Hannah J. Dueck and Dr. Adela Kincaid
With contribution from:
Abra Brynne, Central Kootenay Food Policy Council
Shauna Fidler, West Kootenay Permaculture Co-op (Kootenay Food)
Ian Parfitt, Selkirk Geospatial Research Centre
Wallapak Polasub, Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Rachael Roussin, Kootenay & Boundary Farm Advisors
Tara Stark, Interior Health
Nelson Wight, Regional District of Central Kootenay

i

PROJECT PARTNERS
Research partners were asked to provide a description of their organization, a short
biography, and to describe their role in the project. The results, in their own words, are
below.
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems,
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Wallapak Polusub

Central Kootenay Food Policy Council
Abra Brynne
Formed in 2016, the Central Kootenay Food Policy
Council Society builds a just, sustainable, and prosperous
food system. Each council member serves as a vital
conduit for information exchange between their
respective sector and communities and the Food Policy
Council. The council explores issues related to hunger,
food waste, farming, land and water, distribution and
processing. Council members reside across the region
and are engaged in many facets of our food systems.
Together, council members’ collective relationships,
knowledge and experience help identify and create
solutions that are not possible alone.

The Institute for Sustainable Food System (ISFS) is an
applied research and extension unit at Kwantlen
Polytechnic University (KPU) that investigates and
supports regional food systems as key elements of
sustainable communities. The institute focuses
predominantly on British Columbia but also extends
programming to other regions.
ISFS’ applied research focuses on the potential of
regional food systems in terms of agriculture and food,
economics,
community
health,
policy,
and
environmental integrity. Its extension programming
provides information and support for farmers,
communities, businesses, policy makers, and others.
Community collaboration is central to the institute’s
approach.

The Central Kootenay Food Policy Council makes policy
recommendations and brokers best practices and
knowledge about food systems in the Central Kootenay.
The Council developed the concept for the Evidencebased Food Policy project, secured partners and funding,
managed the project, and contributed expertise and
content,
including
the
creation
of
policy
recommendations derived from the findings of our
academic partners.

Wallapak’s role in the Evidence-based Food Policy
Project was to coordinate the ISFS research team to
conduct two individual reports on crops suitable for
future changing climates in the RDCK and characteristics
and price of Agricultural Land Reserve lands. The
research team consisted of four members: Grace
Augustinowicz, Alexander Stark, Kent Mullinix and
Wallapak Polasub.

Abra Brynne grew up on a farm in BC’s Okanagan Valley,
where her family of 13 raised a large portion of their food
needs and were members of a local tree fruit marketing
co-operative. She has worked closely with farmers and
on food systems for thirty years, with a priority on food
value chains and the regulatory regimes that impede or
support them. She has worked on policy advocacy and
transitions in the fisheries, meat, cannabis and organic
sectors. Abra is a founding member of many agriculture
and food-related organizations, including BC Food
Systems Network, Food Secure Canada and the Canadian
Association of Food Law & Policy and has led the Central
Kootenay Food Policy Council since it was formed in
2016.

Wallapak Polasub moved to Canada from Thailand and
made Vancouver her new home in 2011. She joined ISFS
as a research associate in September 2013. Her interests
are on the economic impacts of local food, farm product
direct marketing, co-operatives and sustainable
economic development.

ii

Kootenay & Boundary Farm Advisors
Rachael Roussin

Interior Health Authority
Tara Stark

The Kootenay & Boundary Farm Advisors (KBFA)
provides producers with free, technical production
support and information from a network of specialized
resources, including independent consultants and
academics.

Interior Health (IH) provides a wide range of integrated
health-care programs and services to residents across
BC's Southern Interior. IH’s mission is to promote
healthy lifestyles and provide needed health services in
a timely, caring, and efficient manner, to the highest
professional and quality standards.

KBFA supports producers to improve agricultural
production and efficiency by helping find solutions to
farm-specific
production
issues,
coordinating
educational events and connecting producers to
information.

Interior Health’s Healthy Communities Program aims to
improve health and wellness by working collaboratively
with local governments and community partners to
create policies and environments that support good
health.

KBFA is funded collectively by the regional districts of
Kootenay Boundary, Central Kootenay, and East
Kootenay, and the Columbia Basin Trust. The
organization’s services are free to agricultural producers
in working towards commercial viability in this region.

Tara Stark worked in an advisory capacity for the
Evidence-based Food Policy Project and participated in
the working group that created the educational activities
and materials for school-based and public education
events.

Rachael Roussin’s role in the project was as a member of
the project advisory committee.

