Cultivating Collaborative Food Futures: Analyzing How Local Actions Address Interconnected Food Challenges

Abstract

The global food system confronts critical challenges, including food insecurity, small-scale producer vulnerability, and environmental degradation. While locally led initiatives emerge as potential solutions, they face obstacles, such as participant bias and scaling limitations. This study analyzes 157 international and 91 Japanese locally led food initiatives to understand their contributions to food system sustainability. Our findings reveal that these initiatives address key issues, including food security, environmental sustainability, community revitalization, and poverty reduction, reflecting various manifestations of problems within the modern global food system despite differing contexts. These initiatives operate across the food supply chain, emphasizing cross-group collaboration, knowledge sharing, resource utilization, and shortened supply chains. Significant differences exist between high-income and low- to middle-income approaches; lower-income regions prioritize resource access and skill development, while high-income areas focus on collaboration and leveraging existing resources. Many initiatives aim to empower marginalized groups, indicating a trend towards inclusivity. Although individual local initiatives may have limited impact, their collective action in fostering collaboration and empowerment is vital for transforming food systems. Networking and intermediary support emerge as essential components for scaling these initiatives to achieve meaningful systemic change.

1. Introduction

The current global food system faces several serious risks. Despite increased food production [1,2], over 821 million people still lack stable access to food [3]. As global supply chains prioritize maximizing monetary value, connecting agricultural, forestry, and fishery industries worldwide, it is small-scale producers, processors, and distributors that are forced into vulnerable positions [4]. Furthermore, the food system significantly contributes to environmental problems, such as climate change [5,6]. In essence, realizing a sustainable food system entails three challenges: ensuring food security for all, stabilizing the livelihoods of those involved in production, processing, and distribution, and curbing the ever-increasing environmental burden [7].

These issues are all related to complex systems, making large-scale transformations difficult [8]. As a more practical response, local initiatives are being implemented worldwide, aiming to address issues like local production, processing, distribution, consumption, and food waste, together with local producers and consumers [9,10]. These initiatives include forming alternative food networks [11,12] that differ from global supply chains, restoring control over resource management, utilization, production, and distribution, as well as aiming for food democracy [13,14], which includes stable livelihoods for producers [15,16] and support for those lacking stable access to food [17,18].

It should also be pointed out that local initiatives have their own challenges and limitations. Despite aiming for local, inclusive, and democratic food transformations, they may risk being inaccessible to certain people or imposing certain values [19]. Furthermore, due to the goal of changing local production and consumption, approaches like providing information to individuals and promoting behavioral change are often adopted, which excessively depend on the motivation and skills of producers, as well as the intentions and lifestyle changes of citizens and consumers [20,21]. Finally, compared to the broad goal of transforming the food system, the transformations achievable at the local level are not sufficiently large-scale, and yet simply scaling them up is also difficult [9,22].

While recognizing these challenges, understanding the diversity of local food initiatives will be helpful in considering networking, mutual learning, and policy support for local efforts. Local food initiatives are documented in case studies and databases from international cooperation programs led by UN agencies, regional organizations, and national governments. By synthesizing information from diverse databases, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the scope of these initiatives, including their supply chain involvement, issue focus, and implemented actions. Therefore, this study extracts and analyzes community-based initiatives focused on food sustainability and led by local organizations and citizens. Specifically, we examined three UN agency databases and three databases from Japanese government ministries. Because this analysis primarily utilizes databases operated by international organizations and government agencies, standardized expressions of sustainability are expected in the initiative descriptions due to reviews by supporting bodies. While detailed observation of pre-institutionalization implementation could offer richer insights, our focus was on achieving a broad overview of food sustainability issues and countermeasures across numerous countries and regions. Utilizing three UN and three Japanese databases, we were able to analyze 248 initiatives from 80 countries, encompassing diverse income levels and regional characteristics. Our analysis of 157 international and 91 Japanese initiatives reveals that these food transformation efforts address a wide range of issues, including climate change, ecosystems, agriculture, poverty, community revitalization, and empowerment. These initiatives frequently target multiple supply chain stages and employ strategies like collaboration, knowledge sharing, and resource utilization.

Additionally, we will highlight key aspects of local responses to food systems that are unique to certain initiatives within the 248 initiatives considered. Notably, many initiatives highlight gender-related issues, demonstrating how the current food system can disproportionately affect certain groups at the local level. Furthermore, local initiatives often deviate from their initial plans. Changes to goals, activities, and partnerships are frequently necessary due to evolving understandings of local social, economic, and cultural realities, as well as external factors, like natural disasters and economic fluctuations. Ideally, we would analyze the long-term impacts of all 248 cases beyond their initial objectives. However, due to the absence of detailed change and impact descriptions for many initiatives, our results and discussion will highlight lessons from the subset of cases with documented changes.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainability Challenges of Food Systems

Over the past half century, global food systems have seen remarkable growth, with grain production tripling since 1961. While agricultural land use has expanded, increased production primarily stems from improved land productivity [1,2]. Despite overall declining undernutrition rates, critical challenges persist. First, stable food access remains elusive. Volatile grain prices [23] have triggered crises, as seen in the late 2000s across the Middle East and North Africa [24]. Recent disruptions from COVID-19 and the Ukraine war have further exposed food system vulnerabilities [25,26,27,28], leaving 9% of the global population facing severe food shortages and 821 million people malnourished [3]. Second, producers’ socioeconomic position has become precarious, with declining producer numbers across high-, middle-, and low-income countries [4], indicating the growing difficulty of sustaining livelihoods through food production [29]. Third, food systems threaten environmental sustainability, contributing approximately one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions [5,6], 70% of freshwater use [30], and 78% of eutrophication [31]. Nearly half of the available land is used for food production [31]. While land and water use plus chemical inputs likely drive biodiversity loss [32,33,34], more empirical research is needed on biodiversity impacts [35].

2.2. Call for Alternatives: Civic, Democratic, Just, Sovereign, and Commoning

These problems stem from transformations across all stages of the global food system [6]. The rise of Western diets in growing economies and urban areas [36] has coincided with industrial agriculture’s dominance, characterized by intensive resource use and waste generation [37,38,39]. Increased global trade has made countries dependent on major grain producers, leaving both importers and producers vulnerable to price fluctuations caused by political, economic, or climatic disruptions [40,41]. Furthermore, one-third of the food produced is wasted [42], exacerbating environmental degradation through overproduction.

These changes have caused environmental damage, socioeconomic instability for producers, and volatile food prices and access. Producers increasingly depend on global corporations, grow crops they do not consume, and seek off-farm income. Financial technology developments have heightened food crisis risks [43], while international trade and neoliberalism have reduced resilience [39,44,45]. Climate change further threatens agriculture and fisheries through shifting temperatures and precipitation patterns [46,47]. Food insecurity also contributes to migration and conflict [48]. Given these challenges, transforming food systems is widely recognized as essential for sustainability. The OECD defines this transformation as simultaneously addressing three challenges: ensuring sufficient food production and distribution, stabilizing producer livelihoods, and reducing environmental impacts [7].

However, transforming such a massive system presents significant challenges. Global food systems involve diverse actors—from corporations and small businesses to workers, governments, and citizens—across all stages, from production to waste management [8]. The system also incorporates various physical resources, technologies, and associated knowledge and cultures (ibid.). Because stand-alone innovations in production, processing, distribution, consumption, or waste management rarely lead to major transformations that generate positive outcomes over multiple sustainability dimensions and involving multiple stages of the food systems [49,50], achieving major transformations necessitates a comprehensive system assessment and fundamental governance shifts that drive changes across the entire value chain and engage multiple sectors, including governments, large and small businesses, producers, and consumers. These activities must encompass social, institutional, technological, and organizational dimensions, recognizing the wide-ranging environmental and societal challenges inherent in food systems [50,51,52]. Yet, most transformation initiatives focus narrowly on individual consumer behavior and producer practices [53,54]. Even international efforts, like the UN Food Systems Summit, have been criticized for not addressing neoliberal system transformation [55]. While immediate systemic change may be unrealistic, an alternative to individual-focused approaches involves initiatives targeting the middle ground between production and consumption or between individuals and the system [56]. These approaches aim to transform production–consumption relationships by focusing on these intermediary connections.

