TOPICAL REVIEW • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Quantifying the foodshed: a systematic

What are the ingredients for food systems change review of urban food flow and local food
self-sufficiency research
towards sustainability?—Insights from the Kerstin Schreiber, Gordon M Hickey,
Geneviève S Metson et al.

literature - Food justice: cultivating the field

Charlotte Glennie and Alison Hope Alkon

To cite this article: Hanna Weber et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 113001 - Beyond the Green Revolution: A roadmap
for sustainable food systems research and
action
Kyle Frankel Davis, Carole Dalin, Matti
Kummu et al.

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 216.10.216.121 on 14/10/2024 at 19:05

 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab99fd

Environmental Research Letters

TOPICAL REVIEW

What are the ingredients for food systems change towards

OPEN ACCESS
sustainability?—Insights from the literature
RECEIVED
30 January 2020 Hanna Weber1,3, Karoline Poeggel1, Hallie Eakin2, Daniel Fischer1,2, Daniel J Lang1, Henrik Von Wehrden1
REVISED and Arnim Wiek2
15 May 2020
1
Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION 2
5 June 2020 School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States of America
3
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
PUBLISHED
14 October 2020 E-mail: hanna.weber@leuphana.de

Keywords: systematic literature review, mixed-method, transition, transformation

Original content from
this work may be used Supplementary material for this article is available online
under the terms of the
Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 licence.

Any further distribution Abstract

of this work must
maintain attribution to
Many detrimental effects on the environment, economy, and society are associated with the
the author(s) and the title structure and practices of food systems around the world. While there is increasing agreement on
of the work, journal
citation and DOI. the need for substantive change in food systems towards sustainability, divergent perspectives exist
on what the appropriate points of intervention and strategies to achieve such change are. Change in
diets and nutrition, the importance of social food movements, and sustainable farming practices
are all disparately featured in the literature; yet, there is little effort to compare and integrate these
perspectives. This review offers a comprehensive overview of perspectives on food systems change
towards sustainability. We discern where there is convergence and assess how the literature reflects
emergent theory on sustainability transformation. We analyzed more than 200 peer-reviewed
articles employing an approach that combines quantitative and qualitative analysis. First, we
performed a semantic hierarchical cluster analysis of the full texts to identify thematic clusters
representing different perspectives on sustainability transformations and transitions of food
systems. Second, we conducted a qualitative text analysis for representative articles of each cluster
to examine how deep changes in the food system are conceptualized. We identified five distinct
approaches to food systems change that are currently discussed, i.e. Alternative food movements,
Sustainable diets, Sustainable agriculture, Healthy and diverse societies, and Food as commons. Each
approach provides a nuanced perspective on identified sustainability problems, envisioned
sustainable food systems, and proposed actions to change food systems towards sustainability. The
findings offer guidance for researchers and practitioners working on food systems change towards
sustainability.

1. Introduction (Guyomard et al 2012), as well as economic disparities

and injustices across the value chain (Lebel et al 2008,
Contemporary food systems, responsible for feed- Clapp 2015). Simultaneously, with global population
ing the world’s population, face major challenges growth and urbanization, dietary patterns are chan-
that require profound structural changes to become ging, and the demand for resource-intensive food is
sustainable. The global food system can be charac- growing (Garnett 2014). ‘Deep’ or structural changes
terized as complex and heterogeneous, integrating are needed to address these challenges and achieve
social, environmental, economic, and technological food system sustainability (IASSTD 2009, Foley et al
processes from production to consumption and waste 2011, WBGU 2011, Eakin et al 2017b). According
disposal (Ericksen 2008, Eakin et al 2017a). Over to Eakin et al (2017a p 759), a sustainable food
a century of intensification and industrialization of system ‘achieves and maintains food security under
activities in the global food system have resulted in uncertain and dynamic social-ecological conditions,
pollution of land, soil and water (Ericksen 2008), an through respecting and supporting the context-
increase of diet-related chronic diseases and obesity specific cultural values and decision-processes that

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd

Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

give food social meaning, and the integrity of The goal is to identify convergence in approaches
the social-ecological processes necessary for food towards food systems change, and to assess how the
provisioning today and for future generations.’ While literature reflects emergent theory on sustainability
the need for deep changes in social values, resource transformation. We offer food systems researchers
use, production and consumption practices, as well as and practitioners a comprehensive view of perspect-
socio-economic relations is widely recognized, there ives on food systems change towards sustainability
is less agreement among scientists and practitioners by analzing, mapping, and synthesizing these diverse
on how such changes should be achieved. bodies of literature. The study addresses the following
We refer to deep or structural change as ‘systemic research questions:
societal change’ (Meadows 1999, Abson et al 2017,
Hölscher et al 2018) in social norms and values, insti- • What are distinct clusters of research on deep change
tutions and behaviours, practices and technologies processes (transitions/transformations) towards sus-
that together produce the functions (parameters and tainability in food systems?
feedbacks), structure (design), and identity (intent) • How do the identified clusters conceptualize deep
of food systems. Deep change is often coined as ‘trans- change processes towards sustainability in food sys-
formation’ or ‘transition’, yet in many cases without a tems?
specific theory of change (Feola 2015, Rau et al 2018).
In recent years, more pronounced conceptualizations We analyzed 209 peer-reviewed articles using a
have evolved (Hölscher et al 2018), relevant to deep two-step approach starting with a statistical semantic
change in food systems (Stirling 2011, Hinrichs 2014, full-text analysis to group the literature into clusters.
Eakin et al 2017b). We use deep change as an umbrella In a next step, we conducted a qualitative text ana-
term for transition/transformation. lysis for representative articles of each cluster to exam-
Transitions are defined as long-term, significant ine how change processes towards sustainability in
changes of essential social-technical systems. They are food systems are conceptualized. For this purpose,
often conceptualized from the multi-level perspect- we developed an analytical framework (see section
ive (Geels and Kemp 2000) and describe change as 3). Our findings offer an initial map to systematically
a process traversing governance levels, namely, niche navigate a vibrant interdisciplinary field, supporting
(micro), regime (meso), and landscape (macro). researchers and practitioners in changing the current
Transitions start from niche innovations of products, food systems towards sustainability and enable dis-
technologies, infrastructures, or practices that, if suc- cussion, reflection and learning across different per-
cessful, reach the regime level and replace or success- spectives.
fully compete with mainstream products, technolo-
gies, infrastructures, or practices (Geels and Schot 2. Research design
2007). Transition processes are often managed or gov-
erned according to a specific goal (Rotmans et al This study combines cluster analysis and content ana-
2001). Transformations, one the other hand, describe lysis of the existing literature (figure 1). We adopt pro-
significant changes of essential social-technical sys- cedures of systematic literature reviews (Luederitz et
tems that disrupt the current state. Transformations al 2016, Fischer et al 2017) and semantic full-text ana-
to sustainability include substantive change in per- lyses to cluster the body of literature (Abson et al 2014,
sonal (beliefs, attitudes, values), practical (behavi- Ives et al 2017, Rathgens et al 2019).
ors, technologies, institutional reforms) and polit-
ical (system-level dynamics and structures) spheres 2.1. Sampling
of human interaction with the environment (O´Brien In a first step, we used the SCOPUS database to
and Sygna 2013). Transformations are often based identify peer-reviewed articles on transformation or
on social and technological innovation, consider dif- transition of food systems towards sustainability,
ferent types of knowledge (Scoones et al 2018) and including the nutrition transition as deep change pro-
see a strong role for social movements (e.g. Slow cess in the past (Popkin 2003). We applied the search
Food) and civil society (e.g. food policy councils). string: ‘food system’ AND sustainab∗ AND (transit∗
Transformations are less managed, rather emerge and OR transform∗ ) including all articles with the search
involve grassroots action or exogenous forcing (Stirl- terms appearing in title, abstract, or keywords. The
ing 2015). Both conceptualizations of deep change are concept of a ‘food system’ is relatively new in the aca-
relevant in advancing food systems sustainability. demic literature (Sobal et al 1998, Ericksen 2008);
This study draws on research on deep sustain- nevertheless, given our focus on system-wide and
ability change processes (transitions or transforma- deep change, we concentrate on literature that expli-
tions) of e.g. energy and mobility systems (Markard citly adopts a system perspective rather than focus-
et al 2012, El Bilali 2018) with research on sustain- ing narrowly on system components or disciplinary
able food systems and practices, e.g. organic farm- domains. We searched for articles in English, result-
ing (Delonge et al 2016), agroecology (de Molina ing in a sample of 275, published between 1981 and
2013), or local food systems (Connelly et al 2011). 2018. In the second step, we assessed each article for