Tara Stark is a registered dietitian who works on food
security and healthy eating with IH’s Healthy
Communities Program. She has been a member of the
Central Kootenay Food Policy Council since 2017.

Rachael Roussin has a Masters' degree in Land and
Water Systems from the faculty of Land and Food at UBC
and brings over 10 years of experience coordinating
environmental and agricultural programs. Her technical
background includes soil science, soil capability for
agriculture, watershed management and climate change
impacts and opportunities for agriculture. Rachael is an
Environmental Farm Plan Advisor for BC, is an educator
on soil health and agricultural land, has operated a
market garden, managed her local farmers' market, and
sits on several food and agriculture boards and
committees. She is the program lead and coordinator for
the Kootenay and Boundary Farm Advisor program
(KBFA).

ii

Selkirk Geospatial Research Centre,
Selkirk College
Ian Parfitt

Regional District of Central Kootenay
Nelson Wight
Incorporated in 1965, the Regional District of Central
Kootenay (RDCK) is a local government that serves an
estimated population of 60,000 residents. The region
consists of 11 electoral areas (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K)
and nine member municipalities: Castlegar, Creston,
Kaslo, Nakusp, Nelson, New Denver, Salmo, Silverton
and Slocan.

The Selkirk Geospatial Research Centre (SGRC) is a
geomatics centre of excellence launched with BC
Knowledge Foundation and Canada Foundation for
Innovation funding in 2004. The SGRC is closely
connected with Selkirk College’s Advanced Certificate,
Applied Diploma and Bachelor of GIS programs and has
research strengths in GIS analysis, web mapping, and
remote sensing. SGRC also operates a fleet of remotely
piloted aerial systems (RPAS – also known as drones)
that enable the centre to collect its own imagery and
LiDAR data. Current projects include an Open Data
SSHRC grant and a Forest Technology NSERC grant. See
www.sgrc.selkirk.ca for more information.

The RDCK contributed to this project by providing data
for GIS analysis, helping to ensure that the project
outcomes aligned with RDCK objectives and needs, and
providing input on how this project could best connect
to and benefit the work being done to deliver planning
services to residents.

The SGRC’s mandate is to be a regional centre of
excellence in geomatics, to advance the capability of
communities and industry to adopt geospatial
technologies and to provide leading-edge learning
opportunities.

Nelson Wight is currently employed as the Planning
Manager for the RDCK. His background in agriculture
extends back to his experience growing up and operating
his family’s mixed beef cattle and grain farm in central
Alberta prior to pursuing a career as a professional
planner. His work as a planner in BC for the past two
decades has always incorporated aspects of agriculture
and food policy. From his time in the Okanagan—where
he worked closely with producers as a staff liaison to the
City of Kelowna Agriculture Advisory Committee—
through to today, where he leads a talented team of
planners to implement and shape local government
policies that can work to support a robust food system
for the RDCK.

Ian Parfitt sat on the advisory committee for the project
and oversaw spatial data collection and analysis
conducted during the first stage of GIS analysis.
Ian Parfitt is a geomatics and project management
expert. He leads RPAS and geomatics research at the
Selkirk Geospatial Research Center (SGRC) at Selkirk
College in Castlegar, BC.

iii

West Kootenay Permaculture Co-op
(Kootenay Food)
Shauna Fidler

Young Agrarians
Hailey Troock

The West Kootenay Permaculture Coop (aka Kootenay
Food) is a not-for-profit co-op guided by the ethics of
permaculture: care of earth, care of people and return
of surplus.

Young Agrarians (YA) is a farmer2farmer educational
resource network for new and young farmers. YA’s
Grow-a-Farmer strategy in B.C. engages new, young and
potential farmers on-line, brings them together to
network and learn together on and off farms, and when
ready to start farms, supports them to access land, as
well as receive business and production mentorship
from a seasoned farmer.

The coop is a community-based co-operative working to
build a healthy and food resilient region through
collaboration, education, media and net positive
initiatives.

The long-term goal of YA is to increase the number of
viable, new farm businesses in B.C. The program has
developed on-line, through events, and an on-farm
Apprenticeship Program in Regenerative Agriculture in
Alberta.

Shauna Fidler is a permaculture and graphic designer
working to support food and farm businesses through
branding, food packaging and design services and
consultation. She is chair of the West Kootenay
Permaculture Coop and a member of the Central
Kootenay Food Policy Council.