Among these efforts, initiatives transforming food production–consumption relationships at the local level are particularly active. Shortening supply chains is one approach, often involving consuming locally produced food [57,58,59,60]. While evidence suggesting significant environmental impact reduction is limited, recent studies show modest greenhouse gas reductions [60,61,62]. However, even with limited direct environmental benefits, shortened supply chains remain valuable. Through collaboration among local residents, producers, businesses, and educational institutions, knowledge can be created and shared. Strengthening producer–consumer connections can foster community-led revitalization of local economies and societies [9]. Importantly, the necessary “proximity” is not strictly geographical. In food systems, “distance” encompasses information asymmetry, institutional complexities, and inequalities in decision making participation [10].

The key aim is mutual understanding and collaboration among food system actors to contribute to mutual benefit and stabilization while not necessarily limited to the same region or country [9]. To emphasize equitable participation, information sharing, and collaboration, growing research employs concepts like alternative [11,12] or civic food networks [63,64] to describe movements creating new food system forms.

Alternative networks challenge the idea that geographical distance is the main food system barrier, arguing that limited producer and citizen engagement, mutual understanding, and cooperation are the core issues [11,62]. These networks pursue diverse goals: connecting urban dwellers with food production [10], creating stable networks between producers and consumers for socioeconomic stability [11,65], and supporting those with unstable food access in urban areas [66,67]. Authors emphasizing citizen-led transformation often prefer “civic” over “alternative”, using the concept of the “civic food network” [12,13,63].

Transforming food networks to respect citizen and producer agency offers numerous benefits. Beyond tangible outcomes like livelihood diversification and stronger community–production connections [68], the process itself has significant impacts. Participation in activities like as producer–consumer collaboration and alternative distribution systems enables critical evaluation of existing food systems and passive consumption habits [66,69,70]. The learning process through citizen-led planning and practice enhances resilience by deepening understanding of food’s importance and diversifying engagement with food systems [12,71]. This transformative process of learning by doing and knowledge sharing is most effective when mutually supportive relations are nurtured among citizens and small-scale producers [72,73]. Essentially, diverse knowledge contributions, mutual learning, collaboration, and strengthened involvement in all food system stages foster more inclusive and equitable relationships.

Therefore, efforts to transform food systems are often framed through concepts like democracy [13,14], justice [17,18], and sovereignty [15,16]. Food democracy emphasizes citizen empowerment to reclaim control over food systems and foster sustainable change. This empowerment includes both individual producer/consumer empowerment through knowledge sharing and decision making and collective empowerment of local organizations through information exchange, mutual learning, and active participation in food systems’ governance [63,74,75,76].

Food democracy requires knowledge democracy [77]. In food initiatives, this means creating, sharing, and applying knowledge to enrich communities. These efforts share an understanding of corporate food system challenges: information asymmetry, profit-driven systems, and convenience-focused consumption [63,74]. This includes democratizing not just food choices but also eating practices—essentially, democratizing sensory and gustatory orders [70,78].

In relation to food democracy, attention to “justice” and “sovereignty” is also crucial. While food democracy concerns how consumers, producers, and citizens participate in decision making, food justice addresses how social groups are included or excluded from system transition benefits [12,17]. Issues like urban food deserts [79] and inclusive food distribution [20,80] are typically examined through food justice rather than democracy frameworks. Tornaghi (2017) [81] offers a positive vision of food justice, emphasizing the importance of joining food commons and regaining control over social reproduction. She argues that alternative food initiatives seek rights, such as urban food cultivation, access to arable land, nutrient recycling for sustainable production, rebuilding food systems through harvesting and trading, and retaining cultivation and nutritional knowledge [81].

Food sovereignty has also been extensively researched [15,21,82,83]. This movement recognizes that when producers in developing countries connect to expanding food systems, they must often prioritize mass commodity production over subsistence food, risking unstable livelihoods, exclusion from management decisions, and ecosystem damage [15,82,83]. Simply put, food sovereignty addresses threats to producers and production sites from lost democratic control over food systems, while food justice focuses on threats to consumers and consumer-centric societies [12,84]. Regardless of emphasis, actions are needed to reclaim control over food-related knowledge, values, technologies, and resources while exercising this control inclusively [39,77].

Although food democracy, sovereignty, and justice are widely acknowledged, practical community engagement efforts often prioritize short-term goals [72]. Empowering citizens to influence decisions requires mapping power dynamics and fostering commons [72,85,86]. Since the 2010s, research on food as a commons has grown. Vivero-Pol (2020) highlights food’s multifaceted nature as a resource, human need, public good, right, cultural artifact, and commodity [87]. His perspective challenges food’s commodification, aligning with food sovereignty, although the latter emphasizes equity, while commons stress access [88,89]. However, food sovereignty prioritizes equity, while food as a commons emphasizes access [89]. Vivero-Pol et al.’s Handbook of Food as a Commons (2020) features examples of initiatives, such as food banks [90], food self-provisioning [91,92], and collective policymaking [93]. The neoliberalization of food systems has excluded many producers and consumers from decision making, heightening risks for both [43]. Rather than labeling food itself as a commons, this approach emphasizes the shared management of vital resources like water and land [88,92,94,95], framing food commons as an ongoing practice of communing focused on access, inclusion, and resource stewardship [93,96], moving beyond a simple binary of food as a commodity or a commons [97].

Discussions of democracy, sovereignty, and commoning address the vulnerabilities of producers and consumers within global food systems. These systems often diminish their decision making capacity and jeopardize fair, stable access to resources. As this study analyzes the differences and commonalities of issues and actions in local initiatives across regions, it should investigate how regional challenges and socioeconomic shifts create vulnerabilities, the positioning of local communities and individuals within the food system, and the development and sharing of mitigation alternatives.

2.3. Challenges Faced by Alternative Food Initiatives

The alternative food networks and discussions surrounding food democracy, justice, and sovereignty that we have explored so far also face several challenges. The first challenge is the potential lack of inclusivity. Despite claims of openness, participation often favors those with more financial resources and free time [98]. This raises the possibility that individuals who are disadvantaged in terms of finances, time, or location may not be considered as potential participants or may be effectively excluded from participating [19]. While closer relationships could foster greater concern for vulnerable social groups, food desert interventions often fail due to insufficient targeting and engagement, such as placing community gardens in areas with supermarkets rather than those lacking grocery access [79]. There is a distinct lack of public institutions and programs specifically targeted at marginalized groups on the side of both farmers and consumers, which makes it difficult to overcome the challenge of identifying and reaching a scattered and underprivileged population [12].

Another challenge is the reliance on the willingness, knowledge, and skills of individual producers and consumers. These initiatives may depend too heavily on lifestyle changes within the existing market system [99], potentially excluding those resistant to alternative values or prioritizing fairness and sustainability over participants’ own values [20,21]. In other words, while promoting democratization, they may overlook deeper issues like populist democracy, political agroecology, and power dynamics [80,82].

The third challenge is the gap between transforming food systems and the small scale of individual initiatives. Even successful local projects fall short of systemic change [9,22]. Simply replicating them elsewhere may dilute their radical nature or create new risks in different contexts [100]. Focusing solely on local efforts can also overlook global inequalities and structural injustices [16,80]. Scaling should prioritize networking and solidarity across regions rather than mere expansion within one locality [12].

