al., 1996). This can be reflected not only
in how these species contribute to the diet, but also within their communities’ cultural and
spiritual practices (Senkowsky, 2007).
Indigenous foodways also included extensive cultivation methods both on the land and
within the oceans and waters. Recent, more widespread ethnographic and archaeological
evidence has shown the vast extent of the PNW region's modified landscapes and seascapes,
shaped by First Nations to sustain and improve the efficiency of various food resources
(Leposfky et al., 2017). Extensive ecological studies of forests within the PNW have shown
evidence of widespread forest foods and medicines, where cultivation and management
processes have taken place over hundreds, if not thousands of years (Armstrong et al, 2017).
Armstrong et al. (2017) describe forest gardens as a style of traditionally managed
49

ecosystems, often of perennial fruit, nut and berry tree or shrub species, that have left imprints in
the landscape of the PNW. These forest gardens are still found today, predominately in close
proximity to historic village sites (Armstrong et al, 2017). Visual representation and existing
flora provide clear evidence of the management of the land for these culturally valued resources.
There is also research that is uncovering management practices within ocean habitats (Leposfky
et al., 2017). A collaborative community research study of some PNW coastal First Nation sites
by Leposfky et al. (2017) found unique structures and composition within marine ecosystems.
Findings show not just the elements of established weirs, nets and gates that would allow fish to
be captured through the rise and fall of tides, but also evidence of “farming” techniques of a
variety of shellfish including clams, abalone and oysters.
While practices persist, it is important to acknowledge that hunting, harvesting, cultivation
and trading of traditional Indigenous foods has been continuously impacted by settler processes
and destruction of the environment that has occurred with the colonization of Canada (Desmarais
& Wittman, 2014; Dawson, 2020; Whyte, 2017). Initial contact with Europeans brought diseases
for which Indigenous people had no immunity, resulting in plagues and devastation to many
communities, with vast amounts of Indigenous peoples succumbing to these epidemics and
virtually wiping out village populations (Whyte, 2017). In Eastern Canada and the prairies,
keystone species such as the buffalo and beaver were exterminated, impacting food and clothing
supply and creating starvation and dependence on European market goods (Desmarais &
Wittman, 2014). Colonial policies of segregation and diminishment restricted First Nation
peoples to tiny reserves in an area of their territory that would typically be less valuable and have
fewer resources available to them (Burnett et al., 2016; Whyte, 2017).

50

With the movement towards the enactment of the Indian Act in 1876 there was a political
shift in language and reference to the Indigenous populations in Canada. An aspect of
colonialization and white settlement of First Nation held lands was the creation of the myth of
the “Savage Indian” (Mawani, 2001). Douglas (2002) writes that this was a way the settler
society legitimized its assertion of sovereignty over Indigenous nations, while also rationalizing
the oppression and exploitation of Indigenous rights. Part of this process was done through the
diminishment of Indigenous cultivation and farming techniques and installing the narrative that
Indigenous Peoples in Canada were strictly nomadic hunter gatherer groups (Mawani, 2001).
This enforced the narrative that the land could be settled as it was not being “used” by First
Nations people. This storyline grew through the early 1900’s until it became normalized and then
taught in schools (Douglas, 2002).
Assimilation policies such as the residential school system and the sixties scoop further
contributed to the decline of traditional language, knowledge, and governance structures
(Michnik et al., 2021). Policy implementation under the pretext of conservation and resource
management further restricted access and availability of these already limited resources (Turner
& Turner, 2008; Whyte, 2017). The combination of these factors and others ultimately had a
devastating impact on First Nations peoples’ ability to take part in and retain their Indigenous
foodways, and therefore their food sovereignty (Desmarais & Wittman, 2014).
Despite this, advocates and scholars point to a notable resurgence movement that is occurring
across Indigenous communities worldwide. There is renewed interest in traditional food
harvesting and preparation combined with a desire to ensure the knowledge surrounding the
cultivation and use of these foods is continued (Joseph & Turner, 2020). Active engagement of
Indigenous leadership in promoting Indigenous food-focused initiatives is essential to
51

strengthening Indigenous foodways (Shukla & Settee, 2020), as is the inclusion of programs that
engage youth in the experience of wild food harvesting, hunting and fishing (Michnik et al.,
2021). Michnik et al. (2021) stress that when youth are provided a connection with Elders and
spend time on the land learning their culture, history and language, they gain essential life skills
that lead them to being more well-rounded, capable community members. Revitalization of
Indigenous foodways that embody livelihoods and age-old traditions enable cultural food
cultivation and consumption that have begun to bring community together again (Dawson,
2020).
Renewing Indigenous foodways and eco-cultural restoration is also happening in many
different regions within the province of BC. Regaining access to traditional harvesting grounds,
renewing traditional food preparation, and preserving and reinstating foods that have fallen out
of use are now becoming more predominant in First Nation communities (Joseph & Turner,
2020). First Nation led programs focus on revitalization of food cultivation and hunting and
harvesting methods. They also emphasize the preparation of traditional foods, connections
between Elders and youth, and strengthening a relationship with territory (Wilson & Shukla,
2020). As an example, School District 43 in Coquitlam runs the Suwa’lkh School. This program
uses ways of knowing learning styles to connect youth with native plant propagation, salmon life
cycle education, and food literacy. Their program culminates in a ceremony in which they share
the food with Elders (Goodridge, 2020). These types of programs serve as valued entry points to
catalyze passion and understanding of the vast landscape of cultural beliefs, customs, and
traditions that First Nations in BC hold (Joseph & Turner, 2020). Introducing Indigenous youth
to these foodways can “help reignite the cosmological and philosophical centers of origin that

52

explain why we are here, how we behave, and what it means to be thankful (Bray & Nelson,
2015).
2.2.5 Indigenous Food Sovereignty
In 1993, small-scale farmers’ organizations formed La Via Campesina, describing
themselves as "an international movement which coordinates peasant organizations of small and
middle-scale producers, agricultural workers, rural women, and indigenous communities from
Asia, Africa, America, and Europe" (First, 2005). This international agricultural movement grew
to represent 182 organizations from 81 countries, becoming one of the loudest voices in
opposition to the current model of a neoliberal, industrialized global food system (Desmarais &
Wittman, 2014). Asserting that recommendations put forth at the World Food Summit did
nothing to end global hunger, La Via Campesina defied the 1996 state-led food movement and
introduced the concept of food sovereignty (Cote, 2019). At its core, food sovereignty is about
strengthening community livelihood through the production, consumption, and distribution of
healthy, cultural appropriate foods within a nest of social, economic, and environmental
sustainability (Desmarais & Wittman, 2014).
Food sovereignty has been described as a healing framework for food systems
transformation that can be connected across cultures (Matties, 2016). This continually evolving
framework includes elements that promote and incorporate “respect for place and diversity,
acceptance of difference, understanding the role of nature in production, human agency,
equitable distribution of resources, dismantling symmetrical power relations and building
participatory democratic institutions” (Desmarais & Wittman, 2014, p.1155). As the concept of
food sovereignty has grown throughout the world, both small scale farmers and Indigenous
Peoples have taken up the concept and used its ideals as a unifying call to action for change
53

within the food system (Cote, 2019). Although this cross-cultural movement has developed
predominately in the agrarian-based Latin American setting, Indigenous peoples with traditions
based in hunting and harvesting have identified with the underlying philosophy that everyone
should have the right to construct systems and guidelines that reflect their cultural values in
building their food system policies (Cote, 2019).
Desmarais and Wittman (2014) point to an ongoing critical engagement across
Indigenous communities in Canada with the western concept of sovereignty, which reflects
ideals of Indigenous self-determination and autonomy. In contrast to creating (re)localized Agricentric food systems, Indigenous communities pursue means to “honor, value, and protect
traditional food practices and networks” that have deteriorated over years of social and
environmental impacts from colonialization (Desmarais & Wittman, 2014). Established in 1996,
one of the first Indigenous organizations to explore the concept of food sovereignty was the
British Columbia Food Systems Network’s (BCFSN) Working Group on Indigenous Food
Sovereignty (WGIFS) (Morrison, 2010). The WGISF brought together Indigenous elders,
community members, and traditional harvesters through a series of workshops and discussion
forums where they developed what is known as the Four Principles of Indigenous Food
Sovereignty (Cote, 2019). The four pillars of Indigenous Food Sovereignty (IFS) were created
with a specific focus on the rights and relationship of Indigenous Peoples within Canada. They
include:
1. Sacred or divine sovereignty - Food is a gift from the Creator.
2. Participatory - Continued participation in cultural harvesting strategies at all of the
individual, family, community and regional levels is key.
3. Self-determination - The ability to respond to our own needs for healthy, culturally
adapted Indigenous foods.
4. Policy - IFS attempts to reconcile Indigenous food and cultural values with colonial
laws and policies and mainstream economic activities (Morrison, 2011).
54

Prior to European contact, Indigenous peoples in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) held
sovereignty over their land and food systems for thousands of years (Turner & Clifton, 2009). In
this time, some communities would have experienced periods of hunger or malnourishment due
to food shortage, but for the most part, First Nations peoples in this area achieved food security
through the development and caretaking of a diverse diet of ocean, river and forest foods that
have been shown to have supported incredibly dense populations (Turner & Turner, 2006).
Holding a depth of knowledge and an intimate relationship with the environment that was passed
down through oral tradition, longstanding land and water stewardship and cultivation practices
have allowed coastal First Nations to live sustainably over millennia (Turner & Clifton, 2009).
2.2.6 Mainstreaming Food Systems Planning
In her oft cited 1997 paper, Local food systems and community sustainability, Gail Feenstra
proposed that local foods could be an economically viable alternative to the global industrial
system. In this article she also provided a series of steps that citizens could take in facilitating a
transition between the two. Some of these stages included educational strategies, food policy
councils, and community research on the needs in local food systems (Feenstra, 1997).
Following Feenstra’s paper, research of these processes dominated food provision studies for the
next ten years as the efforts to respond to the ecological, social, and economic disparities of an
increasingly globalized supply chain became more mainstreamed (Franklin et al, 2011; Winter,
2003). In the early 2000’s, planning professionals and academics started recognizing the need for
inclusion of local and community food systems in planning policy (Campbell, 2004; Pothukuchi
& Kaufman, 2000). Over the last twenty years, food system planning has grown in recognition to

55

include this domain within community development and planning processes (Blay-Palmer et al.,
2018; Dubbeling & Santini, 2018; Franklin et al., 2011).
The mainstreaming of food systems planning has progressively become an integral part of
urban development and community planning (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018), as it offers a
comprehensive approach to addressing the complex challenges within contemporary food
systems. According to Hinrichs (2000), mainstreaming food systems into planning involves
integrating food-related considerations into various aspects of policy and governance. The
multifaceted nature of food systems demands a holistic approach that surpasses individual
sectors (Lang, 1999). By incorporating food system considerations into urban planning,
communities can develop strategies that promote food security, sustainable agriculture, and
equitable access to nutritious food (Davoudi et al., 2012). This approach aligns with the
principles of sustainable development and resilience, acknowledging the interdependence
between urban ecosystems and food systems (Ericksen, 2008). Food system planning also
requires collaboration across disciplines, involving urban planners, policymakers, agricultural
experts, and community stakeholders (Morgan, 2012). In doing so, it contributes to the creation
of more resilient, sustainable, and inclusive community.
Despite progress, the trend to include food systems in planning is still often characterized as
a box that needs to be ticked within contemporary urban development initiatives (Davoudi et al.,
2012; Morgan, 2012) This approach risks simplifying the complexity and significance of
integrating food considerations into planning processes. When creating sustainable community
development policy, food system planning should be looked at as not merely a bureaucratic
process, but an essential component of any plan that strives to provide for the needs of a
community (Ericksen, 2008; Marsden et al., 2000).
56

The inclusion of food systems in planning should be driven by an understanding of the
holistic nature of the community and their relationship to food, as well as the broader social,
economic, and environmental implications (Davoudi et al., 2012). Ultimately, fostering a more
integrated approach that goes beyond a checklist mentality is crucial for harnessing the true
potential of food system planning. Done well, integration of food systems planning can help
address issues of food security, environmental sustainability, and community well-being (BlayPalmer et al., 2018; Dubbeling & Santini, 2018; Ericksen, 2008). Nonetheless, a recent analysis
of the food system planning literature completed by Jonsdottir and Gisladottir (2023) shows that
the inclusion of food systems in rural land use planning is still a rare occurrence. This study also
revealed that when land use and food system planning do co-occur, there is often a disconnect in
the perspectives regarding sustainability and the importance of the local food system. Their
report echoes the need for a holistic approach when incorporating food systems into municipal
and regional land use planning (Jonsdottir & Gisladottir, 2023).
In recent years, local government efforts to plan food systems in BC have notably increased
(Institute for Sustainable Food Systems [ISFS], 2017). The most common methods to integrate
food system policies into local government frameworks include Official Community Plans
(OCPs) and sustainability plans (ISFS, 2017). Despite growing attention from planners in BC,
concerns about the lack of coordination in food system planning persist (Sussmann & Feeney,
2015). British Columbia, like many areas across Canada and globally, lacks clear guidance from
provincial or federal governments for directing food system planning (Robert & Mullinix, 2018).
Consequently, local governments are initiating food system planning efforts without a unified
vision. Robert & Mullinix (2018) write that this coordination is crucial for advancing regional
food systems, especially between rural and urban municipalities that serve as primary producers
57

and consumers of food. Moreover, there is a recognized need to share food system planning
strategies across regions to promote robust, sustainable food systems in BC (Sussmann &
Feeney, 2015).
2.3 Conceptual Framework
As the literature illustrates, community resilience is a systems-level concept that is an
attribute or characteristic of the community (Havko et al., 2017). It is a dynamic process and a
potential outcome that provides the community with the sustained ability to withstand and
recover from adversity (Pfefferbaum et al., 2017). It has also become a normative goal in
community planning and development (Berkes & Ross, 2013; Cutter et al., 2008; Folke et al.,
2010). In the last twenty years, food system planning has also increasingly become a focus in
resilience and adaptation planning policy documents (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018; Dubbeling &
Santini, 2018). Given these joint trends, an in-depth research project that looks at the relationship
the local food system has with community resilience can provide guidance for effective policy
objectives and on the ground action.
The preceding literature review has revealed that there are multiple drivers of resilience,
factors that indirectly or directly induce change (MEA, 2005). For this project, I focus on three
key drivers related to collaboration: social learning, person-place connection, and innovation
(Ahren, 2013; Brink et al., 2016; Quinn et al., 2015). The literature indicates that these three
drivers have a strong relationship to the community’s local food system and this research seeks
to reveal how a strong local food system can strengthen community resilience.
When describing local food systems, food systems planning literature often provides five
main social and ecological subsystems or functions: production, distribution, accessing,
consumption, and waste recovery (Campbell, 2004; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999; Kasper et al,
58

2017). There is also a need to recognize wild foods as part of the food system (Issac, 2022), as
well as the importance of traditional or country foods in the aspects of Indigenous foodways.
Increasingly, food systems policy developed in certain northern communities has recognized the
need to include Indigenous and traditional food systems (Johnston & Spring, 2021). These wild
food sources have been recognized as the functions of hunting, harvesting, and preservation of
food. In policy documents, wild foods have been included as a subsection in production (Simcoe
Muskoka District Health, 2017), or as their own stand-alone function (City of Whitehorse, 2020).
In recognition of the importance that wild foods have in the local food system of many northern
and Indigenous communities, the conceptual framework below incorporates and adapts these
functions (See Figure. 2). This conceptual framework describes the functions of a local food
systems as production, hunting and harvesting, processing and preservation, distribution,
accessing, consumption, and waste recovery.
As Figure 4 illustrates, my research explores the relationship that these local food system
functions have with three drivers of resilience (i.e., social learning, person-place connection and
space for innovation) – with the normative goal of community resilience shown in the centre.
This is designated by an oval with a dotted line showing that community resilience is not only
influenced by the drivers, but also has the ability to influence the drivers themselves. My
research seeks to show if and how the functions of the local food system influence or are
influenced by the drivers of resilience. Each driver of resilience is similarly depicted within a
dotted pyramid, showing their fluidity and ability for potential relationships with all or some of
the food system functions. For example, a community garden that is working with the public in
innovative workshops that teach low-income community members how to grow (production and

59

accessing) and cook local food (processing and consumption) would have the ability to impact
all three drivers of social learning, person-place connection, and innovation.

Figure 4. Conceptual Framework

60

3. Methods
3.1 Positionality Statement
As a white, cisgender, male, I recognize the privileges that come with my identity in society.
My privilege allows me to navigate academic and professional spaces with relative ease, and I
am aware that this privilege has, at times, shielded me from fully understanding the lived
experiences of marginalized communities. While I have benefitted from societal structures that
favor people that look like me, my experiences of exclusion, particularly growing up in a small,
industrial town where sensitivity and empathy were not valued, have shaped my understanding
of what it means to feel ostracized.
The toxic masculinity and homophobia I faced throughout my youth instilled in me a deep
sense of empathy for those who are marginalized and/or oppressed. My time living in Japan
when I was 12 further solidified this awareness, where my family and I, as the only white people
in a rural community, were both objects of curiosity and isolation. In my late teens and early
twenties, I had the opportunity to travel to many countries where I was able to work and live
closely with people from all over the world. These experiences have driven me to be open to all
forms of human diversity and to seek understanding and celebration of differences.
I also recognize that my position as a settler in Canada is deeply intertwined with the legacies
of colonization. My family, through my grandfather's role in enforcing fisheries policies, directly
benefitted from systems that restricted Indigenous food sovereignty. As I continue to explore this
history, I am becoming more aware of how my settler privilege impacts my understanding of
land and resources in Canada. At the same time, I grapple with a disconnection from my own
ancestral culture, having lost touch with the Scottish/Gaelic traditions of my ancestors. This
61

dislocation complicates my efforts to find cultural and spiritual grounding, as I aim to define my
own beliefs and connection with the universal essence without appropriating from others. I
approach my positionality with an understanding that this is an ongoing process of reflection and
learning. I am committed to navigating the contradictions within my identity while striving to
support efforts toward equity, inclusion, and respect for the land and water and its original
stewards.
My positionality shapes the lens through which I approach my research on how local food
systems, including Indigenous foodways, contributes to community resilience. My research puts
forth the assumption that sustainability, food systems and resilience can be addressed through
policy solutions and might overlook the deeply rooted cultural dimensions of food sovereignty. I
strive to remain conscious of these biases as I engage with all community members, ensuring that
I approach my work with humility and openness to learning.
My research focuses on community resilience in northern British Columbia, specifically
examining local food systems in Terrace, Prince Rupert, Metlakatla, Kitsumkalum, and Kitselas.
I aim to understand how Western and First Nation policies have influenced these systems and
explore strategies for fostering resilience. My goal is to contribute to understanding how food
system planning policies can empower communities—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—to
enhance resilience while contributing to and promoting food security. My life, work, and
academic experiences shape how I engage with communities, emphasizing respectful
collaboration and constant reflexivity, ensuring my biases are examined throughout the research
process.

62

3.2 Case Study
The research design for this project is based on case study methodology. Case study design is
appropriate for use in this project as it can help navigate a distinct situation that contains a
variety of relevant lines of evidence and data points (Baxter, 2016). Case study design benefits
from theoretical propositions that act as guides to design, data collection, and analysis (Yin,
2018). These propositions include an orientation to research that provides depth and a focus on
the specific details of a case to better understand the phenomenon being studied (Baxter, 2016).
Case study design provides a suitable approach for investigating how community resilience is
shaped by the local food system. Applications of case study design have been used in multiple
research projects that consider local food systems and community development and resilience
(Berno, 2017; Cleveland et al., 2014; Freedman & Bess, 2011; Hinrichs & Kremer, 2008;
Nousiainen et al., 2009; Raja et al., 2017). The following section explains what case study is,
why it was chosen, and how the methods and techniques for research have been implemented.
Yin (2018) states that case studies require multiple sources of evidence to triangulate and
converge data. As such, data was collected and analyzed from both regional and local food
system policy, as well as information collected from semi-structured interviews with key players
in the local food system.
3.3 Case Study Methodology
Case study methodology is an approach to research that enables a varied exploration of a
phenomenon within its context. It is a valuable approach in social science research for
developing theory and evaluating programs because it allows for both rigor and flexibility
(Baxter & Jack, 2008). Castleberry and Nolen (2018) state that case study can deliver a richer
and deeper understanding of people and places, as well as the interaction of events and
63

relationships. Case study research is suitable when addressing exploratory research that involves
emerging societal questions and a need for a holistic understanding of social phenomena (Shakir,
2002). Yin and Davis (2007) also declare that case study methodology is valuable when
researchers want to understand a real-world case using important contextual conditions that are
pertinent to that case.
Yin (2018) argues that to ensure rigor within case study research, it is important to create and
follow a good case study design through the research process. This involves following a clear
methodological path through design, preparation, collection, analysis, and finally, the sharing of
knowledge (Yin, 2003; Rowley, 2002). Within the context of case study inquiry, qualitative data
analysis is fundamentally about discovery through a series of tasks that define, categorize,
explain, and map the fundamental questions of the research (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002).
Through a criteria-based selection process derived from the resilience and adaptation
literatures, my case study approach included a policy analysis of regional, local government, and
First Nation documents that helped in understanding the context of food systems planning in my
selected communities of Terrace and Prince Rupert, BC. The policy analysis established validity
in the case study selection and confirmed that the selected communities contained a significant
quantity of food system policy. To ensure my research brought a holistic and people orientated
lens to understanding the breadth of the links between community resilience and local food
systems functions, I also conducted semi structured interviews with key players in the local food
system.
3.3.1 Case Study Selection
The first step in my comparative case study was to select cases that would enable the
research to thoroughly investigate and understand the relationship between local food systems
64

and community resilience. In deciding which case study communities would be the focus for my
research, I used the following criteria in a selection process that followed a purposive sampling
approach (Patton, 2002).
Search criteria for case study community:
A. In Northern British Columbia
• Metric: Geographic location
B. The community meets StatsCan definition of city/urban area
• Metric: Population threshold
C. The community has a sustainability plan and/or climate change
adaptation/mitigation plan.
• Metric: Accessible plans exist
D. The sustainability and/or climate change adaptation plan recognizes the
importance of strong local food systems (LFS).
• Metric: Inclusion of LFS within plan
The first stage in selecting case study municipalities was to create a table/list from
Statistic Canada data of all population centres that were geographically situated in the provincial
north of British Columbia. Northern British Columbia was delineated by the established southern
boundaries of the Regional Districts of Fraser-Fort George, Bulkley-Nechako, Kitimat-Stikine
and North Coast. Regional districts are unique to British Columbia and are made up of electoral
districts and municipalities that contribute to region-wide planning and development of regional
growth strategies (Government of BC, 2021). These boundaries also constitute the Northern
Health Authority border, establishing a collective designation as to what constitutes Northern
British Columbia (NHA, 2021).
Based upon Statistics Canada’s definition, a population centre becomes a census
agglomeration (CA) once the population reaches 10,000 persons (Stats Can, 2021). Using this as
a base for defining an ‘urban’ community in Northern British Columbia, any community with a

65

population under 10,000 was eliminated from my case selection list, resulting in five possible
case study communities (see Table 3) meeting aforementioned eligibility criterion.
With similar population size and demographics, the City of Terrace and the City of
Prince Rupert offered a compelling comparative case study to investigate the relationship of
local food systems and community resilience. Both communities are in the Pacific Northwest of
British Columbia, are similar in size, and recognize local food systems planning in their
development policy regime. These two communities also offered contrasting geographic locales,
with Terrace being inland and Prince Rupert being on the coast.

680 Prince Rupert
922 Terrace
217 Dawson Creek
298 Fort St. John
679 Prince George

11733 N
13663 N
11574 N
19897 N
65510 Y

Y
Y
N
N
Y

GHG Reduction Plan/Community
Energy & Emissions/Mitigation/CC
Action Plan
Climate Action Revenue Incentive
Program

Sustainability Plan

CC Adaptation Plan

Census Population, 2016

Population Centre Name

PCUID

Table 3. Case Study selection matrix

Y
Goals set
Y (not used)
Y
Y

*
*
*
*

3.4 Data Collection: Policy Matrix
A matrix analysis of municipal, regional and neighbouring First Nation community policy
documents was utilized to systematically analyze, code, and categorize the regional food system
policy regime. This process related the food system policy regime to the resilience theory
framework laid out in the Conceptual Framework section (see pg. 60). The matrix analysis
66

involved identifying, recording, and organizing relationships between and among the concepts
within the policy landscape (Kozmenko et al., 2019). This allowed me to identify the possible
linkages and associations among the concepts being researched. Policy documents used in this
analysis were collected from the Cities of Terrace and Prince Rupert, the First Nation
communities of Kitsumkalum, Kitselas and Metlakatla, and the Regional Districts of KitimatStikine and North Coast. These documents were selected using a criteria-based sampling
technique similar to that described in the case study selection section above. Documents were
chosen that included elements related to local food systems and food system planning, such as
Official Community Plans, Sustainability Plans, and Healthy Community Plans.
Search Criteria for Policy Documents:
A. Land use and planning policy that is current and actively in use.
B. Must relate to case study communities.
C. Must be Municipal, First Nation or Regional government.
D. Must contain relevant guiding policy or objective that explicitly relates to the
functions of the local food system.
An application of the above search criteria resulted in a total of nine documents that were
included in the matrix analysis (Table 4). Four other documents that pertained to the region were
reviewed, but two did not meet inclusion criteria. The Port Edwards Official Community Plan
[2020] and the North Coast RD Strategic Plan [2019) were excluded as they did not have any
guiding policy referring to functions of the local food system. The third excluded document was
the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area Plan (2017). This document was created
in partnership with federal (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada), provincial (BC
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), and First Nations groups (Coastal
First Nations-great Bear Initiative & North Coast-Skeena First Nations Stewardship Society).
While useful for context, this document was out of scope as it covered a far greater area than
67

defined in the criteria. Finally, similarly providing great contextual information, the Regional
District of Kitimat Stikine’s Agriculture Sector Support Plan (2020) which created by the
Economic Development Commission did not meet the criteria of land use and planning.
Table 4. Selected policy documents for matrix analysis
Government Entity
City of Terrace

Policy Document
1. Terrace Official Community Plan (2018)
2. Terrace 2050 Sustainability Strategy (2009)

Kitimat Stikine Regional District
(in partnership with City of Terrace)
Kitselas First Nation

3. Greater Terrace Agricultural Area Plan Report
(2013)
4. Kitselas Land Use Plan (2019)

Kitsumkalum First Nation

North Coast Regional District

5. Kitsumkalum Comprehensive Community Plan
DRAFT (2016)
6. Prince Rupert Official Community Plan (2021)
7. Prince Rupert 2030 Sustainable City (2018)
8. North Coast Official Community Plan (2017)

Metlakatla First Nation

9. Metlakatla Land Use Plan (2019)

City of Prince Rupert

3.5 Data Collection: Semi-structured Interviews
Case study allows for research at an individual or organizational level, permitting exploration
of interventions in a way that allows space to interpret relationships, communities, or programs
(Yin, 2003). Coupled with a policy analysis, my research took a constructivist approach that
focused on the perspectives of different key informants in the local food system to understand
the different viewpoints and gain knowledge of the local story (Yin, 2018). The key tool used
was semi-structured interviews and connections made with local food system knowledge holders,
producers, and policy makers.
Baxter and Jack (2008) highlight that one advantage of using semi-structured interviews is
that the technique allows the researcher and the participant an opportunity for close
collaboration, while still allowing participants to tell their stories. Through narrative, participants
68

can provide interpretations of their reality in a fashion that helps the researcher understand the
participants’ actions (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Indeed, Kallio et al. (2016) argue the reason that
semi-structured interviews are used so extensively as a data collection method is that they
“ha[ve] proved to be both versatile and flexible” (pg. 2955). Kallio et al. (2016) also highlight
that the semi-structured interview has been effective in enabling reciprocity between the
interviewer and participant. In the case of my research, this was beneficial in improvising followup questions based on contributions gained throughout the interviews. Using chain sampling
with multiple entry points, I organized initial interviews with a variety of actors and knowledge
holders within the policy and food system realms. Chain sampling then allowed for a study
sample to be developed through referrals of key informants who had contacts within the local
food system communities (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). When each interview was over, key
informants shared my contact details with others who would have knowledge or were engaged in
food systems work.
By including multiple entry points into the community’s active food system as part of a chain
sampling approach, there was less possibility of omitting a key informant or knowledge holder.
Key participants included municipal, regional district and First Nation councilors, planners,
conservation officers, and community programmers. Active players within the local food system
also included local food providers and producers and other members of the agricultural
community. I also interviewed foragers, hunters, fisherfolk, and members of non-profit
organizations that operated food insecurity, food security, food sustainability, or food
sovereignty programs.
Interview informants completed a consent form (appendix A) as outlined by the Tri-Council
Policy Statement (TCPS) (2018). They were informed of the purpose of the research and
69

participated in the research voluntarily. In accordance with TCPS (2018) guidelines, the research
project was considered low risk to key informants, yet all potential risks and benefits were
explained prior to the interviews taking place. In addressing COVID-19 protocols, and to provide
safety and convenience to interview informants, some interviews were conducted online using
Zoom virtual meeting software (Zoom, 2021). Use of Zoom provided useful modes of recording
with both video and transcription files being stored in a secure location post interview. Some of
the key informants felt comfortable to meet in person, at a location that they felt comfortable
with, like their place of business, out in the fields, or taking a walk within a local park.
Throughout all interviewing, notes were taken to record key insights and connections that
were made (Tessier, 2012). All recordings were immediately saved and kept in a password
protected confidential folder on a secure UNBC server. The interview guide contained eight
open-ended interview questions (Appendix B), and the interviews took an average of 45 minutes
to complete. Pauses for clarification or follow-up questions were provided throughout the
interview and key informants were also able to amend or add information when they were
provided with email transcripts. Informants were reimbursed for their time with an honorarium
($25 gift certificate to the local farmers’ market). If informants felt that there was a conflict in
accepting the honorarium, they had the option to donate it back to the farmer’s market. Key
informants were offered the opportunity for a ‘member check’ of their interview once
transcription was completed (DeCino & Walkes, 2019; Thomas 2016). This was followed by an
approval process for any quotes that are used within the research report.
Early in the interview process, an Indigenous key informant questioned how my research
would be used. They expressed concern over past research practices that appropriated Indigenous
teachings and culture through the use of anonymous quotations or lack of credit otherwise given
70

to participants who shared their knowledge (Bull et al., 2020). To address these concerns and
attempt to de-colonize my research process, I went through a third step in verification of
transcription and quotes. After a Research Ethics Board amendment, this step provided a choice
for key informants to identify themselves by their true name if their quote or knowledge was
being used within my thesis findings (Appendix C). Bull et al. (2020) report that the significance
in recognizing voice lies in fostering genuine partnerships that prioritize equity between
communities and researchers. The inclusion of community and researcher voices through this
step supports empowerment throughout the entire research process. This empowerment
encompasses upholding Indigenous rights, respecting diverse worldviews, and acknowledging
various ways of knowing (Bull et al., 2020)
3.6 Data Analysis: Policy Matrix
To identify and illustrate relationships between and among policy goals and objectives, I
used a matrix analysis. Three analytical steps were followed to execute this matrix analysis: 1)
the identification of concepts; 2) the identification of relationships among the concepts; and 3)
the construction of a relational matrix of these concepts (Kozmenko et al., 2019). In steps one
and two, I completed the identification of concepts, functions, and their relationship through
coding. As a technical process, coding involved the creation of main nodes and child codes
representing the sentiment and relationship types within the policy (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018).
For example, a child node could link policy related to back yard gardens to the function of
production within the local food system. In my process, policy that identified or was related to
backyard gardens was highlighted and collected under a child node, with the main, or parent,
node being the function of production. Coding of the policy was facilitated by NVIVO

71

(Lumivero, 2024), a software tool to ascertain “patterns of codes and links between codes across
large fields of data” (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018: p. 809).
The process of analysis started with a review of each policy document to identify sections or
areas of the document that contained policy directly related to food systems planning. To
maintain scope, the analysis strictly focused on objectives, goals or strategy statements. If food
systems were mentioned within contextual preambles or other sections within the document, the
information was recorded, but not formally included in the analysis.
Initially, I used my conceptual framework (see Section 2.3) to build the matrix as developed
through the process of the literature review. The policy statement was scanned for food system
functions and the transformative drivers of person-place connections, social learning, and
allowance for experimentation and innovation (Burch et al., 2014; Quinn et al., 2015; Wamsler et
al., 2014). Descriptions of these concepts were maintained in a codebook (Appendix D) and
used to cross reference and ensure consistency in allocating which food system function, or
resilience driver was relevant to the statement.
Reference of social learning within the policy set included objectives that referred to problem
solving, active reflection, learning by doing, and/or community partnerships (Ahren, 2013; Kulig
et al., 2008; Reid et al., 2009). Recognition of the driver of person place connection included
policy that referenced local and/or traditional knowledge, as well as the term “sense of place”
(Ross et al., 2014; Quinn et al., 2015). Innovation was coded if the policy objective discussed
niche spaces, experimentation, incentivization, and/or policy change (Brink et al., 2016; Burch et
al., 2014; Ross et al., 2014).
Two UNBC undergraduate students assisted in conducting the policy analysis process. Each
policy document was assigned to team members with at least two members completing an
72

analysis of each document. A standardized process was created to ensure inclusion of drivers and
functions were understood and a step guide was followed to enter data in a manner that enhanced
reliability (Appendix E). Both the multi-researcher led analysis and the standardized process
improved research validity by allowing for investigator triangulation (Johnson, 1997). To
enhance reliability, a series of in-person meetings of the analysts were held throughout the
analysis process, where corrections and/or clarifications were made depending on each coder’s
results.
After coding, findings were consolidated into a final table for each document. This findings
table included the policy statement, its location within the policy document, and an annotation
identifying what food system function and/or resilience driver it was aligned with. To prepare the
representation of findings, data were mapped using the functions of the food system and the
resilience drivers and entered into a comprehensive matrix.
3.7 Data Analysis: Semi-structured Interviews
I completed coding as a three-stage process using open coding, axial coding, and selective
coding (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). I followed Holton’s (2007) prescription to use open
coding to examine the initial transcribed data and break it up into its discrete parts (Holton,
2007). In the case of the interviews (n=20), this was blocks of conversation that ranged from
three lines to whole paragraphs. Coding for larger blocks of text provides some assurance that
each key informant’s voice was kept within the research findings.
To connect findings to the policy matrix analysis, I used my conceptual framework as a
starting point for identifying initial codes. Early open codes were developed inductively within
the general umbrella of the functions of the local food system and the three resilience drivers.
During the open coding process, I consulted with an experienced coder (my supervisor) as I
73

coded the first five transcripts to promote research validity and reliability. This reflective step
involved a series of meetings where sections of the transcripts were coded in tandem and then
checked together. Discussions and clarifications of data and codes followed, and the process was
repeated. After the initial five transcripts were open coded in this manner, I coded the next
fifteen transcripts on my own. Ninety-six initial open codes (Appendix F) were produced.
During the next step I used axial coding to draw connections between the open codes
(Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). This led me to take the list of open codes and organize them in
groups of similarity. Through this process two experienced/ knowledgeable persons (my
supervisor and a member of my committee) attended my coding process to support verification
and/or guide me through axial coding. The result from this workshop was eight draft axial codes.
My coding process ended with selective coding, where I reviewed the central categories
connected with the codes. Taking the eight draft axial codes I matched patterns or themes more
discreetly. This process involved deconstructing three of the larger themes that had similar
connections with others and incorporating the open codes under new headings. The final result
was four major themes and a brief description (Appendix G).
At completion of findings for this section of the research, a second member check was
offered to those key informants whose material I anticipated presenting as quotes, providing a
final opportunity to ensure validity and understanding of the information being shared and to
ensure that their contribution has been interpreted accurately.

74

4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Community’s Concept of Resilience
Does the global food system provide enough alternatives? Perhaps. The industrial productionist food
system is important, but as a backstop for events that interrupt supply, Victory Gardens, local gardens,
and backyard gardens can provide a food supply, and can make a difference during periods of crisis.
Supporting local food capacities now, so that there's actually knowledge of how to grow food, is
important. You can't just use your backyard and plant stuff and think that's going to happen. You got to
know what you're doing. So there's a skill set there. You have to know how to process foods and store
food as it comes out of the garden. It's important looking forward to have the knowledge and the capacity
for local food, and I think that, for community resiliency facing future food supply shocks that might be
delivered from the around the world, it's important knowledge and skills for us to have.
Rob Buchan, Prince Rupert City Manager

Community resilience has become a normative goal within urban and community
planning (Meerow, et al., 2016). It can be promoted through a variety of factors, referred to here
as drivers. Drivers of resilience encompass both natural and human-induced elements of a system
that can instigate direct or indirect change (MEA, 2004). Experts have identified multiple drivers
of resilience. The three drivers that I based my research on are person-place connections, (Berkes
& Ross, 2013; Ross et al, 2014; Quinn et al., 2015), social learning (Ahren, 2013; Reid et al.,
2013), and niche spaces for innovation and experimentation (Burch et al., 2014; Ross et al.,
2014).
Both the policy analysis and the coding of the interview data were guided by my
conceptual framework (see page 42). This framework includes both the resilience drivers
discussed above and the functions of the food system: production, hunting and harvesting,
processing and preservation, distribution, accessing, consumption, and waste recovery
(Campbell, 2004; Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999; Kuhnlein & Turner, 1991). Using my
conceptual framework as an analytical tool, this chapter presents the ways in which a local food
system nurtures the drivers of person place connection, social learning, and innovation,
75

ultimately contributing to community resilience building (Brink et al, 2016; Burch et al, 2014;
Ross et al, 2014).
Table 5. Examples of policy statements that relate to drivers of resilience
Driver of
Resilience
Social
Learning

Person-Place
Connection

Innovation

Policy Document

Policy Statement

Greater Terrace
Agricultural Area
Plan Report (2013)

3.5) Facilitate workshops regarding climate factors important to
agriculture. Facilitate workshops to assist farmers in gaining
knowledge about climate factors in the Greater Terrace area, in
order to be better able to design their agricultural operations to
withstand this area's weather oscillations and extreme weather
events.

North Coast
Regional District
OCP (2017)

5.7.2) Support trail development and facilities for outdoor
recreation and educational activities (e.g. hiking, fishing,
hunting).

Kitsumkalum
Comprehensive
Community Plan
DRAFT (2016)

Culture) Community members of all generations will have a
good knowledge of how to harvest and prepare traditional foods.
Knowledge of wild food and traditional plants and seafood
(including harvesting locations) – land tour/on the land teaching,
workshops, teaching from elders, written materials

Kitselas Land Use
Plan (2019)

5.CPA.4) Preserve areas traditionally used for fishing and
gathering

Terrace 2050
Sustainability
Strategy (2009)

8.0) Encourage innovative greenhouse operations that do not
require energy inputs (eg.KSAN House geothermally heated
greenhouse project)

Prince Rupert 2030
Sustainable City
Objectives (2018)

5.2.3) Encourage the inclusion of edible landscaping,
community garden spaces, and green roofs for new residential
and commercial developments within the community

As the findings throughout this section demonstrate, some policy objectives met criteria
for two or more drivers. An example is provided by the North Coast Regional District OCP
(2017). This policy statement identifies social learning through an objective about educational
activities that also includes recognition of the importance of person-place connection by
encouraging outdoor recreation. The bridging of these drivers reflects thoughts from Mariska
Kecskes (2021) of the Sierra Club, who writes that the essence of involving people in outdoor
76

activities is not just about fostering a connection between individuals and place. It is also about
the bonds formed among each other along the way.
The full results of the policy matrix analysis (Appendix H) provide relevant quantitative
data that provides contextual awareness of existing food systems policy in northwestern BC.
Figures 6, 7, and 8 below illustrate the similarities and differences in the inclusion of the three
drivers of resilience across the food system policy objectives adopted in the region. Figures 7 and
8 provide a comparison between the two communities. Through the analysis process, it became
clear that one document co-produced by the City of Terrace and the Kitimat-Stikine RD, the
Greater Terrace Agricultural Area Plan Report (2013) was an outlier. This document was the
only planning document specifically intended to provide policy that solely referred to agriculture
and food systems in the region. As such, the total number of references to the food system was
85 compared to an average of 18.5 across the remaining policy documents. Results from an
analysis of this policy document are included within Figure 6 as part of the policy document
comparison. They are not included in the other comparison graphs.

Figure 5. Food systems planning analysis (drivers of resilience): Region.
77

Overall, food systems policy within the region, including the two municipalities, three
First Nations, and the regional districts, reflects or includes all three drivers; social learning,
person-place connection, and innovation within local food system planning. Social learning was
the most widely referenced driver of resilience in food systems policy in the region (Figure 6).
Across all policy documents the identified resilience drivers were identified in a total of 204 of
the 233 selected food system policy objectives. Social learning was referenced 77 times, while
innovation was referenced 73 times and person-place connection 55.
With elements of partnership, collaboration, and learning by doing, the clear recognition
of social learning is notable as it is a natural fit in policy that advocates for community interest
and commitment to change. A study of social learning in river basin management conducted by
Pahl-Wostl et al. (2007) found that social learning was a relevant tool to use in adaptive
management practices. Among other benefits, the ease with which social learning can be
introduced into implementable policy was highlighted. The importance that information and
communication tools play in the ability of an actor-network to incorporate new information into
social learning processes was also noted as a driver of collective action (Pahl-Wost, et al., 2007).

78

Figure 6. Food systems planning analysis (drivers of resilience): Prince Rupert.

Figure 7. Food systems planning analysis (drivers of resilience): Terrace.
Social learning and innovation are recognized at various levels within most of the
municipal and regional documents that were reviewed. Person-place connection on the other
hand was either missing completely or had limited inclusion. Within the First Nation policy
examples, person-place connection was much more predominant when documents addressed
79

food systems planning policy. This finding is notable, but perhaps not surprising as the inclusion
of this driver aligns with much of the literature on Indigenous foodways – which recognizes the
deep spiritual connection Indigenous peoples have with the land, water, and their ecosystems
(Koberinksi et al., 2022; Whyte, 2017; Wilson & Shukla, 2020).
The Kitselas Land Use Plan (2019) offers useful contextual evidence of how personplace connections can be included in food systems planning. The document shares the Nation’s
connection to the land through policy, including their recommendations for land use planning
areas. The document states: “Tsm na Kwaat Priorities: Protect Legate Creek as a significant fish
habitat and traditional land use area for Members”. This objective recognizes a specific place
that the Kitsumkalum First Nation knows and relates to as a traditional area for fish harvesting.
As a place-based policy the objective recognizes what Cantrill and Senecah (2001) highlight –
that involving space and naming areas of interest in objectives provides much stronger policy
compared to general area protection and conservation goals.
One of the few mentions of person-place connection in “Western based” policy sets is
found within the Terrace 2050 Sustainability Plan (2009), where the plan refers to the traditional
lands of the local First Nations (Figure 9). Within the Food theme of the Heritage Conservation
section, the policy states: “Conduct a research inventory with First Nations in regard to
traditional hunting, fishing and wild food gathering areas.” It is important to note here that
Terrace recognizes the importance of place, but predominantly in relation to their First Nation
citizens and neighbours as opposed to the community as a whole. This may be a key policy gap
as literature has shown that person-place connection or sense of place has been defined as a
common need across the population (Ross et al, 2014; Quinn et al., 2015). Indeed, as early as

80

2012 the concept was being incorporated into the regular lexicon within planning and
development related to climate adaptation (Fresque-Baxter & Armitage, 2012).

Figure 8. Comparison of "Western" and First Nation recognition of drivers
There is a predominant focus on the driver of innovation within the western policy sets,
the majority of which refer to policy change (see Figure 9). This could be considered a policy
strength, as Connell (2020) identifies that the leverage that most local government have to
enhance transformation within the community is policy change. Within the general theme of
policy change, much of the inclusion of the innovation driver focuses on incentivization. When
discussed in the world of development and policy, Squazzoni (2014) defines incentivization as
the attachment of a reward or payment in exchange for a change in land use. An example of the
use of incentivization is included in the Prince Rupert 2030 Sustainable City Policy Objectives
(2018). In section 5.1 - Partnership with Local Organizations, the objective states: “Incentivize
property owners to make spaces available for farmers markets, community gardens, and urban
farms throughout the community.” Although the Terrace Official Community Plan (2018) does
not use the word incentivization, their objective in section 7 on ‘Rural’ areas reflects a similar
81

attempt to achieve results through ‘encouragement’: "Develop policy to encourage agricultural
operations on land that is currently not in production either by the landowner or a farm operator".
Importantly, the fact that the driver of innovation (as defined here) was recognized less
within the First Nation policy set does not equate to actual lack of innovation on the ground.
Arguably some of the most technically innovative food projects in the region come from projects
led by Indigenous organizations. This includes work led by Metlakatla First Nation’s business
entity Coastal Shellfish Corporation and the Nisga’a Lisims Government’s non-profit,
Gitmaxmak’ay Nisga’a Society (GNS). Again, although the Metlakatla Land Use Plan (2019)
references limited food systems planning objectives and none that recognize the definition of
innovation used here, their business entity is leading on the innovation front.
The Coastal Shellfish Corporation operates innovative “tower” scallop farms in the
waters of their traditional territory (Bender, 2020). These farms were developed between 2012
and 2015 with funding assistance from Coast Funds. Predominately growing scallops for export,
they have the only certified scallop farm in BC and were awarded the 2020 BC Food and
Beverage Sustainability Award for their Great Bear Scallops (Bender, 2020). This recognition
came in part from their innovative zero-input, non-invasive vertical farming method that
encourages habitat diversity as the shellfish clean the surrounding waters through filter feeding
(Bender, 2020).
Another innovation within Prince Rupert’s local food system is Gitmaxmak’ay Nisga’a
Society’s Growcer farm. The Growcer farm is a containerized production facility funded by
Northern Development Initiative Trust and launched in late 2020. Millar (2020) writes that the
sustainable hydroponic growing system can produce food for 110 people per day, and the
community response to the project has been overwhelmingly positive. Based on community
82

surveys, operators decided to grow buttercrunch and romaine lettuce, spinach, microgreens and
the herbs basil and cilantro (Millar, 2020). In an interview with the Terrace Standard, Blair
Mirau, CEO of GNS, said that the “hydroponics unit means Prince Rupert will finally have a
local source for fresh vegetables and herbs. Furthermore, the hydroponics greenhouse will
integrate perfectly with our portfolio of small businesses, create good quality jobs, and feed
families” (Millar, 2020).
Policy is in place to inform the system (Collinge & Gibney, 2010). Arguably more
important are the people that operate within that system. To understand the community's needs
beyond findings from the policy analysis, I interviewed professionals directly involved in the
local food system. This approach captured diverse perspectives from experts in farming, fishing,
planning, conservation, and non-profit sectors taking into account firsthand experiences and
observations of the local food system in operation. The key informant’s narratives wove a story
illustrating how aspects of the local food system impact community resilience. In this section I
start this with the intention to understand what community resilience looks like to the key
informants.
In building community resilience, it is important to first understand a community’s
vulnerabilities, which Adger et al. (2012) describe as the ssusceptibility of individuals and
groups to stress or adverse impacts resulting from environmental changes. Many of the
vulnerabilities mentioned by key informants were focused on Terrace or Prince Rupert’s
relationship to external factors, ranging from supply chain disruptions to the implications of
climate change for agriculture and stresses to the local ecosystem. Key informants shared that
supply chain disturbances caused by COVID-19 (Hobbs, 2020) and extreme weather events in
the lower mainland, such as the Sumas Valley floods in 2021 (Galimski, 2021), caused rushes on
83

grocery stores. For the key informants these events illustrated the vulnerability of their
community to external shocks and stresses. In their stories, informants recalled experiencing
empty shelves long after the immediate disruption had dissipated. They framed this lingering
impact as a function of their location at the “end of the road”. Reflective of a broader experience,
Amanda Barney (CEO of TEEM Fish Monitoring) and Ken Shaw (owner/producer/operator of
Rainbow End Farm) shared how recent shortages highlighted the dependence on outside food
sources within their community, specifically for vegetables from the lower mainland. These gaps
in their local food system contributed to the understanding of how vulnerable the community
might be.
For me it really highlighted how little we have up North when it comes to accessible
food. Not necessarily that there isn't lots of food up here, but it's sort of not around, and
not easy to get. So, when suddenly grocery stores weren't getting their regular shipments
from the lower mainland, when the roads were washed out, like, it was just noticeable, it
would show. You notice that the vegetables are pretty slim takings, and that it highlighted
how reliant we are on other parts of the world for fresh food year-round. So that's what I
noticed, and it certainly made me wonder if I should grow a garden… and a little bit
terrified about how reliant I personally was, and I assume a lot of people are, on the
lower mainland for a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables. You can trade for salmon, like we
have salmon, and if you know hunters, you can trade for meat. There is a little bit of
foraging that some folks do. But you know, if you wanted a cucumber, maybe you couldn't
have one, and that was weird.
Amanda Barney
And of course, the pandemic came along, and of course, the store shelves were empty,
and I had done a number of presentations on food security, and why it’s important. So, it
was kind of like “Aha! See, I told you!” And, in those early days, the level of panic was
so high, and the fear, around Covid… I was also getting a lot of calls from people. So,
there was a panic around food, people were looking for seed, they were looking for
fertilizer. Before the province took over, we had a local state of emergency, and, you
know, I even had a call: How can we ramp up food production? We are at your disposal,
we can requisition any equipment, et cetera, et cetera. So, when you look out the window
down the road there, you see all that vacant land, could we turn it into a garden? The
point is, during that situation when everyone was panicking, that it wasn't possible to
suddenly scale up and start producing food. There wasn't the land prepared, inputs, or
skilled people capable of doing it.
Ken Shaw
84