2
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

Figure 1. Sequential procedure and outputs of the systematic literature review consisting of sampling, cluster analysis, and
content analysis.

relevance (based on the abstract) and only included 2.2. Cluster analysis
articles that met all of the following criteria: (1) the With the reduced set of 209 publications (see
article explicitly addresses ‘transformation’ or ‘trans- supplementary material A1, available online at
ition’ as deep change in the context of food systems, or stacks.iop.org/ERL/15/113001/mmedia), we con-
addresses the nutrition transition; (2) the article does ducted a semantic full-text cluster analysis (Abson
not just mention sustainability but provides details, et al 2014), which groups publications into differ-
e.g. climate adaptation/mitigation, organic produc- ent clusters based on co-abundance of words. The
tion, or agroecology; (3) the article focuses on food rationale is that publications addressing a topic in
systems or its distinct features (Ericksen 2008) such similar ways would use similar vocabulary. Our
as food system activities (production, consumption) analysis first lists the occurrence of all words in a
and outcomes (food security, social welfare, environ- publication (a). It then groups these publications
mental integrity), or diets. into clusters based on co-abundance of conceptual

3
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

vocabulary (b, c). Finally, it identifies representat- representative words (indicator words), for each
ive words (indicator words) for each cluster (d) and cluster (Abson et al 2014). The five most signi-
locates these words in a two-dimensional space (e). ficant indicator words per cluster are shown in
This yields our final word cloud (figure 4). Statistical figure 4 and an extended list of 25 indicator
analyses were carried out using R 3.5.2. words per cluster can be found in the supple-
mentary material (A4). Based on the indic-
(a) Digitizing PDFs and metadata: To digitize the ator words, we were able to identify a hierarchy
publications, R imports the 209 PDF files to the of publications according to their representat-
working directory and creates a matrix (pack- iveness of the cluster. The most representative
ages: ‘snowballC’, ‘tm’, function: ‘readPDF’) for articles most frequently include the most signi-
further processing. The matrix consists of 209 ficant indicator words.
rows that correspond to the number of articles (e) Identifying the thematic landscape: We used a
and 20 columns. One column corresponds to detrended correspondence analysis to locate the
the full text of the publication, the others are indicator words according to their relative dis-
filled in a next step with general and bibliomet- tance to each other (figure 4). Relative distances
ric metadata of each publication (e.g. Title, Year, were calculated by R. In a final step, we induct-
Journal, Citation per Year, DOI, etc) obtained ively identified gradients’ labels in the thematic
from the SCOPUS database (code: ‘scopus.R’, landscape of publications. They derived from
available in SI). indicator words and were refined in the content
(b) Wordlist generation: To identify the list of con- analysis (table 2).
ceptual vocabulary, we first generated a com-
plete list of abundant words within the 209 2.3. Content analysis
analyzed publications (47 205 words), of which To establish a meaningful label and yield a general
8082 words appeared in more than 5% of the topical overview of each cluster, we first screened
publications. Of these, we manually removed the abstracts of the 209 publications and composed
all abstract nouns, e.g. pronouns, articles, num- headings for clusters. While screening the abstracts,
bers, authors’ and geographical names, compass we coded general information of each publication
directions, units for time, lengths, and mass, to provide an overview of the field (sections 4.1.1
as well as individual words with no associ- and 4.1.2). General information included discipline,
ation to food systems or change processes, or country of first author’s affiliation, country of study,
words from which no clear meaning could be type of article (conceptual, empirical, review) and
inferred. For example, ‘collect’ was retained for methods applied. We also coded which term was used
its description of a harvesting technique. In this to describe deep change (transition or transforma-
way we retained a list of ‘conceptual vocabu- tion) and the underlying theory of change. The res-
lary’ of 2588 words (see supplementary material ults of abstract screening informed the development
A3(a)). of categories for our analytical framework (see sec-
(c) Building clusters: Based on the co-abundance tion 3), in particular the three change characteristics.
of these words, we performed an agglomer- The framework was developed in an iterative process,
ative hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s starting from theoretical concepts and refining cat-
method (function: ‘hclust’, package: ‘mclust’). egories during data analysis.
This method clusters ‘single elements (i.e. pub- We conducted qualitative analyses of full texts
lications) into aggregates of two elements based according to Kuckartz (2014) to gain a thorough
on the minimum variance criterion. [in order understanding of the five obtained clusters (sections
to] minimize within-group variance and max- 4.1.2 and 4.2). We used the analytical framework as
imize dissimilarities between groups’ (Abson a coding scheme, which was further refined through-
et al 2014, p 31). In our case, within-group out the analysis. According to the hierarchy of public-
variance was low if a similar set of words was ations identified with the Indicator Species Analysis
used in the articles. Similarly, the dissimilarit- (section 2.2, step d), we coded the full texts of the rep-
ies between groups were high when each com- resentative articles of each cluster (see supplementary
munity had a distinct set of vocabulary. Our material A2). We used data saturation as a criterion
analysis identified five distinct clusters, with an for determining the number of articles to be reviewed
agglomerative coefficient of 0.83. in full text (Fusch and Ness 2015, Saunders et al
(d) Finding representative words for each cluster: 2018). Data saturation is reached when no additional
To identify words that characterize the dif- new information has been attained. Studying the rep-
ferences between the clusters, we used a resentative articles until data saturation reduced the
Dufrene Legend Indicator Species Analysis, number of articles for in-depth review while provid-
which is commonly used in biology to determ- ing sufficient information for thorough understand-
ine habitats and compare them through ing. Two coders independently coded the selected
representative species. The analysis yielded article according to thematic categories and guiding