Viewing food as a commons also requires critical reflection. Holt-Gimenez highlights three concerns: it may treat food abstractly like a commodity, assume democratic methods always yield just outcomes, and overlook power dynamics when scaling up [89]. Commoning emerged to challenge access, distribution, and control of resources [88,101], but discussing it without context risks weakening its critical edge. Inequalities in decision making can persist, with wealthier communities being more successful and poorer ones being more vulnerable to free-riding [94]. This approach may also struggle to address systemic issues on a national scale. Simply praising commons is insufficient—commoning must be context-specific, rooted in empathy, and responsive to asymmetrical relationships. Cultivating care-based relationships is central to effective commoning initiatives [102,103].

The challenges faced by food democracy, justice, sovereignty, and commoning highlight the need to consider both the generation and sharing of meanings and values within specific local contexts and the dynamic inequalities in decision making and collaboration, as well as the underlying structural issues of the global food system. While food system risks are global, their impacts vary widely across communities, shaped by cultural, political, environmental, economic, and health factors.

2.4. Guiding Questions for Local Food Initiative Analysis

There is growing interest in governance mechanisms challenging neoliberalism, such as democratization, citizen participation, sovereignty, and commoning. However, there is limited understanding of how community-based food initiatives globally address specific food issues. Food sovereignty is typically linked to producers, while food democracy and justice focus on urban consumer challenges [13,84,104]. Even within the producer category, the experiences of farmers and fishers in industrialized societies with population decline differ from those in growing, developing regions. Similarly, issues like poverty, food access, and low-carbon diets manifest differently in cities of advanced versus emerging economies. Transformations must be tailored to each region’s unique natural, socioeconomic, and human conditions [89]. Understanding local risks, needs, and actions will be key for future research and policy support.

Based on these insights, this study will quantitatively examine the issues and activities of citizen-led or participatory initiatives transforming local food systems. Various databases and case studies, including those from UN agencies and a national government, namely, Japan, showcase such initiatives. By organizing these resources, we can identify trends in how local food transformations address issues and take actions across countries and regions with varying economic and social conditions.

When examining these cases, we will focus on the following points:

• What problems are being addressed? Food is closely linked to the triple bottom line of sustainability: environment, economy, and society. At the local level, different issues may be prioritized, with risks and vulnerabilities understood differently in developed vs. developing countries and in production vs. consumption areas. Understanding how these issues manifest and whose risks need addressing is key to grasping the significance of food alternatives.
• At which stage of the supply chain is action being taken? Even within a local context, food systems include production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste stages. Identifying the most effective stage for addressing issues like environmental impact, poverty, and local economic revitalization is crucial. Additionally, transformations involving multiple actors are needed, as changes at one stage may not be enough.
• What specific actions are being taken to address these issues? Even if similar issues and intervention stages are identified, the same actions may not be appropriate. Understanding the relationship between actions like consumption, distribution, production, knowledge sharing, and fostering cooperation, alongside the diverse manifestations of identified risks, is crucial for supporting the implementation of local initiatives and related policies and investments.

This analysis will contribute to a deeper understanding of the diverse approaches being taken to transform food systems at the local level and provide valuable insights for future research, policymaking, and practice.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Analyzing Local Food Initiatives Through International and Japanese Databases

This study examines actions by local food sustainability initiatives and the challenges they face by analyzing data from seven databases published by international organizations and the Japanese government. These databases comprehensively collect cases on locally led food systems, and they are highly reliable because they include the challenges and actions addressed by each initiative based on verification by international organizations and government agencies. Additionally, by comparing both databases, the similarities and differences between initiatives registered in the database of international organizations (which evenly covers high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries) and domestic Japanese initiatives can be clarified. We extracted initiatives from these databases to understand how they address food sustainability and what strategies they employ to achieve their aims.

Two criteria were adopted to extract appropriate cases from each database according to the research questions of this study: operation by international or governmental agencies with robust information collection, editing, and publication processes and a clear focus on food sustainability.

For international initiatives, we looked into three databases, namely, the United Nations Food Systems Coordination Hub’s Database of Practices for Food System Transformation [105], the Equator Initiative’s Nature-Based Solutions Database [106], and the One Planet Network’s Knowledge Centre [107]. The UN Food Systems Coordination Hub compiles activities promoting the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals through food system transformation. Its database features initiatives from the Food Systems ecosystem of support, including coalitions of action and the UN system. The Equator Initiative aims to strengthen collaboration among various stakeholders, with a focus on local and indigenous community initiatives, showcased in the Nature-Based Solutions Database. The One Planet Network, a multi-stakeholder community, works towards the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, with its Knowledge Centre featuring a range of initiatives. For this study, we filtered the Equator Initiative’s Nature-Based Solutions Database and the One Planet Network’s Knowledge Centre to extract initiatives specifically related to “food”.

To examine local Japanese food initiatives, we utilized resources from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications’ Local 10,000 Project‘s Excellent Case Studies [108], the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries’ Local Food Project [109] and Children’s Cafeterias and Food Education Initiatives [110], and the Ministry of the Environment’s Good Life Award [111]. The Local 10,000 Project supports innovative businesses utilizing local resources, addressing community issues, and creating local employment. We analyzed excellent case studies compiled as of 2019. The Local Food Project fosters regional food industry platforms to create sustainable businesses using local agricultural, forestry, and fishery products. The initiatives of the Children’s Cafeterias and Community-Linked Food Education provide communal eating opportunities and food education for children. We analyzed case studies published in 2018. Finally, the Good Life Award recognizes and compiles initiatives from various sectors that contribute to both environmental and social well-being within the concept of regional circular and ecological spheres. We analyzed award winners’ pages from the 1st to the 11th editions (

Table 1. Databases, covered countries, main purposes, and URL.

Databases	Covered Countries	Main Purposes of the Database	URL
United Nations Food Systems Coordination Hub Database of Practices for Food System Transformation	International	To compile activities promoting the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals through food system transformation.	https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/hub-solution/database-of-practices/en (accessed on 31 March 2025)
Equator Initiative’s Nature-Based Solutions Database	International	To strengthen collaboration among various stakeholders, with a focus on local and indigenous community initiatives.	https://www.equatorinitiative.org/knowledge-center/nature-based-solutions-database/ (accessed on 31 March 2025)
One Planet Network’s Knowledge Centre	International	To work towards the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns.	https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/knowledge-centre (accessed on 31 March 2025)
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications’ Local 10,000 Project‘s Excellent Case Studies	Japanese	To support innovative businesses utilizing local resources, addressing community issues, and creating local employment.	https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/13123889/www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000893496.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2025)
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries’ Local Food Project	Japanese	To foster regional food industry platforms to create sustainable businesses using local agricultural, forestry, and fishery products.	https://www.maff.go.jp/j/shokusan/seisaku/lfp-pj.html (accessed on 31 Mar 2025)
Children’s Cafeterias and Food Education initiatives	Japanese	To provide communal eating opportunities and food education for children.	https://www.maff.go.jp/j/syokuiku/kodomosyokudo.html (accessed on 31 Mar 2025)

).

3.2. Extraction of Local Food Initiatives

We extracted initiatives from the provided databases and case studies that met two criteria: (1) a central focus on “food” issues across the supply chain, from production to waste, and (2) active multi-stakeholder engagement at the local level, including provincial, prefectural, municipal, and community levels, with citizens playing a leading or core role.

Our first criterion, drawing from the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy [112], enabled us to select initiatives that aimed to transform one or more stages of the food system, including production, processing and distribution, consumption, and food loss and waste prevention. This encompassed transformations in primary industries (agriculture, fisheries, livestock), food product development, food banks, education, tourism, local sourcing, composting, upcycling, energy utilization, and waste reduction.