Vulnerabilities in the region’s supply chain were a concern shared by of most of the key
informants, but extreme weather events caused by climate change affected more than supply
chain infrastructure. The flooding and heat dome events also impacted growing conditions for
local producers in the Terrace area. Producers shared that the challenges of growing food in an
already short growing cycle were amplified with temperature fluctuations and increased
precipitation. Having experienced flooding on his fields followed by the heat dome, the Spring of
2022 climate impacts were particularly hard on Cam Bell, also known as Farmer Cam (owner/
producer/ operator of Farmer Cam’s Foods).
But, coming back to climate change, we had the flood, and then we had the heat dome.
Ironically, the heat dome helped dry out my saturated soil after the flood and so, in some
ways, that helped me get back on track a little bit quicker… some of my staff were really
struggling with it, you know, we started early, we worked short hour days, you know you
do what you have to do… we lost a few crops, I mean, you try to grow something like
spinach in the middle of summer when it’s so hot, good luck. You know, tomatoes will
abort their flowers at those temperatures, and so you see some of those impacts about
four weeks later because if a fruiting crop loses its flowers in one given moment, you’re
not going to see that impact until the time when those flowers would have become fruits.
And so it complicates things for the entire season, so that was tough, you know, irrigation
was tough during that time.
Farmer Cam
Vulnerabilities to the changing climate discussed by Farmer Cam and others were not
only recognized in agriculture. Several key informants discussed changes in their local
ecosystem. Changes discussed included the impact of floods on spawning grounds, the
contribution of heat to unsuitable ocean temperatures, and the effect of variability between
increased precipitation and dry conditions on forest crops like blueberries and Pacific crabapple.
These latter effects were also linked to impacts on wildlife conservation efforts as the decrease in
forest foods increases wildlife encounters in communities when bears come looking for food. Jim
Webb, Fish & Wildlife Enforcement for Kitsumkalum First Nation, discussed their experiences
85

with this as well as how the higher water during flooding impacted traditional fish harvesting
methods.
“one thing I’ve noticed, with the change in weather patterns, more moisture and stuff like
that, you’re losing your berry crops, which affects the animals, bringing them into the
community. It also affects the availability to harvest. This year was a good berry crop,
and again, it shows, because I’ve only had two instances of bears within the community,
as opposed to many more the previous year. So, the interaction we have with wildlife
within the community is highly based on weather patterns. Again, the weather patterns:
with the fluctuations of river levels and stuff like that, that also hinders us going to
harvest fish, because the river’s too high, too many sticks in it, so you need gillnetting.
You’re getting all those, you know, different things in it. Because usually when we start
harvesting for fish in mid June, early June, the rivers are on the decline so you’re not
going to have any sticks or anything like that within the river, right. It’s only when the
river rises that you start getting those sticks and stuff, which causes hardship.”
Jim Webb
The excerpts above offer just a few examples of how informants in Terrace and Prince
Rupert explained their awareness of the vulnerabilities of their community’s food system. While
they acknowledge there is continued work to be done towards strengthening resilience,
recognition of weaknesses can also be a powerful initiator for being prepared. There was not one
key informant who discussed the challenges of the local food system without also discussing the
strength and resilience of the community.
When emphasizing community strengths key informants shared how the local food
system could act as an instigator in building resilience. They explained that there is a kinship
within the local food system community and that this connection provides a deepening respect
for the environment in which they live. While Blair Mirau, Chief Executive Officer of the
Gitmaxmak'ay Nisga'a Society, acknowledged some of the same supply chain challenges faced
by Prince Rupert, they also shared how the recognition of these vulnerabilities prompted an
innovative community-driven response in the form of the Growcer project. As previously
discussed, through the purchase of a hydroponic growing container, the Gitmaxmak'ay Nisga'a
86

Society acquired the ability to grow fresh greens year-round. This was not only an innovative
solution to food provision, but a solution borne from a recognized need in their community to
invest in adaptability and community led resilience building movements.
“Prince Rupert’s the end of the line on Highway 16, so when there’s, you know, rushes
on the grocery store, it took months for supply chains to catch up here in Rupert, where
you could go into the grocery store and you could not get fresh produce unless you were
the first one in there, first thing in the morning… So, we’ve opened up, I think, another
door now for folks to, hopefully in a more – can I say mainstream? That’s probably not
the right word – but, in a much less intimidating way. It doesn’t matter who you know.
You can show up to the garden centre every Wednesday and Friday and know that you
have access to fresh local greens. The demand for that has been way more than we
anticipated.”
Blair Mirau
The example of the Growcer project as technological innovation in Prince Rupert reflects
how solutions emerge from discussions and learning done in community. Policy can support, but
there was a common perception that the growth of innovation lies with the desire of community
members to create adaptive movements. Many informants discussed that it was the people of
these communities and their steadfastness and desire to strengthen the local food system that
created spaces for innovation to take hold.
Across the interviews there was also a common theme that the driver of social learning
was a key catalyst for innovation. Azad (2021) agrees, arguing that to nurture innovative
knowledge and build community resilience, a social learning-based approach is necessary.
Azad’s research shows that innovative adaptation strategies to flood resilience relied on the
facilitation of social learning principles within community development and planning (Azad,
2021). “Louise” expressed similar views through their experience of bringing community
members together and sharing their knowledge and experience. When considering the increasing
social and ecological challenges these communities face, informants also highlighted their
87

collective spirit as something that is essential for their community’s resilience. Liu at al. (2022)
describes collective resilience as integral in the face of crisis. They point to the ability of human
beings to adapt, cope and thrive collectively as a network of individuals as a source of broader
community resilience. This collective resilience is a key element in strong social learning within
communities, as “Teddy” describes.
My role was to pull together different folks working in different areas of food security
and try to figure out as a community: What do we need? What do we have as far as assets
and food security? Where there are gaps? How do we share resources by networking and
seeing who needs what sort of supports? And who has what sort of supports that we can
connect? Gathering together and then doing some priority setting on what are the areas
that we want to look for funding or support for some of these initiatives.... and actually,
some of the initiatives are crossing over both, and the capacity building is really coming
together… how do we build community resilience and the ability of the community to take
care of each other, within the community, around our food security.
“Louise”
There’s lots of that community capacity building happening, coming together, and who
knows where it’s going to go, it’s really hard to say, how momentum like that often
fluctuates. But I would say that’s a really big piece in just starting to, having more
diverse populations and more diverse folks really recognize the food sovereignty
conversation. The food security conversation and around how that really does impact
everyone: it’s not just farmers… I think the events of the last couple years have really
highlighted that we’re all quite vulnerable, and so I think that’s bringing a lot more
diverse voices to the table to have these conversations.
“Teddy”

88

4.2 Bringing Community Together
I think working with the food system and with the people, really helped me to feel that I belong,
and I think this is really important, considering myself being an immigrant. Like, I came here
with no family. Well, I have my husband, but I have to build my own family. My own connections.
And then, I think, the connection with the land and the environment to care, right like, I think,
when you're connect(ed) with the system, you have to care for the whole thing. You cannot
separate yourself from that. So, I think that's what we try to do with the people that come to
volunteer at K’san, and for Skeena Diversity as well. It's brought this sense of belonging, right,
the sense of belonging, because I think when you feel that you belong, you care. You'll care for
the land, you care for the environment. You're going to care about what's happening, and then
you support others. I think that's a how I feel, and how I like to share with others to do the same.
Anna DaSilva, Greenskills BC
Key informants I spoke to in the communities of Terrace and Prince Rupert related
closely to the idea that resilience of the community was synonymous with the people of the
community. People in this case did not mean solely individuals, but how individuals come
together to find strength in a common goal – i.e. the collective. Key informants felt that the local
food system itself was vital to this connection and their enhanced resilience, specifically because
it afforded opportunities for social learning. “Louise” described food as integral in weaving the
“social fabric of the community”. They state that even coming together for meals and feasts
gives an opportunity for community members to learn and problem solve, a key aspect of social
learning as identified by Ahren (2013).
…a lot of the social fabric in communities, especially when they're more isolated and
remote communities, wraps around food. And also, in different ways, not just the creation
of food, but food sharing opportunities. Within the Indigenous culture, we were just
speaking earlier today about the importance of feasting as a way of, you know, having
conversations and celebrating and at problem solving together. So, I mean it really fits
into the social fabric of, I think, most communities, but in particular communities that are
a little more isolated.
“Louise”
The lessons offered by “Louise” are especially compelling given that social learning is
predominately accomplished through the observation of other people’s behaviors and the desire
89

to identify with others and emulate their achievements (Berkes & Ross, 2013). One of the
opportunities for communities to promote social learning through this mechanism is creating
access to community education programing – as identified in the Terrace 2050 Sustainability
Plan (2009). In Objective 3.1, this plan sets out to “[p]romote awareness of food security and
educate people on gardening, food processing, storage and preparation.” This policy signals the
need to teach the community in order to increase knowledge about and engage in the local food
system, including examples like a community learning program or a city led education series.
Objective 6.5.7 in the Prince Rupert Official Community Plan (2021) offers another
example of ways to activate social learning. This objective calls for actions that “[m]ay facilitate
knowledge and skill development for growing and preserving food in Recreation center
programming and on the City’s website.” The approach shows support for food system education
and training both in person and online, illustrating that community actors see a virtual avenue for
social learning. Ferguson and Shum (2012) studied social learning analytics and similarly
highlight that the digital revolution has profoundly reshaped education. They argue that social
learning in a virtual realm can be facilitated through user-generated content and collaborations
that prompt new social behaviors like friending, following, messaging, microblogging, and liking
(Ferguson & Shum, 2012). All of these social behaviours are now ubiquitous and expected by
today's younger generations.
Krasny and Tidball (2017) contend that food policy can also enhance community social
learning through resource support for non-profits and community groups. This could come in the
form of funding or the provision of space (e.g., land for a community garden) where social
learning can occur (Krasny & Tidaball, 2017). This support allows local food organizations to
provide their own programming and food system facing education. This is recognized in the
90

Prince Rupert 2030 Sustainable City Objectives (2018) in section 5.1, which focuses on
partnerships with local organizations. The objective is simple and states that the city should
“[s]upport the continued development of community gardens and urban agriculture spaces by
community organizations.”
In the case of northwestern BC, the non-profit Ecotrust Canada emerged as one
organization that informants recognized as an actor that was considerably invested in
strengthening the local food system and sharing food system knowledge. Ecotrust Canada has
been actively participating in the Prince Rupert local food system via the North Coast Innovation
Lab, which assists other local organizations with capacity, resources, and solutions (Ecotrust,
2024). Ecotrust state that they advocate for a broader perspective on food system dynamics
beyond agri-technology. They also state that their goal is to effectively address food security,
local food availability, climate change adaptation, and food system productivity and profitability
(Ecotrust, 2024). One way they have done this is through collaboration with the City of Prince
Rupert, Coast Ts’msyen Nations, Gitmaxmak’ay Nisga’a Society (and others), wherein Ecotrust
provides support in a variety of food projects across Prince Rupert and area (Ecotrust, 2024).
Key informants not only echoed the importance of Ecotrust and other organizations, but
they also reflected on how the programs and assistance they offer contribute to the local food
system. Below, “Paul” describes their experiences at a non-profit organization that provides
various local food system education opportunities along with access to community gardens and
programming. They provide numerous examples of the benefits to the community from
decreasing food insecurity through donated food and providing space for growing fresh food in
their gardens. The creation of innovative knowledge sharing opportunities like the community
seed exchange were also noted.
91

I would definitely use the seed library, partly because it’s fresh, we just did our seed
workshops a couple weeks ago… I feel like, to have engagement from such a huge variety
of ages and backgrounds and interests, and the students at the elementary school were
just next level. They were so stoked. “Mary”, who is the seed knowledge keeper, she
brought a whole bunch of Mizuna seed for them to process. Mizuna seeds are really
teeny-tiny, if you’re not familiar with them, and they come in a pod, and probably have
maybe a dozen seeds per pod. So, the kids were, like, pinching them with their fingers, to
get the seeds out, and then Jolene goes, “what if we put these all in a pile on a tarp and
stomped on it!”, which they loved! And then, when we pulled the debris out from the top,
and they saw the pile of seeds, that they had gotten out so much more quickly than if they
had pulled them out one by one with their fingers, and they just squealed! They were so
stoked on it; it was so awesome… later that day we did one with community members,
and there was just so much, in comparison, incredible questions, and really keen folks,
really wanting to learn how to save their own seeds, and how to save seeds specific to the
region, and how to go about that process, to create a little bit more seed resiliency for the
area..
“Paul”
Ahren (2013) writes that experiential learning (i.e., learning by doing) provides an
opportunity for social learning to create behavioral change that can transcend the individual and
become a common practice within the larger community. Research has shown that this type of
“on the ground” learning in local food systems has become a common experience for youth as
school and community programs increasingly recognize the importance of teaching children
about local food and culture (Wilson & Shukla, 2020). As a local food producer, Cam Bell (aka
Farmer Cam) sees the value in the knowledge sharing and education that comes with growing
food. Indeed, there was a common thread throughout key informants’ stories focusing on the
aspects of teaching and hands-on-learning within the local food system.
Farmer Cam shared his experience around an organized class visit to his local farm where
the value of getting your hands dirty and learning on the land was underscored. This was echoed
by Patsy Drummond (Food Systems Coordinator for Kitselas First Nation), who shared the

92

feeling of excitement the children received from the knowledge they gained around local food
and the chance to share this with their loved ones.
they did a fieldtrip out to my farm in the springtime, so the kids got to help with – you
know, “help”, in quotations – it was very hands on, participatory. But they came out for
a tour, a little bit of work, and then they purchased food from me a couple of times…
… so that the students could make a meal and provide dinner for their parents that came
to this little graduation ceremony. So, it was really neat! And they invited me, and I came,
and had some food with them, and they had used my basil in their pasta sauce, and they
bought my romaine lettuce to use in a Caesar salad. It was neat to be able to have a meal
with them, and see the kids running around, serving meals, having their hands on to food
that was grown locally and being excited about that, and serving that to their parents.
Farmer Cam
and just talking to their parents, too, right, like the ones who are excited about it like,
“Oh, yeah, he was really excited to talk about the carrots. Blah blah blah!” It's like,
“Oh, okay, cool”, and, you know, things that I didn't think were really interesting, but
they've obviously picked up on something, and they bring it home and talk about it.
Usually they, you know, they bring home what they what they plant as well, right. So,
they bring home potatoes and carrots and beans, and whatever else they plant in the
youth garden boxes and in the field. So they get to talk about it in that way as well.
Patsy Drummond
The experiences documented above provide evidence of a strong connection between
social learning and local food systems as a form of place-based education. Place-based education
emphasizes local environments facilitated through inquiry and interaction in a specific location.
This approach integrates hands-on experience in a local environment with instruction and
interpretation. The added layers of instruction and interpretation help people deepen their sense
of person-place connection which can in turn deepen ecological and cultural values (Groulx, et
al., 2021).
The relation of place, ecology and culture is especially important when considering
Indigenous foodways knowledge that until recently has been on the brink of extinction (Dawson,
2020). “David” shared their experience witnessing children within the community growing and
93

thriving as they got closer to their cultural and spiritual connection to food because harvesting
practices were passed down through their elders.
So, you definitely see the people who are taking the charge are the people that are elderly
and have the wisdom. And they’re really passing it on, they’re passing on the locations of
the harvesting, they’re passing on the actual harvesting methods, and they’re passing on
the stories, because it’ll very much stir memories of them doing this as children. When
maybe there was more, or maybe there was less of this. I just think that’s such a huge
part of it, and I definitely see and hear stories, and all the stories are associated with
harvesting, and seasonality, and change of seasons. Yeah, it’s very much an opportunity
for exchanging stories and learning, very much a learning tool…
..I think it’s just people being together, going out, and harvesting, that is that social
interaction, and sharing, and passing down of information. Yeah. It’s so oral here, and
story-based, for sure, is what I’ve witnessed, and I know that when the kids come back
from some of the excursions, they hold more than when they left. They have the stories,
and it would naturally connect them to place as well. And I think the young, and the
people that choose to go out there, it would be so huge, it would be such an enriching
experience in every way. But yeah, obviously the connection, with sort of being out there,
the learning, the stories, in all facets, it’s just kind of a great opportunity.
“David”
Elders in community connect with the reclamation of knowledge that “David” describes
and express solace in knowing their knowledge is being shared and passed on. Importantly,
research has shown that intergenerational knowledge sharing within Indigenous communities
builds resilience and strengthens communities’ pride in their culture and people (Kuhnlein and
Humphries, 2017). For instance, Soma et al. (2021) examined food waste and intergenerational
knowledge sharing across three countries and found that intergenerational and multicultural
bonding enabled students to gain a deeper understanding of their connections to food, culture,
and their relatives. Findings also suggested that intergenerational storytelling and knowledge
transfer enhanced food literacy, strengthened cultural connections, and promoted awareness of
alternative perspectives that challenge the commodification of food (Soma et al., 2021). Stories
shared by key informants seem to support Soma’s contention, as conversations across cultures
94

highlighted the importance of intergenerational knowledge sharing as an integral piece of a
strong and resilient food system.
Through these interviews, narratives and policy analysis there seems to be a clear
connection of the local food system and the three resilience drivers of social learning, personplace connection, and innovation. The conceptual framework also identifies that there are seven
functions of the food system. Within the policy analysis there is also data that provides the ways
in which these functions connect the drivers. The next stage of the policy analysis reveals what
functions are recognized within the food system planning of Terrace and Prince Rupert. Table 7
provides some policy examples from the region providing an understanding of how each food
system function is recognized.
As a function in the food system, production relates to agricultural, the process of
utilizing the power of cultivated plants and animals to create products that sustain and enhance
human life (Blay-Palmer, 2016; Mathijs et al., 2006). Production is the heart and soul of farming,
skillfully coaxing seed and soil into bountiful harvests and breeding animals to provide essential
resources. Delving deeper into the food system story of Terrace and Prince Rupert, the results of
the food system function policy analysis reveal trends and common themes. As mentioned, the
policy analysis identified 233 food system planning objectives. Of these, 140 were coded to
production – a little over 40%. Perhaps reflective of a bias in planning practice in municipal and
urban environments, the focus of this production often emphasized the integration of food
systems into planning with a heavy but limited focus on community gardens and urban
agriculture (Hou et al., 2009; Redwood, 2008). In both the City of Prince Rupert and the City of
Terrace, Figure 10 illustrates this propensity. Both the OCP and Sustainability Plan documents
heavily favour production as a means to enact food systems policy.
95

Table 6. Examples of policy recognition of the food system function
Food System Function
Production
Hunting & Harvesting

Policy Document
Prince Rupert 2030
Sustainable City
Objectives (2018)
Kitsumkalum
Community Plan
DRAFT (2016)

Processing &
Preservation

Terrace Official
Community Plan (2018)

Distribution

Prince Rupert Official
Community Plan (2021)

Accessing

Greater Terrace
Agricultural Area Plan
Report (2013)

Consumption

Terrace 2050
Sustainability Plan
(2009)

Waste Recovery

Kitselas Land Use Plan
(2019)

Policy Statement
Reduce existing regulations to allow for community
garden and urban agriculture spaces to be more
broadly distributed throughout the community.
Our leadership, staff and community members will
be constantly aware of what is happening in our
traditional territories: Share the knowledge of areas
for hunting, food and medicine harvesting
Encourage small scale commercial food production
where city zoning permits. Consider innovative
options for interim use of underutilized lands for
food production.
Encourages the establishment of local food
processing and distribution.
Encourage and support sustainable food growing
activities, food exchanges, and food
preservation as part of the lifestyle and economics
of living in the Greater Terrace area.
Promote the inclusion of community kitchens in
assisted and supportive housing environments for
their ability to provide healthy food and educate
residents on healthy food preparation.
Investigate opportunities to develop a bear-safe
compost site that can be used to compost organic
waste in the community and can be used to generate
soil amendments for gardens. Implement odour
reducing technology.

Figure 9. Food system policy analysis (Food system functions): Region
96

Community gardens can be an integral part of the local food system, providing space for
people to gather and grow. Studies have shown that there is a clear link between the inclusion of
community gardens and enhanced community engagement and social learning (Krasny &
Tidaball, 2017). To this end, Rogge et al. (2020) argue that community gardens` not only
contribute to sustainable development, they also enhance the sense of inclusion through their
educational roles and capacity to support social learning. These benefits are clearly recognized in
the policy examined here. Among the food system policy in the City of Prince Rupert’s OCP and
Sustainability Plan (Figure 9), there are 20 references to production and 14 of them discuss
community gardens. An example policy promoting community and urban agriculture is found in
Prince Rupert’s Sustainable 2030 document where the city identifies the need to “[s]upport
community organizations in the revitalization of City parks as potential sites for community
gardens and urban agriculture activities.”

Figure 10. Food system policy analysis (Food system functions): Prince Rupert

97

Figure 11. Food system policy analysis (Food system functions): Terrace
After production, accessing represented 24% of the objectives across the region (Figure
10). Accessing describes the freedom or ability to obtain or make use of food and includes a
wide variety of system elements like grocery stores, food banks, and farmers’ markets (Giacchè,
& Retière, 2019). Farmers’ Markets are another tool that is often used by planners to include
food system planning policy (Hou et al., 2009; Redwood, 2008). Farmers’ markets are often a
place within the community that also provide a weekly gathering spot for community members,
providing food trucks, music and other activities. Both the City of Prince Rupert and the City of
Terrace identify the importance of these places within their policy documents.
The City of Prince Rupert currently does not run a regular Farmers’ Market, although
they have been trialing pop-up markets and the city has expressed a desire to create a market
space. Within the Food Policy section of their OCP the city states that they “[m]ay encourage the
development of a local food market in the downtown area to enable local small-scale producers
and new industry to show case local food.”

