Exploring Regional Food Futures in Peri-Urban Austria—Participatory Generation of Scenarios and Policy Recommendations

Abstract

Current food systems provide relative food security but compromise planetary health and largely fail to address climate change challenges. Regional food supplies can contribute to sustainable production and consumption, reducing the dependence on global supply chains. However, food systems’ complexity and rigidity hinder the implementation of climate-conscious, healthier practices. The City.Food.Basket project explored regional food baskets in urban and peri-urban settings in Austria for the City of Graz and its surroundings, developing models for regional, healthy, and low-climate-impact diets. Against this background, we present a qualitative study that generated three explorative scenarios for promoting regional diets using a Delphi-based expert-stakeholder survey method with participatory elements. A scenario workshop elaborated on interconnecting actions to strengthen regional food supply, including making regional food a tender criterion, reducing waste, ensuring affordability, and shifting subsidies to climate-conscious practices for Graz. While the method successfully provides socio-technical futures for policy orientation, its direct policy impact remains low due to time constraints, short project duration, limited project resources, and differing rationalities between research and policymaking. This study highlights the need for improved connectivity between transdisciplinary research, foresight methods, and regional policy cycles to enhance such projects’ effectiveness.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war have revealed significant vulnerabilities in global food systems, underscoring an urgent need for stronger localised food solutions as part of a mix of measures to ensure food security. These crises have spurred increasing interest in sustainable food systems to bolster resilience and food security [1,2]. Our current food production and distribution methods are depleting and polluting the Earth’s finite resources and are affecting human health. The loss of global biodiversity, increasing species extinctions, the expansion of urban centres, heightened human vulnerability, and the climate crisis all affect food security worldwide. Therefore, significant transformations are essential to guarantee future food security and safety [3].

Global food landscapes are undergoing rapid transformations across various socioeconomic contexts, simultaneously triggering considerable nutritional challenges and issues of ecological sustainability [4,5]. The increasing presence and adoption of global ultra-processed foods significantly impact human health. Furthermore, rising environmental pollution may diminish the benefits of local foods, thereby promoting the market success of ultra-processed alternatives [6].

In Europe, the food system is mainly connected to regional and local culture and tourism. Shaaban and Voglhuber-Slavinsky [5] highlight that European agriculture focuses not only on food security, productivity, and economic efficiency but also on multifunctionality. This includes providing environmental and social public goods, mainly ecosystem services, that contribute to human well-being through provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural services. Regional food systems are seen as sustainable and eco-friendly because they are close to consumers and decrease industrialisation in the sector. Local and organic food movements boost farmer incomes and rural economies, supporting small-scale agriculture. These systems promote healthy eating, reduce food waste, protect the environment, and foster economic, cultural, and social well-being, making them vital for regional sustainability [7].

A comparison based on the ecological footprint calculation shows the advantages of shortened logistics chains, such as shorter transport routes, the elimination of intermediaries, and reduced packaging for certain food products in Austria [8]. However, shorter transport routes may not always lead to more environmentally friendly products, as many other factors contribute to environmental sustainability, such as consumers’ dietary choices. To guide consumers’ decision-making towards greater sustainability, evaluations on a case-by-case basis are necessary, and national policy mixes for achieving the EU’s common agricultural policy need to reflect such evaluations [9].

A barrier to healthy nutrition is the prevailing conditions in food production, distribution, and marketing systems that create an environment that prioritises nutrient-deficient processed foods over wholesome, fresh options like fruits and vegetables [4]. Also, Goh et al. [4] found that focusing solely on individual food choices for behavioural change is insufficient—a holistic approach addressing the entire food environment is necessary, as factors like trade policies, corporate influence, and power dynamics shape food availability and affordability. During the past decades, this has led to a widespread supply chain shift towards nutrient-poor processed foods across socioeconomic levels and countries. Therefore, our current food system provides relative food security in the short term at the expense of the environment and planetary health. At the same time, it does not meet the challenges posed by climate change. For instance, experts evaluated climate change disruptions as the most significant future challenge for food systems in Finland, the EU, and globally, with expected higher costs for recovering from disturbances and shocks. In response, they suggested that reducing import dependency was vital, as well as increasing nutrient recycling and farm energy independence [10]. They put forward two scenarios—desirable and probable. In the probable scenario, Finland’s food system develops resilience while maintaining its current product range. Recognising the need for better preparedness and cooperation, the investment in backup systems increases. However, low profitability and a connected sense of injustice hinder trust-building between food chain actors. Environmental values boost domestic production inputs, but structural changes regarding profitability and vulnerability reduce actor diversity. Finland remains dependent on global markets and foreign labour, exposing it to international disturbances while competing globally with lower-cost producers [10]. In the desirable scenario, Finland’s food system becomes more coordinated, self-sufficient, and resilient. It advances locality, circularity, and agency and focuses on soil health and crop diversity. The system is more distributed, with increased trust and cooperation among local actors, which leads to improved flexibility, reduced recovery costs, and increased profitability. This shift attracts more domestic workers and investments in innovative solutions [10].