The second criterion, crucial for our focus on local transformation, excluded top–down strategies by international bodies. We analyzed initiatives at the local levels (provincial, prefectural, municipal, and community) where citizens, businesses, and organizations actively participate, leveraging local resources and knowledge.

The databases and case studies varied in purpose and scope, presenting initiative details differently. Some offered detailed qualitative descriptions, while others focused on organizing basic information. Ignoring these variations when aggregating cases could distort global trends regarding initiative regions and objectives. Therefore, we differentiated between (a) UN-operated databases covering global cases and (b) Japanese government databases and case collections on domestic initiatives, analyzing them separately. In the Results section, some graphs show the results of initiatives extracted from the international database and the Japanese database in parallel, but, in these cases, the analyses are conducted separately. Initial examination of the EU FEAST 2030 Living Labs database [113] was abandoned due to the insufficient number of relevant cases.

3.3. Text Analysis and Cross-Tabulation for Analyzing Objectives and Activities

This paper examines and analyzes the content of databases and case studies, focusing on three key issues. We extract and analyze text from initiative descriptions, focusing on information that corresponds to their objectives (the challenges local initiatives aim to address, like ecosystem conservation and poverty alleviation) and their activities (the actions carried out to address those challenges, such as, for example, promoting environmentally sustainable production methods, developing new products, and organizing community kitchens). As a first step in classifying and analyzing the issues emphasized and activities implemented by local initiatives, the categories frequently appearing in the database text describing each initiative’s issues and activities were extracted using the following method:

(a) Data Compilation: All text concerning issues and activities was extracted from databases and case studies, including UN agency databases (in English). Japanese texts were translated into English. Data were then compiled into a spreadsheet.

(b) Text Aggregation: The extracted text was concatenated within the spreadsheet, creating single, comprehensive texts for both issues and activities.

(c) Frequency Analysis: The aggregated texts were analyzed using Google Notebook LM and Userlocal, an online text analysis service based in Japan, to identify the 40 most frequent words.

(d) Co-Occurrence Analysis: For each of the top 10 most frequent words, the 5 most frequently co-occurring words were identified using the same analysis tools.

(e) Result Validation: The results from Google Notebook LM and Userlocal were compared, confirming identical findings for both frequent and co-occurring words.

(f) Network Visualization: Network diagrams of issues and activities were generated using Userlocal’s network diagram functionality.

(g) Category Identification: The two authors reviewed the frequent and co-occurring words (from steps (c) to (f)) to determine key categories for both issues and activities.

(h) Text Coding: The text for each initiative’s issues and activities was meticulously coded by the two authors, linking them to the key categories established in step (g).

(i) Emergent Category Addition: During the coding process, “measures against abandoned farmland and wildlife damage” (issues) and “local consumption of regional products” (activities) were identified as recurring themes in specific regions, despite not appearing in the initial frequency analysis. These were subsequently added as categories.

(j) Coding Reliability Verification: To ensure coding reliability, all 248 cases were re-examined, and coding was finalized.

Frequent term extraction and co-occurrence analysis allowed us to identify recurring themes in the objectives, challenges, activities, and solutions implemented across diverse databases and case studies. However, relying solely on these methods presents risks. Certain databases may focus on initiatives with similar objectives, skewing frequent term extraction. Additionally, unique themes vital to particular regions but with limited frequency, or similar themes expressed using different terminology, could be overlooked. To address these risks, after identifying high-frequency themes, both authors conducted three thorough readings of the entire text to identify objectives and activities with lower scores in frequent terms and co-occurrences but that remain significant and should not be disregarded (step (i) above).

4. Results

4.1. Local Food Initiatives in the Databases

Using the criteria described in the previous section, we selected 157 local initiatives from the four databases operated by UN organizations and 91 from the three databases operated by Japanese government ministries. Subsequently, the initiatives in the UN databases were categorized into income categories of 1 (high income), 2 (upper middle income), 3 (lower middle income), and 4 (low income) based on the UN’s income classifications [114] and regional groups, namely, Asia–Pacific, Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and Others, and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) [115]. Because all Japanese initiatives are implemented within Japan, we did not categorize them by income. In the following, we analyze the challenges to be solved based on the descriptions of the backgrounds and goals of the local initiatives and the actions planned and implemented based on the descriptions of the activities.

4.2. Issues Addressed

Our primary focus was on the issues that local initiatives are addressing. The top 40 most frequent words in the text related to the objectives of local initiatives are set out in

Table 2. Local initiatives by regions and income classifications of the countries (except Japan).

Region	No. of Countries	No. of Initiatives	No. of Initiatives by Income Classification
			1	2	3	4
Asia–Pacific (except Japan)	18	51	3	11	36	0
Africa	23	53	0	4	30	17
Eastern Europe	8	8	3	4	1	0
Western Europe and Others (including the USA, Canada, and Australia)	15	15	14	1	0	0
Latin America and the Caribbean	17	30	3	26	1	0

below. Furthermore, the terms that frequently co-occur with the top 10 words among these are also shown in

Table 3. Five frequent words and ten words co-occurring with them.

Rank	Word	Co-Occurring Word 1	Frequency	Co-Occurring Word 2	Frequency	Co-Occurring Word 3	Frequency	Co-Occurring Word 4	Frequency	Co-Occurring Word 5	Frequency
1	food	security	71	waste	64	local	48	sustainable	45	nutrition	34
2	address	issues	48	poverty	44	security	38	environmental	37	climate	35
3	sustainable	agriculture	53	development	42	practices	40	food	45	local	33
4	community	local	62	development	24	rural	23	revitalisation	17	support	16
5	reduce	waste	71	food	67	loss	31	environmental	23	impact	12
6	waste	food	64	reduce	71	loss	32	environmental	19	recycling	17
7	security	food	71	local	38	address	38	poverty	29	nutrition	21
8	local	community	62	production	31	food	48	sustainable	33	consumption	27
9	poverty	address	44	food	29	security	29	rural	25	reduce	12
10	agriculture	sustainable	53	farmers	47	production	34	local	27	traditional	21

.

At this stage, the frequently occurring challenges (or the objectives of local initiatives) can be organized as follows:

• Food security and nutrition improvement: stable food supply, reduction of food waste, promotion of healthy eating habits.
• Environmental sustainability: response to climate change, conservation of biodiversity, protection of natural resources, sustainable use of resources, reduction of environmental impact, promotion of sustainable agricultural practices.
• Revitalization of local communities: community empowerment, promotion of local economy, rural development, building community-based food systems.
• Poverty reduction and equity: support for the disadvantaged, creation of employment opportunities, correction of disparities, support for small-scale farmers, respect for traditional agricultural practices.

In the co-occurrence network created using Userlocal, the co-occurrences centered on “Food” are connected to groups of terms related to farmers, forests, and land, in addition to climate change and the environment (Figure 1). On the other hand, terms like community production/consumption, sustainable rural development/women, income/provide, and conservation/society/economy form separate groups. This also helps understand that themes like food security and nutrition, environmental sustainability, revitalization of local communities, and poverty reduction are important, as shown above.

Furthermore, as a result of repeated careful reading of the text by the two authors, unique challenges that were not included in the frequent words were found. These include measures against abandoned cultivation and wildlife damage in countries where the population has begun to decline, reduction of production costs, and provision of experience and educational opportunities. After adding these, the axes of objectives/challenges are organized into the 17 types shown in

Table 4. Major issues addressed in local initiatives.