98

Figure 12. Distribution of food system functions across all policy documents (n=233)
In the area of farmer’s markets, the City of Terrace has expressed the goal to “[s]upport
the marketing and sales of local food and producers to improve the economic viability of food
production in the community.” Key informants shared that the city provides space for the market
as well as some funding for its operations. The Skeena Valley Farmers Market (SVMF) has been
in operation since 1982 and has a permanent space in the centre of the city at George Little Park.
With over 70 vendors it is the leading choice for locally sourced, fresh food that is made, raised,
or baked in northwestern British Columbia (SVMF, 2023). Their website states that “[t]he
Skeena Valley Farmers Market is more than just a place to buy food, it's a community gathering
place where people can shop, eat, socialize and even enjoy live music” (SVMF, 2023). The
farmers market also provides opportunities for community organizations to join the market and
foster connections that can enhance “the social fabric of our community” (SVMF, 2023).
The market in Terrace is also a member of the BC Association of Farmers’ Market
(BCAFM) and is a participant in the Farmers’ Market Nutrition coupon program. The BCAFM
states that “The program is specifically targeted to the following populations: lower-income
99

pregnant persons, seniors/elders, and families with children” (BCAFM, 2024). In a US based
study researching a similar program, Dolohite et al. (2005) write that these programs do more
than combat food insecurity. Their research showed that the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP) had a positive impact on the dietary intake of nutritionally at-risk individuals, the social
engagement opportunities of community members, and the revenues of participating farmers
(Dolohite et al., 2005). “Shannon” relates to these research findings and has witnessed the
benefits of the program in their community. They share how impactful it is for these individuals
not only for accessing the food - but accessing the community.
It’s essential. Because we’re helping people at every age, and every level. We’re making
a difference for the community, we’re making sure that families that don’t have, have. We
are providing a safe place for people to be to pick up their food, hopefully it’s a nonjudgemental place, because they see others using the coupons. We’re making it so that
lunches are being made, kids have food, families have food, even if it’s just one meal,
whatever it is. They’re making it, and they’re bringing their families together for it… the
ones that will use those coupons, you can see the difference. They’re excited to come
every week, they’re happy to see other friendly faces… so it’s so much more than just
picking up your fruits and vegetables. It’s that social aspect, because so many people are
isolated. And we’re helping bring down the depression level, we’re bringing up the happy
level because they sit down, and they listen to some music, they get the atmosphere, and
everybody’s out there. And hopefully it’s a safe place for people to be.
“Shannon”
Reference to accessing in presents itself differently within the First Nation food system
planning policy documents. As discussed in section 1 there is a distinguishable difference when
considering the driver of person-place connection between western based policy sets and First
Nation policy sets. The findings from the functions section of the policy analysis bear similar and
important results. In this case accessing refers not only to what can be acquired at a market, but
what can be harvested from the land. Within the resource areas priority section, the Kitselas
Land Use Plan (2019) identifies accessing through their objective to “[e]nable Kitselas Members
100

to use resource areas for personal use and cultural and traditional practices such as gathering
firewood, medicines and food”.
This policy demonstrates that the community recognizes the need for its members to have
access to areas of nature that not only provide sustenance but hold cultural values. First Nation
policy not only recognizes the person-place connection held to the area but also points out the
variety of ways that food can be accessed. The conversations had with the key informants in
Terrace and Prince Rupert corroborate that there is a need for these hunting and harvesting
policy objectives. Their stories share that in the Pacific Northwest, the local food system grows
past the margins of what can just be cultivated in a garden – as is explored in the following
section.

101

4.3 More than Agriculture and Gardens
The local food system is vitally important to the community. I think it’s so easy to get caught
up in food systems equals farms, which is so not true in any way, shape, or form. There is
connection to the ocean resource, and then, obviously land-based foods, wild food. Indigenous
ways of connecting to food, colonial ways of connecting with food. There’s so many aspects
around what that looks like. So I think it’s critically important and I think, again, folks are really
starting to recognize that, and recognize different ways that that could be relevant and that folks
could feel connected to that in their own lives, it doesn’t have to be going to the farmers’ market
if that’s not your jam, there’s so many other ways that that you could connect to the food system.
“Teddy”
Person-place connection plays a leading role in the local food system story of Prince Rupert
and Terrace. Key informants shared that their love for their community has just as much to do
with the land and water as it has to do with their neighbours. While discussing the local food
system, most informants could not talk about the food without talking about the place it comes
from. In the land, the forest, the rivers, and the ocean – place and food are intertwined. For many
participants living along the Skeena River, both at the mouth in Prince Rupert or along the valley
in Terrace, local food is not only what is grown, but also what is collected, hunted, harvested,
and caught within the local ecosystem.
For key informants from these communities, traditional and wild food sources are the
backbone of their diet. Spend an hour in Cowpuccionos, a coffee shop built beside an old
canning factory in Prince Rupert’s Cow Bay, and you will be subject to a stream of locals talking
about a recent take of ocean food. Some are heading out prawning with friends, some just got
back from crabbing, and others are heading out fishing for an hour after work. Jim Webb
described these sources of food as essential to the diet of people living in the region. It is clear
that in B.C.’s Pacific Northwest, if the food system planning neglects wild foods it is missing a
large part of what the local food system looks like to members of these communities.

102

Our grocery store goes right by our front door, here. Right from the ooligan that starts off the
year, here, the savior fish because it’s the first fish of the year, we don’t harvest that until the
ice is off the river. And then we go for it. And, like I say, it just follows, the calendar year
follows that system all the time. Just like here – this is for 2019, but January: time for
trapping. the whole thing. Our calendar is base don the food available. All the way through,
and the different things that you harvest, right? Herring eggs in April, seaweed in May.
Salmonberries in June, which is a cursor to – they say, when the salmon berries are
blossoming along the Skeena, that’s when the Chinook are in the river. And when the berries
pop, that means the Chinook are here. So, that’s the timing run for the Kalum, so when the
berries are out, the Chinook are in the Kalum. Then sockeye the following, pink salmon the
following month. Blueberries. Cockles out in the coast. Getting clams, and then time for
feasts at the end of December.
Jim Webb
Wild foods refer to floral and faunal species growing naturally in self-sustaining populations,
and minimally cultivated ecological areas such as forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Borelli et al.
(2020) write that though often overlooked, wild foods remain crucial for sustaining numerous
human populations, especially in times of food scarcity, limited household budgets, or
challenging market access. Wild foods also hold significant nutritional and cultural importance
within traditional food systems, particularly for Indigenous communities (Borelli, et al., 2020).
Ford (2009) adds that the utilization of wild foods can boost the resilience of our food
systems by integrating local biodiversity and alternative food sourcing methods into diets,
thereby decreasing reliance solely on constructed food environments. In the U.S., Smith et al.
(2019) explored Native American diets and highlighted that wild foods play a crucial role in
enhancing diet quality and food security by increasing access to local, diverse, and non-market
food sources. Their research both underscores the potential of wild foods in bolstering food
security and the need for promotion of wild foods through research, education, interventions, and
food systems policy (Smith, et al. 2019).
As discussed, municipal and regional food system policies predominantly emphasized
agriculture and gardening, reflecting a narrow perspective of local food systems (Issac, 2022).
103

This discrepancy echoes a pattern in Western food systems planning, which is primarily urbancentric, with only limited regard for the diverse elements of local ecosystems – including wild or
traditional food sources (Soma et al. 2023). Ostenso et al. (2020) also recognize this current
challenge, highlighting the need for communities to expand their vision of a local food system to
include wild foods obtained through hunting and harvesting. My research corroborates these past
studies, showing that this pattern is also evident in smaller, remote urban communities in the
north. Of 101 objectives within the Western policy sets of both case study communities that
recognized food system functions, there were only four mentions of hunting and harvesting.
Although recognized in preambles of policy documents that explained the food sources
within their community, out of 25 food system planning objectives, the City of Prince Rupert had
no policy recognizing hunting and harvesting (Figure 11). Although slightly more prevalent, the
City of Terrace also recognized hunting and harvesting just three times out of their 73 food
system policy objectives (Figure 12). From a policy development perspective, this finding
reflects a clear need for western food systems planning to think more holistically and recognize
that local food systems are more than agriculture and backyard gardens. Doing so would help
challenge a strong urban bias within the food systems policy realm (Issac, 2022). It would also
help address a trend in which policy overlooks wild food sources, often recognized as Indigenous
foods (Johnston & Spring, 2021), across BC. For instance, in a study examining OCPs across
BC, Robert and Mullinix (2018) found that only 8% included policies aimed at supporting
Indigenous food traditions.
Where results showed that municipal food systems policy almost entirely overlooked wild or
traditional foods, policy from First Nation communities made it central (Figure 13). Rather than
a commodity the community requires, First Nation policy described food as part of the
104

community. The Kitselas Land Use Plan (2016) states that “[c]ommunity members have relied
on the land around them for sustenance. Hunting and gathering, harvesting firewood, and
gathering plants for medicinal value are key traditional land uses still practiced today”. Not only
does the First Nation policy recognize aspects of hunting and harvesting as an integral part of the
community’s local food system, it also articulates the critical importance of Indigenous foodways
as part of the relationship to land. In the Culture policy section, the community of Kitsumkalum
emphasized that “[c]ommunity members of all generations will have a good knowledge of how
to harvest and prepare traditional foods”. The Kitsumkalum First Nation’s objective is to protect
and share this “[k]nowledge of wild food and traditional plants and seafood (including harvesting
locations)” through “land tour(s)/on the land teaching, workshops, teaching from elders, written
materials”.
First Nation policy sets also included distinct objectives to engage food as a path to provide
community members more time on the land. This included strategies to make it easier to access
traditional food sources by providing transportation, workshops with elders, and courses in
identification of traditional foods, harvesting, and processing techniques. The Kitsukalum Land
Use Plan (2016) provides a great example in their Education section, which outlines the
objective that “[s]tudents will receive the support required to do well in school and be successful
in life as a Tsimshian member in society”. In this case support means, at least in part, providing
opportunities to have “[m]ore time on the land, learning our history and how to live off the land”.
As discussed earlier, these types of objectives capture clear examples of person-place connection
and social learning, highlighting the strength and opportunities connected within this form of
food system planning.

105

Figure 13. Food system function comparison between "Western" and First Nation policy sets

The need for strong policy support connecting community to land through food is also
recognized in the literature. Richmond et al. (2020) examined food insecurity among urban based
Indigenous peoples in southwestern Ontario and found that food environments are composed of
political, social, and cultural dimensions that are considerably place-based. The need to centre
food as part of the relationship to place was also clearly reflected in the perspective offered by
several key informants. As Jim Webb identifies, policy driven actions are key to safeguarding
place for food to ensure access for the community.
When I was growing up that was the thing to do: go out and hunt, you know, it’s this time
of year, it’s spring, we’ve got to go do the oolichan fishing. This picture here is the
oolichan that we harvest, and we say it’s the savior fish. That’s the first thing we harvest
after the winter. That’s the first thing that comes in. And then, after that, it’s the early
runs of the Chinook that come in, because we get two runs of chinook in this river here.
So, that’s the other thing. It starts off with the fish. Then, you get into the salmon season
which is during the summer, and then after that it’s harvesting the ungulates. It’s
seasonally based, what we harvest. And during the summer you’re harvesting your
vegetables, your tubulars, and everything else. And medicine! In Spring also, in the
medicine, that’s when we’re connected to the plants, it’s usually for medicines,
historically.
Jim Webb
106

It is important to note that non-Indigenous community members also expressed the
importance of accessing wild foods. Throughout the interviews, every key informant mentioned
that their diet included items either caught in the waters, hunted in the forests, or foraged in the
hills that surrounded their communities. While the emphasis on this function of the food system
is likely shaped by the sample of informants I spoke to, it does not appear to be isolated to this
region. In 2020, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA) estimated
that 1.3 million Canadians participate in hunting on an annual basis. In 2022, the Department of
Fisheries (DFO) reported that in B.C. alone there were over 300,000 tidal and 284,000
freshwater recreational fishing licenses issued. Despite clear and widespread engagement with
wild foods, evidence here shows that (at least in the Pacific Northwest) these livelihoods are not
supported through Western food system policy. Chantel Wentland, Planning/Economic
Development Officer for the North Coast Regional District, articulated this by highlighting the
seemingly abundance of wild foods that connects them to their community.
“So, like, five months out of the year you can walk down a street and just pick berries,
whether it’s huckleberries, raspberries, salmon berries, doesn’t matter. Something’s going
to be ripe, and you can go grab it. … this is our sense of place, we have food everywhere,
whether it’s meat, or it’s berries, or other types of medicinal plants. I don’t think I’ve seen
a useless plant since I’ve moved to Prince Rupert. Everything I’ve seen, based on my
training and my traditional knowledge, has either a food or medicinal use. And I think
that’s really beautiful, that it’s just free and open for people to use if they want to.”
Chantal Wentland
In recent years a limited number of northern communities have started to address the gap
related to wild and traditional foods by acknowledging that their food systems must be defined
by more than just what they can grow. As the development of my project’s conceptual framework
identified, Whitehorse and Simcoe-Muskoka have both included the recognition of wild foods
within their community policy. For instance, Whitehorse Local Food and Agriculture (2020)
107

promotes wild food within food system policy in their objective to “[i]ncrease opportunities to
build cross-cultural knowledge and skills, for the sustainable use of wild local foods and
medicines”. The document follows this up with a list of seven potential actions. Action 2.4 calls
on actors to “[e]nsure recognition of significant forage areas within park, trail, and other land use
planning processes and documents”.
To some key informants the connection to place means more than the land and water.
Some felt a connection to the environment itself. They explained that an understanding of the
change in weather patterns and the ruggedness of the environment can create a knowing of place
that enhances the capacity to adapt and survive. This speaks directly to how people perceive the
environment in relation to their identity – their person-place connection. In understanding their
environment, members of a community with strong person place connection can also develop a
better understanding of that place’s adaptive capacity. Indeed, Ambrosio and Kim (2019) argue
that understanding a local jurisdiction’s exposure to climate hazards is the first step in assessing
climate change’s impacts on the community.
The extent of disruptions or losses from climate impacts also depends on a city’s unique
adaptive capacity, which must be tailored to specific circumstances in order to effectively adjust
to climate change, mitigate potential damages, seize opportunities, and cope with consequences
(Ambrosio & Kim, 2019). Connecting to the local food system can be one way to develop and
connect to these capacities. For instance, “Alice” discussed Prince Rupert’s regular experience
with intense coastal weather patterns, describing it as a part of life growing up on the coast.
Acknowledgement of the existing challenges reflects the community's adaptive capacity,
demonstrating the community’s resilience in the face of the ever-changing environmental
conditions.
108

Key informants also expressed that a relationship with the natural environment builds
knowledge and understanding of the region’s ecosystem. Compiling local ecosystem knowledge
and using the lessons learned from changes in the environment can provide a more intimate
relationship to place. For producers, something as simple as recognizing the seasonality of food
and understanding the difficulty involved in producing local food in the region is reflective of
this person – place connection.
Finally, for many key informants, the connection between place identity and local food
was a natural fit. Everything from the growing, to foraging, to eating of local food connected
them in some way to the environment around them. The conversations had in Terrace and Prince
Rupert added to the complexity of this research understanding their local food system through
the key informants’ stories of harvesting, fishing, and hunting. These activities provide
nourishment along with a stronger connection to the land and water they live on. The knowing
and understanding of the availability of certain foods within the local food systems and a
recognition that they rely on specific environmental inputs were shared amongst community
members. Specific sites of berry picking might only be passed on to close members of their
circle. When certain foods are available is often wisdom that is shared through the experience of
years of observation and traditional knowledge. It is this reconnection with the food systems of
the past that allows the informants I spoke with to truly connect with the place.

109

4.4 Doing Old Things in New Ways
I don't really see anything like a new way, other than, like, our people returning back to who we
are, returning back to the land. Reconnecting with each other, and that's where I see the most
innovation and the biggest possibilities for change. I see some, you know, food hubs coming up.
But for me, the biggest innovation I see is our young people getting reconnected with our
territory and building housing on our territory for our people and building food systems on our
territory for our people. And that's (what) true innovation to me is, you know, showing up for
community and providing in the way that we always have...
…I don't know the way you view innovation, but to me, being innovative, is utilizing, you know,
rooted in who we are and our values, and then adapting that to where we are right now, that is
adapting into these realities, and using what you have and that, to me, is innovation…
...Innovation is restoring our wetlands, innovation is restoring our forests, our kelp forests. You
know, bringing balance back, that's innovation to me. So, I think, if people are going to be stuck
on how technology is going to save us we're going to really miss a huge opportunity which is
right now to do what we need to do. So, to me, that's innovation. Being innovative is utilizing
what we have to fix or remedy, or, you know, restore kind of what's been done, and that's
majority to our bodies or landscapes, or mindsets. I think once we start healing our land and
healing our systems, those changes will come. But yeah, it's hard to say if anyone (is) on that
same point, even think(ing) along those lines. But to me that's innovation, getting our people on
the land to restore our food systems, our territories… that to me is true innovation.
-“Hazel”
When discussing innovation within food systems, the literature often refers to technical
innovation or agricultural innovation. These concepts evoke experimentation with growing
techniques such as vertical gardening, hydroponics, and soil regeneration (deLibris, 2020). As
previously discussed, this form of innovation is happening within the region. Innovation in local
food systems can also look like policy change, including policy that spurs movement and change
in novel directions (Bonney, 2012).
When key informants in Terrace and Prince Rupert were asked what they saw as
innovation in their communities, they predominantly talked about community support and the reintroduction of past practices. Key informants provided examples of what Cheuy (2017) refers to
as community innovation as one of the more familiar forms of innovation that they experience
110

within their local food systems. Community innovation is a change from past routines, whether
minor or major, resulting in considerable beneficial outcomes (Cheuy, 2017). Key informants in
northwestern BC described community innovation as community coming together in ways that
some have forgotten, but others see as the strongest means of promoting change in their
community. These are ways that may have been common in the past, but through technological
change and a disconnect between the environment and people have largely been forgotten. These
past practices are now viewed as new. What once was common is now innovative.
Bennet and McWhorter (2019) write that as times change, newfound social needs
emerge, becoming more widely publicized through social movements. These movements push
organizations to change or inspire the creation of new institutions (i.e., rules, structures, norms)
to meet these needs. In turn, new institutions shape how individuals engage in socially impactful
work within organizations, showcasing ways to create and spread meaningful change (Bennett &
McWhorter, 2019). In this sense community innovation also involves a community coming
together to bring ideas forward that address locally demanding societal needs and that actually
improve peoples’ lives (Cheuy, 2017).
Community innovation and social learning often run parallel. O’Sullivan et al. (2014)
recognizes this level of social learning reorganization, including community innovations that
create empowerment and collaboration, as a core component that supports resilience in a
community. Knowledge shared in this study provides local context to such processes. “Teddy”
discussed how individuals have started to recognize the power of community and are initiating
ways to gather again, sharing information and food together in ways that revitalizes their
relationship with one another and their environment.

111

I think it’s not like a super visual innovation, per se, but there’s lots of that community
capacity building happening, coming together, and who knows where it’s going to go. It’s
really hard to say, how momentum like that often fluctuates. But I would say that’s a
really big piece in just starting to, I think, having more diverse populations and more
diverse folks really recognize the food sovereignty conversation. The food security
conversation and around how that really does impact everyone: it’s not just farmers, it’s
not just any one group of people. I think, like you mentioned, the events of the last couple
years have really highlighted that we’re all quite vulnerable, and so I think that’s
bringing a lot more diverse voices to the table to have these conversations, which is so,
so, so valuable, because we really do need everyone to have these conversations and
bring their points of view together to have the strongest system moving forward that we
can.
“Teddy”
Anna DaSilva at Greenskills BC, a local food focused education initiative in Terrace,
shared similar experiences with a communal food group that they felt was an innovation within
their local food system. Their perspective is part of a broader sense that the understanding and
knowledge of the local ecosystem, which has clear ties to person-place connection as described
by Fresque Baxter & Armitage (2012), is enhanced when people can come together. Having a
sense of belonging in a place can increase the care and desire to create safety for your fellow
community members. Within these groups, they share their knowledge, in turn, creating niche
spaces for community innovation to flourish. To many informants it is these spaces that have
become integral to their survival in the face of the increasing stresses on their local food system.
We have what we call international cooking. So, someone from the community will come,
and will share their favourite recipe, or a favourite of like a recipe from their home
country, right, and then sometimes we'll include things that are hard to find in town, or
something different, or ways of cooking and things like that. So, with this project this
year, because we have those volunteers involved. They were able to harvest from the
garden, and then bring to, you know, a different office, a different location, to introduce
to other people not just the new recipe and things, you know, different ways of cooking
things, but something that has connection that was grown right here in Terrace…
... So, I think the moments they’re in the garden to learn about gardening, we are sharing
our stories. We are sharing our lives; we are sharing traditions and a lot of things again.
I don't know if it is an innovation. But (it) was definitely an important piece for them to
have these personal connections, not just like all business, “Okay, this what we do, so to
use that”, but you know, have this opportunity to share their lives too.
Anna DaSilva

112

Key informants clearly value space that allows for innovation to take place in an
intentional fashion. Policy makers in the region have also recognized the need to promote these
spaces, but there is often a question as to what follow through should look like. Hudson et al.
(2019) note that policy failure is often due to how policy implementation is designed and
outlined rather than a gap in what the policy objective is. An example from the Prince Rupert
OCP (2021) in the Food Systems section shows that there is recognition for the need to support
these community programs and volunteer led initiatives. Sections 6.1 (Provide Resources) and
6.2 (Undertake Projects and Programs) specifically discuss supports available, such as funds,
land and staff. However, as Hudson et al. (2019) outline, without a relevant implementation plan,
even these well-intentioned policies may drift into partial or complete failure.
There is a clear need for policy that can move toward action and truly contribute to the
growing need to sustain niche spaces that are incubating innovative movements.
6.1 Provide resources: In general, the resource category would enable Prince Rupert to
support other bodies or groups to undertake programs and initiatives it deems to be
important without having to directly undertake the initiative. By doing this, the city
utilizes the capacity, skills, and knowledge of industry and residents working in a limited
partnership with the local government. Resources can be in the form of funds, land, staff
support, or facilities.
6.2 Undertake Projects and Programs: Prince Rupert could undertake local food
projects and programs directly as either the principal operator or an active partner. This
could include the initiatives identified in the “Provide Resources” category, and other
initiatives such as establishing a food system advisory commission and running a food
waste recovery and composting service. The City can also use demonstration gardens to
highlight growing opportunities and techniques.
Prince Rupert OCP (2021)
Interviews also revealed unexpected ways to think about innovation. For many,
innovation in the local food system was something, somebody, or some organization returning to
what had once worked well in the past. Many key informants discussed specific food advocates
113

that are “innovative” in the way they have worked to bring local food back to the forefront
within their community. Within Prince Rupert, Ecotrust Canada (2024) (as introduced in Section
2) operates a variety of food security and sovereignty projects with the region. One of these
projects was taken on by Andrea Yovorsky, Food Distribution and Marketing Program
Development Project Coordinator, in partnership with local entrepreneur Dai Fukasaku.
Fukasaku’s passion for a strong local food system and the work he has been doing was
mentioned by numerous key informants in Prince Rupert as an example of an innovative
movement. Fukasaku opened a sushi restaurant in Prince Rupert and was surprised to find how
difficult it was to acquire local seafood within the coastal city (Yovorsky, 2021). Fukasaku found
that like 75 percent of all Canadian seafood in the nearly $9-billion industry, most commercial
catches in Prince Rupert were exported (Pinchin, 2023). Fukasaku took on partnerships across
the region, including the CEO of a Japanese-owned fish plant in Port Edward, to source entirely
local, traceable seafood (Pinchin, 2023). Through partnership with Yovorsky, Fukasaku started a
project that involved creative approaches to acquiring locally harvested and prepared foods that
could be offered for sale in his market. In doing this he referred back to famous trade routes
across the Skeena Valley called the Grease Trails (Yovorsky, 2021).
The term Grease Trails calls back to the millennia during which Indigenous peoples
along the Pacific Coast revered oolichan for its nutritional value due to its high oil content.
Rendered oolichan grease became a key item for trade as it could be preserved for a long time
and was an excellent source of food energy (Carter, 2017). These oolichan trading routes,
commonly referred to as “grease trails”, historically linked coastal and interior communities of
the Ts’msyen, Gitxsan, Nisga’a, and Haisla Nations. Building upon this heritage, Mr. Fukasaku
is working to foster a community sharing model, informed by ongoing insights from the Grease
114