A recent study suggests that “the European Alpine space could produce 89% of its current food demand domestically, with high regional variability due to population density, availability of agricultural land, crop yields, climatic conditions and dietary habits” [11]. In Austria, global warming already impacts agriculture through rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and extreme weather patterns, causing reduced yield and crop quality and increased vulnerability to pests and diseases [12]. Austrian agriculture exhibits diverse regional production systems due to varied topography and climate. Precipitation patterns and climate change vulnerability differ significantly across areas. Effective adaptation strategies must consider local conditions, practical knowledge, socioeconomic factors, and greenhouse gas impacts. This tailored approach is crucial for reducing vulnerability and enhancing the resilience to inevitable climate shifts in Austrian agriculture [12]. Apart from diverse adaptation strategies within agricultural production, Erb, K.-H., et al. [13] identify the need for adapting primary strategies within the consumption and process chain in Austria. This includes sufficiency measures, reducing food waste, and limiting highly processed products in retail, catering, and households, as well as changing eating habits towards a predominantly plant-based diet, since Austrian meat consumption significantly exceeds the national standards for a healthy diet. According to Statistik Austria’s supply balances, per capita meat consumption in 2022 was 83.5 kg (228 g per day) (https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2023/08/20230831VersorgungsbilanzentierischeProdukte2022EN.pdf, accessed on 5 March 2025). Pork is consumed the most, followed by poultry and beef/veal. For mixed diets, only one portion of meat per week (32.25 g per day) is recommended. In addition, experts consider organically produced, primarily regionally sourced products as promising strategies for a future-oriented food system in Austria. While reducing transport distances alone has limited CO₂ reduction potential, combining regional and seasonal food consumption increases the mitigation potential [13]. Reducing meat consumption can result in unwanted side-effects, for instance, iron deficiency, especially in vulnerable population groups, such as children or younger women who have an increased iron requirement due to menstruation, pregnancy, or lactation. However, as in Austria, “67 percent of pregnant women take pharmacological supplements or use a variety of dietary supplements […] the prevalence of maternal anemia is often overestimated, leading to overtreatment of pregnant women” [14]. Furthermore, the following iron-rich plant-based foods, which can be regionally sourced, are recommended for augmenting iron uptake: wholegrain products, oats, sorghum, yeast, thyme, mangold, chickpeas, peas, lamb’s lettuce, strawberries, nuts, and chanterelles. A systematic review of nutrient intake in different diets concludes that: “There were nutrient inadequacies across all dietary patterns, including vegan, vegetarian and meat-based diets. As plant-based diets are generally better for health and the environment, public health strategies should facilitate the transition to a balanced diet with more diverse nutrient-dense plant foods through consumer education, food fortification and possibly supplementation” [15].

For Austria and other countries with access to required natural resources, regional food supplies can significantly contribute to sustainable food production and consumption and reduce dependence on global supply chains [11]. Goh, E.V., et al. [4] argue for a cross-sector approach for food security, integrating health, agriculture, and food industry policies. Other authors also suggest localising the food supply chains with direct farm-to-consumer links to improve healthy food accessibility for disadvantaged communities [4]. Experts consider the need for consensus on shared responsibility for sustainable food practices across all levels. Education should encompass consumers and supply chain actors alike. To transform food systems, civil society and food policy councils can spearhead local food initiatives, promoting value over price for responsibly produced local food [4]. Le Noë, J., et al. [16] emphasise the role of different diets in the food policy in Austria. For example, reducing animal product consumption could enhance food self-sufficiency and facilitate the widespread adoption of organic farming in Austria. This dietary shift could also transform the agricultural and forestry sectors into net greenhouse gas (GHG) sinks rather than sources of emissions [16].

Rimhanen and Aakkula [17] identified four key elements of resilience for the future in food systems: “system thinking through science and communication; redundancy of activities and networks; diversity of production and partners; and buffering strategies”.