Environment-Related Issues	Economy-Related Issues	Society-Related Issues
Climate Change Mitigation	Agricultural development	Revitalisation of local communities
Ecosystem conservation	Income and employment	Health promotion
Pollution control	Poverty alleviation	Recovery of traditional culture
Waste reduction and recycling	Added values of products and services	Empowerment of women and other marginalised groups
Climate and disaster resilience	Resource conservation and management	Providing educational and experiential opportunities
Measures against abandoned fields and wildlife damages	Cost reduction

below.

4.2.1. Environment: The Triple Planetary Crisis of Climate, Ecosystems, and Pollution

Local initiatives worldwide are tackling pressing environmental challenges, particularly the “triple crisis” of climate change, ecosystem degradation, and pollution/waste [116]. Notably, 135 initiatives highlight ecosystem conservation as a core concern, positioning it as a top regional priority related to food. Following this, climate change mitigation and waste reduction are each addressed by 62 initiatives (Figure 2a).

Ecosystem conservation is particularly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries. Data from the UN agencies’ databases reveal that 24 initiatives (52% of 46) in income classification 2, 72 (52% of 68) in classification 3, and 10 out of 17 (58%) in classification 4 focus on this issue. In these regions, ecosystem destruction is increasingly recognized as a tangible and immediate risk. Even in high-income nations, ecosystem conservation remains a significant concern. Furthermore, 7 out of 23 initiatives in high-income countries in the UN agency databases and 39 out of 91 Japanese initiatives prioritize this issue. This suggests a broad understanding of ecosystem conservation challenges across various economic levels.

Climate change mitigation efforts are also widespread, with 14 initiatives in income classification 2 (30%), 13 in classification 3 (19%), 6 in classification 4 (35%), and 5 in high-income countries (22%) in the UN agencies’ databases addressing this. In Japan, 18 initiatives (20%) focus on mitigation. These initiatives encompass strategies like adopting low-emission production and processing technologies and shortening supply chains. Some high-income countries are also promoting low-carbon-footprint diets. Compared to mitigation, climate change and disaster resilience receive less attention. Initiatives focusing on resilience include 11 in income classification 2, 16 in classification 3, 3 in classification 4, 2 in high-income countries in the UN agencies’ databases, and 7 in Japan.

If we look at the characteristics of each region, we can see that ecosystem conservation and climate change mitigation are common themes in all regions, while climate change and disaster adaptation are relatively popular in Asia–Pacific, Africa, and LAC.

A unique challenge addressed by local Japanese initiatives is the issue of abandoned farmland resulting from population decline and aging. This abandoned land can lead to landscape deterioration, reduced disaster preparedness, and increased wildlife encroachment, harming agriculture and communities. Japan’s early recognition of environmental degradation caused by both food production and its decline is noteworthy, and its potential implications for other nations warrant close observation.

One question is why it is that many locally led initiatives place such emphasis on the global challenges emerging due to the triple planetary crisis. Two possible interpretations can be considered: (a) although it is called a “planetary crisis”, serious problems are already occurring at the local level, and (b) by connecting locally perceived issues to challenges described as part of the “planetary crisis”, it becomes easier to obtain funding and other support.

4.2.2. Economy: Poverty Alleviation and Income Generation

A total of 99 initiatives address poverty, while 68 focus on income generation and improvement (Figure 2b).

Poverty: Among the initiatives registered in the UN agencies’ databases, poverty is a significant concern across various income classifications. Specifically, 10 initiatives (43%) in income classification 1, 23 (50%) in classification 2, 36 (53%) in classification 3, and 10 (59%) in classification 4 identify poverty as a key challenge. In Japan, which falls under income classification 1, 13 initiatives (14%) address poverty. These data demonstrate that poverty is a prevalent issue not only in low- and middle-income countries but also in high-income nations.

Income Generation: Similarly, income generation is a focus across countries with different income classifications. Three initiatives in income classification 1, fifteen in classification 2, fifteen in classification 3, and seven in classification 4 in the UN agencies’ databases address income generation. In Japan, 11 initiatives focus on this area. While income generation is a concern in high-income countries, its frequency is lower compared to low- and middle-income countries.

However, a closer look at the initiatives reveals distinct nuances in how poverty is addressed. In low- and middle-income countries, poverty is often attributed to inadequate economic development and infrastructure, leading to limited income improvement. Additionally, the shift towards monoculture economies through development can displace traditional livelihoods, endangering the well-being of certain populations. Local initiatives addressing these issues often incorporate food sovereignty as a core theme. This observation aligns with existing research, as highlighted in the literature review, which identifies food sovereignty as a critical factor in addressing the vulnerability of food-producing regions. On the other hand, in high-income countries, including Japan, poverty primarily manifests as urban poverty, affecting low-income households, children, and single-parent families. In Japan, over 10,000 “children’s cafeterias” have been established nationwide to mitigate poverty among these vulnerable groups [117].

Income generation and poverty alleviation are issues that are important regardless of the region. Western Europe and the USA are no exception in this regard. In European countries like Sweden, improving school cafeterias is a key strategy to support the nutritional needs of impoverished households. While many initiatives in high-income countries do not explicitly use the terms “food democracy” or “justice”, they frequently address issues like equitable access to food and the creation and sharing of stable income sources. This suggests that even in economically developed societies, the distance between access to food and economic opportunities can pose a threat to local communities and individuals.

4.2.3. Society: Empowerment, Social Inclusion, Traditional Cultures, and Wisdom

Seventy-three initiatives focus on empowering marginalized groups, including women and people with disabilities. Reflecting the widespread concern for poverty and income disparities across all income levels, initiatives addressing the empowerment of women and other marginalized groups are found in both high-income and low- to middle-income countries (Figure 2c).

However, the specific focus of these empowerment efforts varies significantly between low- to middle-income and high-income nations. In low- to middle-income countries, the emphasis is often on ensuring women’s active participation in local economic and social development, as well as in decision making processes. Many projects supported by the UN Equator Initiative, for example, prioritize the meaningful involvement of women in collaborative regional efforts related to poverty reduction, income generation, and resource conservation. In high-income countries, initiatives tend to target specific vulnerable populations, such as single-parent households led by women, children from low-income families, individuals with disabilities, and elderly households. These initiatives often go beyond improving nutritional status, also focusing on promoting participation in social activities and expanding access to educational opportunities.

Fifty-five initiatives focused on maintaining, restoring, or sharing traditional knowledge. The distribution of these initiatives varied across income classifications, with four in income classification 1, seventeen in classification 2, seventeen in classification 3, and one in classification 4 in the UN agencies’ databases. In Japan, 18 initiatives, representing 20% of the total, addressed this issue. Notably, initiatives focused on traditional knowledge were most prevalent in middle-income countries.

The differing combinations of issues addressed alongside traditional knowledge reveal distinct motivations for its maintenance and restoration. In low- or middle-income countries, projects aimed at restoring traditional culture often concurrently address climate and disaster resilience, ecosystem conservation, and poverty reduction. These initiatives commonly involve technical skill development, product development and marketing, and intergroup collaboration. This approach aligns with the previously discussed context of poverty, where rapid shifts to monoculture economies have disrupted local resources, ecosystems, and collaborative practices. Restoring traditional resource management and fostering diverse income streams are seen as crucial for building resilience. In high-income countries of Europe and Japan, the restoration and maintenance of traditional culture are often linked to community revitalization, enhancing product and service value, and agricultural development. Initiatives in these regions employ strategies like technical skill enhancement, product development and marketing, promoting intergroup collaboration, utilizing underutilized resources, and shortening supply chains through local production and consumption.

When viewed by regional groups, health issues are relatively important in Asia–Pacific, Africa, and LAC. Traditional knowledge and techniques are leveraged as branding and collaborative tools to boost local product consumption both within and beyond the region.