Trails and collaborative knowledge exchange among food consumers, harvesters, and producers.
Yovorsky (2021) writes that it is this commitment that can help in promoting regional food
diversity and economic prosperity. Fukosaku’s Market and Restaurant is well known in Prince
Rupert as the place to acquire local food. Among others, Amanda Barney felt that this endeavor,
the act of sourcing only local food and selling it, was innovative itself – a testament to the
difficulty of purchasing local food within Prince Rupert.
Endeavors similar to what Fukasaku is doing with his business in Prince Rupert align
with findings about social entrepreneurs within the social innovation literature. Westley (2013)
writes that social entrepreneurship and social innovation share a common goal: to enhance the
world through social transformation. Social innovation is concerned with the mechanisms and
approaches that catalyze such transformation, while social entrepreneurship emphasizes the
business aspect of driving change (Westley, 2013).
Because, I think some of the innovation that I've seen in the last couple of years is
introducing old ideas in a new way. I think about Fukasaku and him establishing the
ability for people to buy locally caught seafood and to buy vegetables that are grown in
Terrace, because it's not necessarily an innovative idea to have a small grocery store, but
certainly Dai had to really think about procurement, and how he could resell produce
and fish in a new way because he's not a processor of fish. And so to me, that's a new
idea of almost creating like a local food Hub, because we didn't have one before.
Amanda Barney
Key informants in both case study communities revealed that when they think of
innovation, they think of bringing back methods or practices (i.e. mechanisms) that have been
used in the past. Many stories that informants shared to illustrate their conception of innovation
centered on strengthening their local food system through a resurgence. A return to traditional
methods and techniques. Innovation for their community meant interested people sharing their
passion for food with others, organizing together to learn heritage growing techniques, foraging
115

local fauna, or learning traditional salmon preservation. Many of the informants in these
communities also viewed returning to the roots of food, so to speak, as the innovation that is
needed to strengthen their community’s resilience. They felt that there was a growing movement
in their communities that focused on renewing ways of knowing that give gratitude to the local
food system. “Paul” was firm in their belief that reclaiming old knowledge and techniques,
known to create a more ecologically balanced sustainable food system in the past, is the path to
innovation that is required to ensure today’s food is available tomorrow.
I would probably touch on the fact that myself and almost anyone in Prince Rupert
working within the food realm agree that we need to get back to more traditional way…
bring the food system and supply back to a more traditional way of being. So,
reconnecting with food plants that have been lost, getting those back into our gardens,
getting back out into the wild and foraging responsibly for food. And then, how to do it
responsibly: connection with elders and knowledge holders, making sure that it’s done
thoughtfully. Making these connections is the biggest learning experience for me, it takes
a lot of work, it takes a lot of relationship building...
… I’m very much interested in revitalization of traditional foodways of Canada, and
North America. I want to see a step back from a large monoculture system of agriculture
and start bringing back a diverse array of plants into the diet, going back to some of our
old cooking and preservation methods. And this has been a goal of mine for quite some
time. Just by coincidence, actually, it turns out that this has actually been a really good
avenue for that. I’ve been able to work with many First Nations, in town and in the
communities as well, to do just that: bring us back to nature, show us how to harvest
seaweed or how to prepare certain foods, something I never would have been able to do,
or knowledge I never would have attained on my own.
“Paul”
The call from “Paul” is evidenced in a larger theme related to the growing focus on
traditional foods, adapting old production methods, and certifying the quality and authenticity of
traditional products. The rise of organic farming, GMO-free products, and sourcing materials
from local or forgotten varieties are all examples of this trend. Cannerella and Piccioni (2011)
write that traditional knowledge is often associated with Indigenous practices. Traditional
Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is often referenced and has drawn considerable scientific interest
116

for its role in conserving biodiversity, enhancing protected areas, and reclaiming ecological
processes. The authors go on to state that despite being sometimes portrayed as exclusive to
Indigenous methods, traditional knowledge also has deep roots in Western cultures. Knowledge
can stem from diverse cultural experiences and histories of local communities, alongside Greek,
Roman, and Islamic foundations (Cannerella & Piccioni, 2011).
In their 2011 agricultural study looking at two rural areas in Italy, the reconnection of
agriculture to past cultural and traditional roots was framed and defined as “Traditiovations”.
Traditiovations are practices and techniques that stem from historical traditional knowledge or
that are reinvented based on it. Despite appearing outdated, these innovations often show
effectiveness in production, management, and distribution of food with the community
(Cannerella & Piccioni, 2011).
Although the description of a Tradiovation sounds like it would not hold a place within
policy sets, there are examples to take from the Terrace 2050 Our Strategy for Sustainability
where the Heritage Conservation Plan and the Local Food Goals meet. In section 8.0 there is a
policy statement that calls for the composition of “a handbook that details different ways that
early settlers ‘put food by’ in terms of preserving fresh fruit and produce for winter month.” In
reference to heritage conservation, the policy states that there is something to be learned from the
past that could be put to use today.
The reference to storage methods is especially telling as the discussion of recent food
shortages caused by COVID-19 and infrastructure challenges due to flooding came up numerous
times while talking to key informants. Farmer Cam recalled the scarcity that grew and the long
lines of community members looking for some sort of fresh food. In the past, many communities
would have some sort of food stores that would be there in case emergencies or shocks to the
117

system occurred. Creating storage that does not rely on modern conveniences can provide
resilience to the food system in anticipation of these hazards.
The week that those floods happened down south, and the grocery store shelves emptied
fairly quickly, the line-up for our winter farmers’ market was, like, over 100 feet long.
For the first hour, when we opened, I did not stop selling vegetables. I sold out of
everything that I had, I sold, like, $1000 or something. It’s not that much, but people
panicked, right? People are freaked out. And I’m, like, “What does food security look
like? It looks like being able to feed your community when there’s a supply chain
interruption.”
Farmer Cam
Findings in this study add detail to the ‘mechanisms’ that communities are reclaiming
through social innovation. Key informants talked about past practices that had fallen out of use
and how individuals or groups within the community were reviving them. Traditional First
Nation fishing methods and Indigenous foodways were specifically highlighted, along with
efforts to reconnect with traditional methods of harvesting and farming. As the literature review
outlines, local First Nations were using extensive farming techniques within this region prior to it
being settled and colonized (Turner et al., 2013). In 2021 Kitselas First Nation was provided
$35,000 by the BC governments First Nations Well Being Fund for food-security initiatives,
including an education program focused on food-forest gardening and traditional crop growing
(Galimski, 2021).
Funding from the First Nations Well Being Fund combined with a partnership with
ethnobiologists from Simon Fraser University has led to Kitselas having an opportunity to
reestablish significant food forests (Galimski, 2021). Dr. Chelsey Armstrong (2017), a lead
researcher for the project, writes that management practices of the Ts’msyen peoples challenge
the assumption that humans inevitably deplete or damage the ecosystems they inhabit. She states
that Indigenous peoples not only enhanced their landscapes, but also acted as keystone builders –
118

pointing to recent findings as compelling evidence that Indigenous management practices are
closely linked to the health and resilience of ecosystems (Armstrong, 2017).
In a release from the SFU study (2021), Chris Apps, Director of Kitselas Lands and
Resources Department is quoted as saying that “[s]tudies such as this reconnect the community
with historic resources and support integration of traditional approaches with contemporary landuse management while promoting exciting initiatives for food sovereignty and cultural
reflection.” Today, there are wide-ranging areas that are being reclaimed and taken care of again.
This work is being led by botanists and researchers, and Kitselas has been able to reinstate some
of their blueberry and mawlks (Pacific Crabapple) farms. Many of the original food forest
locations are positioned near historic village sites that the Kitselas were displaced from. Kitselas
is also embarking on some projects to recreate these food forests closer to their current village
sites for easier access for their elders.
So working with Chelsey and also just try - I've been looking for grants and funds. We're
hoping to actually build a sort of demonstration forest garden on the other half of our
garden lot. It's not a big space, but it it's enough space to at least recreate a version of a
forest garden, so it won't be like the exact one we would have found down in the canyon,
because we would incorporate other types of perennial plants, but it's something that
through the development process and the planning process it will have input from
community about how a forest garden works, what it will look like, what kinds of plants
do we want in it? And, what types of plants do we want to eat? It? It'll be a contemporary
version of a Kitselas forest garden. Our motivation, and also inspiration from a
traditional Kitselas Forest Garden.
Patsy Drummond
Reflective of the process of finding traditiovations, informants discussed in detail a
variety of past practices that had fallen out of use and how individuals or groups within the
community were reviving them. Examples of traditional fish harvesting for the community came
out of discussions regarding Kitsumkalum. Jim Webb shared information about a recent fishing
program that was introduced to bring back communal food networks, an important piece within
119

the revitalization of Indigenous foodways practices (Joseph & Turner, 2020). He shared how past
practices brought the community together at different times of the year to harvest fish such as
salmon, halibut, oolichan etc. This would be a large community affair that would involve
catching as well as the processing of fish to preserve and store. All ages of community members
would be involved in these practices, working together and sharing and learning.
Turner (2020) writes that systems and practices like those just described are rooted in
history and interconnected with ecological, technological, social, and spiritual dimensions. They
have been shown to foster sustained productivity, increased resource abundance, and equitable
distribution within communities (Turner, 2020). Turner’s (2020) extensive research spanning
almost 60 years of study in the Pacific Northwest identifies that practices such as habitat
management, selective harvesting, and cultural ceremonies have played crucial roles in achieving
these outcomes. Jim laments that sometimes these key elements of past practices are lost.
… on the innovative aspect of it, would be doing the communal fishing aspect of it, as I
mentioned earlier, we have members go out and actually fish for the community…
…it’s new to the community. The way it differs from the old way is, again, you went out
and you harvested what you needed, any extras, you gave it away, right? No wastage or
anything like that. With the way it’s handled now, it’s more of a necessity to put that fish
on the table, as opposed to going out there. When I was growing up, going out and doing
this stuff, it was another avenue to share the experience. You know, you’re getting stories
from your elders when you’re out there doing this stuff. It might not be in the form of
sitting down by the campfire and going through a story, but more or less, “oh, I
remember when I was a kid, and this is what we used to do… when I was a kid, I used to
go and hunt that mountain for goats”. So, that’s how that information was passed on.
Now, I just don’t see that at all. These guys that are doing the fishing, they’re just out
there, that’s their main thing. Bang, bang, get as many fish as you can within a certain
period of time, then bring that back and distribute it. So, it’s more of a job as opposed to
an experience, I guess you could say. Again, that’s where you’re going to lose that
cultural aspect to it.
Jim Webb
Themes of reinvention and loss are important considerations to think of when
reintroducing or revitalizing traditional techniques. Reconnecting to the spiritual aspects and
120

relationships of practices are an integral part of Indigenous foodways. Years of colonial
programming have attempted to erase these teachings, and this erasure needs to be addressed. As
Michnik et al. (2021) found in their study of Indigenous food sovereignty in Garden Hill,
Manitoba, many members of the community continue to disregard traditional knowledge. They
write that according to an Elder, today's youth may lack understanding of traditional knowledge
due to ongoing influences from Western culture (Michnik et al., 2021). Elders and Knowledge
Keepers continue to advocate for integrating traditional knowledge and spiritual beliefs into food
education to reestablish the reverence for food. There are many examples of the success of these
programs in reclaiming Indigenous foodways (Goodridge, 2020). However, Michnik et al.
(2021) write that this integration faces obstacles due to the prevailing colonial culture where
traditional knowledge is often fragmented, and its spiritual aspects disregarded.
Lessons shared with Michnik and colleagues are heeded as First Nations communities
move forward in strengthening their food sovereignty by sharing what Indigenous foodways
means and how their youth can become more connected to the spiritual and environmental
properties of food (Goodridge, 2020). As Bray and Nelson (2015) write, as we move toward
reclaiming, sharing, and revitalizing Indigenous Foodways, we can reignite the cosmological and
philosophical foundations that illuminate our existence, guide our behavior, and cultivate
gratitude enhancing the strength within our communities.
From varying cultural backgrounds and community positions, key informants offered
examples of why doing old things in new ways has enabled food system innovations. Stories of
how ecological knowledge and traditional approaches to food system sustainability have come
together with modern technology. The Metlakatla scallop farms vertical cultivation methods are
an excellent example of using traditional knowledge of the local ecosystem with contemporary
121

equipment to create a flourishing food source and business. Innovative examples of a wide
variety of synthetic drugs and medications used today that were once derived from a wide range
of plant materials, animals, and minerals are familiar examples. All of these were previously
used by traditional Indigenous healers, using traditional methods in their procurement and
creation (Maridass & Britto, 2009).
There are also numerous records of First Nations in the Pacific Northwest, namely
Tsimshian, Tlingit and Haida, using a unique innovation to ensure sustainability of one of their
predominant food sources, the halibut. Crafted from two pieces of wood, the traditional
Northwest Coast halibut hook takes the shape of a V. The upper arm is carved from lighter wood
like yellow cedar, floating above the heavier lower arm made from yew or alder (Malindine,
2017). These hooks are often intricate works of functional art reflecting cultural heritage. They
are designed in a way to be functionally sustainable.
Archival records, peer-reviewed literature, and ethnographic interviews with modern
carvers and fishermen provide evidence that early Northwest Coast halibut hooks were designed
for fish weighing between 20 and 100 pounds (Melindine, 2017). Male halibut, typically under
50 pounds, reach maturity quicker than females and can reproduce at a smaller size. By
comparison, females can grow to 500-600 pounds and produce millions of eggs. By targeting
smaller halibut, the use of the traditional hook ensures that the largest females, capable of
producing the most eggs, remain available for reproduction. Jeremy Pahl (Ts’msyen Culture
Society) envisions modern day conservation benefitting from this traditional tool by tapping into
modern equipment like a 3D printer to recreate the old halibut hook in a new way on a mass
scale. This could help ensure that the commercial fishing industry is using a sustainable

122

conservation method that was used for millennia on the Pacific Northwest Coast of British
Columbia (Melindine, 2017).
I’m not going to take credit for it at all, but one thing that we need to return to, that
would be new-old, old-new, is our natural way of selectively harvesting halibut, which is
built into – I wish I had it, it’s on the boat – but I built my first traditional halibut hook,
where it’s a piece of yellow cedar lashed to yew wood, Pacific yew, and then a barb at
the bottom. You see them in museums, and books on Indigenous fishing practices...
…The barb is on the cedar, yeah, facing down. So what happens is the cedar floats so
that you’ve got your line on the bottom connected to your weight and then it snaps,
attached to a cord, and it floats, so that the yew is a lot denser on the bottom, and the
cedar is buoyant, and you’ve got this barb, and it sits up so that none of the bottom
feeders can get it, like crab, or what have you, and then this halibut will come in. If it’s a
big halibut, it’s going to consume that whole hook and spit it out. It won’t want it. It
won’t be able to get its mouth around the bait on there so it will just spit it out and move
on. But if it’s a smaller halibut, it’s going to see the bait that’s wrapped around, or it’s
going to smell it, because that’s how they navigate it, and they’re going to come up, and
they’re going to bite it. And there’s this very precise measurement, the thumb knuckle, is
the distance between your barb and the yew. And that coincides with the mouth size of the
halibut. So that halibut is going to be less than 60 lbs. So halibuts that are less than 60
lbs are more often to be male. Like 40 lbs and below, the percentage of male halibut
increases significantly. We’re harvesting mostly males, because the huge halibut, the
monsters, the 100-,200-,300-pound halibuts that are very, very old, are the ones that can
lay tons of eggs, and they’re strong, and nothing can predate them, so they’re going to
continue to breed. So we’re going to keep selectively harvesting those young, male
halibuts...
…If they can find a way to do away with – and it can be done, 3D printing, just 3D print
a halibut hook in the traditional style that we have, do away with the commercial hooks
that sometimes bring in the monster moms and start harvesting those. Realistically it’s
difficult to do away with commercial fishing, as much as a lot of us would like to do away
with commercial fishing, fossil fuels, tankers, you know, all of this shit that sucks, but,
yeah, why not? Why not throw those on there?
Jeremy Pahl
Social innovation is defined as the creative re-combination of existing assets to achieve
social goals in novel ways (Bennett & McWhorter, 2019). The theme of social innovation has
emerged as an integral aspect of community innovation and resilience building within the local
food system of Prince Rupert and Terrace. Amidst the challenges of economic crises and impacts
123

of climate change, community innovation is providing new promising, previously unimaginable
opportunities for addressing societal needs. With this knowledge, how do we move forward?
Most of the innovative movements that were mentioned by community key informants
grew from a desire for an individual or a group that had a similar vision. Is it possible for policy
to recreate these innovations? Or is it best for policy makers to recognize the possibility of
successful change that these community innovations make and to provide space for them to
happen by standing back and watching them grow? Manzini (2014) writes that there are two
ways that social innovations can grow. A top-down model focuses on innovators in the field that
enact change. A bottom-up model focuses on change initiated from a public program that is
grown through a grassroots network of community innovators. Both ways work.

124

5. Conclusion
5.1 Overview of Study Findings
Our food system is crucial for our survival. It is a necessity for life, and most of us
engage in it every single day. Currently, our globalized food system is facing mounting shocks
and stresses, and its vulnerability is becoming increasingly apparent (Anderson, 2015; Tendall et
al., 2015; Zerbe, 2010). With supply chain disruptions and cumulative climate impacts, it is clear
we need to focus on strengthening our local food networks to promote a secure future. This
requires not only working to understand the importance of a strong local food system, but how
the local food system provides more than just sustenance for the community. A strong local food
system contributes to community resilience by building capacity to adapt, transform, and selforganize in response to emerging threats (Magis, 2011). This research shows how local food
systems and Indigenous foodways can create spaces for social learning, instill strong connection
to place, and provide spaces for innovation that build and strengthen resilient communities.
Recognizing that resilience extends beyond the mere ability to revert to a pre-disturbance
state, my research underscores the capacity of systems—comprising communities and their
environments—to adapt, transform, and thrive amidst changing conditions. Central to enhancing
adaptive capacity is the integration of local food systems and Indigenous foodways into
planning. As my research has shown, both provide physical resources and strengthen social
networks essential for effective response and reorganization during and after disturbances. These
systems also ensure survival, while fostering the evolution of community practices in response to
environmental and social changes (Folke et al., 2010; Meerow et al., 2016).

125

Within Prince Rupert and Terrace, community members have recognized the importance
of adaptive capacity as a central component of community resilience. Their reflections mirror the
findings of Folke et al. (2010), who emphasize the significance of adaptive strategies to building
resilience in social-ecological systems. Interviews with key informants also highlighted how
adaptive capacity is built through the local food system, not just the individual level, but also at
organizational and community levels. Most key informants understood their position within a
broader system and saw their actions within the local food system as adding to the whole. They
viewed their ability to withstand stresses and shocks and adapt as an integral piece of operating
with the local food system.
It is apparent that a level of passion and involvement with local food operates as a
platform for seeing the value that food related skills and knowledge provide to the community.
Key informants discussed the change that they could see within their community through
knowledge and skill transfer in everything from community gardens to elder-led harvesting
expeditions. Reid et al. 2009 similarly highlight the multifaceted nature of social learning,
emphasizing intergenerational knowledge sharing as a key component. This thesis extends their
discussion by detailing how these elements interact within community systems – particularly
with regard to the power of local food systems and Indigenous foodways in engaging community
members.
For many key informants I spoke with, the local food system is the community, and food
is more than sustenance or a commodity. Food is embedded in community, in the place, and in
the culture. Food can connect people in learning and sharing and is often the center of ceremony
or the reason to gather and discuss solutions to problems. Farmers come together to share
126

techniques and new discoveries over a meal. Immigrants to the community find solace with one
another as they share a garden plot – making food together reminds them of home. Fisherfolk
trade the “fish that got away” stories as they sit at the bar. A chef at a local restaurant creates a
menu that the public discovers contains mostly local food, and they feel proud to be a part of
their community. These are just a few fragments shared by the key informants as they told stories
of the impact of local food systems in Terrace and Prince Rupert.
Digging deeper into these stories, it is apparent that there is a passion behind local food
advocates and producers that is infectious. People want to be a part of the local food system to
contribute somehow to their community’s food security. Contributing might mean joining a
community garden association, creating a foraging Facebook group, or simply shopping every
week at the local farmers market to pay into the local economy. These acts are recognized by
Garret and Feenstra (1999) as efforts that re-establish the centrality of food in community. Across
communities in the US, Garret and Feenstra (1999) observed diverse projects that were working
toward a long-term goal of enhancing community connections through the food system.
Northern British Columbia has faced significant environmental and socio-economic
challenges that have heightened the region’s vulnerability to climate change (Kipp et al., 2019).
Events like the 2021 heat dome and record rainfall in Prince Rupert have exposed critical
structural weaknesses, reinforcing the urgent need for enhanced community resilience strategies
(Depner, 2023; Galimski, 2021). As global food supply chains face increasing disruptions, there
is a growing recognition of the importance of strengthening local food systems to ensure food
security and better equip northern communities to handle future shocks (Hobbs, 2020; Sussman
& Feeney, 2015).
127

By integrating theories from various disciplines and linking them with practical aspects
of food system planning, this thesis offers insights that deepen current understandings of
community resilience as a dynamic and interactive process. The identification and detailed
analysis of specific drivers of resilience, those of social learning, person-place connection, and
innovation, provided a structured conceptual framework for understanding how the functions of
the local food system can be leveraged to enhance community resilience. This conceptual
framework is a key contribution of my work to the literature.
Findings illustrate that knowledge systems are fundamental in building resilience, as they
amalgamate scientific, technical, local, and Indigenous knowledge into a unified framework that
boosts community adaptability (Reid et al., 2009; Ross et al., 2014). This holistic approach
facilitates a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics within social-ecological systems.
Social learning proved to be a vital driver of resilience, characterized by the active participation
of community members in resilience-building processes. This collaborative approach ensures the
incorporation of diverse informant perspectives, leading to more robust and widely supported
solutions (Berkes & Ross, 2013; Burch et al., 2014).
Policies and community activities that facilitated educational workshops, communal
gardening, and outdoor recreational activities not only promoted practical knowledge; they
reinforced communal ties by engaging members in shared learning experiences. A well-known
producer in the area reflected on their experience within a seed sharing group that had grown
larger from interest after the pandemic had highlighted vulnerabilities in the food system. She
saw how new growers were excited to produce their own food using the skills she shared. She
shared how she felt a certain sense of pride when she heard her growing advice had been shared
128

with neighbors. This example shows how within these collaborative networks, social learning
can be enhanced, as community members share and integrate diverse knowledge bases. This
includes those related to local food systems and Indigenous practices, which have proved crucial
for adapting to future challenges (Ahren, 2013; Reid et al., 2009). This process of social learning
helps in building a community repository of shared knowledge crucial for resilience.
Findings illustrated that the second driver of person-place connection also significantly
influences community resilience. There is clear evidence of emotional and identity-based ties to
place that are deeply integrated through local food systems and Indigenous foodways in both
communities. These connections shape how these communities perceive and manage risks. They
also foster a sense of stewardship and responsibility towards local ecosystems (Quinn et al.,
2015). One evocative example is the way that a key informant who had little previous
relationship to agriculture or growing expressed their newfound appreciation and connection to
place when they had the opportunity to learn in the community gardens and get their “hands in
the soil.” This is especially poignant as this was a reflection of a person who had immigrated to
the area, where a new person-place connection was born from their direct experience within the
local food system.
Beyond this example, person-place connections motivate communities to preserve
important cultural and environmental resources and enhance a feeling of belonging. This was
specifically expressed through the deep connection community members felt towards their
environment. Key informants regularly expressed that the local food system served as a conduit
for enhancing these connections. This highlights the importance of policies recognizing and