Since YA began in January 2012, the network of
participating farmers has grown at the grassroots level
across Canada from coast to coast through farms
organizing and building community. The YA network is
made up of a diverse array of food growers and lovers:
rural and urban farmers, market gardeners and
livestock-raisers, holistic managers, seed savers, food
activists, bee keepers, community gardeners,
food/farmer organizations and more - all working to
steward land and soil, and grow our local food systems.
Hailey Troock brought her policy skillset and experience
in promoting and identifying opportunities for new
farmers to the advisory committee for this project.

iv

CONTENTS
Project Overview........................................................................................................................................... 1
About this report....................................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Defining “food systems” ........................................................................................................................... 2
Systems thinking as a framework for research partnerships and food systems ...................................... 2
Research partnerships: challenges and success factors ........................................................................... 3
Local food systems and global context ..................................................................................................... 3
Partnership Model ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Team and partnership structure ............................................................................................................... 4
Geography................................................................................................................................................. 5
Interviews...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Research partnership ................................................................................................................................ 6
Partnerships and leadership ................................................................................................................. 6
Existing relationships ............................................................................................................................ 6
New relationships ................................................................................................................................. 7
Barriers to connection/cohesion .......................................................................................................... 7
Increasing collaboration and cohesion ................................................................................................. 7
Food systems ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Economic food structures ..................................................................................................................... 8
Food security: COVID-19, long supply chains, and indigenous food systems....................................... 8
Knowledge Translation ............................................................................................................................. 9
Directions for future research .................................................................................................................. 9
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Recommendation 1: Encourage collaboration with sharing of expertise and in-person meetings ... 10
Recommendation 2: Integrate end users in research partnerships ................................................... 10
Recommendation 3: Align research with local and regional needs.................................................... 10
Recommendation 4: Increase impact of research through communication strategies ..................... 10
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix A – Interview Questions.............................................................................................................. 16

v

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The overall purpose of the Evidencebased Food Policy Project was to develop
an evidence base and strategic rationale
for policy development to support and
promote sustainable and viable land and
water use and vibrant food economies in
the Regional District of Central Kootenay
(RDCK). See figure 1, right, for a map of
the RDCK region. Prompted by demand in
the region and informed by end-user
needs, the project is arguably a
community-driven
initiative.
A
multidisciplinary team was assembled to
accomplish the various objectives of the
project, which included factors that
impact existing and new farmers, hunger
and nutrition, as well as economic factors
and food systems in general. Led by the
Central Kootenay Food Policy Council,
the team spanned academic institutions,
community and public organizations, and
local government. Included on this team
were two departments at the Applied
Research and Innovation Centre at
Selkirk College (ARIC): the Selkirk
Geospatial Research Centre and the
Interdisciplinary Intern Team. Notable Figure 1: Regional District of Central Kootenay, British Columbia, Canada
aspects of the research structure include its entirely virtual format and the autonomous yet collaborative
nature of the work. The project provides mapping and analyses of factors that affect food systems in the
region and helps support evidence-based decision making within local governance. Lessons learned from
it provide the basis for a research model that can guide similar initiatives for other rural communities and
future projects in the Kootenays.

About this report
This report includes a brief literature review, a description of the research model, the results of interviews
conducted with research partners, directions for future research in the Kootenays, and recommendations
to encourage the success of similar research partnerships in the future.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 1

LITERATURE REVIEW
This brief literature review helps to situate this project
in terms of project philosophy, provides local context,
and supplies a basis for analysing interview results.

Defining “food systems”
Food systems are often viewed as “a set of activities ranging from
production through to consumption” 1 (p. 1), a broader definition
of food systems includes factors that influence and shape those
activities, the activities themselves, and outcomes of the activities
(including social welfare, food security, etc.), as well as other
determinants.1 It is important to note that food systems are plural
and multiple – most people in the world participate in and rely on
a number of food “systems” for their sustenance, ranging from
backyard produce to grocery and convenience stores to local farm
stands and beyond.i

Systems thinking as a framework for
research partnerships and food systems
Systems thinking is an adaptable concept, applicable across a
wide range of disciplines and areas.2 While definitions vary slightly
across disciplines,3 essential aspects of systems thinking are
taking a macro perspective of an issue, considering all parts of the
whole, and recognizing that issues are dynamic and changing
(rather than static).2 Further, systems thinking addresses that
people themselves are not separate from issues and the
environment they exist in: “systems thinking [is] a cognitive
paradigm with which people come to perceive themselves and
the world to be dynamic entities that display continually emerging
patterns arising from the interactions among many
interdependent connecting components” (p. 646-647).3 Systems thinking asserts that problems do not
exist in isolation, are dynamic, and cannot be separated from the social and physical terrain in which they
are situated. This makes it a useful construct for considering this research project, which, both
geographically and socially, has diverse interconnected players that should not be considered separately
from the environment in which the project was situated. Systems thinking is also a natural fit for discussing
food systems, as food systems are extremely complex, with considerable local and global
interconnectivity. It has been suggested that adopting a systems approach specifically in agriculture is
imperative,4 and at least one researcher has made the connection between systems thinking and food
systems, writing that her understanding of a food system “lends itself to a ‘systems’ approach”(p. 4).1
Finally, understanding end-users’ needs for research is crucial in applied work, and participatory
approaches are therefore not only helpful, but necessary. Systems thinking and community-based

