Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Competencies, Phases and Dimensions of Municipal Administrative Management towards Sustainability: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Nexus between Supplier and Customer Integration and Environmental Cost Performance: Insights into the Role of Digital Transformation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 14
10.3390/su16145990
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Citizen Participation Practices in the Governance of Local Food Systems: A Literature Review

by
Lys Affre
1,
Laurence Guillaumie
1,*,
Sophie Dupéré
1,
Geneviève Mercille
2 and
Marilou Fortin-Guay
1
1
Programmes de Santé Publique et Communautaire, Faculté des Sciences Infirmières, Université Laval, Centre de Recherche INAF-NUTRISS, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
2
Département de Nutrition, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T 1A8, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(14), 5990; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145990 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 18 April 2024 / Revised: 7 June 2024 / Accepted: 10 July 2024 / Published: 13 July 2024
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Traditionally, food system governance has been executed at provincial, national, or supranational levels, but recently, there has been an increasing trend of local areas coordinating initiatives to influence their own food systems. They are distinguished by their focus on the principles of food democracy, especially in terms of citizen participation. Although initiatives to boost citizen collaboration in local food systems are on the rise, achieving active citizen involvement can prove challenging. This study aims to understand citizen engagement and participation in local food systems at the regional, municipal, or neighborhood levels. A narrative literature review was performed, covering academic and gray literature and using descriptive statistics and semi-inductive thematic analysis. The analysis identified five categories of local food system citizen participation programs, i.e., governance committees that include citizens, citizen working groups, participatory research, participatory workshops, and citizen forums and assemblies. The review highlighted factors that influence the operation and perceived success of citizen participation initiatives. Findings underscore the importance of creating citizen participation mechanisms that are inclusive, transparent, and adaptable. Proper organization and facilitation by a dedicated local organization ensure the success of citizen engagement initiatives. The identified categories and factors can guide policymakers in designing effective local food system initiatives that enhance meaningful citizen involvement.

1. Introduction

Food security has emerged as one of the key challenges faced by contemporary societies. The 20th century witnessed the globalization of food production and processing, bolstered by the growth of the food industry, which together enhanced food availability and affordability [1]. However, this globalized food system struggles to ensure food security and healthy nutrition for all. In 2021, about one in ten people globally suffered from malnutrition and severe food insecurity (9.8% and 11.7%, respectively), while a third of the food produced worldwide is wasted or discarded [2]. Amidst this paradoxical abundance, the current food systems deepen social inequalities, unveiling a stark lack of social justice, where uneven access to healthy and sustainable nutrition clearly mirrors deeply entrenched economic and social disparities [3]. In addition, the environmental impacts of the globalized food system are rising, including deforestation, biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and environmental contamination [4]. This context is driving the need to reform the globalized food system and develop national or local strategies to mitigate its harmful effects [5]. Citizens, academia, community sectors, agri-food chain stakeholders, and governments are increasingly mobilizing to create conditions for transitioning towards more sustainable food systems [6,7].
Traditionally, food system governance has been executed at the provincial, national, or supranational levels, but an increasing number of local territories—including regions, cities, municipalities, and neighborhoods—are organizing to coordinate initiatives and influence their local food systems [8]. For example, the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, signed by over 260 cities worldwide in 2022, reflects the desire of major municipalities and local territories to develop sustainable food systems that are beneficial for the health of their communities [9]. Local actors are thus called upon to play an increasingly significant role in food system transitions. This includes citizen participation that enriches the decision-making process with diverse perspectives and firsthand experiences, ensuring that policies are more reflective of and responsive to community needs.
However, transitioning to the local governance of a food system requires changes in governance structures and mechanisms [10]. Usually, a local food system is defined as an alternative to the technocratic and productivist approach of the dominant agro-industrial model; it aims to produce food in proximity-based sectors, foster family agriculture and networks of small and medium agri-food enterprises, and reduce waste throughout the food chain [11]. Other definitions of local food systems align more with a sustainable development perspective by including various dimensions such as food security and healthy nutrition, economic development and food autonomy, mitigation of and adaptation to climate and environmental challenges, appropriate governance mechanisms, the application of justice and equity principles, and the sovereignty of Indigenous communities [8].
Local food governance mechanisms can vary in formality; they can include mechanisms such as food policy councils, food system coordination committees, and more. They typically aim to promote access to healthy food and food security, the development of agricultural and food-related activities, and environmental preservation, especially regarding greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from agricultural practices [12,13]. A local food system implies a participatory approach focused on creating solutions that leverage the collective efforts and strengths of the community involved in the process [14]. It emphasizes democratic food principles such as representativeness, participation, inclusion, collaboration, and consensus-seeking among stakeholders, with a particular emphasis on citizen participation in these processes [15]. The concept of food democracy emerged in the late 1990s in response to limited citizen participation in food systems, which were largely dominated by multinational corporations [1,16,17,18,19], and it refers to the level of control that individuals and communities have over their food systems [6]. This concept has evolved as a counter-movement aiming to balance power among citizens, states, and economic actors within a food system, especially at the local scale [1,17,18]. Thus, food democracy has become essential for supporting the transition of food systems towards greater sustainability [2,17].
While citizen participation in governance is often desired, it can be challenging to achieve. Citizen participation refers to individuals’ involvement in decision-making processes that affect their lives and communities. Low citizen engagement is a common issue in the initiation of governance mechanisms, especially the engagement of citizens from marginalized groups. Nevertheless, it is also seen as a cornerstone for the success and sustainability of these mechanisms over time [20]. In both academic literature and popular discourse, the concept of citizen participation encompasses multiple meanings and is difficult to define due to its varied implications [13]. It almost invariably involves the notion of public opinion and involvement in decision-making processes [21]. To clarify the concept, several authors have developed typologies of citizen participation. For Mercier, it is defined as the exercise and expression of active and engaged citizenship under various dimensions, i.e., political (i.e., electoral process), democratic or public (i.e., engagement in public debates), and social or civic (i.e., involvement in movements that are organized, to varying degrees, and are independent of the state) [13]. These works collectively suggest that citizen participation is a process whereby an ordinary citizen expresses their preferences, and these preferences are integrated into decision-making that concerns them. In this context, a citizen is therefore defined as an individual participating in these processes, representing their own personal interests and perspectives, rather than as a representative of organized civil society groups such as associations, NGOs, or other formal organizations [22]. This broad definition allows for the inclusion of a variety of initiatives that contribute to public life and helps to more accurately document citizens’ contributions in both formal and informal settings, initiated by members of civil society or government actors. Additionally, citizen participation is characterized by varying degrees of influence, the sharing of decision-making power, and the use of diverse participatory mechanisms.
Citizen participation remains underexplored in the field of food system governance, defined as the structures, arrangements, and processes through which stakeholders (including government bodies, private-sector entities, and civil society) interact to guide, regulate, and oversee food systems and achieve objectives of food security, equity, and sustainability. The modalities for facilitating and influencing citizen engagement in local food systems, as well as understanding the outcomes of these practices, are poorly understood.