However, the food system is a complex conglomerate of actors, interests, products, processes, and conflicting goals. Numerous hurdles hinder the adoption of more climate-conscious and healthier production and dietary practices. In this context, anticipating alternative futures enables the exploration of present actions that can guide decisions towards preferable outcomes. In this regard, Bourgeois and Sette [18] state: “Actionable foresight in food and agriculture faces the double challenge of including multiple stakeholders and reaching significant impact”. Moreover, they suggest increased local foresight in food and agriculture being essential alongside global initiatives, as regional and national issues are best addressed through a blend of both.

Considering the presented academic experts’ knowledge as a background cognitive knowledge within the City.Food.Basket (CFB) project, a transdisciplinary research group studied the potential of regional food baskets in urban settings (City of Graz, Austria) from the perspective of stakeholders and citizens. The project team included a small enterprise in Graz, a local and an international research institute, practitioners (a grocery shop and an information platform in Graz), and an NGO (Zero Waste Austria). The first step before the calculation of environmental impacts of different diets was the definition of a model for different types of consumers as fictional personas to consume regional and healthy food with reduced climate impacts per person and week. Different diets (omnivore, Planetary Health Diet, vegan, and vegetarian) have been modelled for different personas (younger and older single households, families, etc.) [8]. The quantitative model for environmental impacts and cost calculations was a basis for a qualitative participatory foresight study on framework conditions to support the development and implementation of a climate-conscious regional food system in Austria and beyond. In this paper, we present the developed models for alternative plausible futures as three explorative scenarios to consider the results of quantitative models. These scenarios in a foresight process should support the development of regional policy options for Graz in a transdisciplinary way.

Foresight is a structured, participatory approach to exploring future possibilities and drivers of change. It employs various methods to foster collective intelligence and creative thinking beyond current trends. Both outcomes, information and process benefits, enhance future-oriented decision-making. Interactive dialogue strengthens the system’s adaptability and builds shared understanding among diverse stakeholders, thus unlocking present potential [5].

Scenario building, a crucial foresight method, generates plausible alternative futures integrating various systems. Scenarios may encompass qualitative and quantitative elements to illustrate potential outcomes [5,19]. Scenario planning is a means of shaping and “creating multiple futures”, a set of structurally different, plausible scenarios that map potential future developments’ diversities, uncertainties, and complexities [20]. Scenarios are neither desirable visions nor predictions of the future (forecasts); instead, they narrate selected stories of how various possible worlds could unfold [21,22], grasping the process of change from the present to the future and the full range of different social, technical, and environmental (and many other) developments [23], such as the impact of climate change or the introduction of new technologies [24]. In the next section, we will describe the methodology for scenario development for innovative regional food supply using the example of the CFB project.

2. Materials and Methods

Scenario Development Based on a Multistage Delphi-Based Expert-Stakeholder Survey with Participatory Elements

As part of the CFB project, we established a citizen and an expert advisory board as a participative steering group for the whole project. The project developed three explorative scenarios for Graz on plausible futures for promoting regional diets using a multi-stage Delphi-based expert survey [20,25,26] with participatory elements (cf. Figure 1). In a final scenario workshop held in January 2023, consumers and experts developed options for action related to policy, production, trade, and regional communities based on the scenarios. These options aim to strengthen regional food supply, contribute to sustainable consumption, and reduce dependence on global supply chains. Additionally, the results from other CFB work packages regarding the design of personas with varying diets and the quantitative calculation of the environmental impacts of these diets (cf. [8]) were incorporated as background information during scenario workshop. Scenarios and developed recommendations have received positive feedback from a broader spectrum of actors during a validation workshop in April 2023.

In the first round of this process, an online survey was developed based on first discussions with the project citizen and an expert advisory board and sent to more than 200 international experts from a variety of disciplines to identify a wide range of factors that may influence the successful implementation of regional food baskets in the next 5–10 years. Results of the qualitative analysis and aggregation of 28 valid survey data sets were summarised in a list of 39 factors in six categories. The categories are based on the STEEEP framework [27] (health, socio-economic, technological, economic, environmental, and political factors). These were used as the basis for a second online survey by the end of 2021 (see

Table 1. All factors aggregated from the first survey and selected shaping factors for scenario building (in bold).