i

A. Brynne (personal communication, July 16, 2020).

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 2

participatory research, which is an important part of the Selkirk College research model, complement one
another.5

Research partnerships: challenges and success factors
Multi- and interdisciplinary research has received increasing attention for its apparent ability to tackle
complex, real-world problems.6,7 However, as its popularity has increased, so has awareness of its
challenges.7 Communication between researchers from different disciplines can prove difficult,7 proximity
can be important (and by implication, geographically distant collaboration difficult),8,9 and a “core
challenge” lies in “coordinating and integrating the work of individuals, workgroups, and organizations
accustomed to working independently and autonomously” (p. 218).10 It has been argued that, among
other things, strong leadership, communication, and well-chosen team members can help to overcome
some of these challenges.9

Local food systems and global context
The Central Kootenay region of British Columbia (BC) produces a wide variety of food,11 but like the rest
of the province and Canada as a whole, much of the food consumed within the region is imported. In the
Central Kootenay, an estimated 95% of food consumed within the region comes from outside it. 11
While the majority of food in the Central Kootenay is imported, there is interest in locally grown products
from consumers in the region, and interest within local government to invest in local agriculture and food
security.11,12 There is also potential for more food production in the area. In an analysis of the arable land
in the West Kootenays,ii the authors of a 2015 study determined that the region is “well situated to grow
more food” (p. 186) from a land capability perspective.13
The ability to grow more food is not the only factor in increasing local production, however, and it is with
these other factors – primarily economic in nature – that global systems are most entangled. The
economic structure of national (and thus arguably local) food markets changed dramatically with the
advent of globalization: removing trade barriers through free trade agreements exponentially increases
rivalry among producers, whether they engage in export or not.14
The current COVID-19 pandemic has increased concern about local food systems and their resiliency, with
people experiencing disruptions in their food systems on both the supply and demand side.15 While there
is concern about the resiliency of our food systems, the pandemic also presents opportunities for change.
As is often the case with disruptions, COVID-19 “provides an opportunity for the creative destruction of
mature systems and opportunities for transformation” (p. 26).15 Paramount in this transformation is the
sustainability and resiliency of local food systems.15
Holistic models of sustainability include safe, ethical, and equitable development.16 Sustainability is
primarily dependent on environmental boundaries,17 and sustainable economies need support from
strong social networks in order to function, especially in rural areas. Community development hinges upon
sustainability that is also safe and ethical while working within a model that has an ecological ceiling.16

ii

The West Kootenays encompasses the Regional Districts of Kootenay Boundary and Central Kootenay.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 3

PARTNERSHIP MODEL
This project was shaped both by its geographical scope and the research partners
involved.

Team and partnership structure
This project was guided by an advisory committee, which oversaw the research design and helped refine
the research question and objectives. Project partners provided their expertise in different fields,
contributed data, and produced various research productsiii for the project. The RDCK, for instance,
contributed data for analysis to partners and helped to guide various deliverables, including the web map
produced by ARIC (see figure 3, below left, for overall project structure).
The team lead acted as the main conduit and connection between research partners, with two interpartner connections that developed over the course of the project (see figure 4, below right). Some
partners were active throughout the project lifecycle, while others were primarily involved in the initial
design stages (e.g. on the advisory committee).iv Most partners worked independently from one another
on discrete parts of the project. Results were occasionally shared with the other team members in
meetings.

PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Central Kootenay
Food Policy Council

PROJECT

Interior
Health
Authority

PROJECT PARTNERS
Figure 2: Project Structure

West
Kootenay
Permaculture
Co-op

Central
Kootenay
Food Policy
Council

Young
Agrarians

Kootenay &
Boundary
Farm
Advisors

iii

Institute for
Sustainable
Food Systems

Applied
Research &
Innovation
Centre

Regional
District of
Central
Kootenay

Figure 3: Partner Connections

E.g. GIS analyses and maps (ARIC) and research reports (Institute for Sustainable
Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University).
iv
In some cases, more involvement was intended, but these plans were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic that
began to affect how work was conducted (and many other aspects of life) in British Columbia in March 2020.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 4

Geography
The area of interest for this project was the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK). All partner
organizations involved with the project were located within the RDCK, with the exception of the Institute
for Sustainable Food Systems (ISFS) at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU), which is based out of Surrey,
BC. The map below (figure 5) shows the concentration of partners in Nelson, Castlegar, Winlaw, Rossland
and Surrey.v The size of the circles on the map is proportional to the number of partners in that geographic
location.