2. Aims and Objectives

The purpose of this narrative review, encompassing both academic and gray literature, is to document citizen participation initiatives for the governance of local food systems and the challenges encountered in their implementation. The objectives of this review are to document the various citizen participation mechanisms mobilized within local food systems, as well as the visions and anticipated benefits guiding them; to identify the operational modalities and contextual factors that influence citizen participation in these mechanisms; and to uncover the operational modalities and contextual factors that make it possible for these citizen participation mechanisms to influence local food systems.

3. Methods

3.1. Design

A narrative literature review was conducted, encompassing both scientific literature (including dissertations and theses) and gray literature (e.g., organizational reports, methodological guides, and conference proceedings). The Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) guidelines were used to guide the review, data extraction, and analysis process [23].

3.2. Search Strategy

An initial list of keywords was developed based on the research objectives, specialized dictionaries (CISMEF, HeTOP, Office Québécois de la langue française), thesauri of scientific databases, and a review of terms used in previously identified relevant publications. This approach established a set of keywords in English and their French equivalents, including, among others, “citizen participation”, “citizen engagement”, “citizen involvement”, “local food system”, “food policies”, and “food governance.” The complete list of keywords is provided in Table 1. Boolean operators (AND, OR) were used to construct the final queries, and various queries were tested to reflect the diversity of citizen initiative nomenclatures while remaining specific to local food systems and food-related initiatives. The literature review was conducted from 2 January 2023 to 3 March 2023 in three stages. The first stage targeted scientific literature by employing databases such as Web of Science, ABI/Inform, CAB Abstract, and Google Scholar. Three French-language databases were also explored (CAIRN, Persée, and Érudit). The search strategy for these databases combined free and controlled vocabulary in the titles, abstracts, and keywords assigned to articles by their authors. In the second stage, focusing on gray literature, searches were performed using the Google search engine. The first 30 results were examined for each query, or more, until the relevance was exhausted. Finally, in the third stage, the bibliographies of selected documents were reviewed to identify additional relevant documents for the study.

3.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Documents were selected using the following inclusion criteria: First, they needed to present at least one citizen participation mechanism aimed at influencing a food system or food environment at a local scale, i.e., neighborhood, municipality, or region. Second, the presented mechanism must involve citizens capable of exerting a significant influence on the initiative’s decision-making process; that is to say, they must be able to contribute meaningfully to the development, implementation, or evaluation of an initiative. Third, the presentation of the citizen participation mechanism must include details on the operational modalities or contextual factors that could exert influence. Fourth, the mechanism must be implemented in countries with a socio-economic and political context similar to Québec (North America, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand).
Documents were excluded based on the following criteria: First, if the citizen participation mechanism was presented with little detail, superficially, or concisely, those documents were excluded. Second, documents were excluded if citizens were only engaged in consultative and occasional activities, such as participating in a survey or a focus group. Third, mechanisms involving the participation of organized civil society groups rather than individual citizens representing their own interests were also excluded. Additionally, documents were excluded if the mechanism involved the participation of specific stakeholders in the local food system, such as farmers or members of a specific organization. Publications in languages other than French or English were also excluded. Lastly, documents dated before the year 2000 were excluded with the aim of focusing the review on flourishing initiatives from the past 20 years.

3.4. Data Extraction and Analysis

In addition to the research objectives, the conceptual framework proposed by Fung in 2006 [22] and supplemented by Bherer in 2011 [24] guided data extraction. These models provide practical and contextual elements with which to assess a participatory mechanism linked to democratic values. They facilitate the process of examining the conditions necessary for effective citizen participation and assessing the extent to which the chosen mechanism provides real access to participation. An Excel coding grid was developed and pretested with a dozen documents until a satisfactory version of the analysis framework was achieved. Two spreadsheets were created to extract and categorize different data.
Initially, data were extracted to document the main characteristics of the included documents, including the author’s name, the year of publication, the type of document (academic article, thesis or dissertation, methodological guide, organizational report, literature review), the country where the mechanism was implemented, the type of mechanism presented (governance committees including citizens, citizen working groups, public forums and assemblies, participatory workshops or research), and the main organization implementing the mechanism (municipality, nonprofit organization, governmental organization, university, multiple organizations, and so on). These data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency).
Subsequently, a semi-inductive thematic analysis was employed to identify key themes related to the research questions [25]. Data were coded (copy-pasted without rephrasing) according to the following categories and sub-categories: description of the initiative; concepts used by the authors; context of the initiative; mandate and role of the initiative; citizen selection modality; type of participation and activities; planning, evaluation, and accountability tools; challenges and facilitating factors; recommendations made by the document’s authors; and other relevant findings. Additional sub-categories emerged during the coding process. The documents were read multiple times in their entirety to ensure that all relevant data were coded. The data coded in each category were then read and summarized, and the most representative excerpts were selected. Data coding was carried out by a member of the research team.
Initially, the analysis was conducted separately for academic and gray literature. This revealed converging results, except for the “participatory workshops” and “participatory research” categories, which were discussed mostly in the academic literature. Consequently, the integrated analyses presented in the Results section encompass all the included studies, providing a comprehensive view.