4
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

questions. The results were discussed to create a con- the world food system by Donella Meadows in 1985.
sensually coded (Schmidt 2004) overview of each Most articles have been published in the last four
cluster. years (figure 3). This is due to the overall increase
in research publications, the relatively recent con-
3. Analytical framework ceptualization of ‘food systems’ as a unit of ana-
lysis (Sobal et al 1998, Ericksen 2008), and the fact
We developed categories for the analytical framework that the concept of sustainability/sustainable develop-
both inductively and deductively in an iterative pro- ment became more prominent in academia after the
cess (table 1). Inductive categories emerged from the Brundtland report in 1987.
cluster analysis (figure 4) and an initial familiarization The abstract screening has shown that studies of
with the literature through abstract screening. These our sample originate in diverse research fields, i.e.
categories include three characteristics of change: (1) Geography, Sociology, Ecological Economics, Envir-
the geographical scale where change happens; (2) the onmental Studies, Nutrition and Health, Agriculture,
organizational level where change happens; (3) the Law and Politics. Most research was conducted in
adopted theory of change (El Bilali 2018). Change North America and Europe. Of the few studies car-
characteristics were also informed by other studies ried out in the Global South, researchers mostly came
(Cash et al 2006, Eakin et al 2017a). Deductive cat- from the Global North. This is partly related to the
egories were derived from theoretical concepts by selection of English language publications and inter-
Wiek and Lang (2016) and O´Brien and Sygna (2013), national journals. Older articles revolve around clas-
which were subsequently refined during the full-text sical sustainability concepts, such as the three pillars
analysis. concept, while recent publications mostly use the Sus-
Wiek & Lang’s (2016) theoretical framework tainable Development Goals.
served to answer the research question, how do the
identified clusters conceptualize deep change processes 4.1.2. Cluster overview
towards sustainability of food systems? The framework Within the research field of food systems change
offers analytical categories for all key elements of the towards sustainability, we identified five clusters,
change process. This allows for a systematic and trans- which are represented by indicator words displayed
parent analysis of the respective article: what sus- in the thematic landscape of the sample (figure 4). We
tainability problem(s) in the current food system it inductively identified the two labels ‘local-global’ and
addresses; what sustainable food system it envisions; ‘institutional-individual’, which represent gradients
and what actions it proposes to realize the change within the thematic landscape of the sample. How
from the current problematic situation to the envi- clusters link to the gradients is described in table 2.
sioned sustainable system (figure 2). The cluster Alternative food movements includes
In order to categorize identified actions a diversity of alternative food initiatives (indicator
and explore the transformative potential of the word: movement) and networks creating new spaces
approaches, we added the theoretical concept of three for consumers and producers and their communities
spheres of transformation by O’Brien and Sygna (citizen) to learn together and for political action. The
(2013). The three spheres of transformation are: Sustainable diets cluster engages with the nutrition
the practical sphere includes changes of behavior, transition (diseases, cancer, kcal) aiming at sustainable
in policies, and technological solutions; the political diets and individuals’ health. The Sustainable agricul-
sphere focuses on creating new institutional struc- ture cluster focuses on sustainable farming practices
tures, which are in turn needed to support trans- (input), and food sovereignty via agroecology as prac-
formations in the practical sphere; and the personal tice and movement (paradigm). The cluster Healthy
sphere refers to changes of individual and collective and diverse societies engages with healthy populations
beliefs, values, worldviews, and paradigms that shape and rural developments globally in the context of
society and its structures. According to O’Brien and the economy (market, trend, work), with an emphasis
Sygna (2013), the greatest potential for generating on the Global South. The cluster Food as commons
deep change lies in the interactions across the spheres. focuses on North American food systems arguing for
Therefore, we highlight such interactions. a shift in mindsets to acknowledge food as a collective
good. Indicator words in this cluster especially under-
4. Results line the individual level of food system organization
(worker, owner, garden). The distribution of clusters
4.1. Clusters of research on food systems change in figure 4 shows that Sustainable diets is detached
towards sustainability from the others whereas the remaining four clusters
4.1.1. Bibliometric information. overlap with each other, with the cluster Alternative
The sample indicates that research on food system food movements showing most overlaps.
sustainability change is a relatively young field. The From a methods perspective, in the cluster Altern-
first articles are a critical analysis of the role of organic ative food movements, researchers mostly conducted
farms by David Vail in 1981 and a system analysis of case studies to understand different initiatives around

5
 Table 1. Final analytical framework (category with guiding questions, examples, and respective theoretical concept) for content analysis.

Theoretical concept Thematic category with guiding question Examples Results in

Geographical Scale: Which geographical scale(s) local, regional, national, global, urban, rural
of food systems are addressed? How do these
scales interact with/effect each other?
Organizational Level: Which organizational level institutional, community, individual
of food systems is addressed? How do these levels
Change characteristics interact with/effect each other? Cluster overview (section 4.1.2)
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001

Theory of Change: How do authors approach jargon used, explicit understanding of transforma-
change? What theory of change do they refer to? tion, multi-level-perspective, practice theory, tech-
nological innovation
(P) Sustainability Problems: What major overall pollution, climate change, social injustice, biod-
sustainability challenges are mentioned beyond iversity loss, deforestation, overpopulation, urban-
the food system? ization

6
(P) Food System Sustainability Problems: What health problems, degraded soils, power imbalance
challenges related to food systems are mentioned? along food supply chains, waste, malnutrition,
hunger
(P,V) Sustainability Concept: What concept of three pillars concept, SDGs/MDGs, planetary
sustainability do the authors adopt? boundaries, resilience
(V) Sustainability Vision Outcomes: What are community well-being, local and resilient food
envisioned outcomes of sustainable food systems? systems, healthy and diverse diets, food citizenship,
food security, food sovereignty, empowered small-
scale farmers
(V) Sustainability Vision Activities What are localization, alternative production and consump-
the envisioned activities of a sustainable food tion practices, participatory decision making, col-
systems? laboration, agroecology, organic farming
Wiek and Lang (2016)
(S) Subject of Change: What is being changed? policy, diets, consumption and production practices,
(P) = Problem, (V) = Vision,
power structures
(S) = Strategy
(S) Change Agent(s): Who transforms the food policy makers, farmers, consumers, researchers,
system? educators, social movements
(S) Proposed Actions and Expected Results: local practices shape global policies, global diet shift, In-depth study of clusters (section 4.2.)
What are the actions proposed to realize the policy and governance measures, creation of diverse
change? What are the expected results from these networks, grassroots mobilization
actions?
O’Brien and Sygna (2013) Spheres of Transformation: In which sphere(s) practical, political, personal sphere
does change happen?
H Weber et al
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

Identified Strategy (S)

problem (P) Vision (V)
(Plan of actions and expected results)

Figure 2. Theoretical framework for sustainability transformations (Wiek and Lang 2016).

Figure 3. Number of SCOPUS registered publications on food systems, sustainability, and transformation/transition (n = 209)
per cluster per year from 1980 to 2018.

Table 2. Descriptions of each cluster according to the identified gradients.

Cluster Local—Global Individual—Institutional

Alternative food movements Local: Global networks of local or Community: Changing community initiat-
regional initiatives to change the food ives and networks
system.
Sustainable diets Global: Transformational activities at Individual: Changing consumption pat-
global level to mainstream sustainable terns of individuals to achieve positive pub-
diets and integrate into policy. lic health outcomes.
Sustainable agriculture Local—Global: Locally developed sus- Institutional: Changing public education
tainable practices that support agroeco- and policy programs
logy movement and global application.
Healthy and diverse societies Local (rural)—Global: Focusing on Community: Changing rural communities
local and rural activities in the Global
South in collaboration with international
organizations to engage against negative
effects of globalized food markets.
Food as commons Local: Mostly locally directed activities Individual: Changing the meaning of food
that increase democratic understanding from a commodity to a common good,
of food. requiring a shift in mind-sets of individuals.

sustainable food systems. Sustainable diets primarily interchangeably to describe any kind of change pro-
uses population level analyses, i.e. life cycle assess- cess in food systems. We could identify patterns when
ments (LCA) and modelling of future (diet) scen- the terms were used intentionally. When authors
arios, whereas in Sustainable agriculture, research- apply a theory of change for ‘transition’, they likely
ers concentrate on framework development and apply the multi-level perspective. This is the case for
transdisciplinary research, in particular at the farm clusters Alternative food movements and Sustainable
and community level. Healthy and diverse societies agriculture. In Alternative food movements, change is
includes both LCAs and conceptual works. Authors framed equally often as ‘transition’ or ‘transforma-
in Food as commons utilize reviews and case studies. tion’. Authors in Sustainable diets refer more often to
For all clusters, we found that researchers use nutrition transition and tend to focus on technical
the terms ‘transformation’ and ‘transition’ often innovations primarily using the term ‘transition’. In

7
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

Alternative food movements

Sustainable diets
Sustainable agriculture
Healthy and diverse societies
Food as commons

LOCAL GLOBAL

Figure 4. Ordination and clustering of publications represented by five indicator words for each cluster. Horizontal gradient from
the local to the global scale, and vertical gradient from the institutional to the individual level describe the thematic landscape of
the sample.

the cluster Healthy and diverse societies, most authors Agriculture—CSAs, farmer markets, community gar-
provide no definition of change when they use both dens). Together with educational institutions, these
terms interchangeably. Authors in the cluster Food as organizations actively create networks, knowledge
commons tend to make more use of the term ‘trans- platforms, and educational offerings on alternative
formation’ without referring to a specific theory. Bey- food practices and its critical reflection, as well as
ond these observed tendencies, we could not identify social exchange beyond food. They collaborate with
a clear pattern regarding a specific application of primarily local public sector authorities to advocate
transformation/transition. and lobby for policy changes that support and foster
local, self-reliant and small-scale community food
4.2. Different concepts for deep change towards systems. Strategies of this cluster are explicated as
food systems sustainability actions and expected results (table 3).
4.2.1. Alternative food movements
4.2.1.1. Sustainability problem and vision 4.2.1.3. Spheres of transformation
The cluster Alternative food movements addresses • Practical: alternative consumption patterns, new
unequal concentration of wealth and power in the food practices, and formation of networks
dominant (global corporate) food regime and asso- • Political: scale-appropriate and food-informed
ciated externalities, such as environmental problems policies that empower citizen-consumers
and food insecurity as well as marginalized local • Personal: values of connection to nature, food,
food practices. The vision for sustainability highlights community, and solidarity
local, self-reliant and small-scale community food • Interactions: educational programs, collaboration
systems that enable community well-being, healthy between consumers and governments, food net-
diets, and social justice as forms of food security and works and platforms for knowledge sharing
food sovereignty. Equally important for sustainabil-
ity are environmentally friendly practices, e.g. organic 4.2.2. Sustainable diets
farming, and consumption practices that are environ- 4.2.2.1. Sustainability problem and vision
mentally conscious and collective, e.g. food co-ops. Nutrition transitions are the focus of this cluster. The
authors problematize the global shift towards West-
4.2.1.2. Strategies ernized ways of eating, and the severe effects for pub-
Grassroots organizations promote and engage lic health and the environment, such as malnutrition
consumers and small-scale producers in adopting and hunger, GHG emissions, land and air pollution
non-conventional practices of producing and and biodiversity loss. The general vision is to achieve
consuming food (e.g. Community Supported sustainable diets, characterized by adequate nutrient

8
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

Table 3. Actions and expected results of cluster Alternative food movements.

Actions Expected Results

Local communities and grassroots initiatives create Reflexivity and changed attitudes; lived alternative val-
niches and challenge the status quo (Brunori et al ues and changed behaviors of consumers (Levkoe 2011,
2012, Blay-Palmer et al 2016) via e.g. pushing the Brunori et al 2012, Blay-Palmer et al 2016, Laforge et al
boundaries of ‘grey areas’ of regulations (Laforge 2017)
et al 2017)
Local communities and grassroots initiatives create Shared knowledge; consumer education; empowered
alternative and diverse food networks and platforms consumers; strengthened communities (Brunori et al
for sharing knowledge and developing skills for 2012, Blay-Palmer et al 2016) and collective subjectivit-
alternative food practices (Brunori et al 2012, Blay- ies (Levkoe 2011)
Palmer et al 2016, Laforge et al 2017)
Educational institutions enable students to recon- Reflexive, critical, and practical consumerism, food
nect to food (Rojas et al 2011), alternative food ini- literacy; and food citizenship (Rojas et al 2011)
tiatives critically analyze their own practices (Levkoe
2011)
Citizen (consumers) collaborate with governments New forms of governance with participatory decision-
in new political spaces (Levkoe 2011, Brunori et al making processes (Levkoe 2011, Brunori et al 2012,
2012, Laforge et al 2017) Laforge et al 2017); scale-appropriate and food-
informed policies, as well as funding opportunities
(Blay-Palmer et al 2016)

intake, less resource consumption, and low waste; diverse farming systems, e.g. agroecological prac-
leading to food security, healthy individuals, and low tices, diversified farming, conservation agriculture,
environmental impacts of food systems (Food and and smart agricultural technologies, as well as social
Agriculture Organization 2012). mobilization addressing socio-political aspects of the
food system. This approach results in an increase in
4.2.2.2. Strategies (agro-)biodiversity, achieving socio-economic bene-
In order to ensure food security, research identifies fits for farmers and sustainable diets for consumers.
consumption patterns towards healthy, increasingly
plant-based diets (Guyomard et al 2012). Research 4.2.3.2. Strategies
facilitates technological innovation, e.g. novel foods Central actors are policy makers and institutions that
and practices for sustainable intensification, to create regulations to support the adoption of low-
advance sustainable food systems. Policy makers, con- input agricultural practices drawing on local know-
sumers, researchers, and the food industry collabor- ledge such as agroecology, biodiversity-based farm-
ate to create consistent policies addressing change in ing, smart agricultural technologies, crop diversific-
consumption for healthy diets. Policy makers develop ation, and conservation agriculture. Researchers and
a global agenda, such as the Sustainable Develop- farmers collaborate to provide evidence for agroeco-
ment Goals (SDGs), influencing national policies that logical practices, including the preservation of tradi-
address the universal problem of malnutrition, food tional knowledge, and to facilitate the institutional-
insecurity and environmental externalities. Strategies ization of agroecology. Social movements advocate
in this cluster are explicated as actions and expected for shifting power from the agro-industry to farm-
results (table 4). ers, social movements and small-scale actors to facilit-
ate more independent collaboration. Strategies of this
cluster are explicated as actions and expected results
4.2.2.3. Spheres of transformation (table 5).
• Practical: emphasizing technological innovation
and individual consumption choices; as well as cre- 4.2.3.3. Spheres of transformation
ating policies to change consumption behavior • Practical: creating networks for communication
and collaborations; policies supporting agroecolo-
4.2.3. Sustainable agriculture gical and organic and diversified farming practices
4.2.3.1. Sustainability problem and vision • Political: mainstreaming such alternative farm-
The sustainability challenges addressed in this cluster ing practices, especially agroecology, in political
are high-input farming and locked-in farming programs, research agendas, and higher education
systems leading to food insecurity, malnutrition through establishing new institutions
and environmental degradation. To address these • Interactions: intensive collaboration between
socio-ecological externalities, this cluster envisions political actors, farmers, researchers and grassroots
long-term food sovereignty through resilient and initiatives

9
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

Table 4. Actions and expected results of cluster Sustainable diets.

Actions Expected Results

Researchers conduct (quantitative) studies on Evidence for policy-makers as a condition/base to

nutrition, dietary externalities, health and envir- change policies (Guyomard et al 2012, Röös et al 2017,
onmental effects, and potential of alternative diet Chaudhary et al 2018)
scenarios, e.g. via LCA assessments (Guyomard
et al 2012, Röös et al 2017, Chaudhary et al 2018,
Lindgren et al 2018)
Researchers, farmers, and industry invest Improved farming techniques and more efficient infra-
resources in new technologies and innovations structures, as well as more sustainable food items
around novel food and sustainable intensification (Lindgren et al 2018)
(Röös et al 2017, Lindgren et al 2018)
Policy makers engage the food industry, retailers Consistent policies along the entire supply chain,
and producers in policy development (Röös et al e.g. economic and fiscal incentives, subsidies, eco
2017, Lindgren et al 2018) taxes, and eco-labelling facilitating sustainable diets
(Guyomard et al 2012, Röös et al 2017, Lindgren et al
2018)
Transnational food collaborations develop Adapted national/local policies and programs (Lind-
guidelines for promoting sustainable diets (Lind- gren et al 2018); consumer awareness for healthy and
gren et al 2018) sustainable diet patterns, consumption choices and
waste management (Guyomard et al 2012, Lindgren
et al 2018)

Table 5. Actions and expected results of cluster Sustainable agriculture.

Actions Expected Results

Networking and collaborating of all actors Changed power and governance structures in and
(NGOs, civil society, farmers, researchers, policy infrastructure of food systems to overcome human-
makers, etc) as social movement (Sanderson Bel- nature disconnectedness (Sanderson Bellamy and Ioris
lamy and Ioris 2017, Migliorini et al 2018) 2017, El Bilali 2018), preserved traditional knowledge.
Farmers experiment with agroecology and altern- Actionable knowledge (Voisin et al 2014, Therond et al
ative agricultural practices based on traditional 2017) and evidence for the success of agroecological
knowledge and technological innovations and farming practices (El Bilali 2018)
share knowledge (Voisin et al 2014, Sanderson
Bellamy and Ioris 2017, Therond et al 2017)
Researching and teaching in close collaboration Improved understanding of agroecological and organic
with farmers (Voisin et al 2014, Miles et al 2017, farming practices (Migliorini et al 2018); preserved tra-
Migliorini et al 2018) ditional knowledge, mobilizing and training of actors
(Voisin et al 2014) and technical innovation (Therond
et al 2017)
Political institutions collaborate with researchers, Institutionalization of agroecology and diversified
farmers, and grassroots initiatives to create policy organic, efficient farming practices (Therond et al
frameworks and new institutions based on evid- 2017), environmental regulations, adapted academic
ence provided by researchers and others (Voisin funding systems and research agendas (Miles et al
et al 2014, Miles et al 2017, Sanderson Bellamy 2017, Therond et al 2017)
and Ioris 2017, Migliorini et al 2018)

4.2.4. Healthy and diverse societies Western perspective of sustainable food production.
4.2.4.1. Sustainability problem and vision This would support and empower small- to medium-
Counteracting economic growth paradigms and the sized farms to define their own futures and to produce
resulting nutrition transition, this cluster envisions a nutritious, biodiverse, and traditional food.
regenerative natural and socially just system, as well
as reliable and nutritious food supplies leading to 4.2.4.2. Strategies
healthy population with diversified diets, especially Potential actions include the acknowledgement and
acknowledging rural areas and socio-economic devel- sharing of indigenous knowledge and traditional
opment in the Global South. Central in this cluster farming practices, as well as innovation and the act-
is the acknowledgement of cultural diversity as ‘a ive involvement of peasants. Authors advocate for
globe of villages’ (Dahlberg 1994, p 172) and achiev- international negotiations to strengthen the influ-
ing food sovereignty that is not solely based on a ence of local and rural producers and authorities in

10
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

Table 6. Actions and expected results of cluster Healthy and diverse societies.

Actions Expected Results

Policy makers acknowledge and promote traditional, Diversified farming practices as well as diverse and
indigenous, and local knowledge, as well as sustain- healthy diets (Ambalam 2014, van Vliet et al 2015,
able innovation in food systems (Ambalam 2014, Hammond Wagner et al 2016), conserved indigenous
van Vliet et al 2015, Rijsberman 2017) and traditional food systems (Rijsberman 2017)
International trade negotiations include diverse Empowered small-scale and mid-scale farmers includ-
stakeholder groups in policy making and prioritize ing improved access to markets and democratic parti-
local and rural agricultural practices (Ambalam cipation; rural livelihood opportunities and decentral-
2014, Anderson 2015) ized food systems (Ambalam 2014, Anderson 2015)
International policy makers prioritize health and Regenerative and healthy food systems (Dahlberg 1994,
diversity criteria and food sovereignty principles van Vliet et al 2015, Rijsberman 2017)
instead of criteria of economic growth (Dahlberg
1994, Ambalam 2014, Rijsberman 2017)

Table 7. Actions and expected results of cluster Food as commons.

Actions Expected Results

Different niche actors exemplarily live alternative Organic, local and slow food; change of food meaning
food values and connect as social movements (Tai from commodity to commons, reconnection and well-
2011, Lengnick et al 2015, Vivero-Pol 2017) being (Tai 2011, Vivero-Pol 2017)
(Local) authorities create (local) policy frames sup- Direct democracy, collective, open and transparent
porting the consumers and private sector to actively decision-making and participatory and reflexive food
participate, e.g. in urban gardening (Shannon et al governance, e.g. food policy councils (Ilieva 2017,
2015, Ilieva 2017) Vivero-Pol 2017)
Public interventions/public institutions create Sustainable diets, resilient urban food infrastructure
targeted programs, such as incentives and taxes and diversified and just food practices (Lengnick et al
and employ staff (Shannon et al 2015, Ilieva 2017, 2015, Shannon et al 2015, Ilieva 2017)
Vivero-Pol 2017)
NGOs advocate for food literacy via communication Awareness and informed consumers with respect to
and knowledge sharing (Jaffe and Gertler 2006, Tai externalities of food and reskilled consumers to create
2011) food citizenship (Tai 2011, Shannon et al 2015)
Academia and strong democratic institutions Wider awareness of food being a collective good and
vote/engage/communicate a new narrative of food the importance of community (Vivero-Pol 2017)
as collective good (Ilieva 2017, Vivero-Pol 2017)

face of increased urbanization and the concentration 4.2.5.2. Strategies.

of power. Strategies of this cluster are explicated as Actors in food niches and social movements advoc-
actions and expected results (table 6). ate for alternative meaning of food with the poten-
tial to change the economic and market-based ori-
entation in society. Local authorities, niche act-
4.2.4.3. Spheres of transformation ors, and consumers collaborate in collective, reflex-
• Personal: focusing on a shift in worldviews creating ive and participatory decision-making for demo-
systems that are not oriented on productivity but on cratic governance of food systems. NGOs sue for
health criteria legal measures (litigation) and promote education
for food citizenship. Local authorities pass bills
to change food programs and nutrition policies,
4.2.5. Food as commons with a potential for wider policy change. Academia,
4.2.5.1. Sustainability problem and vision NGOs, and the media support the change pro-
Starting from the problem of commodification of cess by creating the narrative of food as collective
food and industrialization of food systems, this good. Strategies of this cluster are explicated as
cluster aims to change the underlying guiding mar- actions and expected results (table 7).
ket principles and policies. The goal is to steer
food systems towards respecting food and health as
basic human rights. It envisions food as a collect- 4.2.5.3. Spheres of transformation
ive good embodying culture, human factors, sociality • Practical: creating policies and targeted programs
and health—instead of a being a commodity. to support diversified and just food practices

11
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

• Political: enabling a power shift from industry vs. proposals from North American food systems
and state to collective and participatory decision- research (opposition/grassroots movements).
making processes. The distinction of spheres by O´Brien and Sygna
• Personal: aiming at a new value system in which (2013) demarcates the focus of the transformation
food is acknowledged in its diversity of meanings approach. According to these authors, a compre-
rather than as commodity. hensive approach to transformation emphasizes the
• Interactions: active participation in governance, interconnectedness of spheres represented here as
democratic institution communicating and acting interactions. Alternative food movements and Food as
according to paradigm shift. commons are the only clusters that comprehensively
acknowledge change in all three spheres of transform-
4.2.6. Synthesis ation. They suggest actions intervening in values and
In summary, the five research clusters present dis- knowledge, policies, and practices, and include ele-
tinct, yet complementary, concepts for transform- ments that facilitate interconnection between these
ing food systems towards sustainability with differ- spheres. For example, in Alternative food movements,
ences regarding identified sustainability problems, network building and dissemination of knowledge
envisioned sustainable food systems, and proposed aims at empowering citizen-consumers to engage in
actions to transform food systems towards sustainab- participatory decision making (political sphere) and
ility (table 8). shape scale-appropriate and food-informed policies.
This can in turn influence consumption patterns
and farming practices (practical sphere). Educational
5. Discussion
actions enable students to reconnect to food (personal
sphere) which may influence individual food prac-
We identified five research clusters that provide
tices and policies (practical sphere). In addition, this
insights on how to change food systems towards sus-
cluster overlaps with three other clusters (figure 4)
tainability. Our results are in line with the work of
indicating that alternative grassroots mobilization
other scholars (Eakin et al 2017a, Béné et al 2019).
and network building are broadly seen as a relev-
While Eakin and colleagues (2017a) provide a deeper
ant approach for deep change. At the same time,
understanding of food systems and sustainability
alternative mobilization alone might not compre-
attributes, our work adds a transformation/trans-
hensively change food systems. For example ‘thought-
ition perspective presenting a suite of actions and
ful practice of pragmatic politics and the develop-
their expected results to advance change. The outlined
ment of a strong food democracy will be key to
approaches suggest key components for change:
transformation in the long run’ (Hassanein 2003,
p 78). In summary, all clusters offer promising
• Political action to support inclusive and particip- strategies; thus, it might be meaningful to combine
atory governance structures that enable citizen- different approaches to systems change. We argue
consumers, empower (small-scale) farmers and that interconnected spheres and their related actions
allow for an active role of grassroots movements. could create synergies and accelerate progress towards
• Close collaboration of stakeholders in food systems sustainability.
(consumers, farmers, politics, industry, NGOs, Despite the identified tendencies regarding the
researchers) in new networks and platforms. use of the terms ‘transformation’ and ‘transition’
• Education to support consumers in adopting sus- described in the end of section 4.1.2, authors do
tainable consumption behavior, to help farmers not use the terms consistently. A clear attribution
in adopting diversified farming practices, and to of change process to the respective term is missing.
inform policy makers how to advance healthy This finding corresponds with the fact that the food
diets. systems literature has not consolidated on one the-
• A deep value shift with regard to food and food sys- ory of change or theoretical perspective (Foran et al
tems informing actions. 2014, van Bers et al 2019). Even though authors apply
both terms, the described change processes in four
The cluster Food as commons represents a North- of the five clusters show a strong consistency with
American perspective emphasizing a paradigm shift our definition of transformation as encompassing
in the personal sphere to value food instead of both social and technological innovation and seeing
commodifying it, which might change the eco- a strong role for social movements and civil society
nomic and market-based orientation in society. Many (Stirling 2015, Scoones et al 2018). The term ‘trans-
authors in the Alternative food movements cluster ition’, describing a rather controlled change process
stem from European countries and seem to aim for with less emphasis on human agency, contestation,
a shift towards alternative networks and policies. and deliberation (Stirling 2011), has been used in the
These tendencies reflect Goodman’s (2003) distinc- Sustainable diets, the Sustainable agriculture and the
tion between proposals from European food sys- Alternative food movements clusters (Hinrichs 2014).
tems research (incremental improvements/policies) As these clusters address aspects of justice and power,

12
 Table 8. Key components of the five concepts for changing food systems towards sustainability.

Cluster 1: Alternative food move- Cluster 2: Sustainable diets Cluster 3: Sustainable agriculture Cluster 4: Healthy and diverse Cluster 5: Food as commons
ments societies

Food System Sustainability Food insecurity, power imbal- Nutrition transition, environ- Food insecurity, high-input ori- Detrimental effects of eco- Commodification and industri-
Problems ances, environmental problems mental and public health prob- ented farming, socio-ecological nomic growth (and underlying alization of food, McDonaldiza-
lems problems, human nature discon- paradigms), power concentra- tion, health problems, alienation
nect tion, nutrition transition, health
problems
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001

Sustainability Concept Social justice, community well- Millennium and Sustainable Resilience, community-based SDGs, regeneration, health and Resilience, respecting human
being, empowerment, environ- Development Goals (M/SDGs), economic development, SDGs diversity, social justice rights, SDGs
mental and social health planetary boundaries, human
health
Sustainability Vision Out- Empowered consumers, com- Food security, healthy individu- Food sovereignty, food security, Paradigms based on health and Food sovereignty, food demo-
comes munity well-being, adequate als, low environmental impact (agro-)biodiversity diversity, food sovereignty, food cracy, food security, human

13
diets, and social justice (food security, healthy populations, well-being, food as a collective
security and food sovereignty) empowered farmers, socio- good, food citizenship
ecological well-being
Sustainability Vision Activ- Local, self-reliant, and small- Sustainable diets (adequate Low-input and environment- Small-scale diverse farming Local participatory food gov-
ities scale community food systems: nutrient intake, low resource ally friendly farming systems: systems acknowledging tradi- ernance: food policy councils,
environmentally friendly, con- consumption, low waste) agroecologically practices, smart tional practices (focus on Global civic agriculture, just food prac-
scious, and collective food pro- agricultural technologies; insti- South) tices, healthy diets, support
duction and consumption prac- tutionalization of agroecology; mechanisms
tices (CSAs, farmer markets, community-based economic
community gardens), participat- development
ory decision making
Subject of Change Values, knowledge, skills, Diets, consumption patterns, Power relations, research agenda, Paradigms, power relations, Underlying guiding market prin-
decision making structures, policies agricultural practices, policies policies ciples, meaning of food, gov-
policies, consumption and pro- ernance structures, practices
duction practices
Change Agents Grassroots organizations, local Policy makers, consumers, Farmers, grassroots initiatives, Global policy makers Alternative food initiatives,
food initiatives, educational researchers researchers, policy makers NGOs, food policy councils,
institutions, (government agen- local authorities
cies)
Proposed Actions Building awareness, networking, Researching, investing, engaging, Sharing, collaborating, creating, Shifting paradigms, acknow- Voting, communicating, creat-
promoting, educating, advocat- developing experimenting, researching ledging, including, prioritizing ing, connecting, participating,
ing, lobbying advocating
H Weber et al
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

resistance and agency, transition as theory of change spectrum of food economies with the perspective on
seems not entirely sufficient, which is also reflected sustainability transformations of food systems.
in a ‘thin record of sustainability transitions research Our literature review displays several limitations.
focused on food systems’ (Hinrichs 2014, p 147), It only represents academic perspectives on food sys-
(Markard et al 2012). tems change and even more specifically only liter-
We think the reviewed literature articulates a fun- ature using the terms ‘transition’ or ‘transforma-
damental critique of the status quo. The critique tion’ to conceptualize change. Including further lit-
includes social aspects, e.g. human health (Sustain- erature and especially experiential knowledge from
able diets), and social movements (Alternative food practitioners and the broader public might enrich
movements, Sustainable agriculture, and Food as com- the understanding of change processes towards sus-
mons) (Hinrichs 2014, El Bilali 2018) engaging ques- tainability. In addition, cluster analysis does not
tions of power and justice in food systems, and reject- allow for detailed investigation of concepts, such as
ing the current system driven by neo-liberal market food systems or sustainability but has its strength
economy and growth paradigms. Additionally, most in portraying the lowest common denominator of
clusters have different modes to engage with polit- these concepts. In addition, analyzing a set of the
ics: either political frameworks need to be created most representative publications per clusters led to
(Sustainable agriculture and Healthy and diverse soci- a representative summary of clusters (section 4.2).
eties), policy makers are addressed as change agents This implies that it is rather more likely that a
(Alternative food systems and Healthy and diverse soci- publication of a determined cluster addresses the
eties), or the acquired information is intended to serve discussed issues, e.g. seeing only policy makers as
as evidence for political decisions (Sustainable diets change agents and less likely that there is a public-
and Sustainable agriculture). Change towards sustain- ation included in that clusters that addresses other
ability in food systems deals with moral and polit- aspects, e.g. farmers as change agents, too. How-
ical questions, such as, ‘What is a good life?’ (Gar- ever, that publication would have been listed at the
nett 2014). Therefore, the literature calls on policy end of the ‘hierarchy’ of represented publications
makers to allow emerging processes of social mobil- identified by the statistical indicator Species Analysis
ization (Hospes and Brons 2016, Eakin et al 2017b) (see section 2.2). Overall, our results are based on
and to recognize cultural aspects of food and its the assumption that scholars articulate similar con-
meaning for people’s identity (Stajcic 2013, Bauer- cepts through similar terms. Although the approach
meister 2015, Béné et al 2019, Dyen and Sirieix 2016). has been applied successfully (Abson et al 2014),
Moreover, food is inherently embodied (Sarmiento exceptions of this supposition are not considered. As
2017), showing a strong biological connection to we included publications of English language only,
the consumer and the nature surrounding it (Hin- the study is strongly shaped by a Western research
richs 2014). Therefore, actions towards sustainability perspective.
seem to be motivated rather by moral and value-
based reasons, even if accompanied by technological
innovation as described in the Sustainable agricul- 6. Conclusions
ture cluster. Consequently, change processes in food
systems are conceptualized differently from sustain- This systematic literature review focuses on the emer-
ability transitions in other systems, e.g. the energy ging research field on deep change towards sustain-
or mobility system (Garnett 2014, Hinrichs 2014, able food systems and identifies five research per-
El Bilali 2018). spectives, namely, Alternative food movements, Sus-
Despite the critique of current food systems tainable diets, Sustainable agriculture, Healthy and
and embedded economies, which are dominated by diverse societies, and Food as commons. For each
exploitative, growth-oriented and profit-maximizing approach, our analysis indicates actions and actors
practices, the analyzed literature is not connected to advance sustainable food systems. We also identify
to emergent sustainability innovations of food busi- four key crosscutting components for change relev-
nesses around the world (Nabhan 2018, Antoni- ant to all clusters: political action, close collaboration
Komar et al 2019, Weber et al in press). Consequently, between stakeholders, education, and a deep value
none of the five clusters integrates insights from the shift.
fact that sustainability-oriented organizations (uni- Our analysis reveals that the concepts of trans-
versities, clinics, etc), social enterprises, cooperative formation vs transition are used differently and
businesses, benefit corporations, local living economy inconsistently when theorizing change in food sys-
advocates, and other economic actors are advancing tems. Further, the analyzed literature reflects a call
change in food economies around the world beyond for deep change in values, consumption and produc-
the conventional models of CSAs, farmers markets, tion practices, as well as politics allowing for delibera-
and community gardens (Friedmann 2007, Lutz and tion and grassroots mobilization. This resonates with
Schachinger 2013, Lutz et al 2017, Antoni-Komar et transformation literature but does not exclude trans-
al 2019). It would be beneficial to link this broader ition approaches.