Figure 4: Partner Locations

As shown in the map, most partner organizations were located relatively close to one another (at least by
rural Canadian standards).vi

v

Note: the partners in Castlegar both belong to the Applied Research and Innovation Centre at Selkirk College, but
are different departments (namely the SGRC and the Applied Research and Innovation Centre internship-based
research team).
vi
Partners within the RDCK were all situated within one hour’s drive from one another.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 5

INTERVIEWS
ARIC gathered responses from project partners to gauge the effectiveness of the research
collaboration on this project and to identify areas for future research on food systems.
The results below are based on semi-structured interviews with seven of the eight partners involved in
the project (excluding the authors; there were nine partners in total). Research partners were asked for
their perspectives on the effectiveness of the partnership structure, any perceived benefits of
participating, areas for future research, and perspectives on local food systems resiliency (for interview
questions see Appendix A). Interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results were
first open coded and overarching themes were identified. Coded sections of interviews were then
assigned to the identified themes using sub-coding.
Interviews with partners revealed that most felt that the overall research partnership was strong,
although some challenges around connection and collaboration were identified. In terms of themes
around food systems, most references made were related to economic food structures, closely followed
by areas of interest for research. COVID-19 was also referenced by the majority of partners, as were local
research needs. Themes are divided into two categories below: those related to the research partnership,
and those related to food systems and directions for future research.

Research partnership
One of the strongest themes to emerge around research relationships was that of connection and
cohesion. Through the course of this research project existing relationships were strengthened and new
connections were created. However, some facets of the research project hindered early collaboration.

Partnerships and leadership
Partner organizations’ impressions of the other people working on the project were positive. The team
was described as “high functioning”, “professional” and “interesting to work with.” Partners mentioned
that they “really enjoyed” working with the group. The lead of the project, in particular, was mentioned
as having “excellent” project management skills and the ability to keep everyone on task; in turn, the lead
attributed the success of the project to the ability of individual partners to stay on task without much
direction. This suggests a high level of respect between partner organizations and team members, as well
as a high level of autonomy.

Existing relationships
Existing relationships were one of the main factors in creating the project. The project lead’s connections
within the community, and to experts in food policy and agriculture across the province, ultimately formed
the basis for the project. All partners indicated that they were involved in the project because of the
project lead’s connection to them, and many stated that the existing relationship with the lead was
strengthened through the project. All project partners described their connection to the lead organization
as “strong.”

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 6

New relationships
Two new relationships were created between partners over the course of the project, specifically between
ARIC and ISFS at KPU, and between a new ARIC research team and the RDCK (see figure 6, below).
However, these relationships were created late in the project, indicating that there may be potential to
improve relationship building in the future. Where relationships were created, these relationships were
described by partners as “strong.”

Figure 5: New Connections

Barriers to connection/cohesion
Three partners mentioned initially feeling disconnected from other project partners and, in some cases,
unsure about their place in the project. These feelings were, however, mainly resolved by the end of the
project. The initial disconnect was partly attributed to the meeting structure of the project – specifically,
that all meetings were virtual.

Communication
Project meetings were conducted over video conference calls, with further communication taking place
by email. As a strategy, this allowed for more distant partners (e.g. ISFS at KPU) to regularly participate in
meetings. This structure also meant that COVID-19, which resulted in a discontinuance of in-person
meetings across BC in March 2020, did not disrupt the structure of the meetings.vii While virtual meetings
allowed for geographically dispersed project partners to participate more easily, some felt that it hindered
collaboration. One project partner expressed regret that they had not realized earlier how and in what
way their organization could collaborate with other project partners.

Increasing collaboration and cohesion
It was proposed by two partners that an in-person meeting at the beginning of the project would have
encouraged more cohesion and collaboration in the team. A third suggested encouraging more time
together for the partners, whether virtual or in person – although it was also mentioned that this is
difficult to achieve given everyone’s busy schedules.

vii

COVID-19 did disrupt other parts of the project, such as plans to deliver educational events about food systems
policy and civic governance in local high schools.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 7

Outside of these interview results, the authors’ experience with this project indicates that sharing of
partners’ initial results led to increased collaboration between partners.