4. Results

4.1. Documents Included

The bibliographic search resulted in the selection of 34 documents, the characteristics of which are presented in Table 2. These documents are distributed between academic literature and gray literature (59% and 41%, respectively). A total of 45 initiatives were identified among the documents. The review also identified five categories of citizen participation mechanisms in local food systems, i.e., food governance committees that included citizens constituted the category with the most initiatives (49%), followed by participatory research (26%), citizen working groups, participatory workshops, and finally, citizen forums and assemblies. Full references of the reviewed documents are provided in the list of references, each preceded by an asterisk (*).

4.2. Types of Citizen Participation Initiatives in Local Food Systems

The research team identified five types of initiatives contributing to the governance of local food systems. They are detailed in the subsequent sections and summarized in Table 3. These initiatives can be combined or adapted according to local needs and contexts to achieve optimal food governance results. It is nevertheless important to emphasize that their operating parameters were poorly documented; this information was often not detailed in the documents analyzed in either the academic or gray literature.

4.2.1. Food Governance Committees, including Citizens

In twenty-one studies, citizens were involved in food governance mechanisms, often within food policy councils. These councils, as part of local food system governance, emerged in major cities in the 1980s [26] and comprise formal structures where citizens collaborate with governments and other stakeholders to shape food policies [27,28]. Stakeholders typically include representatives from traditional food chain sectors (e.g., agricultural production, processing and manufacturing, distribution, retail, consumption, and waste management) and from the community, social, educational, and health sectors [26]. Each council is unique, reflecting the history, political culture, and socio-economic characteristics of its territory [27].
The councils address food-related issues (e.g., retail zoning, food funding, and food safety regulations) and engage in activities such as drafting resolutions, reports, and proposals for and with governments [29,30]. Their goal is to address challenges within their food system [27] and to enhance citizen engagement in food policy development [31]. They are often led by a government entity (e.g., a municipality) or a non-profit organization [27,32], sometimes in a hybrid form where the council is linked to the government—for example, by receiving funding and resources while acting as an independent advisory body [6,31]. The governance mechanisms reviewed in this study featured committees or sub-committees with specific mandates that included citizen participation.

4.2.2. Citizen Working Groups

In six studies, working groups that specifically included citizens were implemented within food governance activities. These groups gather committed citizens to deeply engage with specific issues in their food system, often in the form of scheduled, regular meetings (e.g., monthly or bi-monthly). They are tasked with making recommendations, developing specific initiatives, or solving particular problems, bringing citizen expertise into the decision-making process. This may involve drafting a report or presenting working-group findings. These groups may also have representatives on decision-making committees regarding the local food system. Working groups are sometimes used in deliberative processes to create a representative public sphere (selected by lottery) for debating issues and reaching judgments [33,34].
Furthermore, working groups position participants as experts in describing their reality and suggesting solutions [35], an approach that facilitates in-depth exchanges on the topic and easier integration of marginalized groups due to the typically small size of the working groups. These groups often lead to transformative and empowering experiences, allowing participants to articulate personal experiences, identify mechanisms of oppression, and foster deep ties of support and solidarity.

4.2.3. Participatory Workshops

In three studies, emphasis was placed on participatory workshops [36,37,38]. These workshops can take the form of cooking sessions in indoor or outdoor spaces [36] or may involve meal-based discussions or collaboration (“kitchen table talks”) led by citizens in various spaces (e.g., homes and public parks) [37,38]. The aim is to create welcoming, inclusive, community-specific spaces to deepen existing networks and foster collaborative dialogue to explore food system challenges and recommend changes [37].
These workshops offer environments where participants can engage in practical food-related activities such as cooking and tasting. This immersive approach promotes active citizen participation in developing and implementing food system initiatives, blending practical experiences with informal discussions. Workshops are often held in safe spaces, encouraging open conversation facilitated by a coordinator who collects data, explains proceedings, and guides discussions. While fostering social cohesion and solidarity remains challenging, workshops have the advantage of being organized in vulnerable areas such as low-income neighborhoods, which encourages the involvement of typically underrepresented individuals in food system decision-making [36]. These sessions engage local residents in strategy development and project ownership.

4.2.4. Citizen Forums and Assemblies

In three studies, citizen forums and assemblies were held, and citizens took an active role in decision-making. Citizen assemblies and forums are open and inclusive gatherings where community members come together to discuss, debate, and make decisions regarding local food issues [34]. These events provide a democratic space where citizens can actively participate by sharing their knowledge, experiences, and concerns [39]. Citizen assemblies and forums are often organized by local governance structures, community groups, or non-governmental organizations, and they aim to promote open dialogue, collaboration, and collective decision-making [40]. This setup encourages the participation of large groups, sometimes numbering in the hundreds [41], which often allows for a more representative discussion of community and local-area issues while addressing broader topics. These events are typically more informal and occasional. Additionally, Stein highlights that it is not only the outcomes of these types of interactions that matter but also the repositioning of actors in relation to each other, which can be beneficial to them in the long term [31].

4.2.5. Participatory Research

In eleven studies, participatory research (also known as participatory action research) was used. This approach involves researchers and local partners on an equal footing at all research stages, from project design to results dissemination, including data analysis and interpretation. It is a flexible form of research that adapts to the local context and actively integrates citizens [42]. Participants are not merely studying subjects but play an active role in defining research questions, collecting data, and interpreting results. These initiatives ensure that the research reflects citizens’ concerns and perspectives on their food system, thus enhancing the relevance and applicability of the findings for the territory [43]. This type of research is used, in particular, to implement initiatives to improve the food system in Indigenous communities that colonialism has disrupted [42,44,45].