1.	High-quality, healthy, fresh food, e.g., avoiding contaminants and promoting regional and organic products.
2.	Changes in the range and production of processed foods, e.g., by reducing unhealthy (high in sugar, salt, and fat) “bad” foods and avoiding discounts.
3.	Healthier lifestyles for consumers, e.g., in terms of eating habits (e.g., less meat), exercise (physical activity), and work–life balance.
4.	Improved health of consumers, e.g., about pandemics, cardiovascular disease, and ageing.
5.	Producers are striving for a healthier lifestyle, such as work–life balance and healthier working conditions, and they are considering the changing needs of older people.
6.	Increased (health and nutrition) awareness, e.g., through education, knowledge transfer, and information on the links between nutrition and health.
7.	Addressing food trends and allergies, e.g., through product labelling.
8.	Increasing the need for personal contact between actors, e.g., consumers and producers, by supporting regional supply and mutual appreciation.
9.	Fair and liveable working conditions for all (producers, employees in trade, etc.), e.g., through secure income, secure jobs in the region, and education.
10.	Growing inequalities influence purchasing decisions, such as those between urban and rural areas, income, social status, and education.
11.	Demand for socially fair prices and accurate cost pricing, e.g., fair prices in agriculture, transparent costs, and consideration of external costs.
12.	Increased technological scepticism in society.
13.	Increased digitalisation of purchasing, simplified distribution and accessibility of regional products through technological distribution and delivery systems, e.g., online shops with shipping and digital payment and self-service vending machines directly at regional producers.
14.	Facilitating everyday life through increased digitisation, e.g., through attractive web and social media presences, fast payment methods and easy-to-use applications (usability).
15.	Technologies that simplify, automate, and make production more productive and thus more cost-effective, e.g., preservation, automation, and agricultural robotics.
16.	Climate-friendly, resource-efficient production methods, e.g., through improved/climate-neutral machines, digitalisation, and renewable energy.
17.	An increasing number of industrially produced products, e.g., meat alternatives, highly processed vegan products.
18.	Increased use of biotechnology and genetic engineering.
19.	Development of a new market for regional products and thus an increased range of products, e.g., through business start-ups, generational change and new business locations (e.g., through locational advantages).
20.	Fair pricing and price transparency for regional, healthy, and high-quality products.
21.	Inter-company, local, and regional cooperation between producers and retailers, e.g., in associations such as purchasing and production communities, cooperatives, or associations.
22.	Increased promotion and marketing of regional, seasonal, organic, and healthy products as “environmentally friendly”.
23.	Transparent traceability of production routes and value chains of local and global trade, e.g., with appropriate tools as decision-making aids.
24.	Declining attractiveness of the farming profession.
25.	Promotion of regional innovations, e.g., use of (previously unused) regional raw materials and species.
26.	Government support strengthens regional agriculture and production, such as funding for organic farming, subsidies, and tax breaks for local purchases.
27.	Changing trade regulations in favour of small and very small producers.
28.	Legal regulations to weaken non-sustainable forms of production, e.g., through higher transport costs, tariffs, (CO2) taxes, emissions trading, removal of subsidies and supply chain legislation.
29.	Introduction of quality seals, labels, and product standards, e.g., Nutri-Score, organic label.
30.	Intervention in competition, e.g., to prevent distortion of competition, price dumping and cartels.
31.	Increased political attention and resources to improve public health.
32.	Introduction of deposit systems for transport and packaging materials, e.g., disposable bottles, delivery services, and takeaway food.
33.	Increasing climate-friendly short transport and shopping distances, e.g., for supermarkets and restaurants.
34.	Reducing food waste in production, trade, and households.
35.	Reducing packaging waste in production, trade, and households.
36.	Increased environmental awareness of all stakeholders, e.g., due to climate change and natural disasters, has led to boycotts of non-climate-friendly foods.
37.	Increased climate change mitigation measures: application of more environmentally friendly production techniques throughout the value chain, e.g., clean technologies, renewable energy, sustainable production methods, organic production, crop rotation, soil protection to avoid nitrate inputs, soil sealing, species extinction and deforestation.
38.	Increased sense of responsibility for the problems of factory farming and animal suffering.
39.	Increased moral awareness of production conditions, e.g., child labour, gender equality, public welfare, and lack of local added value.

). Here, experts assessed the potential impact of the factors according to the dimensions of the strength of influence and estimated probability of occurrence. For example, “High quality of healthy, fresh food, e.g., avoiding contaminants, promoting regional and organic products”. In Table 1, it was considered to have a high impact on the food system and a high probability of occurring.