4.2.4. Observed Gender-Related Issues and Dynamic Changes

Gender-related issues are prevalent across many initiatives. Japanese children’s cafeterias often focus on alleviating poverty among single-parent families, which are predominantly female-headed. Numerous initiatives in low- and middle-income countries in Africa and Asia–Pacific regions aim to enhance women’s participation in local production, expand their income opportunities, and integrate them into disaster preparedness. Importantly, empowerment efforts do not target all women equally. Instead, they frequently prioritize female heads of single-parent households, women with limited education and income opportunities, and women with disabilities.

Some initiatives have evolved in response to changing external circumstances, such as shifts in the priorities of implementers and participants. A prime example is Japan’s Rapeseed Eco-Project, which has expanded to over 100 locations. Initially, it began as a citizen’s movement to collect used cooking oil and produce soap, aiming to curb lake eutrophication caused by household wastewater inflow. However, as used cooking oil collection became established, the demand for soap decreased due to improved synthetic detergent performance. Furthermore, issues like declining local agricultural populations and the emergence of abandoned farmland became apparent. Consequently, the project shifted its focus to cultivating rapeseed on unused agricultural land and utilizing rapeseed oil for fuel, cosmetics, and other purposes, thereby addressing new challenges, such as generating income for farmers and mitigating climate change.

4.3. Supply Chain Stages

Next, we analyze which food supply chain stages local initiatives target. Using the EU Farm to Fork Strategy’s four-stage model (production, processing and distribution, consumption, and food loss and waste prevention), we identified where each initiative implements actions and creates transformation (Figure 3).

Both UN and Japanese databases include initiatives focusing solely on production, but almost none specialize exclusively in the other three stages. Initiatives in UN databases often transform combinations of production and consumption or processing and distribution, while Japanese initiatives frequently target all three stages or include food loss and waste prevention.

Regarding addressed issues, simultaneous transformations across production and other stages are common in initiatives focused on ecosystem conservation, climate mitigation, agricultural development, income improvement, poverty reduction, traditional knowledge restoration, and empowerment. This suggests that these particular food system challenges require transformations spanning multiple stages or the entire supply chain.

4.4. Actions Taken

This section will focus on the actions local initiatives plan and implement to address these issues. The top 40 most frequent words in the text related to the activities of local initiatives are as follows. Furthermore, the terms that frequently co-occur with the top 10 words among these are shown (

Table 5. Five most frequent words and ten words co-occurring with them.

Rank	Word	Co-Occurring Word 1	Frequency	Co-Occurring Word 2	Frequency	Co-Occurring Word 3	Frequency	Co-Occurring Word 4	Frequency	Co-Occurring Word 5	Frequency
1	Training	Farmers	51	Community	37	Local	34	Sustainable	20	skills	18
2	Production	Local	31	Organic	27	Food	25	Farm	19	Sustainable	15
3	Development	Community	34	Local	30	Sustainable	18	Rural	15	Economic	14
4	Community	Development	34	training	37	Local	35	Activities	22	Support	21
5	Support	Community	21	Farmers	20	Local	18	Development	17	Program	16
6	Local	Community	35	Training	34	Production	31	Farmers	22	Development	30
7	Farmers	Training	51	Local	22	Support	20	Organic	14	Production	14
8	Food	Local	27	Production	25	School	13	Waste	12	Organic	11
9	Activities	Community	22	School	16	Local	15	Training	13	Program	11
10	Organic	Production	27	Farmers	14	Farm	13	Local	13	sustainable	12

).

At this stage, the frequently occurring activities (or countermeasures) can be organized as follows:

• Learning and practicing techniques and methods: Activities for local communities to acquire techniques and knowledge related to sustainable production, consumption, poverty reduction, and resource management are emphasized.
• Access to markets and infrastructure and product and service development: It is inferred that there are initiatives aimed at revitalizing the local economy by connecting local production to market opportunities and developing new products and services.
• Exchange and collaboration between different groups: The co-occurrence of the term “activities” with terms like “community”, “school”, and “local” suggests that collaborative efforts involving many actors in schools and local communities are planned.
• Effective utilization of resources: Terms like “waste”, “resources”, “water”, “energy”, and “soil” suggest that food waste reduction, resource conservation, and effective utilization are recognized as important issues.

In the co-occurrence network created using Userlocal, the co-occurrences centered on the words “food” and “local” are directly connected to words like “community”, “waste”, and “production”, but they are also connected to “product” and “development” through “market” from the word group centered on “farmer”. In addition, there is a group of words in close proximity, such as “school”, “farm”, “child”, and “public”. From this network diagram, the importance of themes like learning and practice, access to markets and infrastructure, exchange and collaboration (participatory activities), resource utilization, and local production for local consumption can be understood (Figure 4).

On the other hand, as a result of repeated careful reading of the text by the two authors, it was found that there are quite a few local initiatives that include efforts to consume local products locally or in the vicinity, which were not prominent in frequent words and co-occurrence networks. Upon adding these, the axes of activities are organized into the following seven types (

Table 6. Actions taken by the local food initiatives.

Actions Taken
Learning and implementing techniques and methods (including traditional and new technologies)
Establishing access to infrastructure, funding, and information
Product development and marketing
Promotion of exchange and collaboration among different groups
Utilising unused resources
Shortening the supply chain

).

4.4.1. Cross-Group Exchange and Collaboration

Actions taken by the local initiatives are shown in Figure 5. Those involving “exchange and collaboration” stands as the second most prevalent action among the initiatives in the UN agencies’ databases, featured in 100 initiatives, representing two-thirds of the total. This approach is consistently applied across all income brackets. Notably, in Japan, it is the most common action, appearing in 71 initiatives, or 78% of the total.

To understand why cross-group exchange and collaboration are so widely employed by local initiatives, we must examine how these actions align with the issues these initiatives address.

• Initiatives registered in the UN agencies’ databases that promote cross-group exchange and collaboration to tackle ecosystem conservation, climate change mitigation, agricultural development, income/employment generation, poverty reduction, health promotion/nutrition, and empowerment all incorporate exchange and collaboration.
• In Japan, these actions are linked to ecosystem conservation, waste reduction, agricultural development, community revitalization, and empowerment.

The issues paired with exchange and collaboration typically necessitate improved management of natural resources and production technologies and equitable access to technology, markets, and decision making for income generation. It is logical to conclude that individual efforts, such as farmers acquiring knowledge or simply changing practices, are insufficient. Effective collaboration between farmers, businesses, community organizations, educational institutions, and government agencies is considered essential.

Conversely, it is worth considering that the connection with community revitalization and empowerment might also have worked in the opposite way. To foster local exchange and collaboration, initiatives may strategically focus on food production and consumption-related issues, such as ecosystem preservation, local agricultural revitalization, food-related poverty, and empowerment, as these themes tend to be highly engaging and encourage broad participation.

To reshape food systems and address the root causes of vulnerability, local initiatives frequently adopt a participatory approach, engaging diverse organizations and individuals. This involves reclaiming local control over the vital resources and skills of food systems, a strategy aligned with the research concept of “communing”. Continuous involvement of many people is essential in creating and maintaining its components, including its methods, technologies, infrastructure, and knowledge.

4.4.2. Acquiring and Applying Techniques and Methods

Learning and practicing techniques and methods are cornerstone action found in 125 initiatives within the UN agencies’ databases, representing 80% of the total. This approach is prevalent across all income groups. However, in Japan, only 24 initiatives incorporate this action.

Within the UN agencies’ databases, practically every issue is addressed through the acquisition and application of techniques and methods. Japanese local initiatives primarily integrate learning and practice into activities related to climate change mitigation, ecosystem preservation, waste reduction, community revitalization, and the restoration of traditional practices.