4.3. Benefits of Citizen Participation in Local Food Systems

Citizen participation provides numerous benefits that impact food system outcomes, governance, and participants themselves. Among other things, it has been shown to enhance community food security in urban areas [46,47] and in Indigenous communities [42,44,45] by supporting the creation of sustainable food economies and systems that are fairer [48] and by improving access to healthy foods for low-income citizens [27]. Citizen involvement also addresses disparities in health, economy, and the environment in priority areas for healthy eating [49,50] and transforms social bonds and the urban fabric [41].
In terms of governance, it promotes diversity and inclusivity, making consultation outcomes more representative of all citizens’ realities, especially those of typically excluded groups such as youth, disadvantaged people, women, minorities, and Indigenous communities [34,44,51]. Implementing alternative collaboration frameworks not only strengthens citizens’ abilities to act and make choices [34,41,49] but also educates them on issues related to food systems and nutrition [29,52], ultimately enhancing the legitimacy of the decisions made [34].
Participants noted benefits from these initiatives and appreciated the collective approach and the social connections they formed [37,41]. Participation enhanced their sense of belonging as well as their knowledge of and control over food systems and nutrition, which in turn fostered information exchange and mutual learning [29,41]. Citizen participation emerges as an effective means to develop resilient, sustainable local food systems tailored to local needs.

4.4. The Influence of the Specific Characteristics of the Region

Local food systems must adapt to the socio-economic and cultural particularities of their region. For instance, in 2019, Prost conducted research in one of England’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods, shaping citizen participation initiatives [53]. Similarly, Thompson et al. explored a food policy council’s operation in an area marked by historical socio-spatial segregation and structural racism [54]. Schiff et al. highlighted the dominance of white middle-class professionals in most food policy councils, noting that they often neglect to address underlying social disparities [30]. This observation echoes Packer, who found that most local food system governance councils focus on local food production and public health issues without addressing social disparities [55]. Such initiatives should instead consider the needs expressed by people experiencing exclusion and poverty [56]. Rather than reinforcing exclusion mechanisms, their collective actions will thus aim to transform the sociocultural framework and serve as vectors of inclusion [57] by instead considering the cultural heritage of vulnerable populations and the impacts of immigration, colonialism, and racism [47].
The political climate influences the creation of food policies, spatial planning, and the importance placed on citizen participation [29,58]. The involvement of citizens in food policy councils has led to increased awareness, confidence in democratic mechanisms, and political engagement within the territory [37]. The territory’s geography—urban or rural—also influences citizen participation initiatives. Such initiatives are more commonly implemented in local food systems located in major urban centers, while those in rural areas are more concerned with the lack of access to healthy food due to significant distances and high food costs in remote areas [52]. Disparities exist even among local food systems in major urban centers, with some situated in food production deserts and others in regions rich in food production, such as Pennsylvania’s “fruit belt” [52].

4.5. The Operation of Citizen Participation Initiatives

Five operational factors emerged as particularly important in shaping citizen participation initiatives. These factors have the potential not only to stimulate citizen participation but also to foster a more inclusive environment within local food systems. The choice of operational modalities was described as key to the successful integration of citizen participation in local food systems. First, these modalities should include a focus on inclusivity, meaning they should represent the entire population and pay special attention to including low-income and racialized minorities, who are often excluded from participation mechanisms [26,51,59,60]. Efforts to involve Indigenous populations, for example, by inviting Indigenous leaders to participate in local food systems working groups, should also be carried out [37].
Second, addressing barriers to participation is essential. This entails offering various participation methods to allow citizens to participate according to their preferences and constraints [40,41,51,61], along with measures such as reimbursing costs associated with participation—for example, transportation, accommodation, childcare, or loss of income [29,34].
Third, participants’ informational and learning needs should be supported. For instance, in working groups or during activities requiring deliberation, this could involve providing accurate and relevant information reflecting a diversity of viewpoints to help participants further their reflections and make informed choices. It could also mean offering training on various aspects of the food system and its governance to establish more equitable conditions of participation and support the acquisition of new knowledge and skills [61].
Fourth, the role of facilitation in citizen initiatives is critical to their success. Ideally, citizen initiatives mobilize community leaders, whether formally or informally [29,41,49,52,61,62]. It is important for facilitators to be trained in both facilitation and the topic being discussed to be able to explain and answer questions as clearly as possible [52].
Finally, it appears that citizen participation initiatives are more effective when they persist over time and are enhanced by the feedback from participants year after year [39,41].
In summary, successful citizen participation depends on a deep understanding of local contexts and adaptation to cultural and social realities. Operational modalities emerge as success factors in implementing citizen participation processes within local food systems.

4.6. The Consideration of Citizen Participation Initiatives in the Decision-Making Processes of Local Food Systems

Four mechanisms were highlighted to enable better integration of citizen participation initiatives into the decision-making processes of local food systems.
First, citizens’ projects and recommendations should be clearly documented, integrated into documents, and then transmitted to the relevant organizations. This allows for the collective recognition of citizens’ involvement and contribution.
Second, initiatives should ensure that citizens maintain control over their projects or recommendations. This can be achieved by creating opportunities for presenting their activities during assemblies and committee meetings. It also provides participants with the opportunity to amend their recommendations after discussions with stakeholders while retaining the final say on any modifications [36].
Third, initiatives should formulate and implement transparent decision-making mechanisms [60]. These mechanisms enhance the integrity of decisions and prevent the corruption of groups or individuals with financial means and sources of power who could unduly influence local food system decisions. Good practices in deliberative democracy are based on the following key principles: the process must be transparent and predictable; it must allow all stakeholders to present their views; and the process that actually took place must be documented in written records [50,63].
Finally, initiatives should record feedback and decision-making following citizen recommendations. Committees that can make or influence decisions and have access to citizen recommendations should record their comments and decisions related to citizen recommendations and ideally share them with the concerned participants [51].
In sum, incorporating citizen participation into local food systems’ decision-making processes not only bolsters the systems’ sustainability and inclusivity but also makes them more responsive to local needs, indicating that such inclusive engagement leads to beneficial transformation for local food systems.