The project team also carried out a further impact analysis [28,29], in which influencing effects between factors are assessed to categorise the factors as active, passive, dynamic, or buffering [20]. The control factors were selected for scenario building based on all available assessments of the factors, the strength of influence and estimated probability of occurrence (survey 2), and the influence matrix. The factors that, in turn, have an active influence on other control factors were categorised as base factors and used as the starting point of the scenarios. The network of factors developed in this way attempts to represent the complexity of the interrelationships and became the basis for the storyline of the scenarios. Scenarios were validated in a 5 h workshop in January 2023 in Graz with researchers for food systems, healthy diet, sociologists, and process engineering, as well as NGO representatives and administration staff of the Office of Environment of the City of Graz (AT). After the presentation of the results of environmental impacts, different participants worked on validating scenarios. In two rounds, participants (n = 15, eight female and seven male) worked in three moderated mixed groups to validate scenarios and develop recommendations. The discussion on crucial areas of the scenarios (‘hot spots’) was guided by asking for advantages and/or disadvantages, plausibility and consistency of scenarios, as well as which personas (cf. [8]) would be particularly affected and how. Against this background, participants developed policy recommendations in a structured discussion and questions such as the following: How can disadvantages be offset or overcome for affected personas? Is the respective recommendation also relevant for other personas? How can advantages be secured/implemented? Or which key players should act (politics, sales, production, consumption, multipliers)?

3. Results

Three scenarios describe plausible futures of a food system promoting regional diets. The space in which the scenarios are located is defined by the critical uncertainties of (x) the strength and abundance of regulatory measures and (y) the degree of assumption of responsibility in civil society (cf. Figure 2). All scenarios share a basic set of control factors (CFs in Table 1), namely, demand for high-quality, healthy, fresh food, e.g., free from harmful substances, promotion of regional and organic products (CF1); increased advertising and marketing for regional, seasonal, organic, and healthy products as ‘environmentally friendly’ (CF22); and price transparency of regional, healthy, and high-quality products (CF20). Scenarios one and two additionally share the following control factor—government support to strengthen regional agriculture and production, e.g., promotion of organic farming, subsidies, and tax concessions for regional purchases (CF26). Scenarios one and three share the following control factor—local and regional cooperation between producers and consumers, e.g., in purchasing and production communities, cooperatives or cooperatives with a high level of voluntary work and personal contribution (based on CF21). Scenarios two and three share the estimated effect of ‘Price convergence at a high price level: organic–conventional and regional–international’, including not only higher production prices for more locally and organically grown food in Austria but also rising prices in the global food market and from conventional production methods in the long term, due to the piling of external effects, often overseen in short-term consideration, such as environmental accumulation of pesticides, loss of topsoil and soil compaction, high energy and resource intensity, or price pressure and discontinuation of farming operations.

3.1. Scenario 1—Civil Society Engagement and Supportive Regional Policy

This scenario is shaped by the undeniable and profound impacts of the triple planetary crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental pollution—which have catalysed a significant paradigm shift in society. In this context, civil society emerges as the primary driving force, motivated by two key factors: an increasing desire for personal connections between consumers and producers, which encourages support for regional supply chains and mutual appreciation, and the rise of local and regional cooperation between producers and consumers through buying and production communities, cooperatives, and associations characterised by high levels of voluntary engagement (prosumption).

This scenario is further supported by multiple factors reflecting civil society engagement and proactive regional policies. These include a demand for high-quality, healthy, fresh, and non-toxic food, emphasising regional and organic products; a call for social price justice and transparency in agricultural costs; heightened awareness of health and nutrition through education and information dissemination; growing concerns regarding factory farming and animal welfare; and increased moral awareness of production conditions, encompassing issues of child labour, gender equality, and local value addition. Regional regulatory support is vital, with government initiatives strengthening regional agriculture and production through measures such as promoting organic farming and offering subsidies and tax incentives for local purchasing.

Moreover, marketing regional, seasonal, organic, and healthy products as environmentally friendly options is on the rise. Production and distribution factors hold equal significance, emphasising the transparent traceability of production routes and value chains, the enhanced digitalisation of purchasing processes, and the improved accessibility of regional products through advanced distribution and delivery systems and technologies. This scenario highlights the need for affordable, high-quality regional products, employing technological solutions for efficient distribution and delivery while ensuring price transparency for these products.