129

supporting the preservation of traditional harvesting areas, the promotion of local and traditional
knowledge, as well as recognizing the value of the local ecosystem to the local food system.
In fostering resilience, the development of niche spaces for innovation and
experimentation within communities emerged as a key strategy that local actors are engaging in
daily. These environments encourage the creation of tailored solutions that not only meet
immediate needs but integrate seamlessly with the community’s unique cultural and
environmental landscapes (Brink et al., 2016; Burch et al., 2014). The way in which a relatively
simple concept of sourcing and selling locally grown, caught or made products grows into a
movement that community members champion, allowing growth and expansion and a new way
of viewing the possibilities within their local food system. These innovations, both technological
and social, were found to be deeply rooted in local knowledge and traditions, effectively bridging
the gap between past wisdom and contemporary needs. This blending of old and new
methodologies enhances the community's adaptive capacity and strengthens its overall resilience,
enabling it to thrive in an ever-changing world (Magis, 2010).
The resurgence of traditional practices, viewed through a modern lens, has sparked a
notable trend in what informants in the community view as innovation. What is considered old is
often seen as new again by many key informants who are rediscovering and repurposing past
knowledge and techniques to solve current problems. This revival is not merely a return to the
past, but a reinvention of it – where traditional approaches such as seed-sharing, communitysupported agriculture, and the use of Indigenous harvesting techniques are being adapted to
address modern ecological and economic challenges. Examples like Kitselas’ revitalization of
food forests and recreation closer to current village sites provides an avenue to enhance
130

traditional methods with the convenience needed to allow for direct access for elders and
community members. This approach honors and preserves cultural heritage and offers
sustainable solutions that are perceived as innovative by community members. These practices
also highlight the cyclic nature of innovation, where old knowledge provides a foundation for
new ideas, fostering a sustainable and resilient future for communities.
5.2 Limitations to Study Findings
In addition to the findings summarized above, this research acknowledges certain
limitations that may have influenced key outcomes. Research on community resilience, including
studies focused on specific locales, can often encounter several general limitations that can affect
the scope and applicability of findings. One significant issue is the challenge of generalizing
results across diverse contexts due to unique local characteristics, which may not translate well
to other regions with different environmental, economic, and social dynamics (Magis, 2010). In
the case of the present study, I acknowledge the distinct culture that northern communities
embrace. I also acknowledge that the key informants I interviewed were all active members
within the local food system with views that may differ from the wider population. I chose to
speak to experts to better understand the direct relationship between local food systems and the
drivers of resilience, and further studies that include a wider participant base could extend this
understanding to encapsulate the community’s consumer behaviours and beliefs.
Additionally, the availability and quality of data can restrict the depth of analysis
possible, particularly in regions like Prince Rupert and Terrace where data collection is not
systematic or comprehensive (Cutter et al., 2008). The interdisciplinary nature of resilience—
encompassing ecological, economic, and social factors—also poses integration challenges, with
131

studies potentially skewing toward one dimension over others (Adger, 2006). Comprehending
the dynamic nature of resilience also requires longitudinal studies to fully understand the longterm sustainability of initiatives (Folke et al., 2010). These limitations highlight the need for
robust, context-sensitive research methodologies that can adapt to and accurately reflect the
complexities of community resilience over time.
In Terrace, it is important to highlight that findings may not fully capture the nuanced
interactions between Indigenous practices and modern sustainability initiatives due to the general
scope of the study. Although evidence suggests that the community has made significant strides
in integrating traditional knowledge within contemporary environmental management, the
research could be limited by a lack of detailed case studies or specific project outcomes. This
limitation can result in an incomplete understanding of how these integrated practices impact
long-term community resilience. Moreover, both communities are subject to unique demographic
changes, such as shifts in youth engagement or work migration patterns. These patterns were not
thoroughly examined in this research. This could skew the understanding of resilience as a
dynamic and evolving process within these communities.
In addition, my research primarily concentrates on resilience in northern communities
that are rural in character and may therefore differ significantly in their social, ecological, and
economic structures compared to urban regions. While insights derived from northern
communities are valuable, they may not be directly applicable to other settings without
adjustments for local variables such as climate, cultural practices, and economic conditions.
Although important, this geographical focus limits the broader applicability of the findings.

132

Finally, my thesis analyzes a narrow range of documents, mainly development and land
use planning documents. This limited scope may have overlooked critical data and insights from
other relevant fields such as health, economics, social services, and emergency management.
This larger scope could provide a more holistic view of community resilience and the connection
of the people and their food systems. Expanding the criteria to include these areas could yield
additional data that might influence the understanding and implementation of resilience
strategies in food system planning.
5.3 Recommendations for future research
Future research in northern and rural community resilience should significantly expand
the current scope of the definition of food system planning to include not only cultivated foods,
but also wild and ocean resources. These latter food sources are integral to local diets and
cultural practices. Existing literature recognizes wild foods and marine resources, but
predominantly frames these withing the context of Indigenous or traditional practices. It is
important to also recognize that these food sources are actively utilized by a broad spectrum of
community members, albeit predominately in more rural and remote areas. Findings here show
that many residents, regardless of their cultural background, rely on hunting, fishing, and
harvesting as an essential means of sourcing food. A broader definition of the food system and its
application would provide a more comprehensive understanding of food security and
sustainability in these regions. Investigating how these practices can be sustainably integrated
into local food systems will also help in crafting resilient strategies that reflect the actual dietary
habits and ecological interactions of the entire community. If policy is to spur local action, it
must first reflect local reality.
133

Recognizing the geographical focus to the upper Pacific Northwest of British Columbia,
research that includes a range of diverse communities with varied climatic, ecological, and socioeconomic characteristics will help uncover how different resilience drivers operate across various
settings. The influence of these drivers’ cross system boundaries. Given this, an interdisciplinary
approach to research that combines insights from urban development, health, economics,
environmental science, and social policy is necessary to further enrich our understanding of how
local food systems contribute to overall community resilience. As always, longitudinal studies
will be essential in understanding the long-term impacts of integrating local food systems with
resilience strategies. Tracking how these interactions evolve and sustain over time in face of
changing environmental and economic conditions would provide clearer means of understanding
the success of further integration food system planning in resilience policy.
Finally, continued research focused on the implementation of policies that seek to support
local food systems as means to resilience building is crucial. This includes examining barriers to
and facilitators of effective food system policy enactment and the translation of research findings
into actionable plans. Such studies must not only assess the sustainability of local food system
initiatives, but also the capacity of said initiatives to enhance the ability of communities to
respond to and thrive amidst global changes, including climate variability and economic shifts.
By addressing these recommendations, future research can provide actionable insights and
develop frameworks for building resilience in communities, ensuring that local food systems are
recognized and integrated as key components. This approach will help communities not only
adapt to immediate challenges but also enhance their long-term sustainability, well-being and
food security.
134

5.4 Implications of the Findings to the Planning Profession
Comprehensive food system planning set within a robust policy framework can provide
significant benefits to resilience building. By expanding the scope of present plans to more fully
integrate wild and ocean foods, which are pivotal in local diets and cultural practices, policies
can become better aligned with the actual food sourcing behaviors and needs of the community.
Recognizing and supporting sourcing of wild and ocean foods through formal planning and
policymaking can also ensure that these practices are sustained responsibly and continue to
contribute to food security. Community planning should focus on methods to integrate these vital
food sources into local food system plans effectively, examining both the ecological impacts and
the socio-economic benefits. This approach will help ensure that community resilience strategies
are robust, culturally appropriate, and environmentally sustainable, thereby enhancing the overall
well-being and sustainability of Northern communities.
In Prince Rupert, the focus of local planning and policy work is predominately on current
challenges like housing and infrastructure, rather than on developing the local food system. This
prioritization reflects a broader trend in urban planning where immediate needs are prioritized
due to capacity and funding issues. The types of decisions created by resources shortages often
result in food system planning being perceived as less critical. In turn, this can hinder the
development of initiatives aimed at enhancing local food security and economic resilience. The
available data reflects this imbalance, showing a lack of specific data on how local food policies
are impacting the community. This data gap makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of such
initiatives in providing stability and resilience against economic and environmental pressures.

135

It is also well recognized that there is a tendency in urban planning to be reactive rather
than proactive. This is evident in the way that Prince Rupert has approached current planning
challenges. There is a common theme where responses are crafted only after problems become
apparent, rather than anticipating future needs and integrating comprehensive food system
strategies beforehand. This approach is limiting the community’s ability to leverage the local
food system as a tool for resilience. It also delays the recognition of potential benefits that are
being built by community on the ground within a supportive policy structure. As a result, while
there are efforts to enhance the local food system underway, reactive planning and the
overshadowing from immediate infrastructural concerns mean that the true potential of local
food systems to contribute to community resilience remains underexploited. This highlights the
need for a shift towards more integrated and forward-thinking planning processes that recognize
the importance of local food systems in building sustainable and resilient urban environments.
Food systems planning should not be a check mark that needs to be included in a
planning document. It must be something that is based upon the realities of the communities
these documents serve. Blay-Palmer et al. (2018) and Dubbeling and Santini (2018) have called
for the mainstreaming of food system planning throughout land use and development documents.
While falling short in some areas, Terrace 2050 Sustainability Strategy (2018) provides a good
example of incorporating food systems planning across all of their sustainability goals. It is also
important to recognize that integration of food systems planning objectives into policy
documents is the first step, providing tangible and achievable action plans to achieve these
objectives is another. Local governments need food system planning advocates within their
organization to move local food objectives. By ensuring that strong local food systems remain a
136

priority, implementation of objectives can become more achievable. Objectives that incorporate
continued programs and education series for the community, that support collaboration with local
food councils, and that provide assets for these groups can improve food security and community
resilience.
Overall, findings from my research reinforce and expand the existing body of knowledge
by providing detailed analyses of how three drivers of resilience interact and can be effectively
integrated into food system planning and community development. The findings from both the
policy analysis and the semi-structured interviews revealed a profound connection between the
local food systems and the triad of resilience drivers: social learning, person-place connection,
and innovation. These elements were not isolated but intertwined. Each feeding into and
reinforcing the other, creating a robust framework through which communities could anticipate,
react to, and recover from adversities.
The integration of local food systems as a more central part of resilience planning offers a
promising pathway to enhance community resilience. Community leaders, senior planning
officials and planning consultants can create more sustainable, adaptable, and resilient
communities by addressing the multifaceted aspects of resilience identified in this thesis. This
approach not only supports local economies and enhances food security, but also fosters a closer
connection between people and their environment. Achieving this is crucial for the long-term
sustainability of both. My research has woven together the threads of policy, practice, and
community sentiment to present a compelling narrative that illustrates the profound and complex
role of local food systems in fostering community resilience. It calls for a reimagined approach
to community planning—one that is rooted in the understanding of local food systems as integral
137

to the social, cultural, and environmental health of communities. As the global environment
becomes increasingly uncertain, the lessons drawn from Terrace and Prince Rupert illuminate a
path forward for these communities and similar locales globally.
Building resilience in social-ecological systems is a complex, multifaceted endeavor that
requires a comprehensive approach to integrating ecological knowledge, social capacities, and
collaborative efforts. As conveyed in this thesis, the incorporation of local food systems and
Indigenous foodways into resilience planning is crucial. Each element—from adaptive capacities
and collaborative efforts to the deep and often personal connections individuals have with their
environment—plays a significant role in preparing communities to face global ecological
challenges. By continuing to explore and integrate these diverse aspects of resilience, community
planners and policymakers can better design interventions that not only withstand disturbances
but also enhance the social and ecological well-being of the communities they serve.

138

References

Abate, G. (2008). Local food economies: Driving forces, challenges, and future prospects. Journal of
Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 3, 384-399.
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography,
24(3), 347-364.
Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic
Geography, 79(4), 387–404.
Adger, W.N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268-281.
Adger, W. N., Kelly, P. M., & Ninh, N. H. (Eds.). (2012). Living with environmental change: social
vulnerability, adaptation and resilience in Vietnam. Routledge.
Ambrosio, N., & Kim, Y. (2019). Community Resilience and Adaptive Capacity: A Meaningful
Investment Across Assets. Community Development Innovation Review.
Anderson, M.D. (2015). The role of knowledge in building food security resilience across food system
domains. Journal of Environmental Studies and Science, 5, 543-559. DOI 10.1007/s13412-0150311-3
Apps, J. (2024). On Farms and Rural Communities: An Agricultural Ethic for the Future. Fulcrum
Publishing.
Armitage, D., Berkes, F. Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and
the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental
Change, 21, 995-1004

139

Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J. C., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., & Williams, A. G. (2010).
How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and
the scope reduction by 2050. Report for the WWF and Food Climate Research Network.
Azad, Md. A. K. (2021, January 17). The role of social learning in enhancing community resilience and
recovery from flash floods in Sunamganj, Bangladesh. MSpace Angular.
https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/items/10e76ce3-c3b0-4cbd-a3c9-d62e6659e670
Barthel, S., & Isendahl, C. (2013). Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: sources of
resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecological Economics, 86, 224-234.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.018
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for
novice researchers. The Qualitative Report,13(4), 544-559.
Berkes, F. & Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Society & Natural
Resource, 26(1), 5-20.
Bender, Q. (2020, December 20). B.C. scientists look at climate change impacts on aquaculture
production. The Northern View. https://www.thenorthernview.com/news/b-c-scientists-look-atclimate-change-impacts-on-aquaculture-production-5978587
Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2016). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches.
SAGE publications.
Berno, T. (2017). Social enterprise, sustainability and community in post-earthquake Christchurch:
Exploring the role of local food systems in building resilience. Journal of Enterprising
Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 149165. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2015-0013

140

Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral
sampling. Sociological methods & research, 10(2), 141-163.
Bill M 222: British Columbia Local Food Act. (2015). 1st Reading 2015 Parliamentary Session, 40th
Parliament, 4th session. Retrieved from
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billsprevious/4th40th:m222-1
Blay-Palmer, A. (2016). Food-fears: from industrial to sustainable food systems. Routledge.
Blay-Palmer, A., Santini, G., Dubbeling, M., Renting, H., Taguchi, M., & Giordano, T. (2018).
Validating the city region food system approach: Enacting inclusive, transformational city region
food systems. Sustainability, 10(5), 1680.
Blay-Palmer, A., Santini, G., Dubbeling, M., Renting, H., Taguchi, M., & Giordano, T. (2018).
Validating the city region food system approach: Enacting inclusive, transformational city region
food systems. Sustainability, 10(5), 1680.
Bohle, H.G., Downing, T.E. & Watts, M.J. (1994) Climate change and social vulnerability: the
sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change, 4, 37-48.
Bonney, L. B. (2012). Insights into" mysterious processes": Incentivising co-innovation in agrifood
value chains (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania).
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa
British Columbia Farmers’ Market (BCFM). (2021). BC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Retrieved
from https://bcfarmersmarket.org/coupon-program/how-it-works/
British Columbia Government (2020). Northern Development Strategy Report. Government of British
Columbia.

141

Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In Place attachment (pp. 279304). Springer, Boston, MA.
Bryman, A., & Teevan, JJ. (2005). Social Research Methods. Canadian edition. Don Mills ON: Oxford
University Press Canada.
Burch, S. (2010). Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three
municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global environmental change, 20(2), 287297.
Burch, S., Shaw, A., Dale, A., & Robinson, J. (2014). Triggering transformative change: a development
path approach to climate change response in communities. Climate Policy, 14(4), 467-487.
Bush, E. & Lemmen, D.S. eds. (2019). Canada’s changing climate report, Government of Canada,
Ottawa, ON. 444.
Campbell, M.C. (2004). Building a common table; the role of planning in community food systems.
Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 341-355.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,
and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement:
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, December 2018.
Cantrill, J. G., & Senecah, S. L. (2001). Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’construct in the context of
environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 4(4-5),
185-203.
Carter, V. (2017, April 14). Foodie Friday: Discovering the rich history of oolichan in the Northwest.
Stories. https://stories.northernhealth.ca/stories/foodie-friday-discovering-rich-history-oolichannorthwest

142

Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it
sounds? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), 807–815.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019
CBC News. (2021, June 7). Flooding evacuation orders rescinded as Skeena River recedes. CBC News.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/skeena-river-bc-evacuation-orders-rescinded1.6056359
Clark, M. A., Domingo, N. G., Colgan, K., Thakrar, S. K., Tilman, D., Lynch, J., ... & Hill, J. D. (2020).
Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5 and 2 C climate change
targets. Science, 370(6517), 705-708.
Challinor, A. J., Watson, J., Lobell, D. B., Howden, S. M., Smith, D. R., & Chhetri, N. (2014). A metaanalysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4(4), 287291
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications
Cheuy, S. (2017). The Community Innovation Imperative. Tamarack Institute.
Christensen, G., & Stack, J. (1992). The dimensions of household food insecurity in Zimbabwe 19801991. Working Paper-Food Studies Group, International Development Centre, University of
Oxford (United Kingdom).
City of Prince Rupert. (2018). 2030 Sustainable City Policy Objectives.
City of Terrace. (2009). Terrace 2050: Our Strategy for Sustainability. HB Lenarc
City of Terrace. (2021). Discover Terrace: About our City Retrieved from
https://www.terrace.ca/discover-terrace/about
City of Terrace. (2022). Climate Projections for the City of Terrace.
143

City of Whitehorse. (2020). Local Food & Urban Agriculture Study; Potential Actions 2020-2030.
Clancy, K., & Ruhf, K. (2010). Is local enough? Some arguments for regional food
systems. Choices, 25(1).
Cleveland, D. A., Müller, N. M., Tranovich, A.C., Mazaroli, D.N., & Hinson, K. (2014). Local food
hubs for alternative food systems: A case study from Santa Barbara County, California. Journal
of Rural Studies, 35, 26-36.
Climate Atlas. (2021). Planning for climate change. https://climateatlas.ca/planning-climate-change
Coates, J., Swindale, A., & Bilinsky, P. (2007). Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for
Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide (v. 3). Retrieved from
https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf
Coates, K., & Morrison, W. R. (2008). The Forgotten North: A History of Canada’s Provincial Norths.
University of Toronto Press.
Collinge, C., & Gibney, J. (2010). Connecting place, policy and leadership. Policy studies, 31(4), 379391.
Connell, D. J., Bryant, C. R., Caldwell, W. J., Cameron, G., Johnston, T., Margulis, M., ... & Marois, C.
(2013). Food sovereignty and agricultural land use planning: The need to integrate public
priorities across jurisdictions. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community
Development, 3(4), 117-124.
Connell, D. J. (2020). Evaluating the strength of local legislative frameworks to protect farmland: City
of Richmond and Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 0739456X20943930.
Cook, I., Crang, P., and Thorpe, M. (1998) Biographies and Geographies: Consumer Understandings of
the Origins of Food. British Food Journal, pp.162-167.
144

Crivits, M. & Paredis, E. (2013). Designing an explanatory practive framework: Local food systems as a
case. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 306-336. DOI 10.1177/1469540513484321
Cutter, S. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20(4), 529539.
Cutter, S., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based
model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental
Change 18 (4): 598–606.
Depner, W. (2023, July 17). Heat dome deemed deadliest and among costliest disasters in B.C. history:
report. Terrace Standard. https://www.terracestandard.com/news/heat-dome-deemed-deadliestand-among-costliest-disasters-in-b-c-history-report-6077378
desLibris, 2020. The Future of B.C.'S Food System, Food Security Task Force (B.C.). Victoria, BC, CA.
Retrieved from https://canadacommons.ca/artifacts/1420992/the-future-of-bcs-foodsystem/2035041/ on 14 Apr 2024. CID: 20.500.12592/zkzj1d.
Desmarais, A. A. (2007). La Vía Campesina: Globalization and the Power of Peasants. Fernwood
Publishing.
Destination BC (2021). Supernatural British Columbia: Our Natural Landscape. Retrieved from
[Destination BC website].
Diefenbach, T. (2009). Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?: Methodological problems
of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality &
Quantity, 43(6), 875–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9164-0
Dilley, M. & Boudreau, T.E. (2001). Coming to terms with vulnerability: A critique of the food security
definition. Food Policy, 26, 229-247

145

Dow, K. (1992). Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to global
environmental change. Geoforum 23, 417-36.
Dooley, K.E. & Roberts, T.G. (2020) Agricultural education and extension curriculum innovation: the
nexus of climate change, food security, and community resilience, The Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension, 26:1, 1-3, DOI: 10.1080/1389224X.2019.1703507
Douglas, T. P. (2002). Canada defines the savage: Colonial myth of the Indian. Native Americas, 19(1),
28.
Drolet, J. (2012). Climate change, food security, and sustainable development: a study on communitybased responses and adaptations in British Columbia, Canada. Community Development, 43:5,
630-644, DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2012.729412
Dubbeling, M., & Santini, G. (2018). City region food system assessment and planning. Urban
Agriculture Magazine, 34, 6-9.
Edge, S., & Meyer, S. B. (2019). Pursuing dignified food security through novel collaborative
governance initiatives: Perceived benefits, tensions and lessons learned. Social Science &
Medicine, 232, 77-85.
Eriksen, S. H., & O'brien, K. (2007). Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable adaptation
measures. Climate policy, 7(4), 337-352.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2022). Integrating Climate Considerations: Community
planning. https://fcm.ca/en/resources/mcip/integrating-climate-considerations-communityplanning
Feenstra, G. (1997). Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture, 12 (1), 28-36.

146

Ferguson, R., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2012, April). Social learning analytics: five approaches.
In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 2333).
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses.
Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience
thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society,15(4), 20.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.HTM
FAO. (2008). An introduction to the basic concepts of food security. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al936e/al936e00.pdf
Food Secure. (2011). Resetting the table: A people’s food policy for Canada. Food Secure Canada,
Montreal. QU.
Franklin, A., Newton, J. & McEntee, J.C. (2011). Moving beyond the alternative: sustainable
communities, rural resilience and the mainstreaming of local food. Local Environment, 16:8,
771-788, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2011.574685
Freedman, D. A., & Bess, K. D. (2011). Food systems change and the environment: Local and global
connections. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3), 397-409.
Fresque‐Baxter, J. A., & Armitage, D. (2012). Place identity and climate change adaptation: a synthesis
and framework for understanding. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(3), 251266.

147

Galimski, N. (2021, September 24). Continued rain causes flooding in prince rupert. The Northern
View. https://www.thenorthernview.com/news/continued-rain-causes-flooding-in-prince-rupert5986214
Garnett, T. (2011). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food
system (including the food chain)?. Food policy, 36, S23-S32.
Garrett, S., & Feenstra, G. (1999). Growing a community food system. Washington State University,
Pullman, WA.
Giacchè, G., & Retière, M. (2019). The “promise of difference” of cooperative supermarkets: making
quality products accessible through democratic sustainable food chains?. Redes. Revista do
Desenvolvimento Regional, 24(3), 35-48.
Gilbert, C. (1995). Studying disaster: a review of the main conceptual tools. International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 13(3), 231-240.
Giovannucci, D., Barham, E., & Pirog, R. (2010). Defining and marketing ‘local’ foods: Geographical
indications for U.S. products. Journal of World Intellectual Property, Special Issue: The Law
and Economics of Geographical Indications, Vol. 13
Goodman, D., DuPuis, E.M. & Gordon, M.K. (2012). Alternative Food Networks: Knowledge, Practice
and Politics. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.
Government of British Columbia. (2021). Regional districts in BC. Retrieved from
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/factsframework/systems/regional-districts
Gregory, P.J., Ingram, J.S.I. & Brklacich, M. (2005). Climate change and food security. Philosophical
Transactions of The Royal B Society, 360, 2139-2148

148

Groulx, M., Winegardner, A., Brisbois, M. C., Fishback, L. A., Linde, R., Levy, K., & Booth, A. (2021).
Place and transformative learning in climate change focused community science. Facets, 6(1),
1773-1794.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational
Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.
Hassebrook, C. (1999). A time to act for family-sized farms.
Harris, C. (2009). The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and Geographical
Change. UBC Press.
Harvey, D. (2011). The future of the commons. Radical history review, 2011(109), 101-107.
Havko, J., Titko, M. & Kovacova, J (2017). Vulnerability of the city infrastructure as a part of the
resilient city concept. Procedia Engineering, 192, 307-312.
Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O. & Kuhlmann, S. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A
new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 74(4), pp.413–432.
Hewitt, K. (1995). Excluded perspectives in the social construction of disaster. International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 13(3), 317-339.
Higgins, V., Dibden, J., and Cocklin, C., (2008). Building alternative agri-food networks: certification,
embeddedness and agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 24 (1), 15–27.
Hinrichs, C.C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural
market. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 295-303.
Hinrichs, C. C. (2014). Transitions to sustainability: a change in thinking about food systems
change?. Agriculture and human values, 31(1), 143-155.