Food systems
While most questions in the semi-structured interviews related to the research partnership, one question
centered on important factors for food system resiliency, and another related specifically to research
interests (for the complete list of interview questions, see Appendix A). The themes that resulted from
these questions (as well as related themes that emerged unprompted) are expanded upon below. While
not directly relating to research partnership effectiveness, these themes have been included for their
value in providing a snapshot of areas of concern for researchers, organizations, local government, and
others working in the realm of food systems in the Kootenays. In a more applied sense, they suggest
specific directions for future research.

Economic food structures
Themes related to economic food structures included barriers for local producers in the form of influence
from global systems and local topography.

Local economy, global influence
As indicated in the literature review, local food economies are inextricable from global systems, and
research partners’ views on this aligned with the literature. Global systems were primarily viewed as
having a negative impact on local producers by skewing competition.
Responses from four partners suggested that having to compete within
“Local farmers cannot get a
a global system constitutes one of the primary economic barriers for
local producers, with one partner describing it as “battling global food
fair price for their goods
systems.”
Global
systems
were
seen
as
supporting
because the system is
unsustainable/unethical practices, and price and sustainability were
biased toward
also perceived as inextricably linked: “Local farmers cannot get a fair
unsustainable practices.”
price for their goods because the system is biased towards
unsustainable practices.”
Views on how best to support local farmers within the context of global systems were varied. Partners
mentioned public education, influencing consumer behaviour, policy (although it was also implied that
there are limits to what policy can achieve), supporting shorter, more local supply chains, and encouraging
“courageous” entrepreneurship within agriculture. Local community support was also mentioned as
important for farmer success.

Geographic barriers and increased cost
Global systems are the source of some economic hurdles for local producers. Another is the region’s
topography. One partner mentioned that the mountainous terrain of the Central Kootenay limits
mechanized means of production, increasing the need for costly labour inputs.

Food security: COVID-19, long supply chains, and indigenous food systems
Given the current situation, it is unsurprising that one of the stronger themes that emerged around food
systems, and in particular around food security, was the pandemic and its effect. Research partners felt
the pandemic has highlighted the importance of food security and the vulnerability of the current systems.
Concern was expressed about the length of supply chains that the region relies on, and whether they
would continue to be reliable in the future. However, aligning with the literature on the subject, research
partners also saw the pandemic as an opportunity for change.15 One respondent mentioned that this could

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 8

be an opportunity for renewed interest in local food; another suggested changing the perspective of
Canadians to understand and value important ecosystems as they relate to agriculture. The Evidencebased Food Policy project was also mentioned for its ability to provide evidence for responding to the
pandemic, specifically around strengthening local food systems.
In terms of supply chains, geography again plays a role, as well as globalization: between the Kootenays
and the nearest port are mountain ranges that can hinder transport in the winter.
Finally, an important topic mentioned by two partners was that of indigenous food systems; specifically,
the access and protection of indigenous food and food lands and producing food to share with elders (and
others) during COVID-19.

Knowledge Translation
Themes around knowledge translation included how best to get the word out about the results of this
project, especially given public perceptions of policy work as “uninteresting”; how to improve
understanding of the complex data around food systems (especially spatial data); and the benefits of local
and regional collaboration. The importance of narratives, as well as quantitative data, was mentioned by
two partners, with one stating “it has to be both” and the other acknowledging the power of farmer
success stories in encouraging local agriculture.

Directions for future research
A particularly important theme that emerged from the
interviews was the desire for further research on local
“The findings of this research beg for the
food systems and food policy: “the findings of this
next steps, next phase, next iteration.”
research beg for the next steps, next phase, next
iteration.” Reflecting the multi-disciplinary nature of the
research partnership, personal and organizational research interests were varied. While diverse, the
topics mentioned in the interviews also reveal synergies and potential areas for future collaboration.
It was suggested that, given the vulnerability of the area and COVID-19, an important area to continue
research in the future would be systemic analyses of food systems and how to support local farmers to
improve local supply chain resilience. Other areas of interest included a statistical analysis of farmland
prices using GIS technology, bio-regional mapping, and a potential partnership to explore organic
extension services,viii as well as soil health and climate change research. Regarding gaps in local research,
irrigation needs of specific crops were mentioned as a topic of interest for local farmers. Finally, one
partner expressed an interest in research into technology such as drones and other GIS-related tools, to
determine whether this would be useful for farmers in the Central Kootenay and if so, at what scale.
In discussing future research, many partners mentioned the importance of tying research to local and
regional need, and for community-led or farmer-led projects. Also mentioned was the importance of
projects at different levels of geography – local, regional, and provincial. Worth noting is that the barrier
to future research partnerships that was mentioned most often was a lack of funding.

viii

Organic extension services aim to connect academic institutions with farmers to promote sustainable production
methods.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 9

RECOMMENDATIONS
Four main recommendations emerged from the
interviews with research partners.
Together, these recommendations have the potential to increase
the effectiveness of future multidisciplinary food systems
research projects by: encouraging collaboration where synergies
are present; enhancing research usability by ensuring it is
practicable and aligned with local need; and increasing research
impact by amplifying awareness of it.