3.2. Scenario 2—Mandated Regional Food Supply

This scenario’s baseline is determined by increasing crop failures due to climate change, geopolitical conflicts, and speculation in food commodities, which are leading to rising food prices, supply crises, and political instability. In response, regulatory frameworks are adopting a dual approach. First, there is a focus on strengthening regional agriculture and production through government support, including promoting organic farming, subsidies, and tax incentives for local purchases. Secondly, legal measures are being introduced to discourage unsustainable production practices, including higher transport costs, tariffs, carbon taxes, and emissions trading, while eliminating subsidies and enforcing supply chain legislation. Environmental and production-related drivers are becoming increasingly important. These encompass enhanced climate change mitigation measures throughout the value chain, a focus on green technologies, utilisation of renewable energy, sustainable and organic production methods, crop rotation, and soil conservation to address issues such as nitrate inputs, land sealing, species extinction, and deforestation. Deposit schemes for transport and packaging materials are being introduced and promoting regional, seasonal, organic, and healthy products as environmentally friendly choices. Social acceptance factors are crucial in this context. There is a growing emphasis on high-quality, nutritious, fresh, and non-toxic food, which enhances the appeal of regional and organic products. Price transparency for these high-quality regional products is becoming increasingly significant. Additionally, a trend towards price convergence is emerging at higher levels between organic and conventional products and between regional and international offerings.

3.3. Scenario 3—Regional Business Cooperation

This scenario departs from a situation in which prevailing economic conditions pose significant challenges for many regional businesses, compelling them to engage in extensive collaboration for their survival. Simultaneously, consumers are increasingly seeking personal connections with producers and regional products. This trend is influenced by several key factors related to regulation in production and distribution. These include the emergence of new markets for regional products, resulting in increased supply through start-ups, generational shifts, and newly established businesses. Moreover, the growing digitalisation of purchasing processes, alongside technologically advanced distribution and delivery systems, has improved the access to regional products. Collaboration among businesses at local and regional levels, such as purchasing and production communities or cooperatives, further supports this trend. There is an enhanced emphasis on promoting and marketing regional, seasonal, organic, and healthy products as environmentally friendly options.

Regulatory factors are crucial, particularly in the introduction of quality seals, labels, and product standards, such as the Nutri-Score and organic certification. Social acceptance factors are also significant, emphasising the high quality of healthy, fresh, toxin-free food, which reinforces the status of regional and organic products. Price transparency for these high-quality regional products is becoming increasingly essential. Prices tend to converge at higher levels between organic and conventional, as well as regional and international products.

3.4. Recommendations for Supporting More Regional Diets

• Broad inclusion measures: Inclusion of all social classes and sectors, e.g., community facilities such as kindergartens and canteen kitchens with regional/organic/healthy food through regional shopping baskets.
  • Regional/organic/healthy food should be a key criterion in calls for tender, and the procurement budget should be adjusted accordingly.
  • Promote health and ecological education, e.g., cooking classes in kindergarten/school.
  • Supporting farmers to counter the ‘death of farming’: Producers must live economically to maintain/increase the profession’s attractiveness.
  • Transparency of companies involved in the value chain of regional/organic/healthy shopping baskets.
  • Sales/marketing: Labelling and packaging of regional food; regulation to make advertising of non-regional food more difficult.
  • Cooperation at all levels, with the need for EU regulation; make regional food a tender criterion for community institutions.
• Climate friendly investments: Regional food baskets increase regional production and appreciation of food, which could reduce food waste along the value chain. Producers and retailers could, through regulation and incentives, invest this savings potential in a more climate-friendly production.
• React to price increases: Possible price increases due to regional/organic/healthy food baskets should be regulated transparently within the regional economic cooperation framework. Subsidies should guarantee the affordability of regional food, an ‘investment in sustainability’. Among others, this could be achieved through the following measures:
  • Alternative food initiatives, e.g., infrastructure costs of food cooperatives.
  • Support consumers through social cards, e.g., payment of parts of social welfare as regional vouchers or support through bonus payments for purchasing climate-conscious products instead of products from climate-damaging production. Establish low-threshold offers.
• Low-threshold offers: Encourage low-threshold offers for regional shopping baskets, e.g., online shops, delivery options with low-emission logistics, and the possibility of handing/delivering surplus (processed) food, e.g., from canteen kitchens.
• Awareness and seasonality: Regional/organic/healthy food baskets should raise awareness and promote seasonal eating.
• Small regional centres: Regional, organic, and healthy food baskets should be a component of food security in smaller regional centres.
• Regional brands and labels: Regional brands for regional/organic/healthy shopping baskets:
  • Regional labels and quality seals to strengthen regional brands.
  • Coordination and establishment should be carried out transparently by a central regional actor with high credibility, in close consultation with as many regional actors as possible.
  • Regional producers could certify each other, supported by (online) ratings from citizens/consumers, to strengthen mutual relationships and avoid abuse.
• Climate-friendly subsidies: Shifting subsidies towards climate-conscious practices to avoid climate-damaging subsidies and eliminate current distortions of competition, thus favouring purchasing decisions for regional climate-conscious products.
• Pilot projects: Science, research, and business should design pilot projects to avoid the problem of distortions of competition while maintaining the ability to act and optimise food value chains for climate- and health-conscious regional production and consumption. Studies on the following topics are recommended:
  • whether and how possible price reductions for regional (and organic) food, and thus an alignment with the prices of non-regional products, would change consumers’ purchasing behaviour towards an increased purchase of these products.
  • the link between regionality and biodiversity.
  • conditions for promoting regional production and consumption to protect biodiversity and avoid monocultures.