149

Hinrichs, C. & Kremer, K.S. (2008). Social inclusion in a midwest local food system project. Journal of
Poverty, 6(1), 65-90. https://doi.org/10.1300/J134v06n01_04
Hobbs, J.E. (2020). Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 68, 2, 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12237
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and
systematics, 4(1), 1-23.
Holt-Giménez, E., Shattuck, A., & Van Lammeren, I. (2021). Thresholds of resistance: agroecology,
resilience and the agrarian question. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48(4), 715-733.
Holton, J. A. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. The Sage handbook of grounded theory, 3,
265-289.
Hou, J., Johnson, J. M., & Lawson, L. (2009). Greening cities, growing communities. Seattle:
Landscape Architecture Foundation in association with University of Washington.
Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019). Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can
policy support programs help?. Policy design and practice, 2(1), 1-14.
ICLEI Canada. (2017). Join the BARC Program Building Adaptive and Resilient Communities.
https://icleicanada.org/barc-program/
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems [ISFS]. (2017). BC Food System Policy Database. Retrieved
from https://www.kpu.ca/isfs/foodpolicydatabase
Investment Agriculture Foundation [IAF]. (2020). Study of the British Columbia Agriculture Sector.
MNP.
Ilbery, B. and Maye, D., (2005). Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock
products in the Scottish – English borders. Environment and Planning A, 37 (5), 823–844.

150

Issac, J., Newell, R., Dring, C., White, C., Ghadiri, M., Pizzirani, S., & Newman, L. (2022). Integrated
sustainability planning and local food systems: Examining areas of and gaps in food systems
integration in community sustainability plans for municipalities across British
Columbia. Sustainability, 14(11), 6724.
Jónsdóttir, S., & Gísladóttir, G. (2023). Land use planning, sustainable food production and rural
development: A literature analysis. Geography and Sustainability, 4(4), 391-403
Jones, P., & Bhatia, R. (2011). Supporting equitable food systems through food assistance at farmers'
markets. American Journal of Public Health, 101(5), 781-783.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review:
Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Kasper, C., Brandt, J., Lindschulte, K., & Giseke, U. (2017). The urban food system approach: thinking
in spatialized systems. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41(8), 1009-1025.
Keevil G. (2012, June 12). Food scarce in Yukon towns cut off by flooding. The Globe and Mail.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/food-scarce-in-yukon-towns-cut-off-byflooding/article4249680/. Accessed December 1, 2020.
Kelly, E. C. & Bliss J.C. (2009). Healthy forests, healthy communities: An emerging paradigm for
natural resource-dependent communities? Society Natural Resources 22:519–537.
Kelman, I. (2018). Lost for words amongst disaster risk science vocabulary? International Journal of
Disaster Risk Science, 9(3), 281-293.
Kipp, A., Cunsolo, A., Vodden, K., King, N., Manners, S., & Harper, SL. (2019). At-a-glance: climate
change impacts on health and wellbeing in rural and remote regions across Canada: a synthesis

151

of the literature. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 39(4),122-126.
doi:10.24095/hpcdp.39.4.02
Kozmenko, V., Kozmenko, L., Henze, W.J., Schellpfeffer, S., & Kaye, A. (2019). Chapter 20-Planning
and assessing clinical simulation using task analysis. Clinical Simulation Education, Operations
and Engineering(2nd). 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815657-5.00020-6
Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2017). Community gardens as contexts for science, stewardship, and
civic action learning. Urban Horticulture: Ecology, Landscape, and Agriculture, 267.
Kuhnlein, H. V., & Receveur, O. (1996). Dietary change and traditional food systems of Indigenous
peoples. Annual Review of Nutrition, 16(1), 417-442.
Kulig, J. C., Edge, D., & Joyce, B. (2008). Community resiliency as a measure of collective health
status: Perspectives from rural communities. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research Archive,
92-111.
Laforge, J. M., Anderson, C. R., & McLachlan, S. M. (2017). Governments, grassroots, and the struggle
for local food systems: containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating. Agriculture and
Human Values, 34, 663-681.
Leeuwis, C., Boogaard, B. K., & Atta-Krah, K. (2021). How food systems change (or not): Governance
implications for system transformation processes. Food security, 13(4), 761-780.
Lewis, J. (1999). Development in disaster-prone places: studies of vulnerability. Intermediate
Technology Publications, London, UK
Leonard, F. (1996). A Thousand Blunders: The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and Northern British
Columbia. UBC Press.

152

Living and working in Northern B.C. - Province of British Columbia. (2024). Gov.bc.ca.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/careers-myhr/job-seekers/featured-careers/living-workingnorthern-bc
Lucarelli, G. (2023, March 13). What are Grassroots Energy Innovations, and why do they matter?.
UNDP. https://www.undp.org/energy/stories/what-are-grassroots-energy-innovations-and-whydo-they matter#.
Maclean, K., Cuthill, M. & Ross, H. (2013) Six attributes of social resilience. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 57:1, 144-156.
Magis, K. (2010). Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Society and Natural
Resources, 23(5), 401-416.
Malindine, J. (2017). Northwest coast halibut hooks: an evolving tradition of form, function, and
fishing. Human Ecology, 45(1), 53-65.
Mang, N. S. (2007). The Rediscovery of Place and our Human Role within it. Regenesis Group
Regenerative Development.
Maridass, M., & De Britto, A. J. (2008). Origins of plant derived medicines. Ethnobotanical
Leaflets, 2008(1), 44.
Markard, J. & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective:
Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37(4), pp.596–615
Markey, S., Halseth, G., & Manson, D. (2008). Challenging the inevitability of rural decline: Advancing
the policy of place in northern British Columbia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4), 409-421.
Marshall, N. A., Park, S. E., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Howden, S. M. (2012). Transformational
capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), 034022.

153

Martinez, S., Hand M., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., Vogel, S., Clark, S., Lohr, L.,
Low, S. & Newman, C. (2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Mathijs, E., Van Hauwermeiren. A., Engelen. G., & Coene, H. (2006). Instruments and institutions to
develop local food systems. Scientific Support Plan for a Sustainable Development Policy.
Belgian Science Policy, Brussels
Mawani, R. (2001). The'savage Indian'and the'foreign Plague': Mapping Racial Categories and Legal
Geographies of Race in British Columbia, 1871-1925. University of Toronto.
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and
urban planning, 147, 38-49.
McMicheal, P. & Schneider, M. (2011). Food security politics and the millennium development goals.
Third World Quarterly, 32(1), 119-139.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington,
DC: Island Press
Millstone, E. & Lang, T. (2003). The atlas of food. Appropriate Technology, 30 (2), 63-64.
Mittal, A., Krejci, C. C., & Craven, T. J. (2018). Logistics best practices for regional food systems: A
review. Sustainability, 10(1), 168.
Mullinix, K. (Ed.). (2006). The next agricultural revolution: revitalizing family-based agriculture and
rural communities. Good Fruit Grower.
Mullinix, K., Dorward, C., Shutzbank, M., Krishnan, P., Ageson, K., & Fallick, A. (2013). Beyond
Protection: Delineating the Economic and Food Production Potential of Underutilized, Smallparcel Farmland in Metropolitan Surrey, British Columbia. Journal of Agriculture, Food
Systems, and Community Development, 4(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.041.005
154

Mullinix, K., C. Dorward, C. Sussmann, W. Polasub, S. Smukler, C. Chiu, A. Rallings, C. Feeney &
Kissinger, M (2016). The Future of Our Food System: Summary of the Southwest BC Bioregion
Food System Design Project. Richmond, British Columbia: Institute for Sustainable Food
Systems, Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
Northern Health Authority. (2021). Northern BC community maps. Retrieved from
https://www.northernhealth.ca/for-health-professionals/community-health-information-pagechip/maps
Nousiainen, M., Pylkkänen, P., Saunders, F., Seppänen, L., & Vesala, K. M. (2009). Are alternative
food systems socially sustainable? A case study from Finland. Journal of sustainable
agriculture, 33(5), 566-594.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet
the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1),
160940691773384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
O'Sullivan, T. L., Kuziemsky, C. E., Corneil, W., Lemyre, L., & Franco, Z. (2014). The EnRiCH
community resilience framework for high-risk populations. PLoS currents, 6.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Jeffrey, P., Aerts, J., Berkamp, G., & Cross, K. (2007). Managing Change
toward Adaptive Water Management through Social Learning. Ecology and Society, 12(2).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267877
Patel, R. (2009) Food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), 663-706.
Peters, J. (1997). Community food systems: working toward a sustainable future. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 97(9), 955-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(97)00230-7.
Pearsall, H., & Pierce, J. (2010). Urban sustainability and environmental justice: evaluating the linkages
in public planning/policy discourse. Local Environment, 15(6), 569-580.
155

Pfefferbaum, B., Van Horn, R.L. & Pfefferbaum, R.L. (2017). A conceptual framework to enhance
community resilience using social capital. Clinical Social Work Journal 45, 102–110
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-015-0556-z
Pijawka, K.D. & Radwan, A.E. (1985). The transportation of hazardous materials: risk assessment and
hazard management. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials Report September/October,
2-11.
Pinchin, K. (2023, July 14). Sustainable seafood is top notch and plentiful in Canada. These three
recipes prove it. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-andwine/article-sustainable-seafood-canada-recipe/
Pingali, P., Alinovi, L. & Sutton,J. (2005). Food Security in complex emergencies: enhancing food
system resilience. Disasters, V 29
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: Definition and measurement. Food Security, 1(1), 5–7.
Pirog, R. & Rasmussen, R. (2008, September). Food, fuel, and the future: Consumer perceptions of local
food, food safety and climate change in the context of rising prices. Leopold Centre for
Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA
Plan 2 Adapt. (2020). Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium: Plan 2 Adapt
https://services.pacificclimate.org/plan2adapt/app/
Pothukuchi, K. & Kaufman, JL. (1999). Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of
municipal institutions in food systems planning. Agriculture and Human Values,16, 213–224.
https://doi-org.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.1023/A:1007558805953
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization
of the self. Journal of environmental psychology.

156

Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I. & Adger, N.W. (2015). Place attachment, identity, and adaptation. In Obrien, K.
(Ed), The adaptive challenge of climate change, (160-170). Cambridge University Press
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139149389.010
Raja, S., Raj, S., & Roberts, B. (2017). The US experience in planning for community food systems: An
era of advocacy, awareness, and (some) learning. In Nourishing Communities (pp. 59-74).
Springer, Cham.
Reardon, T., Echeverria, R., Berdegué, J., Minten, B., Liverpool-Tasie, S., Tschirley, D. & Zilberman,
D. (2019). Rapid transformation of food systems in developing regions: Highlighting the role of
agricultural research & innovations. Agricultural Systems, 172, 47-59,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.022.
Redwood, M. (Ed.). (2012). Agriculture in urban planning: generating livelihoods and food security.
Routledge.
Reid, H., Alam, M., Berger, R., Cannon, T., Huq, S., & Milligan, A. (2009). Community-based
adaptation to climate change: an overview. Participatory learning and action, 60(1), 11-33.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion
Riches, G. (1999). Advancing the human right to food in Canada: Social policy and the politics of
hunger, welfare, and food security. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 203-211.
Ritchie, J. & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Huberman,
M.A., Miles, M.B. (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion. Sage Publication, London
Robert, N., & Mullinix, K. (2018). Municipal policy enabling regional food systems in British
Columbia, Canada: Assessing focal areas and gaps. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and
Community Development, 8(B), 115-132.

157

Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical
guide. Qualitative research in psychology, 11(1), 25-41.
Rogge, N., Theesfeld, I., & Strassner, C. (2020). The potential of social learning in community gardens
and the impact of community heterogeneity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24,
100351.
Rosenzweig, C., Elliott, J., Deryng, D., Ruane, A. C., Müller, C., Arneth, A., ... & Jones, J. W. (2014).
Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model
intercomparison. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(9), 3268-3273.
Ross, H., & Berkes, F. (2014). Research approaches for understanding, enhancing, and monitoring
community resilience. Society & Natural Resources, 27(8), 787-804.
Rotz, S. & Fraser, E.D.G. (2015). Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of
agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Studies
Scence 5, 459–473 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0277-1
Rubin H.J. & Rubin I.S. (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing the Data, 2nd edn. SAGE,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The one-to-one
interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309-314.
Sage, C. (2014). The transition movement and food sovereignty: From local resilience to global
engagement in food system transformation. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 254-275.
Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.
Scott, M. (2013). Resilience: A conceptual lens for rural studies? Geography Compass, 7(9), 597-610.
Shakir, M. (2002). The selection of case studies: strategies and their applications to IS implementation
case studies. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3, 69-77.
158

Simcoe Muskoka District Heath Unit. (2017). Healthy food systems. Retrieved from Healthy Food
Systems (simcoemuskokahealth.org)
Slepien, K. (2021, Dec 1.) B.C.’s year of extreme weather ‘consistent’ with climate change,
meteorologist says. Terrace Standard. https://www.terracestandard.com/news/b-c-s-year-ofextreme-weather-consistent-with-climate-change-meteorologist-says/
Smith, A., & Seyfang, G. (2013). Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability. Global
Environmental Change, 23(5), 827-829.
Soma, T., & Wakefield, S. (2011). The emerging role of a food system planner: Integrating food
considerations into planning. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community
Development, 2(1), 53-64.
Soma, T., Armstrong, C. G., Welsh, C., Jung, S., Atleo, C. G., Li, B., & Shulman, T. (2024).
Indigenizing Food System Planning for Food System Resiliency: A Citizen Science Photovoice
With Kitselas First Nation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 90(3), 510-524.
Statistics Canada (2016). Population of Northern British Columbia. Census Data.
Statistics Canada. (2016). Prince Rupert [Population centre], British Columbia and British Columbia
[Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed April 14, 2021).
Statistics Canada. (2016). Terrace [Population centre], British Columbia and Nova Scotia
[Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed April 14, 2021)

159

Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based
cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and behavior, 34(5), 561-581.
Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1982). The Psychological Context of Residential Mobility and Weil‐
Being. Journal of Social Issues, 38(3), 149-171
Sumner, J. (2012). Dining on the social economy: Local, sustainable food systems and policy
development. Canadian Review of Social Policy, (67), 30-43. Retrieved from
http://prxy.lib.unbc.ca/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/scholarlyjournals/dining-on-social-economy-local-sustainable-food/docview/1240377371/se2?accountid=14601
Super Natural BC. (2024). Super, Natural BC | British Columbia Travel Information.
https://www.hellobc.com/places-to-go/northern-british-columbia/
Sussmann, C. & Feeney, C, (2015). Local Food Futures for British Columbia: Findings from Regional
Dialogues. Institute for Sustainable Food Systems, KPU
Sutton, J., & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative research: data collection, analysis, and management.
Canadian Journal of Hospital & Pharmacy 68(3), 226–231.
Tendall, DM., Joerin, J., Kopainsky, B., Edwards, P, Shreck, A., Le, Q.E., Kruetli, P., Grant, M., & Six,
J. (2015). Food system resilience: Defining the concept. Global Food Security, 6, 17-23.
doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.08.001.
Tessier, S. (2012). From field notes, to transcripts, to tape recordings: evolution or
combination?. International journal of qualitative methods, 11(4), 446-460.
Tierney, K. (2014). A different perspective: The social production of risk. In K. Tierney (Ed.), The
Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience (31-49). Stanford, California:
Stanford Business Books.
160

Tierney, K. (2014). Defining resilience in relation to risk. In K. Tierney (Ed.), The Social Roots of Risk:
Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience (160-196). Stanford, California: Stanford Business
Books.
Tierney, K. (2014). Looking back: The evolution of how we talk about risk. In K. Tierney (Ed.), The
Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience (11-30). Stanford, California:
Stanford Business Books.
Timmerman, P. (1981) Vulnerability, resilience and the collapse of society. Environmental Monograph
1. Toronto: Institute for Environmental Studies.
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. The SAGE handbook of
qualitative data analysis, 5, 153-69.
Tornaghi, C. (2014). Critical geography of urban agriculture. Progress in Human Geography, 38(4),
551-567.
Tuan, Y. (1975) Place: an experiential perspective, Geographical Review 65(2), pp.151-165.
Turner, N. J. (2020). From “taking” to “tending”: learning about Indigenous land and resource
management on the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America. ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 77(7-8), 2472-2482.
Uppal, S. (2023, November 14). This study examines the relationship between income and food
insecurity, looking at families most at risk, as well as the possible role of assets and debts in food
insecurity. Food insecurity among Canadian families. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75006-x/2023001/article/00013-eng.htm
Valencia, V., Bennett, E. M., Altieri, M., Nicholls, C., Schrijver, A. P., & Schulte, R. P. (2022).
Learning from the future: mainstreaming disruptive solutions for the transition to sustainable
food systems. Environmental Research Letters, 17(5), 051002.
161

Velez, A. (2022, June 28). What is a stacked bar chart?. storytelling with data.
https://www.storytellingwithdata.com/blog/stacked-bars
Vitiello, D., & Brinkley, C. (2014). The hidden history of food system planning. Journal of Planning
History, 13(2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538513213507541
Walker, B., Holling, C., Carpenter, S., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability
in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2).
Wamsler, C., Luederitz, C. & Brink, E. (2014) Local levers for change: mainstreaming ecosystem-based
adaptation into municipal planning to foster sustainability transitions. Global Environmental
Change 29, 189-201
Webb, P., Coates, J., Frongillo, E. A., Rogers, B. L., Swindale, A., & Bilinsky, P. (2006). Measuring
household food insecurity: why it's so important and yet so difficult to do. Journal of Nutrition,
136(5), 1404S–1408S.
Westley, F., Carpenter, S., Brock, W., Holling, C. & Gunderson, L. (2002). Why systems of people and
nature are not just social and ecological systems. In L. Gunderson and C. Holling (Eds.),
Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems,(103– 199).
Washington DC: Island Press.
Westley, F. (2013). Social Innovation and Resilience: How one enhances the other (SSIR). Stanford
Social Innovation Review: Informing and Inspiring Leaders of Social Change.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_innovation_and_resilience_how_one_enhances_the_other
Wilkinson, C. (2011). Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory. Planning
Theory 11(2), 148-169

162

Wilson, G., & Summerville, T. (2008). Transformation, transportation or speculation? The Prince
Rupert container port and its impact on northern British Columbia. Canadian Political Science
Review, 2(4), 26-39.
Winter, M., (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural
Studies, 19 (1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)000530.
Wisner, B., Gaillard, J.C., & Kelman, I. (2011). Framing disaster: Theories and stories seeking to
understand hazards, vulnerability, and risk. In B. Wisner, J.C. Gaillard, & I. Kelman (Eds.), The
Routledge Handbooks of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction (18-33). London, UK: Routledge.
Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A., & Wiebe, N. (2010). Food sovereignty: reconnecting food, nature and
community. In H. Wittman, A. A. Desmarais, & N. Wiebe (Eds.), Food sovereignty:
Reconnecting food, nature, and community (1–23). Fernwood Publishing.
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case Study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The
Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2102
Yin, R. K. (2009). How to do better case studies. The SAGE handbook of applied social research
methods, 2, 254-282.
Yin, R. K., & Davis, D. (2007). Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of
evaluating comprehensive reforms. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 75-93.
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zerbe, N. (2010). Moving from bread and water to milk and honey: Framing the emergent alternative
food systems. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 33, (1/2), 4-29.

163

Appendix

Appendix A: Information Letter / Consent Form
Appendix B. Interview Guide
Appendix C: Addendum to Information Letter / Consent Form
Appendix D: Policy Analysis Definition Codebook
Appendix E: Steps in Analysis Process
Appendix F: Open Coding Results
Appendix G: Selective Coding Results
Appendix H: Policy Matrix

164

APPENDIX A: INFORMATION LETTER / CONSENT FORM
You are being invited to participate in a research project entitled: Planning for Place at
the Table: Community Resilience and Local Food Systems a comparative case study of
Terrace, B.C. and Prince Rupert B.C. The objective of this research is to explore the
relationship between local food systems and community resilience, and hopes to answer
questions that look at what roll local food systems have in your relationship to land and the
environment? How the local food systems can contribute to learning in your community? and
how the local food system might create innovative change?
The researcher conducting this research is:
Primary Investigator: Scott Alasdair Brown
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies MA (candidate)
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
brown8@unbc.ca
778-675-3105
Supervisor: Dr. Mark Groulx
Associate Professor
UNBC School of Planning and Sustainability
mark.groulx@unbc.ca
1-250-960-5837

Purpose of Project:
My research will be used for a graduate thesis project in the Natural Resource and
Environmental Studies (NRES) Program at the University of Northern British Columbia. This
research will form the foundation of a thesis and potential future academic publications that
show how local food systems functions support resilience building. A compact, concise, 10 page
“public friendly” document will be produced from the thesis which will be provided to all interview
participants, organizations and local governments involved and shared back to the communities
in a virtual or in person presentation. My hope is that by documenting and highlighting how local
food system policy and on the ground community action relate, this document can provide a
guide for further community resilience building to both planners and policy makers within local
government, as well as for grassroots local food system community as a whole. This information
can provide knowledge and skills that help decision makers, experts in the local food system,
and the public build a robust local, sustainable food system.
Study Participation:
You were identified as a potential participant for this study because of your knowledge
and/or active involvement within the local food system in Northwestern BC. Participation in this
study is entirely voluntary and you are in no way obligated to participate. Additionally, you may
withdraw from the study at any time (at which point any information already provided will be
destroyed unless you have consented otherwise), and can choose not to answer any questions
that make you uncomfortable.

165

If you do choose to participate, you will be asked to take part in an interview either in person
or hosted on the Zoom platform. This interview is expected to take approximately 45 minutes to
complete. During this interview we would ask you questions about:
•
•

Where would you describe you or your organization as fitting in the local food system?
Can you share an example of a time where because of the local food system you felt
you learned something new?

In person interviews will be recorded using a manual recording device, after the interview
this will be updated to a secure location on UNBC drive and the recording will be immediately
deleted. All interviews conducted on the Zoom platform will be hosted by an account managed
by the UNBC Enterprise licenses for Zoom. While privacy cannot be guaranteed for information
that is transmitted over the internet, all reasonable effort to ensure security of your information
are being taken including password protected meeting invites and ensuring that the audio
recordings of the interviews are stored on password-protected server at UNBC and accessed
only by research team members.
With your consent, I will audio record and transcribe our interview using Zoom to ensure
details that you provide are captured accurately. There will be no personal details that will be
attached to the recording and transcription will be anonymized. A copy of the final transcript will
be shared with you to review, provide clarification on, or request removal of potential content if
desired. Further to that, if any quotes are to be used in the thesis or future publication, you will
be provided the opportunity to approve their use. Audio recordings will be destroyed no sooner
than 3 months after your participation in this study, but no later than 12 months after your
participation in this study. I will not produce any hard copies of interview transcripts, and all
digital transcripts will be stored in a password protected folder on a secure UNBC server for no
more than three years. Any individual involved in transcribing interviews will sign a nondisclosure agreement. Only myself, Scott Brown and my supervisor, Dr. Mark Groulx, and
research assistants working under my supervision will have access to the information collected
in this study.
Risks or benefits to participating in the project
Please note that I do not believe that there is anything in this study that could harm you.
I do acknowledge that talking about climate change impacts might raise negative feelings, but
for the most part, we will be discussing positive movements in the local food system that benefit
and have the ability to create community resilience. Social and/or political risk may be involved
for some participants in answering questions that may differ from their organizational or
community norms. Given the nature of the questions there is little risk to loss of status,
nevertheless, the following methods will be in place to mitigate any risks.
Although increased vaccination risks and high safety protocols in place have decreased
the risk in the transmission of Covid-19 across the province, in person interviews will have an
increased risk potential. For in person interviews. all Provincial Health Order protocols will be
followed and a Safe Research Plan (see attached) has been developed. If you would like to
partake in an in person interview, you can choose the location that is most comfortable for you.
Order of desired location would a) outdoors, b)in a sanitized well ventilated office at UNBC’s
Terrace Campus or c) in a restaurant/coffee shop of your choosing.

