Urbanization can negatively affect the capacity of ecosystems to provide services that support human life. Edible green infrastructure (EGI) can increase cultural and environmental services in urban and peri-urban communities. Instrumental in the use of EGI are local governments, who are in a position to pass supportive policies. For this research, we completed a qualitative study of EGI policy processes in U.S. cities and a mixed-methods study of EGI challenges and opportunities in small towns. Our first objective was to understand how and why EGI policy develops. We interviewed twelve policy actors from six U.S. cities that have formalized EGI ordinances. Major drivers of EGI policy were: 1) improving public health; 2) securing land tenure; 3) managing vacant lands; 4) accommodating for population growth; and 5) the local food movement. Common policymaking steps included: 1) local communities initiate EGI policy process; 2) city governments respond by working with communities to draft EGI ordinances; 3) abrupt changes to land use policies result in a policy image supportive of EGI as a public land management strategy; and 4) during emergence of the new land use paradigm, incremental changes reinforce this image. We also learned how certain challenges and policy actor recommendations for minimizing obstacles affect the policy process. Our second objective was to understand EGI adoption in small towns. We surveyed 68 mayors of small towns (<25,000) in Virginia to study local leader perspectives regarding implementation and policy. The greatest perceived barrier to EGI adoption was long-term maintenance, whereas opportunities included civic benefits such as education and community-building. Most towns had not intentionally used EGI on public land, nor did they have compatible land use codes. Open-ended responses suggest that mayors have different views about the role policy should play in EGI adoption. We used mayoral perceptions about the constituent support for public green space, the implementation of edible woody perennial species, and available public space for EGI to group towns into unique types. Four groups were identified in a K-means cluster analysis: 1) Ambivalent and Resource-Poor; 2) Optimistic and Capable; 3) Doubtful and Unsupported; and 4) Unsure with Potential. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post-hoc analysis (α=0.05) showed that Optimistic and Capable were significantly more likely than Doubtful and Unsupported to intend to plant EGI and benefit from government support for edible, woody perennials on public land. EGI may be more practical for towns with greater backing for public green space, more available land, and higher rates of favorable attitudes. / Master of Science / The global movement of people from rural to urban and suburban areas has impacted ecosystem health and human well-being. A land management strategy that can improve environmental and public health is edible green infrastructure (EGI), which is small-scale food production in and around built structures. Local governments can pass policies that increase the use of EGI in public spaces. To learn more about how local governments view EGI and the role that policy might play, we completed two studies. In our first study, we interviewed 12 people from 6 U.S. cities who were involved in the development of EGI policies. The purpose of this study was to learn how and why cities pass EGI policies. Reasons for policy adoption included: 1) improving public health for their residents; 2) ensuring EGI as a permanent rather than temporary land use; 3) finding a better use for vacant properties; 4) setting aside green space for current and future populations; and 5) increasing local and healthy food access. Cities shared the following policy development steps: 1) local community leaders demonstrated that EGI policy was needed; 2) government leaders worked together with residents to draft an EGI ordinance; 3) ordinances were passed that significantly changed how public land could be used; and 4) they passed other, smaller policies to make the use of EGI easier for residents. In our second study, we surveyed 68 mayors of small towns (< 25,000 people) in Virginia, U.S. The purpose of this study was to learn what local leaders think about the use of EGI in the public spaces and whether EGI policies would be useful. Long-term maintenance was the biggest barrier and the greatest opportunities included education, recreation, social gathering, and community building. Mayors had differing opinions on whether policies pertaining to EGI on public land were a good idea for their towns, and several pointed out that residents already had access to private land for food production. Using mayors' responses, we grouped towns based on the following characteristics: 1) how much public land could be used for food production; 2) how supportive residents were of existing green space; and 3) how residents thought about the use of EGI on public land. We found that small towns in Virginia could be described as; 1) Ambivalent and Resource-Poor; 2) Optimistic and Capable; 3) Doubtful and Unsupported; or 4) Unsure with Potential. "Optimistic and Capable" towns were more likely to be supported by municipal policies and budgets and to use EGI for managing public land, whereas "Doubtful and Unsupported" towns were least likely to be supported by local government and to use EGI. In summary, EGI may be more practical for towns with greater backing for public green space, more available land, and more favorable views on food production on public land.