5. Discussion

Several lessons can be drawn from these findings. First, it was observed that both the academic literature and the gray literature rarely engage in deep analysis of the modalities for understanding and optimizing the impact of citizen participation initiatives on local food systems. Additionally, the power dynamics between citizens and other stakeholders or between different entities influencing the local food system were rarely addressed. The challenges and parameters to consider in organizing each type of initiative were not well presented, even though these “organizational aspects reveal the differences between participatory practices” [24] (p. 116). As well, both the gray and academic literature reviewed lacked rigorous evaluations of the impacts of citizen participation [64,65]. Establishing standardized indicators and robust methodologies for evaluation is crucial for accurately measuring the effectiveness of citizen participation initiatives. At the same time, increasing attention is being paid to the evaluation of local food systems and their impacts [64,66]. Future research should focus on developing these frameworks to make it possible to draw meaningful conclusions and provide actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners.
It is important to remember that, unlike the citizen movements of the 1960s and 1970s, citizen participation initiatives have often been initiated by public organizations over the past 20 years [13,67]. In Québec, this shift was exemplified by the Gouvernement du Québec’s development of a guide for planning a public participation approach in 2020 [68]. While these recommendations for promoting citizen participation emphasize the dissemination of citizen feedback and the establishment of mechanisms to monitor decision-making processes [67,68], we rarely see any analysis of the follow-up to the organization of citizen initiatives, the decisions made, and their impact on the local food system. It can be assumed that citizen participation initiatives will become more influential and better integrated into local food systems once their governance structures are more firmly established.
Citizen participation is described as offering several advantages for local food systems, including better understanding needs, integrating citizens’ viewpoints, and ultimately fostering policies and food projects that better address citizens’ concerns. Giving citizens an active role in local food systems could also strengthen public trust in those systems and make food policies and projects more legitimate and socially accepted. Again, the data presented in both the academic and gray literature were not deeply explored. The modalities to optimize participants’ emancipatory experiences were scarcely documented and, in many cases, not documented at all. Also, the benefits of these initiatives for local food systems were described but not examined in depth. This contrasts with the abundant literature on best practices for citizen participation within community settings [69]. While the study highlights the visions and expected benefits guiding citizen participation initiatives, it also identifies potential discrepancies between intended goals and actual outcomes. As reported in this review, such gaps can arise due to organizational constraints, limited resources, institutional barriers, or unforeseen social dynamics. The factors influencing citizen participation identified in this review can help researchers and stakeholders anticipate these challenges and develop strategies to mitigate them.
Local food systems are complex systems in which actors do not all hold the same power. Some actors are traditionally dominant in food systems, notably higher government levels and large agribusinesses, which can exert disproportionate influence on decision-making, thus limiting citizens’ capacity to make hard decisions. Moreover, citizen participation should not be used by organizations to legitimize pre-made decisions, steering discussions to their advantage [67]. Several researchers raise the issue of the real influence of actors involved in decision-making participation processes but do not study the issue in depth, and they do so even less within the context of local food systems. Booth and Coveney [18] argue that citizen participation initiatives, and more broadly, food democracy, can contribute to local food system governance as long as their decisions have a real impact. Accordingly, this would require greater transparency about the power dynamics among different actors and would require the documentation of the most effective citizen mobilization and participation strategies to influence decisions and achieve concrete results.
One of the strengths of this article is the inclusion of both academic studies and gray literature, the latter of which often provides very rich information about initiatives. However, this approach may also introduce biases, as some grassroots or innovative initiatives might be overlooked in the gray literature due to limited documentation or less rigorous analysis typically found in academic sources. While five main types of initiatives have been identified, it is important to note the difficulty in classifying them due to their diverse characteristics, some of which are at the intersection of several types. Moreover, the citizen participation initiatives that are implemented are often scarcely documented or not documented at all, which limits the number of documents included in the review and the representativeness of the analyses. Also, the documents analyzed often present a brief description of citizen participation initiatives without delving into the issues [21,70].

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study offers an overview of the state of knowledge and practices related to citizen participation in local food systems. Five main types of initiatives that promote broader, more inclusive citizen participation and encourage dialogue to inform decision-making processes were identified, i.e., food governance committees that include citizens, citizen working groups, participatory workshops, citizen forums and assemblies, and participatory research.
By identifying key categories and factors influencing citizen participation, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners can develop targeted strategies to enhance engagement. Understanding these factors allows for initiatives that directly address barriers, fostering environments conducive to active citizen involvement. Policymakers can adapt successful strategies and innovative approaches from the literature to their specific contexts, thereby improving the effectiveness of local food systems. This review provides a practical framework for promoting more inclusive and participatory governance in local food systems, ultimately strengthening community resilience and sustainability.

7. Future Implications

Future studies should aim to mobilize knowledge from other sectors that use citizen participation mechanisms, especially popular education approaches [71], territorial planning [72], and environmental management, exemplified by the Aarhus Convention, which aims for public participation in environmental decision-making [73]. It would also be important to consider the various tools available, particularly concerning the participation of marginalized populations in food-related matters [74]. Given the growing enthusiasm for local food systems, it is likely that citizen participation initiatives in local food systems will continue to develop over time [33,75].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.D., L.G., and G.M.; methodology, M.F.-G.; validation, L.G.; formal analysis, L.A.; investigation, L.A. and M.F.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, L.A.; writing—review and editing, L.G., S.D., and G.M.; supervision, L.G.; project administration, L.G.; funding acquisition, L.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This report was written as part of the COSAM (Coalition for the Food System of Mauricie) research project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant number 890-2021-0043).