4. Discussion

The City.Food.Basket project included a quantitative analysis of different diets based on ecological footprint calculation cf. [8]. Against this background, we co-generated explorative scenarios for local policy in Graz that, apart from the knowledge of academic experts, also reflect the values and emotions of stakeholders related to a resilient food system.

Interestingly, two of the three scenarios resulted in an estimated effect of ‘Price convergence at a high price level: organic–conventional and regional–international’ (cf. Section 3). This effect is closely connected to the discussion on fair pricing and price transparency in the agricultural sector, a much-heated debate in Austria and beyond. However, when producing recommendations, it was believed that some measures could alleviate consumers from significantly higher prices while also providing farmers with better economic outcomes. These measures include intensifying direct marketing and shifting subsidies from climate-damaging to climate-friendly farming practices.

As stated above, we primarily addressed the local and regional conditions in the City of Graz and its surroundings. While some of the recommendations seem transferable to other national and regional contexts, we did not specifically examine EU regulations, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which sets the framework for national policy making (cf. [9]). If the goal is to enhance regional agricultural production and consumption, the framework should recognise the significance of acknowledging regional differences and subtleties, which require bespoke solutions.

Moreover, an additional estimate of the amount of nutrients and benefits for the consumer in each scenario could enhance the study design or a follow-up, although it was not conducted due to resource constraints. The methodology outlined for developing socio-technical futures for policy guidance and societal discourse is characterised by its multi-dimensional nature. This approach employs a recursive project design, incorporating multiple feedback loops and a transdisciplinary team while providing spaces for evaluation and reflection on interim findings. Addressing the need for cross-sectoral approaches to enhance food security [4] and including practical knowledge [12], the process is inherently multi-perspective, involving various actors, such as academic experts, practitioners, stakeholders, and local policymakers. Knowledge co-creation occurs through a multi-stage process that integrates systems, transformation, and target knowledge [30]. This comprehensive methodology enables a deeper understanding of the complex socio-technical systems and the exploration of their potential futures, facilitating informed decision-making and public debate. The Delphi-based methodology underpinned the theoretical research concerning the generation of scenarios. A further point of discussion is scenario validation; it could possibly be enhanced in an additional step of a third online survey to enhance credibility and maximise outreach. We did not use metrics to assess scenario robustness during the workshop but applied a facilitated discussion approach using guiding questions described in the methods section. This approach may have certain disadvantages; however, in this case, we decided to apply a facilitated group discussion approach to foster a creative and collaborative working environment during the workshop, also with a view to the task of developing recommendations as a group effort. Overall, the project design could not strongly support a direct dialogue of science, practice, and policy. This results in a low feasibility analysis of outcomes and recommendations throughout the project. There is minimal direct and measurable (unknown) policy impact at the city level for various reasons, including a lack of time resources for more specific dialogues, a short project timeframe, and the vague connection to the policy cycle, as well as the differing rationalities of research projects and policymaking. On the one hand, policy options are abstract at this level and have low transformation potential until they are specified in the follow-up processes. On the other hand, the target groups are evident by applying STEEEP categories. The developed policy options illustrate prototypes, which should be specified and validated to develop practical tools and instruments for governance based on anticipatory knowledge.