166

You can decline to answer any questions and can stop participation at any time.
Confidentiality will be respected and any information that discloses your identity will not be
released without your consent. Information collected through this study will also be aggregated
before it is reported, although illustrative quotes may be used to support key findings. We will
not associate the name of any individual or organization with illustrative quotes. However, due
to the nature of the expertise within our pool of potential participants we cannot guarantee
anonymity even if specific names are not used. Below, you can let us know whether you would
like to reserve the right to review a copy of your interview transcript prior to the use of any
quotations, and indicate how you would like to receive a copy of the transcript. If you wish to
review a copy of the interview transcript, the following steps would be followed:
Step 1: You, as a participant, indicate on the consent form below that you would like to review a
copy of the interview transcript, and provide an e-mail address where you would like to receive
the file.
Step 2a: As primary investigator, I will provide a copy of the interview transcript by your
preferred method.
Step 2b: You, as a participant, review the interview transcript over the course of a two-week
period.
Step 3a: As primary investigator, I will contact you at the end of the two-week period to
determine whether you have any concerns with the use of the material in the interview transcript
for the purposes outlined in bullet 5 below.
Step 3b: You, as a participant, consent to the use of the interview in full, or indicate the sections
that are to be withdrawn from use in this study, potentially including the entire interview.
Although immediate implementation of any recommendations that come of the results of
this study are beyond the scope of my position as a graduate researcher, I believe that this
study will benefit yourself and your community by providing knowledge and information that can
assist future decision makers, experts in the local food system, and the public build a robust
local, sustainable food system.
Compensation (if applicable)
You will be offered a $25 gift certificate to the local farmer’s market. If you are employed
within a government or official position where accepting an honorarium may be considered a
conflict of interest, you will be offered the opportunity to decline or donate this honorarium to the
local food bank. You will receive an email with a code that can be redeemed in person at the
Skeena Valley Farmer’s Market for a gift card.
Contact for Study Information:
—If you have any questions regarding this research please do not hesitate to contact me at
scott.brown@unbc.ca or my supervisor Dr. Mark Groulx - mark.groulx@unbc.ca
For requests of any results from the study (e.g. technical reports or journal articles) please
contactscott.brown@unbc.ca.
If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your
experiences while participating in this study, contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250 960
6735 or by e-mail at reb@unbc.ca.

167

Participant Consent and Withdrawal
Below I will ask you to provide written consent to participate in this study and to audio record our
interview. In instances where written consent cannot be provided, I will ask you to record your stated
consent to the following items. I will also ask if you would like to review your interview transcript before
illustrative quotes are used in any document or presentation associated with this study.
To help you make your decision, important information has been summarized in the following list.
•

Your involvement is entirely voluntary and you can withdrawal from participating at any point.

•

If you participate, you will be asked to take part in an interview that is expected to last ~45
minutes.
The questions we will ask are related to your experiences with local food systems in your
community and surrounding area.
You may decline to answer any of the questions you do not wish to answer.
Quotations from this interview may be used in academic reports or publications. They will not
identify you in any way by name, but their content could identify you or your organization.
Audio recordings will be destroyed no sooner than 3 months after your initial participation in this
study, but no later than 12 months after your initial participation in this study.

•
•
•
•

CONSENT
I have read or been described the information presented in the information letter about the
project:
YES

NO

(Highlight one)

I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this project and to receive
additional details I requested.
YES

NO

(Highlight one)

I understand that if I agree to participate in this project, I may withdraw from the project at any
time up until the report completion, with no consequences of any kind.
YES

NO

(Highlight one)

I agree to the audio recording of my interview
YES

NO

(Highlight one)

I agree to the use of anonymized quotations from my interview for academic purposes
YES

NO

(Highlight one)

I would like to review my interview prior to the use of any anonymized quotations (Please provide
necessary contact information below)
YES

NO

(Highlight one)

I would like to receive a copy of study results once they are available (Please provide necessary
contact information below)

168

YES

NO

(Highlight one)

If you would like to review a transcript or receive study results, please provide your preferred
email address below.
E-mail: _____________________________________________________
•

Your signature indicates that you have received a copy of this consent form for your own records

•

Your signature indicates that you consent to participate in this study

______________________________________________________________________
Participant Signature
Date
Your participation is very much appreciated and necessary to the success of this project! Thank
you in advance for your assistance with this project.

169

APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW GUIDE
Relation to Food System
1.

Where would you describe you or your organization as fitting in the local food system?

2.

Can you share a story of why your organization does this work in the local food system?
-Where do you fit into that story?

Experience of Climate Change
3.
2021 was a significant year for climate related events in BC, how was the local food
system in Prince Rupert impacted by these extreme weather events (Skeena River floods, heat
dome, atmospheric river in lower mainland, as examples).
-What do you feel this means for planning for the LFS into the future?
4.

What supports are in place for this to happen?
-What supports are needed?

Experience with Resilience Drivers
5.
Can you share an example of a time where because of the local food system you felt you
learned something new?
-What did you learn?
-What was the situation?
6.
In your experience, do you feel that a relationship with the local food system connects
you to place and the physical environment around you?
-If so, in what ways?
-Is there something specific in your community that provides that connection?
7.
Have you experienced any innovative movements within your community’s local food
system?
-How were they introduced?
-What was the result?
Wrap up question
8. How important do you feel the local food system is to your community?
-Why is that?

170

APPENDIX C: ADDENDUM TO INFORMATION LETTER / CONSENT FORM
Thank you for your participation in my research project entitled: Planning for Place at the Table:
Community Resilience and Local Food Systems - A comparative case study of Terrace, B.C. and Prince
Rupert B.C. I appreciate all the knowledge you shared within your interview. In the interest of
recognizing the value of the information participants have provided, there is an opportunity for
participants to have their names attached to the material they shared, should they desire. This is not
required, and you should feel no pressure to do so. With that in mind, this addendum to your original
information and consent form provides an opportunity to include your name with the information you
shared should you wish.
Should you have any questions you can contact me, Scott Brown, the Primary Investigator, or my
supervisor Dr. Mark Groulx.
Primary Investigator: Scott
Alasdair Brown
NRES MA (candidate)
University of Northern British Columbia
brown8@unbc.ca
778-675-3105

Supervisor:
Dr. Mark Groulx
Associate Professor
UNBC School of Planning and Sustainability
mark.groulx@unbc.ca
1-250-960-5837

If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your
experiences while participating in this study, contact: UNBC Office of Research at 250 960 6735 or by
e-mail at reb@unbc.ca.
Participant Consent to be Identified.
With this addendum to the consent form, I have also sent the transcription from your interview.
Please take the opportunity to review your transcript prior to completing this addendum. The purpose of
providing the transcript for your review is to provide the opportunity to: 1) accept the transcript as a
whole; 2) let me know which points you would like removed; and/or 3) add anything you feel was missed
in the original interview. I have included the original question guide for your reference.
After you have read the transcript and endorsed a final version, please complete the following section
below if you wish to include your name alongside research materials (in the form of direct quotations) in
academic outputs from this project (i.e., thesis and associated papers and presentations).
If you prefer not to be identified, you can simply not return this addendum.
If you wish to be identified along with your contributions to this research, please sign below and return
this form. An email response. identifying your preference to be identified will also be accepted.

______________________________________________________________________
Participant Signature

Date

Thank you again for your participation in this study. It is very much appreciated and a key
contribution in the success of this project!
171

APPENDIX D: DEFINITION CODEBOOK
Word

Definition
Food System

Food System

“Food systems are social–ecological systems, formed of biophysical and social factors linked through
feedback mechanisms. They comprise, at a minimum, the activities involved in food production,
processing and packaging, distribution and retail, and consumption. These activities encompass social,
economic, political, institutional and environmental processes and dimensions, referred to as scales.”
(Tendall et al., 2015)

Accessing

freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something (in the case food oriented)

Consumption

the act of eating or drinking something

Distribution

the action of sharing something out among a number of recipients. (in this case food oriented)

Hunting and Harvesting

Hunting is the practice of seeking, pursuing and capturing or killing wildlife or feral animals.
Harvesting is to gather, catch, hunt, or kill (salmon, oysters, deer, etc.) for human use, sport, or
population control.

Processing and preservation

Processing is to perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something) in order to
change or preserve it. Preserving is the act of keeping something in its original state or in good
condition (in this case food oriented)

Production

Waste Recovery

the use of cultivated plants or animals to produce products for sustaining or enhancing human life
means any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other
materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being
prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy. (Waste Framework Directive,
2008).
Innovation/ Experimention

Allowance for
experimentation/ innovation

the need for communities to allow for niche spaces that empower community members by providing
opportunity for experimentation and innovation across different sectors and scales

Experimentation

"‘Learning, and in particular social learning, nurtured through the process of experimentation, is
considered very important in overcoming stable and difficult-to-change socio-technical systems.’ The
potential for an innovation or combination of innovations to transition out of a socio-technical regime
and toward a new, more sustainable one, is a complex process that must be analyzed using a longterm, systems-level perspective." (Burch et al, 2014)

Niche Space

innovation niches which are defined as “protected spaces for the development and use of promising
technologies by means of experimentation, with the aim of (1) learning about the desirability of the
new technology, and (2) enhancing the further development and the rate of application ...
Social Learning

Social Learning

a collaborative process of problem solving, active reflection, and learning by doing that involves a
shift in understanding and behaviours through social interactions within social networks that
transcends the individual to become embedded in the larger community

Active Reflection

Active self-reflection is when we make a concerted effort to cultivate self-reflection as a skill through
regular application and practice

172

Learning by Doing

Learning by doing is based on learning from experiences. This approach allows learners to experience
something with minimal guidance from an adult. This approach assumes that learners learn best by
being involved in the learning process. Instead of being told or showing the answers, they are
presented with a question, problem, situation, or activity which they must make sense of for
themselves. (Yang and Yeun, 2012).
Person-Place Connection

Local Knowledge

Knowledge about local context, systematic information that remains in the informal, often described
as ‘popular’ or ‘folk’. It is “Inherently associated with, and interpreted from within, the specific
culture in which it is produced.” (Fischer, 2002)

Person-Place Connection

refers to an emotional relationship to a place, including dimensions of self that define an individual's
identity in relation to the physical environment

Traditional Knowledge

Watson et al. (2003) argue that traditional ecological knowledge serves an important function in the
long-term relationships between indigenous people and vast ecosystems in the circumpolar north and
can contribute to understanding the effects of management decisions and human-use impacts on longterm ecological composition, structure, and function.

Reference

Adaptability

(Adaptive Capacity or General resilience) Flexibility that is required to confront unexpected
perturbations (Meerow et al., 2016), or the capacity of a SES to engage in social learning and change
endogenous and exogenous focus to remain within a current stability domain (Folke et al., 2010).

Co-Benefit

A benefit that is a byproduct of another policy or action (Wamsler, 2015).

Collaboration

A problem-solving strategy that involves different actors working together to generate a solution,
often in response to the need to overcome fragmented knowledge frames, to bridge different value
systems, to create flexible linkages among actors that become a source of shared or networked power
(Innes & Booher, 1999; 2002)

Community Engagement

The process of involving and empowering community members in the adaptation planning process.
(Ford et al., 2015)

Community Resilience

“Existence, development and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive
in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability and surprise”.

Place Attachment

An emotional connection to a place. (Fresque-Baxter & Armitage, 2012)

Place Identity

Dimensions of the self that define an individuals identity in relation to the physical environment.
(Fresque-Baxter, 2012)

Problem Solving

Problem solving is the act of defining a problem; determining the cause of the problem; identifying,
prioritizing, and selecting alternatives for a solution; and implementing a solution. (ASQ, n.d.)

Social Capital

“Refers to features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate
coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Social capital enhances the benefits of investment in
physical and human capital.” (Putnam, 1994)

173

APPENDIX E: STEPS IN THE ANALYSIS PROCESS.
1. Start new Excel Matrix file for community.
a) Independent Matrix: the solo assessments done by Scott B, Scott M + Santana P.,
found here: LFS_Matrix_version2.2.xlsx
b) DO NOT use an outdated version of the independent matrix for your analysis; make sure
the independent matrix version (i.e., 2.2) matches the comparison matrix version.
c) Save as ex: Prince_Rupert_PolicyMatrix_Brown_SA.
d) If first one to make the new comparison matrix save it as above, but as Team.
2. Label Excel Matrix Sheet with Policy Name ex:OCP
3. Load Policy into Nvivo
a) Prompt for automatic save
b) Turn on highlight/colour code
4. Scan Policy for inclusion of the food system functions - Using LFS definitions guide sheet.
a) Identify if it is an objective, goal, strategy or is it contextual
b) If contextual, code full section to “context” code.
c) If review of other statement, goal, objective from other document, go to source document.
d) If objective, goal or strategy, code to appropriate child codes (1 or multiple)
Rules for Inclusion for Goal Objective Strategy:
Code to most discrete level that has been identified by the policy writer.
Most discrete level to be determined by:
i. Numbered/ lettered sequence, to the lowest decimal point. (If not, then...)
ii. Bullet points under sub section. (If not, then...)
iii. Font/ heading style – change in font to bold, italics, underlined, or boxed. If using
this as the level, use Table of Contents to create a key to identify numbered
sections
iv. Tables, graphs, figures, that have identified objectives. If they are standalone,
and not repetitive of existing policy statements, then code each line as a
statement.
e) Copy/paste objective/goal/strategy etc. into framework document
f) Check off relative boxes relating to food system function and/ or driver of resilience make notes if needed
g) Move on to next statement, repeat above steps until finished with document
5. Once an independent analysis is complete:
a) Create a copy of the comparison matrix template and name the file appropriately. For this
example, we will use Prince Rupert’s OCP.
b) Select all independent analysis of the Prince Rupert OCP (or whatever analysis we are on)
c) Paste Santana’s independent analysis into the worksheet labelled “SP_Analysis” of the
copied comparison matrix.
d) If the templates look different (from an older version of the independent matrix), ONLY
copy the cells containing input values. The cells need to match up for the comparison
matrix to automatically read and total them.
e) Repeat the above step for Scott M.’s analysis to “SM_Analysis”
f)

Done! The comparison matrix should now display all values from the two analyses side-byside, with totals listed at the top of the page.

174

APPENDIX F: OPEN CODING RESULTS
Name

Description

Files

References

Accessing

Access to food

5

6

Accessing funding

applying or access to funding source, (provincial.
federal NP)

1

1

Accessing Traditional Foods

access to traditional foods (from a location in
nature ie:forest/ocean/river) does not include
cultural elements

7

25

Accessing traditional
harvest sites

ability to access areas that were traditional used
by FN communities

1

2

Adapting operations

change in operational procedure due to
influence/potential harm of extreme weather
events (CC impacts)

5

8

Ag. Support Funding

Any funding that is available for agriculture

2

8

Asking Questions

Being curious, trying to understand how
something works, learning processes and
systems

2

2

Building strength in LFS

being specific in their action to intentionally
strengthen the local food system

5

7

Climate Change Impacts

Impacts felt from a changing climate, ie: heat,
drought, flooding, infrastructure failing etc

4

7

Colonial impacts to food
systems

Food system vulnerabilities caused by
implementation colonial system requirements

4

9

Coming together

Community coming together for a common goal

3

5

Compiling local ecosystem
knowledge

Using knowledge learned from changes in the
ecosystem in order to understand the local food
system

3

3

Connecting community
through food

How community comes together to eat,
produce, or acquire food

9

23

175

Name

Description

Files

References

Connecting culture and
food

Elements of culture that are intertwined with
food

4

5

Connecting Language and
Food

recognizing how language connects us to food,
and/or learning language to understand food

4

6

Connecting LFS and
Economy

How the economy is impacted (negatively or
positively) by the lfs

6

11

connecting place and
community

An understanding of the relationship to place
that strengthens community

6

16

Conservation

methods of ensuring species survival,
maintaining and restoring habitats, ultimately
protecting biological diversity.

2

7

Consumption

eating food

0

0

Cooking programs

Programs that are in place that teach people
how to cook using foods acquired from the lfs

1

2

CSA

community supported agriculture, this is usual
food box program hosted by producers,
customers pay a lump some at the start of the
season to support the farmer with initial costs
and then receive a box of various vegetables etc
through season

2

2

Distribution

how food is given out or sold to community

5

10

doing old things in a new
way

Resurgence of historical or traditional methods
of producing, harvesting or distributing food

4

7

Donating food

food for donation to community, ie: gifted to
food banks

2

2

Eating for ceremony

gathering of people that as food either as a
central roll or included within a cultural aspect
of the gathering

3

5

176

Name

Description

Files

References

Eating local food

specifically accessing local food for consumption

1

1

Educating benefits of LFS

Formal or informal education elements that
show health and environmental benefits from lfs

2

2

Existing barriers in the
north

Specific barriers that occur while living in the
north, ex. Location, lack of infrastructure, lack of
resources, testing facilities etc.

7

19

Experiencing Ecological
Grief

sense of loss or dismay from experiencing or
learning about negative impacts to the
environment, climate change

2

2

Experiencing food shortage

experiencing or witnessing lack of access to
certain foods because of supply issues

9

12

Experiencing impacts of
flooding

Struggle with accessing or producing food
because of flooding

3

4

Experiencing Impacts of
increased heat

Struggle with accessing or producing food
because of increased heat

2

3

Experiencing physical
barriers to LFS access

Struggle with accessing or producing food
because of lack of infrastructure or location of
community

4

7

Food Sovereignty

the right of peoples to healthy and culturally
appropriate food produced through ecologically
sound and sustainable methods

2

4

Growing business

specific methods employed with the focus of
enlarging the capacity of the business

3

4

growing food

physically growing food

4

4

Hands on learning

learning and understanding how to do
something by doing something

6

6

177

Name

Description

Files

References

Hunting & Harvesting

accessing "wild" foods through traditional
methods, hunting, fishing, forest and ocean
harvesting

4

14

Informal Trade Networks

Trade between individuals or groups of people
that happens organically within the community
often through historic relationships

5

11

Innovation

applying new processes or ideas in completing
faniliar task with the goal of improved outcome

5

8

Innovation in community
programs

Community programs that are unique in either
their intended goals or their structure

4

6

Innovation in policy
development

Government policies (goals, objectives) that are
unique in either their intended outcome or their
structure

1

1

Intergenerational
Knowledge Sharing

Education activities or programs that involve the
sharing of knowledge between youth, adults
and/or elders

6

13

Knowledge Sharing

activity or program in which information and/or
skills are exchanged between community
members

7

14

Learning about LFS

Programs that specifically focus learning
activities around understanding what the local
food system is

5

6

Learning on the land

learning and understanding how to do
something by doing something where it is done

3

4

Less priority in helping LFS

recognizing the importance of s strong local
food system but not actively providing support
due to focus on other projects taking up capacity

3

3

LFS importance

Identifying with or elements of the LFS and the
priority it has within the resilience of the
community

5

8

178

Name

Description

Files

References

LFS Producer availability

Number of producers involved in the LFS in the
region

2

2

Missing resource capacity

Lack of resources (infrastructure, policy, people)

4

8

Multi level fs supporting

all level of government and community groups
working togehter with a common goal of
strengthening the local food system

3

4

Ocean food sourcing

accessing food from the ocean

7

25

Person Place Connection

an emotional relationship to a place, includes
dimensions of self that define an individual's
identity in relation to the physical environment

5

11

Perceiving positive CC
impacts

believing that there will be improvements as a
result of climate change eg> hotter weather is
better growing

2

3

Processing & Preservation

the action of processing or preserving food for
storage or consumption

1

2

Producing Sustainably

using methods that are more sustainable to
produce a product

2

2

Providing for community

Producing, harvesting food for community with
a focused thought on societal
needs/wants/relationship

5

7

Recognizing First Nations
Right to land

Understanding FN land and title rights

2

2

Recognizing Seasonality of
Food

Knowing the availability of certain foods within
the local food systems rely on specific
environmental inputs.

3

4

Recognizing vulnerabilities
in FS

understanding or experiencing weakness in the
current food system

5

10

179

Name

Description

Files

References

recreation vs food

Impacts of Sport fishing or guided hunting to the
lfs

1

1

Removing barriers to food
access

Actively finding solutions for people to access
food in the face of struggle

3

8

Revitalizing Indigenous
foodways

programs or activities that recognize, build or
strengthen access and use of traditional
Indigenous foods and culture surrounding food

5

14

sceptism of government
ability

Not having faith in government programs to
achieve intended goals, objectives or help the
current situation

1

1

School local food
programming

food programs that are organized within the
school system

4

7

Selling at Farmers Markets

direct sales at farmers market

3

4

Selling wholesale

Ability to sell larger quantities of product for
distribution through other businesses

2

2

Sharing Traditional
Knowledge

exchange of cultural or historic information and
skills between community members

3

10

Showing Food System
Vulnerability

actions or situations (things that have
happened) that highlight vulnerability of the
food system

4

6

Social Learning

learning through the observation of other
peoples behaviours

4

25

Staffing capacity problems

difficulties in sourcing or hiring employees

2

3

Strengthening food security

action or movements with the direct purpose of
improving community members access to food

8

13

Struggling with policy
barriers

experiencing grief or lessened ability to achieve
something from either the lack of policy in place
or because of impacts from the policy itself

3

6

180

Name

Description

Supporting community
gardens

Physical or financial help to build or caretake
gardens that provide for the community.

4

6

Supporting food insecurity

Providing food for low income communtiy
members, providing food to food banks

3

15

Supporting local producers

programs or activities that directly assist local
producers

6

8

Technological Innovation in
FS

Innovation that is technological in nature that
helps produce or acquire food sources

1

3

understanding difficulty in
producing LF

recognizing the challenges of growing food
within the region

2

2

Understanding Local
Ecosystems

Having an awareness of specific trends within
the regional ecosystem

4

8

Using traditional methods

employing methods that were used historically
in the harvesting or hunting of food

3

5

Waste Recovery

the process of reclaiming components or
materials that would otherwise be thrown away
for producing other products, using the waste as
energy, using the waste for compost

2

3

7

8

Writing notes from
interviews

Files

References

181

APPENDIX G: SELECTIVE CODING RESULTS

1. COMMUNITY’S CONCEPT OF RESILIENCE
What key informants feel vulnerability and resilience means to their community.
How they identify to resilience within the local food system and how it impacts
(NEGATIVELY OR POSITIVELY) to the resilience of the community.
Does the theoretical connect with the conceptual?
2. BRINGING COMMUNITY TOGETHER
For all members within the communities of PR and T, food is more than sustenance
or a commodity. Food is embedded in community, in the place, in the culture. Food
connects people in learning and sharing. Food can be the centre of ceremony, or the
reason to gather. Ultimately the Local Food System is the community.
3. MORE THAN AGRICULTURE AND GARDENS
Food system policy has a clear disconnect with communities understanding of
what a local food system is. For many in PR and Ter. food is not only what is
grown but also what is collected, hunted, harvested, caught within the local
ecosystem. For most members of these communities, traditional food sources are
the back bone of their diet.
4. DOING OLD THINGS IN NEW WAYS
Sometimes innovation is just bringing back methods that have been used in the
past. Community members in PR and Terrace have been strengthening their LFS
through a resurgence in traditional methods in harvesting food and going back to
the roots of growing food. Community comes together in ways that some have
forgotten, sharing information and food together and revitalizing their relationship
with one another.
5. READY FOR A NEW TOMORROW
Many advocates of the local food system are already making the steps towards
improvements and adaptations within their organizations and the food system
itself. Creating stronger connections within the LFS creates a more resilient
community. Multi-level support for food systems includes policy changes at
regional and municipal levels, community programming that focuses on lfs
education and youth learning through hands on learning in increasing school food
programs.
182

APPENDIX H: POLICY MATRIX

183