Recommendation 1: Encourage collaboration with
sharing of expertise and in-person meetings
One connection between two research partners who had not
previously worked together was sparked through the sharing of
initial results. This indicates that encouraging an understanding
of other partners’ skill sets and areas of expertise could help
promote collaboration. It may therefore be worthwhile to
encourage partners in future research partnerships to share past
work, or at least areas of expertise, in initial project meetings.
Where possible, initial meetings should be in-person and opportunities for partners to socialize should be
integrated.

Recommendation 2: Integrate end users in research partnerships
The aim of applied research is for it to be used. To accomplish this, a strong understanding of the
needs/preferences of the intended user(s) is necessary. Ideally the research “client” – whether that is an
organization, a local government, or a community– is integrated into the project planning process.
Interview responses suggest that the earlier these relationships can be developed, the better. As projects
are dynamic and change over time, integrating users of the research throughout the project life cycle is
likely to be beneficial. In this project, the primary “client” of research produced by project partners was
also the project lead, and thus was very well integrated in the planning process. However, a second
potential user of the final research is the RDCK. The connection between the RDCK and ARIC was helpful
in the creation of maps for the project.

Recommendation 3: Align research with local and regional needs
Research must align with local and regional needs to be effective. Future research projects should be
informed by experts in the area – as this project was – and by those it will potentially impact or be used
by. One research partner mentioned that in some past cases, research has not been aligned with farmers’
needs, and/or specific gaps have not been addressed. This illustrates how important it is to undertake
research that suits regional and local needs, and that a nuanced understanding of end-users is necessary.
Future food systems research projects, especially those focused on specific regions, should incorporate
the perspectives of those impacted by the research as much as possible.

Recommendation 4: Increase impact of research through communication strategies
A theme that emerged in various comments during the interviews was that of communicating and
disseminating results beyond the scope of local government and local organizations to the general public.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 10

Policy work is, unfortunately, not often seen as interesting or engaging; despite this, policy affects almost
every aspect of our lives. Projects should include a communication strategy, and research networks built
during projects can be used to disseminate results more widely and to reach specific audiences. A direct
result of the interviews with project partners was a plan to develop, host and disseminate a webinar aimed
at educating the public on the use of the RDCK Food Policy Web App developed by the intern team at
ARIC. Research partner networks were suggested as a good way to reach webinar participants, illustrating
how partners’ connections and local collaboration can be utilized to raise awareness of projects.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 11

CONCLUSION
This report has offered insight into
a small, multidisciplinary research
partnership in rural BC.
Multi- or interdisciplinary teams are often
well-positioned to tackle complex issues;
however, multidisciplinary work is not
without its challenges.6-10 The results of
interviews with project partners on the
Evidence-based Food Policy Project
highlight the importance of participatory
methods to ensure the relevance of
research for the intended user(s) and
suggest strategies to address some of the
more common challenges within
multidisciplinary teams. Participatory methods that integrate research clients into multidisciplinary
projects can lead to a more holistic understanding of the research topic. Additionally, incorporating the
perspectives of those impacted by the research can help ensure projects address regional gaps. Fostering
an understanding of research partners’ areas of expertise may help address some of the barriers to
collaboration between researchers in different disciplines, therefore resulting in more effective
collaboration, and opportunities for unstructured conversations between team members may encourage
team cohesion. This project also demonstrates that while proximity may make partnerships easier,8,9
geographical distance is not an insurmountable obstacle in rural collaborative research projects. Outsiders
often wield much of the decision-making power in rural areas,18 an issue which strong local representation
on research teams could potentially reduce. Projects such as this one – community-driven, with abundant
representation from local organizations on the research team – are increasingly relevant for rural
development.

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.

Ericksen, P. J. Conceptualizing food systems for
global environmental change research. Global
Environmental Change 18, 234–245 (2008).

2.

Frank, M., Shaked, H. & Kordova, S. K. Introduction Systems thinking: Foundations, skills and uses. in
Systems Thinking: Foundation, Uses and
Challenges xi–xvii (Nova Science Publishers Inc.,
2016).

3.

Randle, J. M. & Stroink, M. L. The development and
initial validation of the paradigm of systems
thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science 35, 645–657 (2018).

4.

Bawden, R. J. Systems thinking and practice in
agriculture. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 2362–
2373 (1991).

5.

Raymaker, D. M. Intersections of critical systems
thinking and community based participatory
research: A learning organization example with
the autistic community. Systemic Practice and
Action Research 29, 405–423 (2016).

6.

Choi, B. C. K. & Pak, A. W. P. Multidisciplinarity,
interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health
research, services, education and policy: 1.
Definitions, objectives, and evidence of
effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine
29, 351–364 (2006).

7.

Dritsakis, G. et al. Challenges and strengths of
multidisciplinary research in audiology: The
evotion example. American Journal of Audiology
28, 1046–1051 (2019).

8.

Rekers, J. v. & Hansen, T. Interdisciplinary research
and geography: Overcoming barriers through
proximity. Science and Public Policy 42, 242–254
(2015).

9.

Choi, B. C. K. & Pak, A. W. P. Multidisciplinarity,
interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health
research, services, education and policy: 2.
Promotors, barriers, and strategies of
enhancement. Clinical and Investigative Medicine
30, E224–E232 (2007).

10.

Perloff, J. et al. Intervening to enhance
collaboration in translational research: A
relational coordination approach. Journal of

Clinical and Translational Science 1, 218–225
(2017).
11.

Brynne Consulting. Regional District of Central
Kootenay Agriculture Plan Prepared by Brynne
Consulting with support from the Steering
Committee of the Agriculture Plan Project.
https://rdck.ca/assets/Services/Sustainability~and
~Environmental~Initiatives/Documents/2011-0615-RDCK_AgPlan.pdf (2011).

12.

Roussin, R. Agricultural Potential of the West
Kootenay, B.C.: A regional review of the land, soil
and and climate for crop potential [Master’s
thesis, University of British Columbia].
http://mlws.landfood.ubc.ca/files/2014/10/Repor
t_Agricultural-Potential-of-the-W-Kootenay.pdf
(2014).

13.

Roussin, R., Wilson, J., Utzig, G. & Lavkulich, L.
Assessing the Potential for Pocket Agriculture in
Mountainous Regions: A Case Study in West
Kootenay, British Columbia, Canada. Journal of
Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community
Development 175–188 (2015)
doi:10.5304/jafscd.2015.061.016.

14.

Martin, L. The changing structure of the agri-food
sector and opportunities for economics and
management. Canadian Journal of Agricultural
Economics 48, 363–373 (2000).

15.

Worstell, J. Ecological Resilience of Food Systems in
Response to the COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of
Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community
Development 1–8 (2020)
doi:10.5304/jafscd.2020.093.015.

16.

Raworth, K. A safe and just space for humanity:
Can we live within the doughnut?
www.oxfam.org/grow (2011).

17.

Sutter, G. C. & Worts, D. Negotiating a Sustainable
Path: Museums and Societal Therapy. in Looking
Reality in the Eye: Museums and Social
Responsibility (eds. Robert R. Janes & Gerald T.
Conaty) 129–151 (University of Calgary Press,
2005). doi:10.2307/j.ctv6cfpwc.

18.

Chambers, R. Rural development: Putting the last
first. (Routledge, 1983).

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 13

APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
In the informal interview we may ask you some or all of the following questions, time allowing. You are
welcome to skip any questions that you prefer not to answer, and we also welcome feedback outside of
these questions. Your answers will be used to help guide and improve future collaborative projects.
1. Where are you and your organization located?
2. What geographical scope does your organization cover?
a. E.g. region, province, country.
3. What pieces did you (and/or your organization) contribute to the project?
4. How did you become involved in the project?
5. What was your overall experience with the project?
6. How did you find the working/partner structure?
a. Did it work well for you?
b. If not, why?
c. Is there anything that could be improved in the future?
7. Overall, did this project benefit your organization/ or further your organizational goals?
8. What are your future interests in relation to similar projects?
9. What do you see as the most important factors related to food system resiliency?
a. In the RDCK, BC, and/or in general
10. Which of the other partners did you work with?
a. How would you describe the strength of the relationship(s)?
b. Who did you work with most closely?
11. Do you foresee working with this partner/these partners in the future?
a. If not, why not?
12. Do you have any other comments to add?

APPLIED RESEARCH & INNOVATION | 16