It is crucial to examine the differing expected outcomes of acquiring knowledge and skills. Local initiatives aim to disseminate knowledge and techniques for environmental protection, climate change adaptation, health maintenance, and improved production and management. UN case studies frequently combine learning and practice with initiatives addressing poverty, empowerment, and health promotion. Conversely, Japanese initiatives rarely include learning and practice in these areas.

4.4.3. Access to Infrastructure and Technology

A total of 70 initiatives, representing just under half of those in the UN agencies’ database, include access to infrastructure and technology as a core activity. In contrast, only 7 of 91 Japanese initiatives adopt this approach. This suggests that high-income countries may have fewer scenarios where such access is deemed essential or beneficial. Consequently, initiatives in low- and middle-income countries are more likely to prioritize this action, using it to address a wide range of challenges, including ecosystem conservation, climate change mitigation, resilience building, agricultural development, income generation, poverty reduction, health promotion, and empowerment.

A closer look at the specific content of these initiatives reveals that securing access to essential production resources and assets, such as energy infrastructure, water resources, and land, is considered vital. This is not only for agricultural development and income generation in low- and middle-income countries but also for tackling critical environmental issues like ecosystem conservation, climate change mitigation, and resilience.

4.4.4. Leveraging Underutilized Resources

In the UN agencies’ databases, approximately one-quarter of local initiatives (41 in total) prioritize the use of underutilized resources, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries. While the UN system often pairs learning and practice activities with initiatives addressing poverty and health promotion, Japanese initiatives rarely do so. Conversely, in Japan, 55% of initiatives (50 in total) actively make use of underutilized resources, a significantly higher rate than that seen in high-income countries within the UN agency’s database. This surge in Japan is largely attributed to the prevalence of “children’s cafeterias” that distribute and share surplus food, which are heavily represented in the Japanese database.

The utilization of underutilized resources is recognized as a valuable tool for addressing a range of challenges, including poverty reduction, ecosystem conservation, waste reduction, income generation, empowerment, agricultural development, and community revitalization. A closer examination of individual initiatives reveals that they seek to address multiple issues by repurposing resources that might otherwise be wasted. This includes utilizing surplus food to alleviate food shortages among vulnerable groups, such as single-parent households and children, and developing products from production waste. Although less common, some initiatives in low- and middle-income countries also make use of underutilized land as a resource for immigrant integration.

4.4.5. Shortening the Supply Chain

One-third (58 initiatives) of those registered in the UN agencies’ databases, spanning high- to low-income countries, and 37 initiatives in Japan are creating shorter supply chains.

A diverse range of issues are addressed through this strategy. Local initiatives in the UN agencies’ databases integrate supply chain shortening into efforts concerning ecosystem conservation, climate change mitigation, waste reduction, agricultural development, poverty and income/employment solutions, community revitalization, health promotion, traditional restoration, and empowerment. In Japan, this approach is combined with environmental concerns like ecosystem conservation and waste reduction, as well as economic development, particularly in agriculture, community revitalization, and traditional culture restoration.

This wide array of applications suggests that shortening the supply chain is a crucial method for communities to establish alternative food systems and connections that deviate from the mainstream model.

4.4.6. Observed Gender-Focused Actions, Roles of Religious and Educational Institutions, and Activity Evolution

Many initiatives integrate women’s participation, capacity building, and contributions into their activities. In India and Peru, driven by the increasing frequency of climate-related disasters, efforts are underway to involve women in decision making regarding land and productive resource management, aiming to enhance the resilience of local livelihoods and agricultural production. In Laos and Peru, women’s groups are leading initiatives to promote the adoption of organic farming practices. In Japan, the development of new products utilizing untapped local resources has highlighted the effectiveness of traditional vegetable cultivation and food preparation knowledge passed down by elderly women, resulting in increased opportunities for women’s active involvement and income generation.

Among the 248 initiatives, very few explicitly highlight religious values or the role of religions. However, in some cases, religious institutions, such as Buddhist temples and churches, function as hubs for activities promoting community kitchens and collaborative learning for sustainable food production. Similarly, schools can serve as powerful bases for driving local food system transformation. While some programs in high-income countries aim to shift school meals towards sustainability, initiatives in low- and middle-income countries in Africa and Asia actively incorporate locally grown and home-grown vegetables into school lunches to stabilize food supply. Organizations and facilities deeply rooted in local communities, like religious institutions and schools, and those supported by many people, can be effectively leveraged to initiate alternative regional activities and foster broader participation.

Many initiatives adapt their activities or shift their focus during implementation, primarily due to two factors. First, they respond to unforeseen external events. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, significantly disrupted in-person community learning and collaboration. In response, initiatives moved agricultural workshops online and replaced communal meals with lunchbox distribution. Second, successful activities often create opportunities for expansion. In India and Zimbabwe, organic farming projects aimed at empowering women economically garnered widespread support from participants and local businesses, leading to the development of organic food processing, sales, and female entrepreneurship. Similarly, in rural Japan, experimental pesticide-free farming attracted significant attention and volunteer support, evolving into activities that incorporated experiential tourism.

5. Discussion

This paper has provided an overview of the challenges and actions undertaken by local initiatives, as documented in various case studies and databases from UN agencies and the Japanese government. Building on the discussion of alternative food networks and the challenges of commoning presented earlier in this paper, this section examines the insights gained regarding local initiatives.

5.1. Social Inclusion in Local Food Systems: Addressing Vulnerability and Marginalization

Local initiatives are tackling a wide range of challenges spanning environmental, economic, and social concerns. These challenges echo the global food system issues identified by the OECD: food security, livelihoods, and environmental impact [7].

While individual initiatives may focus on specific priorities, some common themes emerge. Environmentally, ecosystem conservation and climate change mitigation are key concerns. Economically, initiatives often focus on poverty reduction and income improvement. Across all income levels, there is a strong emphasis on social goals, particularly empowering marginalized groups like women and people with disabilities.

Interestingly, poverty and empowerment are central concerns even in high- and middle-income countries, highlighting that socioeconomic exclusion exists in various forms across all income levels. This underscores that food system problems are deeply intertwined with broader societal issues like climate change, environmental degradation, health, and community well-being.

Addressing concerns about the potential exclusivity of alternative food initiatives [12], this study found that over half of the registered initiatives prioritize the empowerment of marginalized individuals, indicating a positive trend towards a more inclusive and sustainable food system.

5.2. Aligning Stakeholder Interests in Food Sustainability Actions

Many local initiatives are tackling food-related poverty and socioeconomic exclusion by fostering exchange and collaboration among diverse stakeholders. This approach is crucial because the current global food system often marginalizes local producers and communities [12].

Recognizing the shortcomings of the dominant food system, many local initiatives are working to empower those involved in local food production, processing, and distribution. These initiatives address the lack of decision making power and equitable benefit sharing often experienced by local actors [15,82,83], as well as the geographical and informational distances that can disconnect producers and consumers within regions [10].

Local initiatives aim to bridge these gaps by fostering collaboration and exchange. This involves bringing together not just food producers and consumers but also actors from other sectors, such as the following.

• Social support sectors: welfare, education, and tourism, recognizing the interconnectedness of food security with broader well-being.
• Businesses and institutions: consumers, universities, entrepreneurs, industry, and tourism to create new connections and opportunities within the food system.
• Producer networks: to foster solidarity and collective action among food producers.

These collaborative efforts are essential for addressing a range of challenges, including decision making regarding food production and distribution, resource management, economic value creation, and equitable food access. Through connections and partnerships, local initiatives drive the transformation of local food systems, leading to empowered communities [12].

5.3. Divergent Pathways: Knowledge, Access, and Inclusion

One point of particular interest is how local food initiatives in different income settings have distinct priorities. While both high- and low-income initiatives address similar issues, like income generation, empowerment, and environmental protection, their approaches vary significantly.