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, or iTab interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Baldy, J.; Kruse, S. Food Democracy from the Top Down? State-Driven Participation Processes for Local Food System Transformations towards Sustainability. Politics Gov. 2019, 7, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. FAO. Suivi des progrès des indicateurs des ODD liés à l’alimentation et à l’agriculture 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nisbett, N.; Harris, J.; Backholer, K.; Baker, P.; Jernigan, V.B.B.; Friel, S. Holding no-one back: The Nutrition Equity Framework in theory and practice. Glob. Food Secur. 2022, 32, 100605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Springmann, M.; Clark, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Wiebe, K.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Lassaletta, L.; de Vries, W.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Herrero, M.; Carlson, K.M.; et al. Options for Keeping the Food System within Environmental Limits. Nature 2018, 562, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Martin, C. Everyone Deserves a Seat at the Table: The Role of Participatory Design in Reimagining Our Food Systems for Greater Equity and Resilience. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022. Available online: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/145005 (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  6. Candel, J. EU Food-System Transition Requires Innovative Policy Analysis Methods. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 296–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rochefort, G.; Lapointe, A.; Mercier, A.-P.; Parent, G.; Provencher, V.; Lamarche, B. A Rapid Review of Territorialized Food Systems and Their Impacts on Human Health, Food Security, and the Environment. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Van Bers, C.; Delaney, A.; Eakin, H.; Cramer, L.; Purdon, M.; Oberlack, C.; Evans, T.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Eriksen, S.; Jones, L. Advancing the Research Agenda on Food Systems Governance and Transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 39, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. Milan Pact Awards 2022 Report. Available online: https://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Milan-Pact-Awards-2022-REPORT_light.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2024).
  10. Mansfield, B.; Mendes, W. Municipal Food Strategies and Integrated Approaches to Urban Agriculture: Exploring Three Cases from the Global North. Int. Plan. Stud. 2013, 18, 37–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. El Bilali, H. Research on Agro-food Sustainability Transitions: Where are Food Security and Nutrition? Food Secur. 2019, 11, 559–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Allen, T.; Prosperi, P. Modeling Sustainable Food Systems. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 956–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mercier, C. Participation citoyenne et développement des Communautés au Québec. 2009. Available online: https://consortium-mauricie.org/file/aruc_se--minaire-participation-citoyenne.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  14. Bodiguel, L. Le Développement des Projets Alimentaires Territoriaux en France: Quel Droit pour Quelle Relocalisation de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation? World Union of Agricultural Law, Éd.; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. 2018. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-01971725/file/Bodiguel_Paper_Publication_.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  15. Hassanein, N. Locating Food Democracy: Theoretical and Practical Ingredients. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2008, 3, 286–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Booth, S.; Coveney, J. Food Democracy: From Consumer to Food Citizen; Springer: Singapore, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hassanein, N. Practicing Food Democracy: A Pragmatic Politics of Transformation. J. Rural Stud. 2003, 19, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lang, I.D.R. For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  19. Petetin, L. Food democracy in food systems. In Food Democracy in Food Systems; Thompson, P.B., Kaplan, D.M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–7. Available online: https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/98912/ (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  20. Levkoe, C.Z. Towards A Transformative Food Politics. Local Environ. 2011, 16, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Porter, C.A.; Ashcraft, C.M. New England food policy councils: An assessment of organizational structure, policy priorities and public participation. Elem. Sci. Anth. 2020, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fung, A. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Admin. Rev. 2006, 66, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baethge, C.; Goldbeck-Wood, S.; Mertens, S. SANRA—A Scale for the Quality Assessment of Narrative Review Articles. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 2019, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bherer, L. Les relations ambiguës entre participation et politiques publiques. Participations 2011, 1, 105–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Paillé, P.; Mucchielli, A. L’analyse thématique. In L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales: Vol. 5e éd.; Armand Colin. 2021, pp. 269–357. Available online: https://www.cairn.info/l-analyse-qualitative-en-sciences-humaines--9782200624019-p-269.htm (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  26. McCullagh, E.M.; Santo, R. Inclusion of Diverse Community Residents on Food Policy Councils. Ph.D. thesis, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA, 2012. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/c63e01f48fc6744c25b0f9e8e9a34442/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  27. Bassarab, K.; Clark, J.K.; Santo, R.; Palmer, A. Finding Our Way to Food Democracy: Lessons from US Food Policy Council Governance. Politics Gov. 2019, 7, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mendes, W. Implementing Social and Environmental Policies in Cities: The Case of Food Policy in Vancouver, Canada. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2008, 32, 942–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Coplen, P.A.; Cuneo, M. Dissolved: Lessons Learned from the Portland Multnomah Food Policy Council. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2015, 1, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Schiff, R.; Levkoe, C.Z.; Wilkinson, A. Food Policy Councils: A 20-Year Scoping Review (1999–2019). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 868995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Stein, N. Governing Urban Food: The Role of Citizen Food Initiatives. 2021. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/569541 (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  32. Rabialahy, A.J.; Guillaumie, L. Les conseils de gouvernance des systèmes alimentaires territorialisés. 2022. Available online: https://www.fsi.ulaval.ca/sites/default/files/documents/laurence-guillaumie/synthese_gouvernance_sat_-_version_longue.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  33. Huttunen, S.; Turunen, A.; Kaljonen, M. Participation for Just Governance of Food-System Transition. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 18, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. OECD. Participation Citoyenne Innovante et Nouvelles Institutions Démocratiques. Available online: https://web-archive.oecd.org/2021-06-14/592012-OCDE-Participation-citoyenne-innovante-et-nouvelles-institutions-d%C3%A9mocratiques-2020.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2024).