One solution for the future is the design of follow-up studies for the feasibility analysis of the recommendations and an analysis of their cross impacts on each other. The recommendations introduce partly new policy options such as “regional food as a tender criterion for community institutions” in the CFB project parallel to the regulations at the national and EU levels. For the validation and specification of recommendations, there is, therefore, a need for a PDCA cycle (plan-do-check-act) [31] for new recommendations to overcome a governance dilemma for new policy options. The governance dilemma for new recommendations is based on two facts: (a) new policy options for transformation can be shaped more easily before they are applied and established at a broader scale and (b) after the establishment of policy options, there is more knowledge available about their impacts and fewer possibilities for modifications. This dilemma is similar to the Collingridge Dilemma—in the early phases of technological development, there is a lack of information about the potential consequences of a technical solution, and it is difficult to predict them [32]. At the same time, new technologies could be influenced more easily in the early phase. However, there is a lack of reliable information about future development dynamics and the effects of technology on controlling them in a targeted manner [33]. After investments in the technology and its application, there is an increase in knowledge of its impacts. Nevertheless, it is more difficult to change the development path. Based on this assumption, the validation and specification of policy options for socio-technical solutions at a local level require a PDCA cycle with the following steps: plan the option and theoretical validation of the option at the local level; a limited prototype for practical validation of the option in selected fields or institutions such as schools, university canteens, or hospitals; check both the theoretical validation and the practical results; and analyse for modifications of guidelines and policy papers.

The recommendations developed in CFB require a follow-up step to analyse the integration and connectivity of the results with regional food policies in the context of the City of Graz. Also, with more resources, a comprehensive review and comparison of the existing policies to foster regional food systems, at least in comparable countries, would be a beneficial addition to a respective follow-up study.

Furthermore, we can ask what interfaces are necessary for transdisciplinary research and foresight to enhance the impact. Here, it remains unclear whether hard impact is an applicable category to pursue when engaging with societal forerunners, considering that the benefits of such projects may reside elsewhere—perhaps in “soft impacts”? In this regard, Bourgeois and Sette [18] suggest enhancing foresight impact, progressing beyond a collective process to guide individual actors in decision-making while concentrating on the “windows of opportunity” during uncertain times and addressing related issues. Stakeholder buy-in is essential but insufficient for implementation, whereas involving decision-makers in both exploratory and normative phases can more effectively connect foresight to policy decisions and their implementation.

We were able to involve very few local decision-makers from the City of Graz in developing future policy options. A better effort could have been made to integrate more political and administrative actors, which can be challenging, considering this actor group’s low time and attention budgets.

With the aid of an anticipatory culture, we leveraged informal (unregulated) participation and foresight that permitted a high degree of liberty and creativity in project design for stakeholder integration. This culture also encourages an open theoretical and practical validation of policy options in a dual process that extends beyond individual projects. The necessity for a dual management process of theoretical and practical validation has been illustrated through the Collingridge Dilemma. The theoretical validation can be structured as a broader Delphi-based process, transcending individual projects’ time scales. This process ought to be transparent and inclusive. The practical evaluation of tools and instruments should be optimised with regard to the timeline.

5. Conclusions

The method effectively offers socio-technical futures as a framework for policy and further dialogue. We engaged academic experts, practitioners, various stakeholders, and some policymakers within the city administration throughout the process. Additionally, we designed advisory groups that included citizens and experts. Several feedback loops were incorporated for the transdisciplinary project team, and we created opportunities for evaluating and reflecting on preliminary results. However, while such informal settings of participatory foresight support the empowerment of local communities, often they have low direct and measurable policy impact. This is due to various reasons, such as a lack of time resources for more specific dialogues, short project durations, vague connections to the policy cycle, differing rationalities between research projects and policy-making, and the challenge of feasibility analysis for new policy options. Transformative research projects encounter the challenge of competing for influential actors’ limited attention and time resources, often only reaching those already concerned with and well-informed about the relevant issue. These actors may already struggle to implement measures to enhance regional food systems (or any other sustainability-related issue) due to resistance from entrenched interests within the system. A PCDA cycle for the management and validation of the feasibility of new policy options would be helpful at the local level beyond individual projects. It should integrate scientific, practical, and policy knowledge in transdisciplinary research for future food systems. Shaping factors for scenarios such as “legal regulations to weaken non-sustainable forms of production, e.g., through higher transport costs, tariffs, (CO₂) taxes, emissions trading, removal of subsidies and supply chain legislation (see Table 1)” are a useful start for explorative studies in this direction.