What Can Be: Stakeholder Perspectives for a Sustainable Food System

Jesus Garcia-Gonzalez,Hallie Eakin

doi:10.5304/jafscd.2019.084.010

Jesus Garcia-Gonzalez, Hallie Eakin

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2019.084.010

Copy DOI

Abstract

Any multistakeholder initiative that aims to build the basis for change in a food system, regardless of geographic scale, requires an understanding of what is important to stakeholders, how they view the boundaries of the system, and what changes they feel are needed. An assessment of stakeholder perspectives of the Phoenix Valley food system was conducted as an initial step in a process of food system coalition-building. The objectives of the research were to explore how active participants in the food system visualized a “sustainable food system” and to juxtapose their perspectives on food system sustainability with those in the academic literature to create an initial picture of food sustainability. Respondents emphasized the importance of education, local food, reducing corporate power, and a strong desire to build a sense of community to better serve vulnerable communities. Nevertheless, the responses also revealed the difficulty of conceptualizing food system boundaries for intervention and the conflation of realist and idealist perspectives on what food systems are or could be. Stakeholders placed considerable weight on localism and the power of education and “demand constraint” on improving food system outcomes, while also attributing the root cause of Phoenix’s problems to broader-scale structural factors that were outside of their control or capacity to influence. This case study describes the potential utility of conducting such preliminary assessments in other cities, allowing stakeholders to reflect on their interests, agency, and capacities in the food system space prior to any efforts to build consensus and take collective action. We argue that this process is a crucial first step in any work on building alternative food systems, as it allows hidden areas of contestation (beliefs, values, goals) to arise. This enables participants to begin addressing differences and fostering trust, cooperation, and inclusiveness—thus ensuring the longevity of the coalition or group. See the press release for this article.

Highlights

The growing disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction of the current state of production systems, augmenting environmental degradation and increasing socio-economic inequality, have resulted in a call to action across cities in the Northern hemisphere
Those engaged in food system planning across multiple scales, from local, regional, and national to global, have emphasized a range of central challenges and concerns for food system sustainability
The complex set of actors and activities that make up food systems at different scales and places, and the disparate meanings and values associated with the food system, make consensus nearly impossible along the appropriate pathways for improving food sustainability (Block et al, 2008)

Summary

Introduction

The growing disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction of the current state of production systems, augmenting environmental degradation and increasing socio-economic inequality, have resulted in a call to action across cities in the Northern hemisphere. The right to culturally appropriate, just, and sustainably produced food has become the pennant of individuals and groups seeking to transform local food systems and to decrease their dependence on a highly globalized and unsustainable food system Those engaged in food system planning across multiple scales, from local, regional, and national to global, have emphasized a range of central challenges and concerns for food system sustainability. Assessments of sustainability need to grapple directly with the fundamental uncertainties that exist about what to sustain and where to focus interventions These uncertainties are in part derived from the fact that different worldviews and values held by diverse individuals and groups will result in the prioritization of different aspects of system dynamics (Barthel, Parker, & Ernstson, 2013; Block et al, 2011; Eakin et al, 2016)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion