Processes of Participation in the Development of Urban Food Strategies: A Comparative Assessment of Exeter and Eindhoven

Abstract

Urban food strategies are increasingly being used as means to address a multitude of challenges presented by food system failings. The use of participatory approaches has become common practice in the field of urban food systems planning. These approaches are believed to democratize, legitimize and increase effectiveness of addressing challenges. Despite these "promises", they have also been viewed as problematic for being unbalanced and lacking accountability. This paper sets out to compare the creation and use of new participatory spaces in two initiatives in two European cities in their on-going attempts to formulate urban food strategies through multi-actor processes. This is explored through operationalisation of two key concepts essential to participatory approaches: participation and accountability. As such, the paper addresses how participatory processes for urban food strategies can be conceptualised when policy making involves the interplay of actors, knowledges and spaces. We conclude that within the two cases, ample attention is given to get a cross-section of the types of participants involved, while accountability is an aspect still under-represented. Based on the two cases, we argue that incorporation of accountability in particular will be instrumental in the development and implementation of more mature urban food strategies. However, it is essential for participatory processes to not completely break from more "traditional" policy processes, at risk of limiting progress in strategy development and deployment.

Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South

“…Likewise, it is critical to acknowledge that transformative spaces do not occur in a vacuum, and participants have a history of engagement with other convened processes and may possibly feel some form of research or engagement fatigue (see Lemos et al 2018). Knowing such dynamics can affect the 'quality of participation' during a process, given that these can affect the quality of a 'safe space' for certain actors (Gaventa and Cornwall 2008). Lessons learned from these cases demonstrate that such sensitivities can be mediated to some extent through the choice of methods (see next section).…”

Mapping the Lisbon Potential Foodshed in Ribatejo e Oeste: A Suitability and Yield Model for Assessing the Potential for Localized Food Production

“…This type of participatory method can serve as a basis for the construction of formal territorial food strategies or even food plans [98]. After participatory methods reach conclusions, it would be necessary to identify priority policies, planning actions and financial incentives to promote the land uses and other changes that connect that specified future to the present situation.…”

Global urbanization and food production in direct competition for land: Leverage places to mitigate impacts on SDG2 and on the Earth System

“…Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) often includes Gordon et al's (2017) sustainable practice principles and could act as living laboratories for a wider transformation that sustains global food security (Hebinck and Page, 2017;Oliver et al 2018;Shepon et al 2018). Can UPA also play a part in navigating the competition for land between food production and urbanization?…”