In lower-income countries in Asia–Pacific, Africa, and LAC regions, initiatives often focus on providing access to essential resources: markets, technology, infrastructure, funding, and knowledge. This approach assumes that lack of access is the main barrier to addressing these issues. For instance, they might prioritize disseminating eco-friendly farming techniques or information about healthy diets. High-income countries, like Japan, place less emphasis on providing access to these resources. This difference may reflect varying perspectives on how best to address these challenges.

Lower-income initiatives often focus on building individual and community capacity, while high-income initiatives may prioritize collaborative action and systemic change. Communities and individuals often need support to effectively utilize new tools and infrastructure. Therefore, learning and training are often essential components of successful initiatives.

Initiatives in high-income regions, such as Japan, Western Europe, and North America, often operate under the assumption that knowledge and resources are already available but underutilized. They focus on fostering collaboration and participation to develop innovative solutions that leverage existing knowledge and resources. This might involve creating new products, services, and social norms that promote sustainability and inclusivity.

This difference underscores the importance of collective action. While knowledge and access are important, transformation likely requires broader efforts that go beyond individual behavior change [99]. Many successful initiatives combine these efforts with fostering exchange, joint learning, and collaboration between diverse stakeholders, including producers, businesses, and researchers. Ultimately, evaluating the effectiveness of local initiatives requires examining not just their immediate outcomes but also long-term changes in technology, mindsets, and collaborative practices within the community.

5.4. Diverse Aims of Shortened Supply Chains and Resource Utilization

Two actions commonly employed by local initiatives are shortening the supply chain and utilizing unused resources. While the environmental benefits of shorter supply chains, particularly regarding climate change mitigation, are debated, they are often incorporated into initiatives addressing various concerns, including ecosystem conservation, waste reduction, poverty reduction, and community revitalization.

Even if their direct impact on climate change is unclear, shorter supply chains can contribute to waste reduction and address a range of economic and social issues related to food. More importantly, they represent an attempt to shift control over the food system back to local producers, citizens, and consumers.

Local initiatives resonate with the idea of “commoning” by advocating for collaborative governance of food systems. This goes beyond simply sharing food, encompassing equitable participation in managing knowledge, technology, resources, markets, and decision making processes related to food [87]. The ultimate goal is a more inclusive and sustainable food system achieved through collaboration and empowerment.

5.5. Gender-Focused Issues

Many projects focus on supporting vulnerable groups, particularly women (especially single mothers, women without stable income, and women with disabilities), or are planned with their participation at the core. Moreover, women are increasingly taking on significant roles as projects evolve and expand. The frequent identification of supporting vulnerable women as a critical issue suggests that local food sustainability challenges do not pose equal risks to everyone; instead, they disproportionately destabilize already vulnerable populations. The necessity of these regional initiatives underscores how the expanding global food system threatens local access to resources and stable food supplies.

Conversely, the renewed emphasis on women’s participation in areas like organic agriculture, value-added production, and disaster preparedness, as well as the emergence of women as key knowledge and skill providers or entrepreneurial groups during project evolution, indicate that the mainstream food system has historically undervalued and inadequately compensated the skills and knowledge of women and elderly individuals.

5.6. Activity Dynamics

While this study focused on the challenges and actions of local food initiatives, the limited information available in the databases made it difficult to fully examine their future directions. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that some initiatives, through their ongoing work and by leveraging the past experiences of participants, have found renewed purpose. This has enabled them to develop surprising alternatives that are driving shifts in social and economic dynamics.

In contrast, many other local initiatives, while not explicitly documenting dynamic changes in their goals and actions, do describe future prospects, including network expansion, establishing profitability, and cross-sector collaboration. For example, some initiatives aim to expand their network by involving more schools or producers. Others focus on stabilizing profitability and collaborating with various sectors, like marketing, tourism, and education.

Interestingly, there are hardly any cases of simply replicating successful initiatives in other regions. This is likely because local initiatives are deeply rooted in their specific context—the resources, social dynamics, and economic conditions of their region. Therefore, directly transferring an initiative may not be effective.

Networking and intermediary support organizations show promise for scaling local food initiatives, echoing findings in the literature [12]. These can help facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of initiatives by engaging in the following activities.

• Sharing information and resources: Connecting initiatives facing similar challenges to exchange knowledge and resources, as seen in the example of children’s cafeterias in Japan, where intermediary organizations help with surplus food acquisition and distribution.
• Promoting broader collaboration: Encouraging networking between initiatives addressing different food-related issues, or even connecting different stages of the food system (producers, processors, distributors, consumers).

This approach recognizes the unique nature of each local context and supports the development of tailored solutions, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model.

5.7. Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, our analysis primarily relied on databases from international organizations and government agencies. While this approach enabled a broad overview of regional initiatives across 80 countries, it inherently excluded many non-institutionalized and small-scale projects lacking international connections. Consequently, we were unable to capture the nuanced expressions of identified issues and the diverse actions undertaken by these grassroots groups. Officially recognized initiatives, often subject to review by aid agencies or governments, tend to articulate sustainability issues in a more standardized manner. Future research should prioritize detailed observation of non-institutionalized cases beyond public databases to identify issues and activities yet to be formalized, as well as the challenges and lessons learned in their implementation. Secondly, resource constraints limited our government database analysis to Japanese ministries and agencies, thus narrowing our perspective. A broader investigation of other countries’ databases would have provided a more comprehensive understanding. Lastly, our focus on initial initiative plans restricted our ability to fully document the dynamic evolution of these projects. Case studies, which capture the processes of learning and change, are considered more effective for understanding the complex transformations within these initiatives.

6. Conclusions

As previously stated, “the food system is related to various risks at the global level while creating different types of challenges and risks at the local level”. Therefore, this final section returns to the discussion of the diversity of challenges and actions. There are countries and regions where challenges related to production sustainability and the stability of producers’ livelihoods are prevalent, and there are countries and regions where challenges related to the inequality of access to food are emphasized. Furthermore, while there are issues that are emphasized regardless of the country’s income level or region, such as ecosystem conservation, climate change mitigation, poverty, and empowerment, it is also clear that issues discussed using similar terms have different meanings in different societies due to differences in the background and countermeasures of those issues. While there are clear differences, we should avoid oversimplifying the relationship between local food issues and income level or region. If we consider the diverse distribution of issues and the backgrounds of those issues, along with the widespread emphasis on exchange and collaboration, participation, and empowerment, then the diverse issues are not indicative of completely different problems in each region. Rather, they are different manifestations of problems brought about by the modern global food system, such as environmental threats to farmers’ economies, the rationale for generating income opportunities, and the desire of local societies to revitalize traditional knowledge.

Previous research often criticizes local food initiatives, arguing that their impact is too small compared to the vast structural problems within the food system. While this critique holds some truth, our study revealed a different perspective. We found that many local initiatives actively promote community exchange, collaboration, and empowerment. They also work to revitalize underutilized resources and traditional knowledge. Some local initiatives, through their ongoing activities, have adapted to new external circumstances and, by leveraging the accumulated experiences of their participants, have discovered new significance in their work. This has led them to generate unexpected alternatives that drive changes in social and economic relationships.

Transforming our food systems to ensure access to sufficient quality food for all, protect producers’ livelihoods, and preserve the environment is a significant challenge, especially considering the relatively small scale of local initiatives. However, these local efforts play a crucial role in reshaping socioeconomic relationships and empowering communities to improve their food systems, production, and access. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen support for initiatives that encourage broad participation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing within communities. This will help address unique regional environmental, economic, and social challenges, particularly those faced by individuals at risk due to the prevailing food system.