  35. Leclerc, C.; Bourassa, B.; Picard, F.; Courcy, F. Du groupe focalisé à la recherche collaborative: Avantages, défis et stratégies. Rech. Qual. 2011, 29, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lequin, J. Participation des citoyens à l’élaboration d’un projet alimentaire territorial (PAT): L’expérience des ateliers de cuisine de rue. Cah. Action 2022, 58, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Levkoe, C.Z.; Sheedy, A. A People-centred Approach to Food Policy Making: Lessons from Canada’s People’s Food Policy Project. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2019, 14, 318–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lourival, I.; Rose, N. From Nar Nar Goon to Koo Wee Rup: Can Participatory Food Policy Making Processes Contribute to Healthier and Fairer Food Systems in the Australian Municipal Context? A Case Study from Cardinia Shire, Melbourne. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2022, 17, 265–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mutuma, B. The Politics of Community Engagement: How to Involve Community in Needed Food Policy Reform. 2014. Available online: https://assets.jhsph.edu/clf/mod_clfResource/doc/The-Politics-of-Community-Engagement-Mutuma.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  40. Doherty, B.; Sidhu, Y.; Heron, T.; West, C.; Seaton, A.; Gulec, J.; Prado, P.; Flores Martinez, P. Citizen Participation in Food Systems Policy Making: A Case Study of a Citizens’ Assembly. Emerald Open Res. 2020, 2, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Klein, J.-L.; Enríquez, D. La lutte pour la sécurité alimentaire vue à travers l’approche de l’initiative locale: Le modèle d’action de Parole d’excluEs à Montréal. Norois 2022, 262, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lamalice, A.; Avard, E.; Coxam, V.; Herrmann, T.; Desbiens, C.; Wittrant, Y.; Blangy, S. Soutenir la sécurité alimentaire dans le Grand Nord: Projets communautaires d’agriculture sous serre au Nunavik et au Nunavut. Études/Inuit/Studies 2016, 40, 147–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jacobson, M.; Pruitt-Chapin, K.; Rugeley, C. Toward Reconstructing Poverty Knowledge: Addressing Food Insecurity through Grassroots Research Design and Implementation. J. Poverty 2009, 13, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Domingo, A.; Charles, K.-A.; Jacobs, M.; Brooker, D.; Hanning, R.M. Indigenous Community Perspectives of Food Security, Sustainable Food Systems and Strategies to Enhance Access to Local and Traditional Healthy Food for Partnering Williams Treaties First Nations (Ontario, Canada). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Parent, É. Food Is Power: Agriculture, jardins et réconciliation avec les Cris de Chisasibi. Les Cahiers du CIÉRA 2021, 19, 16–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Swartz, H.; Santo, R.; Neff, R.A. Promoting Sustainable Food System Change Amidst Inequity: A Case Study of Baltimore, Maryland. In Advances in Food Security and Sustainability; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 3, pp. 135–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kessler, M. Achieving Equity (with)in Food Policy Councils: Confronting Structural Racism and Centering Community. 2019. Available online: https://nmbu.brage.unit.no/nmbu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2623772/Kessler2019.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  48. Brons, A.; Van Der Gaast, K.; Awuh, H.; Jansma, J.E.; Segreto, C.; Wertheim-Heck, S. A Tale of Two Labs: Rethinking Urban Living Labs for Advancing Citizen Engagement in Food System Transformations. Cities 2022, 123, 103552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Boden, S.; Hoover, B. Food Policy Councils in the Mid-Atlantic: Working Toward Justice. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2018, 8, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fink, J.; Wolff Landau, N. Equitable Compensation for Food Policy Council Engagement. 2022. Available online: https://assets.jhsph.edu/clf/mod_clfResource/doc/FPC%20Stipend%20Program%20Draft_2022-06-15.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  51. Giddy, A.; Klein, A.; Baxter, J. Building Collaboration. 2022. Available online: https://justfoodhalifax.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/justfoodgov_report_Oct2022-3.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  52. Franzen-Castle, L.; Remley, D.; McCormack, L.; Adamski, R.; Henne, R.; Eicher-Miller, H.A.; Mehrle, D.J.; Stluka, S. Engaging Rural Community Members with Food Policy Councils to Improve Food Access: Facilitators and Barriers. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2022, 17, 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Prost, S. Food Democracy for All? Developing a Food Hub in the Context of Socio-Economic Deprivation. Politics Gov. 2019, 7, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thompson, D.; Johnson, K.R.; Cistrunk, K.M.; Vancil-Leap, A.; Nyatta, T.; Hossfeld, L.; Rico Méndez, G.; Jones, C. Assemblage, food justice, and intersectionality in rural Mississippi: The Oktibbeha Food Policy Council. Sociol. Spectr. 2020, 40, 381–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Packer, M.M. Civil Subversion: Making “Quiet Revolution” with the Rhode Island Food Policy Council. J. Crit. Thought Praxis 2014, 3, 4890979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dupéré, S. Vers une autonomie alimentaire pour tous: Agir et Vivre Ensemble le Changement. 2012. Available online: https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/app/uploads/2021/08/pauvrete2011-2012_dupere_s_rapport-final.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  57. Fontan, J.-M.; Heck, I. Parole d’excluEs: Croisement des savoirs, des pouvoirs et des pratiques au sein de l’Incubateur universitaire Parole d’excluEs. Éduc. Soc. 2017, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Michel, S.; Wiek, A.; Bloemertz, L.; Bornemann, B.; Granchamp, L.; Villet, C.; Gascón, L.; Sipple, D.; Blanke, N.; Lindenmeier, J.; et al. Opportunities and challenges of food policy councils in pursuit of food system sustainability and food democracy–a comparative case study from the Upper-Rhine region. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 916178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bondy, A.; Crespi, E.; Evans, N.; Rosenthal, A. Resident Food Equity Advisors Application Analysis. 2018. Available online: https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/RFEA%20Applicant%20Analysis%202018.