14
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

We identify departure points for researchers from Béné C et al 2019 When food systems meet sustainability –
developing countries to recognize traditional and Current narratives and implications for actions World Dev.
113 116–30
indigenous knowledge, and overcome the Western
BlayPalmer- A, Sonnino R and Custot J 2016 A food politics of the
bias. In addition, future studies ought to address possible?: growing sustainable food systems through
emergent sustainability business innovations and its networks of knowledge Agric. Hum. Values 33 27–43
potential role in contributing to change of food sys- Brunori G, Rossi A and Guidi F 2012 On the new social relations
around and beyond food. Analysing consumers’ role and
tems , as well as the socio-cultural dimension for food
action in gruppi di acquisto solidale (solidarity purchasing
systems transformation. Future research should also groups) Sociol. Rural. 52 1–30
conduct empirical evaluative studies in all five clusters Cash D W, Adger W N, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P,
in order to create actionable knowledge and allow Pritchard L and Young O 2006 Scale and cross-scale
dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world
for evidence-informed interventions. Deep change
Ecol. Soc. 11 8
of food systems towards sustainability is an ongo- Chaudhary A, Gustafson D and Mathys A 2018 Multi-indicator
ing learning process drawing on a broad spectrum sustainability assessment of global food systems Nat.
of expertise and wisdom. Thus, studies and pro- Commun. 9 848
Clapp J 2015 Distant agricultural landscapes Sustain. Sci. 10
jects to advance interconnectedness of actions and
305–16
strategies of food systems transformations can facil- Connelly S, Markey S and Roseland M 2011 Bridging
itate change processes. Work on different change sustainability and the social economy: achieving community
approaches and conceptualizations to further consol- transformation through local food initiatives Crit. Soc. Policy
31 308–24
idate and refine the field’s engagement with change
Dahlberg K A 1994 A transition from agriculture to regenerative
will be meaningful. food systems Futures 26 170–9
Delonge M S, Miles A and Carlisle L 2016 Investing in the
transition to sustainable agriculture Environ. Sci. Policy 55
Acknowledgments 266–73
de Molina M G 2013 Agroecology and politics. How to get
sustainability? About the necessity for a political
The first two authors (HW and KP) have contrib- agroecology Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 37 45–59
uted equally to this work. This research was made Dyen M and Sirieix L 2016 How does a local initiative contribute
possible within the graduate school ‘Processes of Sus- to social inclusion and promote sustainable food practices?:
focus on the example of social cooking workshops Int. J.
tainability Transformation’, which is a cooperation
Consum. Stud. 40 685–94
between Leuphana University of Lüneburg and the Eakin H, Connors J P, Wharton C, Bertmann F, Xiong A and
Robert Bosch Stiftung. We gratefully acknowledge Stoltzfus J 2017a Identifying attributes of food system
the financial support from the Robert Bosch Stiftung sustainability: emerging themes and consensus Agric. Hum.
Values 34 757–73
(12.5.F082.0021.0). We also thank Lisa Gotzian for
Eakin H, Rueda X and Mahanti A 2017b Transforming
her continuous support with the statistical analysis. governance in telecoupled food systems Ecol. Soc. 22 32
El Bilali H 2018 Relation between innovation and sustainability in
Data availability statement the agro-food system Ital. J. Food Sci. 30 200–25
Ericksen P J 2008 Conceptualizing food systems for global
environmental change research Glob. Environ. Change 18
The data that support the findings of this study are 234–45
openly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. Feola G 2015 Societal transformation in response to global
3859418. environmental change: a review of emerging concepts Ambio
44 376–90
Fischer D, Stanszus L, Geiger S, Grossman P and Schrader U 2017
ORCID iD Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: a systematic
literature review of research approaches and findings J.
Clean. Prod. 162 544–58
Hanna Weber  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1765- Foley J A et al 2011 Solutions for a cultivated planet Nature 478
5284 337–42
Food and Agriculture Organization 2012 Sustainable Diets and
Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy Research and
References Action (Rome: FAO)
Foran T, Butler J R A, Williams L J, Wanjura W J, Hall A, Carter L
Abson D J et al 2014 Ecosystem services as a boundary object for and Carberry P S 2014 Taking complexity in food systems
sustainability Ecol. Econ. 103 29–37 seriously: an interdisciplinary analysis World Dev. 61 85–101
Abson D J et al 2017 Leverage points for sustainability Friedmann H 2007 Scaling up: bringing public institutions and
transformation Ambio 46 30–39 food service corporations into the project for a local,
Ambalam K 2014 Food sovereignty in the era of land grabbing: an sustainable food system in Ontario Agric. Hum. Values 24
African perspective J. Sustain. Dev. 7 121–32 389–98
Anderson M D 2015 Roles of rural areas in sustainable food Fusch P and Ness L 2015 Are we there yet? Data saturation in
system transformations Development 58 256–62 qualitative research The Qual. Rep. 20 1408–16
Antoni-Komar I, Kropp C, Paech N and Pfriem R (ed) 2019 (https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/3)
Transformative Unternehmen Und Die Wende in Der Garnett T 2014 Three perspectives on sustainable food security:
Ernährungswirtschaft (Theorie Der Unternehmung vol 72) efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation.
(Weimar Lahn: Metropolis) What role for life cycle assessment? J. Clean. Prod. 73 10–18
Bauermeister M R 2015 Social capital and collective identity in the Geels F W and Kemp R 2000 Transities Vanuit Sociotechnisch
local food movement Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 14 123–41 Perspectief (Maastricht: MERIT)

15
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

Geels F W and Schot J 2007 Typology of sociotechnical transition Miles A, Delonge M S and Carlisle L 2017 Triggering a positive
pathways Res. Policy 36 399–417 research and policy feedback cycle to support a transition to
Goodman D 2003 The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food agroecology and sustainable food systems Agroecol. Sustain.
practices: reflections and agenda J. Rural. Stud. 19 1–7 Food Syst. 41 855–79
Guyomard H, Darcy-Vrillon B, Esnouf C, Marin M, Russel M and Nabhan G P 2018 Food from the Radical Center: Healing Our Land
Guillou M 2012 Eating patterns and food systems: critical and Communities (Chicago: Island Press)
knowledge requirements for policy design and O’Brien K and Sygna L 2013 Responding to climate change: the
implementation Agric. Food Secur. 1 1–21 three spheres of transformation Proc. Transformation in a
Hammond Wagner C, Cox M and Bazo Robles J L 2016 Pesticide Changing Climate (Oslo, Norway, 19–21 June 2013) pp 16–23
lock-in in small scale Peruvian agriculture Ecol. Econ. 129 Popkin B M 2003 The nutrition transition in the developing
72–81 world Dev. Policy Rev. 21 581–97
Hassanein N 2003 Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic Rathgens J, Gröschner S and von Wehrden H 2019 Going beyond
politics of transformation J. Rural. Stud. 19 77–86 certificates: a systematic review of alternative trade
Hinrichs C C 2014 Transitions to sustainability: a change in arrangements in the global food sector J. Cleaner Prod. 276
thinking about food systems change? Agric. Hum. Values 31 123208
143–55 Rau A-L et al 2018 Linking concepts of change and ecosystem
Hölscher K, Wittmayer J M and Loorbach D 2018 Transition services research: a systematic review Change Adapt.
versus transformation: what’s the difference? Environ. Innov. Socio-Ecol. Syst. 4 33–45
Soc. Transit. 27 1–3 Rijsberman F 2017 The key role of the meat industry in
Hospes O, Brons Aet al 2016 Food system governance: a transformation to a low-carbon, climate resilient,
systematic literature review Food Systems Governance, ed A sustainable economy Meat Sci. 132 2–5
Kennedy and J Liljeblad (New York: Routledge) pp 14–42 Rojas A, Valley W, Mansfield B, Orrego E, Chapman G E and
IASSTD 2009 Agriculture at Crossroads: Executive Summary of the Harlap Y 2011 Toward food system sustainability through
Synthesis Report (Washington, DC: Internat. Assessment of school food system change: think&eatgreen@school and the
Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for making of a community-university research alliance
Development IAASTD) Sustainability 3 763–88
Ilieva R T 2017 Urban food systems strategies: a promising tool Röös E, Bajželj B, Smith P, Patel M, Little D and Garnett T 2017
for implementing the SDGs in practice Sustainability Greedy or needy?: Land use and climate impacts of food in
9 1707 2050 under different livestock futures Glob. Environ. Change
Ives C D et al 2017 Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary 47 1–12
review Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27 106–13 Rotmans J, Kemp R and van Asselt M 2001 More evolution than
Jaffe J and Gertler M 2006 Victual vicissitudes: consumer revolution: transition management in public policy Foresight
deskilling and the (gendered) transformation of food 3 15–31
systems Agric. Hum. Values 23 143–62 Sanderson Bellamy A and Ioris A 2017 Addressing the knowledge
Kuckartz U 2014 Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, gaps in agroecology and identifying guiding principles for
Practice & Using Software (Washington, DC: SAGE) transforming conventional agri-food systems Sustainability
Laforge J M L, Anderson C R and Mclachlan S M 2017 9 330
Governments, grassroots, and the struggle for local food Sarmiento E R 2017 Synergies in alternative food network
systems: containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating research: embodiment, diverse economies, and
Agric. Hum. Values 34 663–81 more-than-human food geographies Agric. Hum. Values 34
Lebel L, Lebel P, Garden P, Giap D H, Khrutmuang S and 485–97
Nakayama S 2008 Places, chains, and plates: governing Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B,
transitions in the shrimp aquaculture Burroughs H and Jinks C 2018 Saturation in qualitative
production-consumption system Globalizations research: exploring its conceptualization and
5 211–26 operationalization Qual. Quant. 52 1893–907
Lengnick L, Miller M and Marten G G 2015 Metropolitan Schmidt C 2004 The analysis of semi-structured interviews A
foodsheds: a resilient response to the climate change Companion to Qualitative Research, ed U Flick et al
challenge? J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5 573–92 (London: SAGE) pp 253–8
Levkoe C Z 2011 Towards a transformative food politics Local Scoones I et al 2018 Transformations to Sustainability (STEPS
Environ. 16 687–705 Working Paper 104) (Brighton: STEPS Centre)
Lindgren E, Harris F, Dangour A D, Gasparatos A, Hiramatsu M, Shannon K L, Kim B F, Mckenzie S E and Lawrence R S 2015 Food
Javadi F, Loken B, Murakami T, Scheelbeek P and Haines A system policy, public health, and human rights in the United
2018 Sustainable food systems-a health perspective Sustain. States Annu. Rev. Public Health 36 151–73
Sci. 13 1505–17 Sobal J, Kettel Khan L and Bisogni C 1998 A conceptual model of
Luederitz C, Meyer M, Abson D J, Gralla F, Lang D J, Rau A-L and the food and nutrition system Soc. Sci. Med. 47 853–63
Wehrden H V 2016 Systematic student-driven literature Stajcic N 2013 Understanding culture: food as means of
reviews in sustainability science—an effective way to merge communication Hemispheres: Stud. Cult. Soc. 28 77–87
research and teaching J. Clean. Prod. 119 229–35 Stirling A 2011 Pluralising progress: from integrative transitions
Lutz J and Schachinger J 2013 Do local food networks foster to transformative diversity Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
socio-ecological transitions towards food sovereignty? 1 82–88
Learning from real place experiences Sustainability 5 Stirling A 2015 Emancipating transformations: from controlling
4778–96 ‘the transition’ to culturing plural radical progress The
Lutz J, Smetschka B and Grima N 2017 Farmer cooperation as a Politics of Green Transformations (Pathways to Sustainability),
means for creating local food systems—potentials and ed I Scoones et al (London: Routledge) pp 72–85
challenges Sustainability 9 925 Tai S 2011 The rise of U.S. food sustainability litigation South.
Markard J, Raven R and Truffer B 2012 Sustainability transitions: Calif. Law Rev. 85 1069–136
an emerging field of research and its prospects Res. Policy 41 Therond O, Duru M, Roger-Estrade J and Richard G 2017
955–67 A new analytical framework of farming system and
Meadows D H 1999 Leverage points: places to intervene in a agriculture model diversities. A review Agron. Sustain. Dev.
system (Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute) 37 329
Migliorini P, Gkisakis V, Gonzalvez V, Raigón M and Bàrberi P van Bers C et al 2019 Advancing the research agenda on food
2018 Agroecology in mediterranean Europe: genesis, state systems governance and transformation Curr. Opin.
and perspectives Sustainability 10 2724 Environ. Sustain. 39 94–102

16
Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 113001 H Weber et al

van Vliet N et al 2015 From fish and bushmeat to chicken nuggets: WBGU 2011 Welt Im Wandel: Gesellschaftsvertrag Für Eine Große
the nutrition transition in a continuum from rural to urban Transformation 2nd edn (Berlin: Wiss. Beirat der
settings in the Colombian Amazon region Ethnobio. Conserv. Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen
4 1–12 (WBGU))
Vivero-Pol J 2017 Food as commons or commodity?: Exploring Weber H, Wiek A and Lang D J 2019 Sustainability
the links between normative valuations and agency in food entrepreneurship to address large distances in international
transition Sustainability 9 442 food supply Bus. Strat. Dev. 1–14 in press
Voisin A-S, Guéguen J, Huyghe C, Jeuffroy M-H, Magrini M-B, Wiek A and Lang D J 2016 Transformational sustainability
Meynard J-M, Mougel C, Pellerin S and Pelzer E 2014 research methodology Sustainability Science: An
Legumes for feed, food, biomaterials and bioenergy in Introduction, ed H Heinrichs et al 1st edn (Berlin: Springer)
Europe: a review Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34 361–80 pp 31–41

17