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  60. Ostenso, V.; Dring, C.; Wittman, H. Planning for Whom? Toward Culturally Inclusive Food Systems in Metro Vancouver. In The Immigrant-Food Nexus; Agyeman, J., Giacalone, S., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 225–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Heck, I.; Socquet-Juglard, F. Pour la Sécurisation Alimentaire au Québec: Perspective Territoriale, 1st ed.; Presses de l’Université du Québec: Québec, QC, Canada, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dupéré, S.; Gélineau, L.; Dufour, É.; Dupuis, M.-J. Soutenir la participation des personnes en situation de pauvreté à la gouvernance d’un projet de recherche-action participative (RAP): Défis et leçons à partir d’un projet de recherche sur l’autonomie alimentaire. Technol. Innov. 2022, 7, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Conseil National de l’Alimentation. Participation des citoyens aux travaux du cna: Analyses et recommandations du Comité d’Action pour la Participation. 2023. Available online: https://cna-alimentation.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/CNA-Guide-Methodologique_Participation-de-citoyens-aux-travaux-du-CNA.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  64. Blay-Palmer, A.; Sonnino, R.; Custot, J. A Food Politics of the Possible? Growing Sustainable Food Systems through Networks of Knowledge. Agric. Hum. Values 2018, 35, 595–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Moragues-Faus, A. Towards a Critical Governance Framework: Unveiling the Political and Justice Dimensions of Urban Food Partnerships. Geogr. J. 2020, 186, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Moragues-Faus, A.; Sonnino, R. Re-assembling sustainable food city governance: An exploration of food policy assemblages in the UK. Cities 2019, 85, 110–115. [Google Scholar]
  67. Scognamiglio, T.; Carrel, M. La participation citoyenne: Définitions, méthodologies et état des lieux. Action publique. Rech. Et Prat. 2022, 13, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gouvernement du Québec. Guide pour la planification d’une démarche de participation publique. 2020. Available online: https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/gouvernement/SCT/participation_citoyenne/guide-planif-demarche-participation-pub_2020-01-15.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2024).
  69. Smith, G. Power Beyond the Ballot: 57 Democratic Innovations from Around the World; Power Inquiry: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bassarab, K.; Santo, R.; Palmer, A. Food Policy Council Report. 2018. Available online: https://assets.jhsph.edu/clf/mod_clfResource/doc/FPC%20Report%202018_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
  71. Gaventa, J.; Barrett, G. Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement. World Dev. 2012, 40, 2399–2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Healey, P. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  73. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Convention sur l’accès à l’information et la participation du public au processus décisionnel: Convention d’Aarhus et le Protocole de Kiev. 2022. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/fr/environnement-changement-climatique/organisation/affaires-internationales/partenariats-pays-regions/amerique-nord/convention-acces-information-participation-public-processus-decisionnel-convention-aarhus-protocole-kiev.html (accessed on 10 February 2024).
  74. Alkon, A.H.; Agyeman, J. Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  75. Oñederra-Aramendi, A.; Begiristain-Zubillaga, M.; Cuellar-Padilla, M. Characterisation of Food Governance for Alternative and Sustainable Food Systems: A Systematic Review. Agric. Econ. 2023, 11, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Keywords for identifying included documents.
Table 1. Keywords for identifying included documents.
ConceptSearch Query
Citizen
participation		(citizen* OR social OR community OR communities OR public) NEAR/2 (participa* OR initiative* OR engag* OR involv* OR action* OR mobiliz*)
Local food system(food OR nutrition OR agrofood OR agrifood OR agro-food OR agri-food) NEAR/2 (council* OR polic* OR politic* OR planning OR system* OR coalition* OR network* OR committee* OR assembl* OR board* OR advis* OR association* OR democracy OR alliance* OR strateg* OR initiative*)
Table 2. Characteristics of the documents included in the review.
Table 2. Characteristics of the documents included in the review.
CharacteristicsNumber of
Documents		Percentage
Year of publication2005–200913
2010–2014412
2015–20191132
2020–20231853
Type of documentScientific articles2059
Methodological guides13
Theses or dissertations39
Report—Literature review26
Report—Account of experience26
Report—Case study617
Country of the issuing organizationUnited States1441
Canada1235
France39
Others (e.g., England and Germany)515
Geographical scopeLocal (neighborhood, community)1029
Municipal1441
Regional618
National412
Categories of citizen participation mechanisms discussedFood governance committees that include citizens2147
Citizen working groups613
Participatory workshops37
Citizen forums or assemblies37
Participatory research1124
Multiple categories12
Table 3. Characteristics of types of citizen participation in local food systems.
Table 3. Characteristics of types of citizen participation in local food systems.
Types of Citizen Participation MechanismsObjectivesParameters to Consider
Food governance committees that include citizensInvolve citizens in decision-making, in collaboration with the food governance committee. Citizens may be in the minority.
Citizen working groupsInvolve citizens in specialized groups to tackle specific problems linked to food systems.The groups generally deal with a specific subject (in which they are not necessarily specialists).
Participatory workshopsFacilitate practical and engaging interactions, enabling citizens to become actively involved in food-related activities.These require an informal place for participation and the presence of facilitators; they can be tailored to include people in vulnerable situations.
Citizen forums and assembliesFacilitate practical and engaging interactions, enabling citizens to become actively involved in food-related activities.These make it possible to include a larger number of participants, often representative of the community; they offer a more open format; and they are generally one-off events.
Participatory
research		Facilitate practical and engaging interactions, enabling citizens to become actively involved in food-related activities.Well suited to including and supporting minorities.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Affre, L.; Guillaumie, L.; Dupéré, S.; Mercille, G.; Fortin-Guay, M. Citizen Participation Practices in the Governance of Local Food Systems: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145990

AMA Style

Affre L, Guillaumie L, Dupéré S, Mercille G, Fortin-Guay M. Citizen Participation Practices in the Governance of Local Food Systems: A Literature Review. Sustainability. 2024; 16(14):5990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145990

Chicago/Turabian Style

Affre, Lys, Laurence Guillaumie, Sophie Dupéré, Geneviève Mercille, and Marilou Fortin-Guay. 2024. "Citizen Participation Practices in the Governance of Local Food Systems: A Literature Review" Sustainability 16, no. 14: 5990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145990

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop