Imagining Just and Sustainable Food Futures: Using Interactive Visualizations to Explore the Possible Land Uses and Food Systems Approaches in Revelstoke, Canada

Abstract

Food systems are linked to multiple critical sustainability issues such as climate change, environmental degradation, and growing socioeconomic inequalities, and there is a clear need for transformative changes in how food systems are imagined and enacted. For transformations to occur, local governments and stakeholders must be able to consider achievable and desirable futures that involve radically different reconfigurations of space and land use. Based in Revelstoke, Canada, this study uses interactive visualization methods to engage local government and food systems stakeholders in an exploration of three future food systems scenarios that center on changes in food supply, food affordability, and food governance. An interactive visualization tool was developed using the Unity3D game engine, which visualizes how transformations of an underutilized railway site in Revelstoke may appear in 2100. The visualizations were presented to the study participants (n = 10) through an online, Zoom-based workshop, where ‘walkthroughs’ of the scenarios were performed by the researchers and the participants subsequently provided feedback. The results of this study indicate that visualization tools can elicit emotional responses, convey human relationships with food and nature, communicate power dynamics, and incorporate social justice considerations. The results also show that the visualization’s representation of local infrastructure and services, the completeness of a virtual environment, and the plausibility of a depicted future affect the user assessment of the visualized scenarios.

1. Introduction

Food systems are shaped by agricultural and commercial land use and activities that define where and how food is produced and accessed. These systems are complex and linked to multiple critical sustainability issues, such as climate change, environmental degradation, and growing socioeconomic inequalities [1,2]. Addressing these issues requires rethinking land use and transforming space in ways that contribute to progress toward sustainability, resilience, and social justice. For such transformations to occur, local governments, stakeholders, and community members must be able to collectively imagine and discuss achievable and desirable futures that involve radically different reconfigurations of space and land use (see [3]). This ability is argued to be essential for social and ecological well-being in times of unpredictable and unprecedented change [4]. Accordingly, tools that can facilitate such collective work and effectively support participatory planning processes have a potentially powerful role in land-use efforts toward sustainable and just food futures.

Realistic visualizations have demonstrated great potential as tools for supporting participatory community planning and stakeholder engagement (e.g., [5,6,7,8]). Visualization tools have the ability to clearly communicate to a variety of audiences the implications of changes and impacts on real-world places, such as those that occur with infrastructure development, land management strategies, climate change, and others [9]. Newell and Canessa [10] argue that realistic visualizations are effective participatory planning and stakeholder engagement tools is due to their ability to connect with and speak to a user’s sense of place, that is, the collection of meanings and feelings, beliefs, and attitudes that people associate with a locality [11]. When using visualizations to assess different management or development options, local governments, stakeholders, and community members are able to make these assessments based on their place-based values, interpretations, and understandings, ultimately resulting in a more nuanced assessment than what would be achieved when (for example) examining these outputs using just text-based and/or numeric information and data (e.g., [12,13]). Accordingly, realistic visualizations have been found to be potentially effective planning tools in a variety of land-use contexts, such as residential development [14], green infrastructure [6], public parks [15,16], transportation infrastructure [17], climate change adaptation [18], and regional development [19].

Reasons that visualizations are posited to be potentially powerful tools for supporting planning include how these tools can provide a ‘common language’ among government and stakeholders regarding management and/or development options, as well as how visualizations present such options in salient ways that enable discussion and debate [7]. For these reasons, visualizations can be used to support participatory processes and approaches to planning. However, to effectively harness this potential, Lewis et al. [5] argue that visualization developers and users must balance the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ aspects of these tools, meaning that the visualization should be able to both communicate the implications of management or development options (i.e., push) and stimulate thinking and discussion on thoughts, feelings, and attitudes toward these options (i.e., pull). When developed and applied in this manner, visualizations can be used in a wide variety of participatory planning and stakeholder engagement contexts. For example, Tress and Tress [19] conducted a study in rural Denmark where they presented visualizations to stakeholders that represented four different regional development scenarios, which focused on agriculture, tourism, ecological conservation, and residential expansion. Other examples include Shaw et al.’s [18] research on the use of visualization to support climate change planning and action in Delta, Canada, and their study engaged the government, community organizations, and private sector representatives in a series of options for implementing climate change adaptation and mitigation in local coastal neighborhoods. In another example, Campbell-Arvai and Lindquist [6] developed an interactive visualization tool to engage community groups in Detroit, USA, in discussion and decisions about the types of green infrastructure that should be implemented in their neighborhoods to achieve local social and ecological objectives. As a final example, Ullmann et al. [17] developed a visualization tool that simulated bicycle travel in Fuerth, Germany, and tested this tool with residents to examine its potential as a tool for soliciting feedback on different bicycle and street infrastructure options.

As noted above, realistic visualizations serve as place-based tools that speak to people’s sense of place, meaning that these tools can be used by planners, stakeholders, and community members to assess different management and/or development scenarios based on both emotional responses to, and cognitive assessments of these scenarios [10]. In terms of emotional responses, Salter et al.’s [14] study on the use of visualizations as planning and stakeholder tools for exploring different residential development scenarios on Bowen Island, Canada, resulted in users of the tool expressing ‘unease’ when examining higher density scenarios. Such a response demonstrates how visualizations can be used to gain an understanding of how community members would affectively respond to a local development approach, which in turn indicates how these people regard this form of development in terms of local livability, aesthetics, and character of place. As another example, Sheppard et al.’s [9] study on using visualizations to communicate and examine climate change impacts and strategies in North Vancouver and Delta, Canada, revealed how participants responded emotionally to the visualized climate impacts, making comments on how it ‘hit home’ in terms of the vividness and relatability of the visual information. Along with these emotional responses, the visualization tools in the studies discussed above were also used for cognitive assessments of the scenarios. In the Bowen Island example, the visualization tool provided information on potential changes in water use, energy consumption, waste, and local residential capacity [14]. In the Delta study, the visualization tool conveyed different local climate change mitigation and adaptation options that the community could implement. Such research demonstrates how visualizations can be used to examine and understand different local strategies, management, and development options based on affective and cognitive ways of engaging with these options and possibilities.

Research on realistic visualizations as planning tools has involved a wide range of different types of visualizations that vary in format and functionality. Early examples of studies that examined these tools include photorealistic images that were digitally modified to represent different land-use development approaches (e.g., [19]) or land management scenarios (e.g., [20]). As digital media technologies advanced, research began experimenting with developing interactive visualization tools with dynamic elements and the ability to move around a virtual environment (e.g., [21,22]). Building on this work, researchers in recent years have explored the use of video game engines to achieve higher degrees of immersion and interactivity, with this type of software allowing for the development of dynamic and navigable virtual environments in which users can interact with objects and features of different scenarios. Game engines have been used to develop tools for exploring different land-use options, development approaches, and land management strategies, such as those related to green infrastructure (e.g., [6]) and invasive species management (e.g., [23]).

Although visualizations have shown promise as planning tools, most research on these tools has involved visualizations of modest or incremental changes in a place. Examples of such changes include increasing vegetation in riparian areas (e.g., [20]), building flood protection structures (e.g., [18]), changing zoning with respect to residential density (e.g., [14]), improving bicycle road infrastructure (e.g., [17]), and developing public parks and amenities (e.g., [24]). In contrast, transforming local food systems into sustainable, resilient, and just futures requires radical changes that result in different community dynamics, approaches to development, and lifestyles than those currently seen in communities and society. Some scholars refer to these radical futures as seemingly ‘ridiculous’ to present-day actors and communities [25]. Others note the potential for replication of the ‘status quo’ and foreclosure of alternate futures that challenge falsely dominant universal conceptions of space, temporality, and power relations [26]. In addition, sustainable development requires long-term planning processes that envision change and set objectives over a long-time horizon [27]; thus, only featuring near-term incremental changes in visualizations reduces their usefulness as tools for supporting long-term food system planning toward sustainable and just food futures.

One advantage of presenting near-term, incremental changes using visualization tools is that such changes are understandable and relatable to the visualization user (e.g., [14,27,28]), which allows a user to assess a scenario in terms of its advantages/benefits and disadvantages/issues. In contrast, it may be more challenging to effectively generate an understanding of the features and implications of transformative changes using visualization tools, as such transformation involves system changes that affect the social-ecological, sociocultural, political, and economic aspects of communities and societies [29]. These types of changes can be abstract in nature and difficult to visualize, which creates challenges for using visualization approaches to capture and convey transformative scenarios. One approach for developing visualizations in ways that may improve their ability to communicate transformative, radical changes is to include narrative and storytelling features. Storytelling and narratives have been found to be useful for sense-making [30,31], which can aid in the communication of complex information. Some visualization research has experimented with the incorporation of storytelling elements; however, the role of such features has not yet been thoroughly studied in the context of visualization planning tools [32].

Visualization research has made significant progress with respect to generating knowledge on their potential as tools for supporting scenario planning and ways of harnessing technological advancements to create new forms of these tools (e.g., interactive visualizations, virtual reality, and applications that present both visual and non-visual information/data). However, significant gaps remain in the research and the state of knowledge on how these tools can be developed and applied. One gap relates to the typical timeframes of the scenarios presented in the visualizations. In most cases, these tools have been used to explore near-term changes (i.e., developments that could occur within a decade), as evidenced by the examples discussed above related to regional planning [19], climate change adaptation [18], green infrastructure development [6], and bicycle infrastructure development [17]. In contrast, long-term planning requires engaging with scenarios that occur over a longer time horizon and feature more dramatic changes. A second gap in visualization research relates to the use of narrative features in visualization. Some studies have begun to explore such features (e.g., [32]); however, their potential has yet to be thoroughly researched. Narrative and storytelling features may be particularly useful for visualization tools that are designed for long-term planning, as these features could be used to clarify aspects of (possible) far-future conditions that may seem unfamiliar or confusing due to the significant level of change involved in these scenarios. Another research gap involves the use of visualizations to study the social justice and equity implications of scenarios. Visualization research focuses on the potential of these tools for supporting participatory planning [5,7], and in this way, such research engages (to varying degrees) in the procedural aspects of social justice in planning. However, as demonstrated in the examples above, visualization research typically focuses on infrastructure and land-use changes without deeply engaging with the social justice and equity implications of the outcomes and implementation of plans.

This study addresses the three aforementioned gaps in visualization research. The first gap centers on the value of using interactive visualization tools to support long-term community planning, particularly in the context of sustainable and just food systems. Addressing this gap involves (as in this study) developing visualizations of local food system futures that represent radically different land uses and lifestyles than those commonly experienced today. The second research gap centers on the use of storytelling and narrative features in visualization planning tools. The visualization tool researched in this study includes such features as a way of making sense of abstract ideas and unfamiliar aspects of the future food system scenarios depicted through the tool. The third gap centers on the creation and use of visualizations as planning tools that can communicate social justice and equity considerations of different land use and development options. This study uses a social justice lens to develop the scenarios that are presented in the visualization tool. Through a stakeholder workshop, it examines the effectiveness of the tools in terms of communicating the justice and equity aspects of potential future scenarios.

This study employs community-engaged research methods [33], using the town of Revelstoke, Canada, as a case study. This study is part of a larger research project, Reimagining Food Systems for a Sustainable and Equitable Future, which develops and uses frameworks, methods, and tools for supporting communities in planning efforts toward improving the equitability, sustainability, and resilience of local food systems. This paper reports on a study conducted as part of this project, which involved developing and testing a visualization tool for supporting long-term planning and exploring radical changes in food systems’ futures. More information on the greater research effort can be found on project websites (www.triaslab.ca/equitable-food-systems, accessed on 20 June 2024).

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in the community of Revelstoke, Canada, and it consisted of two stages: (1) visualization development and (2) visualization testing. Visualization development work was performed using a video game engine to create a tool that allows users to navigate and explore scenarios from a first-person perspective. The visualization tool featured scenarios created through the previous phase of the greater research project.

The visualization testing process used workshop methods that engaged a total of 12 local governments, non-governmental organizations, and other food systems stakeholders in Revelstoke (e.g., food banks, social services, and local food development). Workshop participants explored different scenarios using the visualization tool, and they were asked questions about the scenarios and the usefulness of the visualization as a tool for examining the scenarios. Data from the workshops included both written comments and discussion transcripts, and the data were analyzed using thematic coding methods. The analysis centered on the research question: What are the challenges and opportunities around developing and using interactive visualizations as long-term planning tools for examining the advantages, disadvantages, and desirability of different food systems’ futures?

2.1. Case Study

Revelstoke is located southeast of the Canadian province of British Columbia, in the Columbia Mountain range, and along the Columbia River (Figure 1). The town is in the unceded homelands of the Sinixt nation and the traditional territories of the Ktunaxa, Secwepemc, and Syilx-Okanagan people. Revelstoke is home to a population of approximately 8300 people [34], and it is located in an area that offers a range of outdoor recreational opportunities. Due to these opportunities, tourism is a major component of Revelstoke’s economy, and the Revelstoke Mountain Resort attracts a large number of tourists in summer and winter. Forestry and transportation are also major industries in Revelstoke, and Downie Timber and CP Rail are employers that contribute significantly to the community’s economic stability [35].

In the 1960s, Revelstoke lost most of its local agricultural land due to the damming of the Columbia River, which flooded the area’s arable land. Before the dam was constructed, there were around 260 farms with 2400 hectares of productive land, including orchards, dairies, hay, cereal grains, vegetables, and pasture. An additional 5200 to 9500 hectares of land had potential for agriculture. Most of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands are located within the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District (CSRD), outside of the city boundaries. Since 2014, significant increases in land pricing have made ALR lands in the CSRD surrounding Revelstoke unaffordable for local farmers despite their suitability for agriculture. Agricultural capability mapping shows that parcels within the city could support small-scale backyard growing operations, although they are unsuitable for larger-scale farming [36]

Local political and institutional support for community food systems in Revelstoke is strong. The City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) and various departments incorporate food security, local food systems, and urban agriculture. In 2014, a Revelstoke Food Security Strategy was created by the City and Community Connections (Revelstoke) Society (CCRS) and updated in 2023, integrating food security, climate change impacts on food systems, and local economic development into the OCP. Collaboration between the City and the CSRD is essential since much agricultural land is within the Regional District. Revelstoke also has a commercial compost collection program (with the CSRD) and a food asset map created by local organizations, outlining the locations of food producers, processors, and related resources.

Revelstoke faces significant food system challenges due to global supply chain impacts, demographic changes, rising living costs, and reliance on tourism. Food insecurity is increasing with higher living costs, stagnant wages, and the predominance of service sector jobs. The province of BC has a food insecurity rate of 12.5% of households over the 2017–2018 period [37]. However, reporting food banks in BC (127) in 2023 noted ~196,000 visits, an increase of 57% since 2019 [38],. The 2017–2018 statistic on household food insecurity for the Interior Health region (inclusive of Revelstoke) was 13.4%, with 9.3% experiencing moderate to severe food insecurity [37], which has certainly increased since then due to the COVID-19 pandemic, food supply chain disruptions, climate change-induced droughts, wildfires, etc. [36]. Data from the CCRS Food Bank over the past three years highlight trends of an increase in the number of households accessing the food bank from 286 in 2019, 716 in 2022, to 1229 in 2023 [39]. Similarly, the Revelstoke Food Bank notes that food purchasing costs have nearly doubled over the same period [39]. Revelstoke’s rich social capital and proactive community and local government initiatives, such as poverty reduction and updated food security strategies, highlight the town’s desire to transform inequitable food systems and unequal power relations.

2.2. Scenario Development

The visualization tool was built to represent three scenarios that were developed in the previous phase of the greater research project (see above). This paper does not provide in-depth details on the scenario development process; rather, the process is summarized here to provide context and clarity with respect to the scenario content of the visualization tool. A detailed description of the scenario development process can be found in a study by Dring et al. [40].

The scenarios were developed via a stakeholder workshop that involved discussing local food system issues in Revelstoke and ideas for stimulating change in food systems in ways that could improve food system sustainability, justice, and resilience. The workshop participants were organized into three groups, and each group examined a system map that captured the relationships among food system issues and components. The systems maps were developed using interview data collected from food systems stakeholders and actors in a previous phase of the greater research project [40], and three maps were created that respectively focused on issues related to food supply, food affordability, and food governance. Each participant group focused on a different system map, and after reviewing the map, participants added the system components, issues, and relationships that they felt were missing. Then, participants were asked to identify the underlying causes of the issues and relationships present in the system map (e.g., anthropocentrism and the dominance of one type of knowledge). Prior to engaging in this exercise, the participants were provided with examples of such underlying causes to help them understand the task and stimulate their thinking on this topic.

Following the system map exercise, the participant groups were asked to identify ideas, developments, or changes that could address the issues identified in the system maps by transforming the ways people relate to food, the natural world, and other people. These ideas were referred to as ‘seeds,’ and the three groups identified different seeds that (respectively) influence change in the three issue areas of food supply, food affordability, and food governance. The resulting seeds were the community support of farmers (food supply), barrier-free food (food affordability), and the rights of nature in an ecocentric world (food governance).

The workshop participants considered how the seeds may ‘mature’ in 2100, meaning they described the changes, developments, and conditions in Revelstoke that may result from when implementing their seed today. Each participant group was provided with a sheet of flipchart paper and a stack of sticky notes. The groups placed a sticky note in the center of their paper with their seeds written on it. Participants then wrote about the direct effects or changes that could occur from the implementation of the seed on other sticky notes, and they placed these sticky notes around the seed. This was followed by the participants writing the indirect effects of these direct effects on different sets of sticky notes and placing these notes around the direct effects notes. Finally, the groups were asked to identify when different effects and changes may occur during the period from present to 2100.

Participants then applied the ideas produced in the sticky note exercise to an inactive railway site in Revelstoke (Figure 2) by describing how the site might look following the maturation of their seed. In this activity, the workshop participants considered both the physical transformation of space (e.g., infrastructure, landscaping) and how users engage with the space (e.g., recreation, work, social interaction). To develop rich, possible, and relatable stories of future conditions that may emerge from the maturation of the seeds, the workshop participants considered and discussed what a ‘day in the life’ of a person experiencing the railway site would be like in these conditions. Participants were first asked to imagine themselves at the site, including their interactions with others, their relationships with food, and the feelings that emerged at the site. Then, the participants shared their stories with others in their group, and the group members worked together to create a common story that wove elements of the individual stories together.

The data and outputs from this workshop were used to create three scenario narratives, which centered on (1) food supply, (2) food affordability, and (3) food governance. Researchers worked with a community member (i.e., one of the participants who was very engaged in the project and worked in a local community non-governmental organization) to examine the data produced through the system map, seed maturation, and day-in-the-life exercises. From this work, three short stories were developed to capture the physical, social, political, and environmental aspects of the scenarios. The stories were developed in a manner that aimed both to comprehensively capture as much of the data and ideas produced through the workshop as possible and to develop a diverse array of scenarios that represent substantially different futures from one another. The scenario narratives were distributed to the workshop participants for their review and comments, and the final set of narratives was published by Dring et al. [40]. Brief summaries of these scenario narratives are shown in

Table 1. Food systems scenarios for Revelstoke.

Scenario	Scenario Summary
Baseline (current conditions)	The railway site is a parcel situated in the center of the city that has great potential for future development. Currently, it serves as a public open space where residents can leisurely stroll and enjoy the vegetation and tranquility. The future of the space is unknown in terms of how it will be transformed and used by the community. For now, it remains a small and simple park for brief respites and casual gatherings, offering a glimpse of greenery within a neighborhood of streets and residential development.
Food supply	In this food future, a grocery store electric truck navigates clean streets, and houselessness is eliminated. However, residents wear masks to combat pollution. The food system is under corporate control and owned by the Jim Peterson Conglomerate. At the railway site, workers labor for the corporation, while an underground resistance (the New Group) clandestinely discusses their discontent with the corporate control and organizes a movement for farmer sovereignty.
Food affordability	This food future follows Nic, who tends the railway site’s community garden. This type of food system work is performed as mandatory labor in the community. Assisting in food distribution, Nic reflects on Revelstoke’s shift toward food security and equality-based systems. Citizens gather for communal meals, embracing food as a human right. Animals roam forests in and near the community, and the railway site is surrounded by lush greenery.
Food governance	In this food future, children and their familiars (spirits or animals) will visit the railway site with their teacher. Sustainable practices and responsible natural resource utilization are commonplace. Intergenerational learning occurs as stories are shared of past harmful disconnections among humans, food, and nature. The community embraces connection, unity, and Earth’s healing. Communal meals are shared, and prepared in a manner that contributes to a more equitable food system.

, and the full scenario narratives can be found in Table S1.

2.3. Visualization Development

The visualization was developed using the Unity3D (v.2021) game engine. The tool was prepared as a series of virtual environments in which users can ‘walk through’ and experience scenarios from a first-person perspective. The visualization development process uses methods employed by Newell et al. [12,13] and Willyono et al. [23], involving the use of ArcGIS Pro (version 3.1.0) and GIMP (2.10.34), respectively, to maintain spatial accuracy in the virtual environment and to create images and textures to improve the visualization, realism, and representation of place.

The process began with the building of the terrain and landscape, using data sourced from the Government of BC’s LiDAR data portal for the terrain and from Google Earth for orthophoto imagery. Three terrain objects were created: (1) a large viewshed terrain that users can see but cannot walk on, (2) a smaller, nearby viewshed terrain with greater detail than the large viewshed terrain, and (2) a high-detail navigable terrain on which users can walk (this navigable terrain centers on the railway site). A 100 km × 100 km area was defined for the large viewshed terrain, a 12 km × 12 km area was defined for the nearby viewshed terrain, and a 650 m × 650 m area was defined for the navigable terrain. Although the navigable terrain is 650 m × 650 m, users are limited to exploring the Railway site, which is approximately 250 m × 30 m.

After the terrain objects were built, 3D models were added to the virtual environments for each scenario. The models were sourced from the Unity Asset Store and CGTrader websites where 3D artists share 3D models. In cases where suitable models were not available from these sources, 3D models were created using SketchUp. The models were used to develop/add both animated (e.g., people, animals) and non-animated objects (e.g., fences, buildings, food storage containers) to the scenarios. The selection and placement of these objects were informed by scenario narratives (see Table S1). Additionally, some images were created using the Bing Image Creator in cases where a specific image was needed, such as a unique logo of an organization established in one of the scenarios.

The scenarios included soundscapes, following previous research that found that the inclusion of sound in visualization planning tools can enhance the tools’ ability to effectively examine and assess planning scenarios [41]. Sound files were sourced from Pixabay.com (accessed online 15 December 2023), and they included a range of sounds, such as birds, conversations, wind, and water. As with the objects, the soundscapes were designed in accordance with the scenario narratives.

After the objects and sounds were added to the visualization, narrative components were incorporated into the scenarios in the form of pop-up text boxes. The text boxes appear when users step on blue circles positioned in various places throughout the virtual environment (Figure 3), and the text provides further context and information about the scenario. Pop-up text locations were positioned accordingly to relate the text content to nearby objects; for example, a pop-up text about farming practices was positioned next to objects representing farms. Some of the pop-up text boxes display the dialogue of nearby people (i.e., animated 3D models that represent people), with these conversations scripted to provide insights into what life would be like under a particular scenario.

A user interface was developed for the visualization tool to allow users to select scenarios that they would like to explore. When loading the tool, the visualization user sees a page that provides an introduction to the tool and describes how it is used. The user clicks a ‘start’ button to navigate to a page where the user can select which scenario they would like to explore. Each scenario is presented with a brief description (see Table 1), and when the user clicks on one of these descriptions, more information about the scenario (and how the conditions in the scenario emerge) appears. The user then clicks the ‘continue’ button to open the virtual environment for a particular scenario.

The visualization tool contained four scenarios, with these being a baseline scenario that represents the current conditions of the site and three future scenarios that center on the areas of food supply, food affordability, and food governance (Figure 4). The aesthetics and objects included in the baseline scenario were informed by photos taken of the railway site (in the summer of 2023), with this scenario including tall grasses, trees, a trail, and single-family detached residential buildings surrounding the site. The three future scenarios were informed by scenario narratives, as shown in Table S1. The food supply scenario depicts the railway site as having little vegetation, containing food storage and processing facilities, and surrounded by barbed wire fences and high-rise buildings. The food affordability scenario features townhouses surrounding the railway site and contains a playground, farm plots, a food distribution area, a community kitchen, and a large dining area designed for residents to gather for meals. The food governance scenario presents the railway site as full of ecological features, such as trees, animals, and ponds, and it includes gardens, gatherings of people, and an interactive sign that communicates the ecocentric philosophy guiding the community.

The visualization was exported to WebGL format, and it is embedded in the project website: www.triaslab.ca/equitable-food-systems#visualization, accessed on 5 February 2024. This tool is publicly accessible. Users can interact with it both in its webpage-embedded form and in full-screen mode.

2.4. Visualization Tool Workshop

A workshop was held in February 2024, where the local government and food system stakeholders in Revelstoke engaged with the visualization tool and provided their thoughts on the scenarios. The workshop was conducted virtually using Zoom (5.14.5) over two and a half hours. This study was reviewed and approved by the Royal Roads University’s Research Ethics Board, and participants were provided with a letter of informed consent to read and sign prior to engaging in the workshop.

In total, 32 potential participants were identified through an Internet search and snowball sampling, and 10 participants accepted the invitation and attended the workshop. Although it is a small group, this sample size is comparable to that of other visualization and planning studies that employ workshop or focus group methods (e.g., [6,14,20]). As with these other studies, the approach used in this research follows a small-sized focus group methodology, which involves engaging small groups of people with specific expertise and knowledge on a particular issue or topic [42]. The group consisted of people from the public, private, and non-governmental sectors, resulting in the contribution of a range of perspectives, knowledge, and expertise in this food systems scenario research. The participants represented a variety of different roles in food systems, including those related to land-use planning, local decision-making (i.e., elected officials), school systems, community programs and services, and community education and mobilization efforts.

Table 2. Number and sectoral affiliations of workshop participants.

Sectoral Affiliation	Number of Participants
Non-governmental organization	5
Local government	2
Health authority (regional government)	1
School district	1
Private sector (consultancy)	1

provides a breakdown of the sectoral affiliations of the workshop participants.

The workshop began with a presentation on the greater research project and the activities and findings produced to date. Then, the scenarios were presented, and the purpose and development approach for the visualization application were described. After providing this context, the research team shared and demonstrated the visualization application using Zoom’s screen-sharing function to give the participants a walkthrough of the baseline scenario. Participants were then organized into two breakout groups, where they explored three future scenario narratives (food supply, food affordability, and food governance) via the visualization tool. To ensure that all participants were on the ‘same page’ and seeing the same aspects/features of the scenarios, a member of the research team walked them through each scenario, ensuring that every pop-up text box was accessed and read out loud by the researcher during these walkthroughs. Between scenario walkthroughs, the researcher would take the group through the baseline scenario to prompt participants to compare the future scenarios to the current conditions rather than having them compare the future scenarios to each other (i.e., employing a direct scenario comparison approach would raise methodological questions about how to order the scenario walkthroughs to have one particular scenario follow and be compared to another).

After each scenario walkthrough, the participants were asked a series of discussion questions to solicit their thoughts and feedback on the scenarios (see Table S2). These questions asked about general thoughts that came to mind when exploring a scenario, the feelings and sensations experienced when in a scenario, and ideas about the relationships among food, land, and people that form a particular food system future. Following the scenario exercise, the participants were reconvened for a plenary discussion. The plenary discussion was guided by another series of questions and complemented with a Padlet application to record participants’ responses and allow for written input. These questions focused on the usefulness and realism of the visualization, the desirability of the different scenarios, and how the different scenarios did or did not represent sustainable and just food futures. In both the breakout groups and plenary discussions, participants were asked to provide their thoughts and feedback by posting comments on Padlet boards, using the Zoom chat function, and engaging in group discussions.

The design of the questions used in the workshop followed other planning research on visualization tools in that they consisted of three types. The first type involved questions that were designed to have participants think about, describe, and interpret what they saw in the virtual environment (e.g., [16,32]). These questions were asked in the breakout group sessions following the walkthrough of a scenario. The second type of question focused on the strengths and weaknesses of visualization in terms of serving as a planning tool (e.g., [20,28]), and these questions were asked in plenary discussions. The third type consisted of questions that simulated thinking and discussion about preferences for and the desirability of scenarios (e.g., [17,19]), and these questions were asked in the plenary session.

2.5. Data and Analysis

Three sources of data were collected from the workshop: (1) discussion transcripts, (2) Padlet comments, and (3) comments in the Zoom chat box. The Zoom sessions were audio-recorded, and discussion transcripts were generated using Zoom’s transcription function. The transcripts were reviewed by the researchers, and transcription errors were corrected using audio recordings of the discussions as references. The final transcripts that resulted from this process included researcher presentations and introductions to the activities, two breakout discussions, and plenary discussions. The transcript data were prepared in Word document format.

Padlet data were collected by developing online posting boards using Padlet’s ‘wall and shelf’ formats. This format allows the categorization of posts under different headings. In this study, the different discussion questions (see Table S2) served as headings, allowing workshop participants to contribute written ideas in response to specific discussion questions. Posting boards were created for the plenary discussions, and two boards were created (respectively) for the second and third types of discussion questions, as described above. The posting boards were embedded into a webpage on the researchers’ website (www.triaslab.ca/revelstoke-workshop, accessed on 28 February 2024), with discussion prompt questions included above each board. Following the workshop, the posts were exported from Padlet to PDF format.

The final data source involved text-based chat messages provided by the participants throughout the breakout and plenary discussions using Zoom’s chat feature. Participants used this feature when wanting to share ideas while others were speaking (some preferred providing written comments via this feature rather than using Padlet tools). The chat transcript was downloaded from Zoom as a TXT file and then converted to the Word document format.

The PDF and Word document data files were imported into NVivo (version 1.6.1) and analyzed using thematic coding methods. The coding used an inductive approach, meaning that the analysis did not use a predefined coding framework, and themes were identified as they emerged from the data [43]. As per the main research question guiding this study, codes were defined to represent themes and ideas that speak to the challenges and opportunities of developing and using visualizations as tools for long-term food system planning. The codes were applied to full participant comments, meaning that the coded segments consisted of pieces of text that represented an uninterrupted spoken piece by a participant in the transcripts, a Padlet comment, or a chat comment. If a topic related to a code or theme appeared multiple times in a comment, it was coded only once, as multiple occurrences of the topic typically represented a continuation or expansion of a participant’s discussion on the topic or idea. Note that only participant comments were treated as data and coded, and the transcript sections involving the researchers’ presentations, explanation of activities, and posing of discussion questions were not coded.

Data were reviewed and coded in an open coding process to inductively identify emergent ideas that frequently appeared [43]. After completing the open coding process, the data were reviewed again to apply codes in places where they were missed in the first review, and to review and aggregate codes in cases where only one or two references were found with a code. Then, an axial coding process was conducted, which involved grouping codes together to identify a coherent set of themes from the coded data [44]. These themes provide insights into the challenges and opportunities around developing and using interactive visualization tools to support long-term planning and to stimulate thinking about transformative changes in food systems and land use.

It is important to recognize that due to the relatively small sample size (n = 10), the findings of these studies are not representative of a larger population. Accordingly, the study does not include quantitative analysis; instead, it focuses on qualitative results. Previous planning research on visualization tools has used a mix of quantitative and qualitative analyses to assess these tools; however, when working with small participant groups, researchers admit that any collected quantitative data cannot be used for reliable statistical analyses and instead focus on insights from qualitative data analysis (e.g., [14,20]). Accordingly, this research focuses on qualitative data and analysis. Additionally, as the data collected through this work consists of transcripts from group discussions held in a workshop, data saturation cannot be achieved in the same way that it can be (for example) in interview-based studies. Instead, this research comprehensively analyzes workshop discussion data, as in other applied planning studies that examine the use of visualization tools using workshop methods (e.g., [6,45]). All participant comments were thematically coded in this analysis, and each code appeared at least three times in the data and from two or more participants, indicating that they represent commonly emerging themes.

3. Results

This study pursues the research question: what are the challenges and opportunities around developing and using interactive visualizations as long-term planning tools for examining the advantages, disadvantages, and desirability of different food systems’ futures? To this end, the analysis identified a series of themes related to the ability (and shortcomings) of interactive visualizations as tools for supporting local governments and stakeholders in explorations and examinations of far-future food systems scenarios. The open coding process initially resulted in 27 codes, which were reduced to 24 codes after a subsequent review of the data. The axial coding process yielded seven themes (see

Table 3. Emergent themes and codes produced through thematic analysis of the workshop data.

Themes	Codes (n = Coded References)
Visualizations of far-future scenarios can elicit emotional responses	Dystopian and pessimistic (n = 10) Utopian and optimistic (n = 6) Feelings (n = 14)
Local infrastructure, services, and resources are informative features in visualization tools	Housing (n = 10) Infrastructure (n = 21) Education (n = 5) Natural resources (n = 8)
Visualization tools can convey human relationships with food, nature, and other people	Food relationships (n = 21) Food culture (n = 5) Social interaction (n = 15) Ecosystems (n = 20)
Visualization development affects scenario clarity, completeness, and comprehension	Imagination and assumption (n = 12) Population trends (n = 10) Missing context (n = 31) Viewshed (n = 4)
Visualization tools can be used to communicate the power dynamics of future scenarios	Power (n = 13) Control (n = 26) Colonial legacy (n = 3)
Visualization tools can feature social diversity and social justice considerations	Diversity (n = 7) Equity (n = 7) Indigenous knowledge (n = 3)
Visualized scenarios are assessed based on current realities, trends, and plausible futures	Status quo (n = 11) Plausibility (n = 9) Planning guidance (n = 10)

). Note that the term ‘coded references’ in Table 3 refers to the number of participant comments to which a particular code was applied, with a participant comment being an uninterrupted idea or piece of feedback shared by a participant during the facilitated group discussions. Thus, multiple coded references can be attributed to a single participant if more than one of their comments is coded with a particular code.

3.1. Visualizations of Far-Future Scenarios Can Elicit Emotional Responses

Participants identified how certain scenarios are undesirable using culturally- and emotionally-charged language, such as describing food supply and food affordability scenarios as ‘dystopian’ or ‘cult-like’. Participants explained that what made these futures dystopian was the lack of human agency due to the authoritarian and coercive nature of the community context in the scenarios, as well as how the tightly regimented production and distribution of food are disruptive to the relationship between humans and food. When discussing these issues, some participants used evocative terms, such as how one participant used the word ‘despair’ when commenting on the food supply scenario.

The despair around the whole situation and the systematic steps to remove us from food production with everything being behind gates, closed greenhouses and authorized personnel only. It continually removes the ‘natural part’ and our interaction with food production and nature and just makes it more of a commodity that is controlled by the select few that are probably financially benefiting from it while the people that are receiving what is coming from them have these additional worries and concerns. That [the people] have food but there’s all those other moving parts that are kind of forgotten about or deemed not as important

(Participant 7)

Emotions were also identified when participants discussed desirable aspects of the scenarios, including how the scenarios depicted futures where food was readily available to community members. In addition, scenarios that featured natural elements were discussed as eliciting positive emotions and feelings. Interestingly, some participants expressed that in cases where scenarios presented positive and optimistic futures, they were skeptical about the plausibility and realistic prospects of these scenarios.

I got the sense that [the food] was for everyone and it didn’t matter if you were in need or not. I kind of had positive feelings about this scenario even though it’s not really realistic. It seemed like people were happy, relaxed, and smiling and it was a positive place to come and share food whether you were hungry or just wanted a communal aspect and participating and picking up the fresh produce, those sort of feelings I got when I read it and saw it… in this scenario there was more relationship to land and place because people could see food growing in a natural spot.

(Participant 8)

Participants expressed a range of emotional responses to scenarios, which were simulated by both visual cues and the narrative elements incorporated into the visualization tool. When exploring the food affordability scenario, some participants identified that the presence of children and adults interacting contributed to positive feelings about the scenario; however, at the same time, the regimented control over meals prevented it from seeming like a completely desirable future, with a participant commenting on how there seemed to be no ‘joy’ in people’s engagement with food. In some cases, participants discussed how events not shown in the visualization but identified through the narratives stimulated emotional reactions, such as feelings of uneasiness that occurred when exploring the food governance scenario and understanding that the scenario was (in part) a result of a significant population decline. Additionally, the scenes and elements featured in the visualizations appeared to influence the feelings elicited when exploring a scenario, with some participants describing the food governance scenario as ‘boring’ due to a lack of technological innovation featured in the scene (Figure 5).

I realize we’re trying not to compare necessarily the sites, or the scenarios, but there’s an element of this that is ‘boring’. And I was questioning myself “Why does that feel boring?” Whether it’s visually or in terms of being in this space, versus the other scenarios, what I think comes up mostly is the idea of innovation or progress or ‘more is more.’

(Participant 2)

3.2. Local Infrastructure, Services, and Resources Are Informative Features in Visualization Tools

A number of participants’ comments related to the housing featured in the scenariosh demonstrate how (considering that the study centered on food systems) the visualization tool held the ability to stimulate holistic thinking about the scenarios and futures. Comments included mentions of housing affordability and availability in the food supply scenario being a positive aspect of the scenario (although the scenario was generally regarded as undesirable due to the authoritarian nature of how the community is run). In the food affordability scenario, participants reacted positively to the medium-density housing form, noting that this was a development direction they would like Revelstoke to take. In terms of the food governance scenario, participants had challenges in fully understanding and relating to the scenario due to the lack of residential buildings featured in the visualized scene. One participant explained that key information about how the community developed and operated was missing without these buildings.

There’s just in this scenario almost like a lack of information. I’m trying to grasp different things and if this is post-apocalyptic, what happened to the ruins of the existing structures that are currently in place on the Railway? Such as housing and stuff that is currently there? Where did that go?

(Participant 6)

Participants noted that the visualization elements that represent infrastructure provide valuable indications of what life would be like in a particular scenario. For example, in the case of transportation infrastructure, the food supply scenario visualization showed that truck and car transportation will still be common in the future (Figure 6), whereas the food affordability scenario indicated that many residents travel via bicycle. When certain types of infrastructure were not featured in the visualizations, questions emerged about what lifestyles would be like under the scenario conditions. Participants noted that this was the case with respect to the transportation infrastructure and food governance scenario, as it was unclear how people commonly traveled in this particular future. Participants also articulated that lacking/missing infrastructure impacted how realistic and plausible a scenario appeared. This was expressed in reference to recreational and green infrastructure, with participants identifying a lack of shaded areas in the scenarios as unrealistic in the face of climate change.

One thing with the community centers, I would expect to see a bit more shade. And I would be expected. I expect the sun to be more intense... I think because we know summers are getting hotter. Just a lack of shade… especially the [food governance scenario] there is a need for shaded areas for outdoor learning. Even with the food growing outside, it couldn’t handle that kind of heat.

(Participant 9)

Participants discussed how the incorporation of education programs in the scenarios influenced the way they perceived the scenarios. The presence of educational programs in a scenario was conveyed both through visualized elements (e.g., children gathering with adults) and narrative aspects (e.g., the pop-up text with details about the scenario stories). Participants noted that learning about the types and subjects of the education delivered in the scenarios was important for helping them understand and assess the scenarios. For instance, one participant mentioned how the food governance scenario seemed to be more desirable than the food affordability scenario due to (as communicated through the pop-up text) the education programming being more focused on relationships between people and food rather than just the ‘rules’ about what and how much to eat.

I noticed in contrast to the previous scenario that the children were learning in school instead of rules of what you can take… it was integrated into their whole being about learning about the relationship between food and the land and being part of making decisions. It sounded like everyone was considered part of it and respected.

(Participant 8)

Participants discussed how the visualization tool provided impressions of the abundance and availability of natural resources in a scenario. For example, one participant noted that the production of lab-grown food in the food supply scenario suggests that the levels of pollution and water scarcity have made outdoor agriculture impractical for feeding the population in the future. Other participants noted how the visual and auditory elements provided indications of what resources were still available in the future; for example, one participant made this point with respect to the sound of water.

The soundscape of the water. So, if you can hear water and you can start to build that relationship of understanding that water needs to be present for foodscapes. I think that’s important.

(Participant 6)

3.3. Visualization Tools Can Convey Human Relationships with Food, Nature, and Other People

Participants discussed how some of the visualized scenarios presented futures in which people did not have a strong relationship with food. Participants noted that the food supply and food affordability scenarios represented worlds where the production and consumption of food is ‘transactional’ in nature, which contributed to their undesirability. One participant compared the scenarios, noting that although the level of community interaction was much better in the food affordability than the food supply scenario, there still appeared to be a lack of connection to and ‘celebration’ of food production, preparation, and consumption.

There’s a contractual or transactional relationship. Those elements of celebration are still missing, but they’re still a lot more present. There’s a sense of community, people are coming together, they’re gathering to eat, and there are options to join the communal meal. Still there is this rigidity to [the scenario] but it seems more enjoyable than the first scenario and a lot more humane.

(Participant 5)

Related to people-food relationships, participants identified how the visualization communicated how changes in and losses of food culture might occur in the future, specifically with reference to food supply and food affordability scenarios. Similar to the discussion on people-food relationships, participants identified how the food affordability scenario depicts a better future due to how community members interact and come together for meals. However, in both scenarios, a clear lack of food culture was highlighted, with participants noting that food in these futures is being viewed in a highly functional way (i.e., in terms of people’s nutrient requirements), and cultural diversity is not reflected in local food production, diets, and food practices (i.e., eating together, celebrations, community building).

This [food affordability scenario] has a lot more connection of food to land, I put comments in the other scenario, the other one was a disconnect from food and land and each other. Both scenarios don’t seem to look at culture in food and the diversity of food in that way, the first scenario there’s no joy in food, this one feels like it could be more joyful, more appreciation of where food comes from, the whole scenario of eating together and communal meals.

(Participant 8)

The presentation of human relationships and social interactions in the visualization influenced how participants regarded the scenario and its desirability. As noted above, participants favored the food affordability scenario over the food supply scenario due to how it appeared to involve more social interaction (i.e., communal meals), which can foster a sense of community. Participants suggested that healthy social dynamics and social interactions featured in a scenario imply that the community has low crime and conflict in this scenario, with one participant mentioning this point specifically in reference to the food governance scenario.

It’s interesting how [food governance scenario] obviously has a lot of trust. Space is accessible, nothing is fenced off, there’s no crime. Everybody gets equal opportunity to food and water.

(Participant 9)

Participants discussed the relationships that people form with non-human species, and generally, scenarios that presented higher numbers of nature-related elements and healthier ecosystems were viewed as more desirable. Participants commented on how scenarios that contained wildlife and vegetation elements represented desirable features, as they reflected conditions where ecosystems were still functioning and supporting biodiversity (Figure 7). One participant made this point by drawing a contrast between the food supply scenario (undesirable) and food affordability scenario (more desirable).

This [food affordability scenario] is a lot more hopeful. Doesn’t feel too far in the future necessarily and it feels more optional, more inclusive, more cooperative and there’s biodiversity, there’s a mixture of types of people moving at their will participating how they like.

(Participant 5)

3.4. Visualization Tools Can Be Used to Communicate the Power Dynamics of Future Scenarios

A number of comments spoke to the power dynamics and inequalities represented through the scenarios. This was particularly the case with the food supply scenario, which was associated with the majority of the references coded with ‘power’ (n = 9). Group discussions about this scenario frequently focused on concerns about the disproportionate power held by corporate actors over the food system and (as a result) consumers/individuals. Participants also identified that significant power imbalances were present in the food affordability scenario, although these were not made explicit through the visualization. One participant explained that the regimented approach to producing and distributing food in the scenario implies that there are people who have power and authority over the food system, thus indicating that inequalities and power imbalances exist in this future.

Suspicious of where, who’s in control and what are they doing? Why? There’s an accumulation of wealth or somewhere and not with the people who are working and running the food and everything. Not great with my political things—fascism or communism come to mind. I know these are two opposite ends of the spectrum but the rationing and the control that’s going on here.

(Participant 3)

Multiple participants commented on how the visualization tools conveyed who, how, and to what extent control was exerted on food systems and society in different future scenarios. Similar to the comments about power, participants discussed how high degrees of societal control are present in the food supply and food affordability scenario, with the former representing a militarized, authoritarian society and the latter a society of obligatory, rule-guided communal living. Participants discussed how the food supply scenario, in particular, contained many visual elements that communicated high degrees of societal control experience in that future (Figure 8).

The elements like the fencing, the big trucks, the uniforms, the closed off greenhouses, the high-rises, it all helps to bring the idea alive and makes it more believable and more understanding… that we can get there because there are elements that we understand already and have borne witness to in some element. The visualization really brings the scenario alive.

(Participant 1)

Participants also discussed power and control in terms of colonization and colonial approaches to operating food systems. The term ‘colonization’ was used in workshop discussions to articulate how some future pathways involve the domination of people and ecosystems. One participant used this term in reference to the food supply scenario, noting how the approach to food production in this scenario is highly industrialized and disruptive to the relationships among food, land, ecosystems, and people.

It feels like an extreme form of colonization. Where food is concerned, there’s a clear divide between those who have access to food production and those that do not. Like [Participant 7] mentioned earlier, the natural aspect has been stripped away and it’s this, I don’t want to say pharmaceutical, but highly industrialized process that’s removed from place, even though it’s obviously place dependent, but those relationships and linkages have been stripped down and removed. So, it’s really sanitized and industrial.

(Participant 5)

3.5. Visualization Tools Can Feature Social Diversity and Justice Considerations

Participants discussed how the scenario visualization provided information about the progress and issues in the area of social justice experienced in different futures. In some cases, social justice considerations were discussed in terms of tradeoffs; for example, participants identified how the food supply scenario presented a situation where housing is available for everyone, but this benefit exists in the context of authoritarianism and a high degree of corporate control over society. Participants also identified social justice issues that were subtly communicated through scenario visualizations, such as how the food affordability scenario included both a person in a wheelchair and wheelchair-inaccessible food storage systems (Figure 9).

Lots of social justice elements in there, definitely the fact that the wheelchair guy can’t reach the shelves, not ideal… The second [scenario] there was an inkling of [social justice] consideration because we saw a wheelchair. And it was mentioned that one of the shelves was too high. So, it’s kind of like the system wasn’t quite in place yet, but there’s sort of some recognition around their needs. So that equity.

(Participant 5)

Participants expressed how the degree of social diversity featured in a scenario influenced how desirable they considered the food future to be. As such, diversity illustrates the degree to which future conditions can accommodate societal differences. Diversity is discussed in terms of ethnicity, ableness, and age. In terms of age, a number of participants commented on how the absence of children in the food supply scenario and their presence in the food affordability and food governance scenarios made the latter two scenarios more desirable. In addition to demographics, participants also discussed diversity (or lack thereof) in beliefs, worldviews, and perspectives; for example, one participant commented on how the communal lifestyle of the food affordability scenario made this particular food future feel homogeneous (almost ‘cult-like’), even though different demographics were featured in the visualized scenario.

Medium density—with outdoor living spaces, more human scale. This whole scenario demonstrates a more balanced relationship between social/ecological/animal (hooved, winged, pawed). However, it feels homogenous… and almost too scripted ‘cult’ like.

(Participant 6)

Some participants commented on the knowledge systems presented in the scenarios, specifically the inclusion of what is perceived to be Indigenous knowledge alongside Western knowledge. Participants (favorably) discussed how the food governance scenario differed from the others in that the community practices and approaches were (to some degree) informed by Indigenous knowledge. Such comments illustrate how sociocultural diversity and social justice in scenarios can be presented using visualization tools and considered in terms of which knowledge systems guide the planning, development, and functioning of a community.

I think the third scenario was the most decolonized. I think it was closest to a First Nations interpretation where you’re more connected to the lands and the stewardship and that cycle that food in nature has. So yeah, it was three very different scenarios.

(Participant 7)

3.6. Visualized Scenarios Are Assessed Based on Current Realities, Trends, and Plausible Futures

Participants commented on the plausibility of the different scenarios in terms of the futures that actually come to fruition. Many participants found the food supply scenario to be plausible due to how it represents the ‘status quo’ of the current food system. Participants explained that the current food system is mostly under corporate control (Figure 10), and the food supply scenario reflects the result of a natural progression of this approach to food production and distribution. It was noted that this vision of the future is both concerning and eye-opening in how it represents a believable (and perhaps even probable) scenario.

It feels like a very realistic outcome with not a whole lot of effort put forward. It seems like it’s the direction we are heading regardless. So it’s eye opening and concerning at the same time.

(Participant 7)

Other comments related to aspects of the scenarios made them appear less likely to occur. In some cases, the perceived likelihood of a scenario was affected by a lack of information on how communities may operate and function under certain scenarios; for example, participants questioned how volunteer labor would be sustained and supplies would be purchased/acquired in the food affordability scenario. In other cases, participants appeared to find a scenario unlikely because it seemed overly optimistic, as one participant indicated when discussing the food affordability scenario.

I got the sense that it was for everyone, and it didn’t matter if you were in need or not, I kind of had positive feelings about this scenario even though it’s not really realistic. It seemed like people were happy and relaxed and smiling and it was a positive place to come and share food, whether you were hungry or just wanted a communal aspect and participating and picking up the fresh produce. Those sort of feelings I got when I read it and saw it.

(Participant 8)

Participants discussed how the visualization tool can stimulate thinking about what is possible for a community and its food future, which in turn can help provide a vision for guiding local planning. Visualization tools can complement and support the development of official community plans, as they provide a means for engaging different stakeholders and community members in the visioning process. Using the example of density, one participant noted how such tools provide an image to be commonly shared among stakeholders of what certain plans and strategies may look like if implemented locally, which is useful for facilitating discussions on the aspirations and goals of a community and place.

Having gone through the OCP process in the focus groups... How many times it could have been helpful to have visualization when we were trying to make decisions around growth. We talked a lot about densifying our neighborhoods. What would that look like? If you just leave it up to everybody’s imagination there’s everything from the high rise to the single-family units and we don’t really always imagine the same things with the same terms.

(Participant 1)

3.7. Visualization Development Affects Scenario Clarity, Completeness, and Comprehension

In cases where the visualization tool did not explicitly provide certain types of information about a scenario, workshop participants used imagination and inference to ‘fill in the gaps.’ Participants made assumptions about scenarios, which enhanced the storylines and provided further context for scenes portrayed through scenario visualizations. For example, when discussing the food governance scenario, a participant identified the site as a location of a cultural/educational amenity (e.g., museum, interpretive center) that students may visit on a field trip (Figure 11). This interpretation of the railway site in this scenario differentiated it from the other two scenarios in that the other scenarios were understood to be places of residential buildings and food production and access.

Because I have been on many field trips like this growing up so… I think the poster board was part of that… it felt like this was more of a display thing. The billboard that had things written on it and just how the children were there, I assumed that they were visiting this.

(Participant 3)

One area in which participants made assumptions and inferences about the scenarios involved population trends. The visualizations showed only one point in the future (i.e., in 2100); thus, population dynamics and trends were either communicated through scenario narratives or inferred by the visualization user based on future conditions. Such an understanding of these trends influenced how the participants perceived the scenario. For example, the food governance scenario narrative involved a decline in population (without providing detail on how this decline occurred or how it unfolded), and this stimulated comments about how the scenario suggests that a catastrophe needs to occur to reach the depicted (and favorable) future conditions.

This one felt like the other side of disaster sort of thing. We’ve been through bad times and kind of coming back to the land and coming back together. So, there’s this sadness to it, for me, that, it took something terrible for it to get there, but… lots of elements that I liked, about the coming together, different ages, helping people out, the biodiversity, the understanding of natural processes, and yeah connection to the outdoors and not these infrastructure pieces that separate us from nature.

(Participant 1)

The ‘missing context’ code frequently emerged in the data (n = 31), capturing the challenges that participants had in gaining a complete understanding of what a particular future would be like with respect to how the community and food systems operate under a given scenario. In some cases, the missing context is related to a lack of certain visualized elements, such as a lack of power infrastructure in the food affordability and food governance scenarios and missing residential buildings in the food governance scenario. In other cases, the missing context was related to the information provided in the scenario narratives, as was the case for infrastructure and places located outside the railway site that were discussed by participants. For example, participants were curious about the state of the Revelstoke Dam in future scenarios, and as the dam can be seen from the railway site, adding such information/context to the visualization tool would involve further building scenario narrative features. It is important to note that missing context and a lack of clarity in what sort of future a particular scenario represents affect how participants regarded a scenario in terms of being able to effectively identify it as desirable. One participant expressed this when discussing the food governance scenario, noting that the visualized scenario was too incomplete for them to make a judgment on its desirability.

Yeah, that’s what I was going to say. I have a hard time answering this question because I found that scenario three doesn’t seem complete to me. I feel like I’m missing too many details to even really… How does it actually work? That doesn’t seem to be clear. Like you said, it’s leaving a lot to the imagination.

(Participant 8)

One aspect of the visualization tool that contributed to its ability to communicate and effectively establish that the scenarios were occurring in Revelstoke was viewshed. Participants commented that seeing Mt. Revelstoke in the background contributed to their sense of place and feelings that they were virtually experiencing a transformed site in Revelstoke. However, participants also noted that the viewshed design did not enable a full understanding of the scenarios, namely, due to how the scenario visualizations depicted future conditions in only one season (i.e., spring or summer). This is problematic for planning in Revelstoke, as the winter season is economically important for the community due to its snow recreation and tourism industry. Participants had questions about what the community and the snow tourism industry would look like in future winters, particularly in the face of climate change.

Seasonality. All these scenarios seem very summer-centric, but also what would this scenario look like come the wintertime and our snow load and stuff like that? How would we be able to continue to utilize these spaces and still offer food to the community?

(Participant 7)

4. Discussion

This research explored interactive visualizations as tools supporting long-term food planning that integrates social justice and decolonial practices. The development and use of this tool facilitated Revelstoke community food actors’ participation in exercises in which stakeholders imagined the transformation of food systems and land use. These exercises stimulated broader, ‘beyond reform’ thinking about how to make progress toward sustainable and just futures [46]. Previous visualization research has explored near-term and (somewhat) incremental changes in land use, which users of these tools found to be relatable and understandable when engaging with visualized scenarios (e.g., [6,14,15,24]). In contrast, the visualization developed and used in this study depicted radical transformations of food systems and land use, occurring far in the future (i.e., 2100), and in some cases, the research participants found these scenarios difficult to relate to and understand. Some comments demonstrated that users of the tool faced challenges when attempting to imagine scenarios that existed outside of the current dominant economic paradigm, with participants expressing that certain aspects of scenarios did not seem realistic due to a lack of information/clarity around who financially supports the food production systems and infrastructure in the scenarios. Such comments are indicative of the challenges people have imagining a future outside the current economic paradigm of capitalism [47], and these findings have strong implications for the ability of communities to imagine and engage in transformative change toward radically different (and more sustainable) models of living and operating.

A user’s ability to clearly understand a scenario and its complexities influenced whether they identified it as preferable. For instance, many participants liked a number of aspects of the food governance scenario, such as the flourishing biodiversity and the integration of Indigenous knowledge; however, participants also had challenges identifying it as a preferable future due to a lack of information and understanding about how the community operates (e.g., housing, transportation, etc.). Such findings indicate that users will engage with visualizations and assess scenarios based not only on how desirable the scenarios appear, but also on how clear and comprehensible the scenario story is. These findings align with Sheppard’s [48] recommendations and code of ethics for visualization developers, with one of his principles for visualization development relating to clarity and how these tools should be designed such that visualized scenes and scenarios are clearly understood by (and at least relatable to) diverse audiences.

The visualization tool developed and used in this study includes narrative elements, such as the scenario stories presented prior to entering the visualizations and the pop-up text that provides more information on the scenario particularities. As noted by Newell et al. [13], the planning-related usefulness of visualizations improves when integrating other information into these tools, such as maps ([5]) and data (e.g., [14,15]). Supporting this argument, the narrative elements incorporated into the visualization tool researched in this study greatly enhanced the user’s ability to understand and assess a scenario. For example, narrative pieces about the types of educational programs delivered in the scenarios increased the favorability of the food governance scenario (e.g., where food-people relationships were included in the education) over the food affordability scenario (e.g., where food is viewed in a more transactional way). As noted by scholars [30,31,32], narratives and storytelling can provide meaning to scenarios and data, and accordingly, the narrative elements of the visualization tool in this study provided a richer understanding of the scenarios and what life would be like under different future conditions.

Many visualization projects focus on the physical aspects of built and natural environments (e.g., [6,32,41]), with scenarios primarily focusing on changes to these aspects of place. Such a focus makes sense, as visualizations are powerful tools for showing changes in landscapes and the physical environment (e.g., [8,48]). However, as seen in this research, interactive visualizations can also include dynamic, animated elements that provide important information about the social conditions and dynamics of a place. In this study, the inclusion of such considerations through visual elements (e.g., people, gatherings) and narrative features provided useful information on the social, cultural, and political aspects of different scenarios and futures. For example, participants commented on how regimented and almost ‘cult-like’ society appeared to be in the food affordability scenario, identifying a potentially large disadvantage of pursuing such a future. Such findings reveal that valuable opportunities exist for including key social, cultural, and political details in scenario assessments when developing visualizations with interactive and dynamic elements (i.e., using game engines).

As discussed in the integrated planning literature [27], comprehensive planning processes include considerations around the economic aspects of community development, along with the social, physical, and environmental aspects. As seen in this research, visualization tools can be used to communicate the economic implications of a development pathway. The narrative elements incorporated into the visualization tool were particularly useful for conveying what economic systems may look like in different food futures, with the food supply scenario representing a familiar economic system of high corporate control and the food affordability and food governance scenarios representing alternative economic systems that are more community-oriented. Although this research found that the economic implications of a scenario can be effectively conveyed through a visualization tool, scenarios that represent more familiar economic conditions and paradigms (i.e., the food supply scenario) were more easily understood by the research participants. In contrast, the participants had questions about how the alternative economic systems in the other scenarios (i.e., food affordability and food governance scenarios) worked. This suggests that when using narrative features to communicate the economic features and implications of scenarios using visualization tools, visualization developers should consider including richer details about these features and implications when depicting unfamiliar economic systems and paradigms.

Interestingly, many participants identified the food supply scenario as both undesirable and highly plausible, indicating that this is the trajectory that they see the food system currently following (i.e., becoming increasingly more under corporate control). In contrast, participants identified scenarios that depicted high degrees of social trust, support, and security (such as the food affordability scenario) as not as realistic or likely. Such findings indicate a certain level of pessimism about the future, with participants identifying the undesirable characteristics of scenarios as more realistic and likely to occur than desirable characteristics. These findings have strong implications for long-term planning, as visioning processes that inform such planning should involve people being able to imagine futures that are both desirable and attainable [27,49].

The visualized scenarios elicited a variety of emotional responses, including despair, hope, and boredom. Other visualization planning tools have demonstrated the ability to elicit emotional responses to visualized scenarios, such as a sense of uneasiness from seeing dramatic changes in the character of a community [14]. Even image-based visualizations have demonstrated the ability to stimulate emotions and feelings in users about changes to places and landscapes (e.g., [20]). As noted earlier, visualizations can serve as powerful participatory planning and stakeholder engagement tools due to their ability to connect with a user’s sense of place, allowing them to assess scenarios (i.e., changes to a familiar and/or valued place) based on their place-based feelings, beliefs, meanings, and understanding. Drawing from this theory, the visualization in this study appeared to connect with users’ sense of place, and the feelings elicited by the scenarios contributed to their ability to assess different food system futures and development pathways. These findings confirm the value of realistic, first-person-perspective visualizations as place-based tools.

The visualization tool’s ability to elicit emotional responses enabled user assessments of scenarios based on aspects of different food futures that are difficult to articulate. Other research has found this ability to be useful in local planning, as it allows for assessments of the potential livability and quality of life in a place when following a particular development pathway or trajectory [13]. Similarly, the visualization tool developed in this study allows users to identify what they would like to see and what they would like to avoid in their community’s future. Participants reacted positively toward certain visual aspects of scenarios, such as the inclusion of ecological elements, which indicates that these represent desirable aspects of their local community that should be recognized and centered in local planning and policy. Interestingly, emotional reactions also provided nuances in these assessments. For example, the food governance scenario featured the most natural elements, but it was also perceived as ‘boring’ due to a seeming lack of technology and innovation. Such responses to the scenario suggest that the participants would like to pursue a future that embraces both human-nature relationships and technological advancement and innovation.

The participants used both emotional and cognitive approaches to assess the scenarios, and in some cases, these two different forms of engaging with the scenarios revealed tradeoffs. For example, workshop participants reacted to the highly controlled and regimented food production and distribution systems in the food supply scenario, describing it as ‘dystopian’ due to the authoritarian nature of society depicted in the scenario. However, participants also noted that the scenario had positive elements that relate to local planning, policy priorities, and objectives, particularly those in the areas of housing security and food security. These types of scenario assessments provide important insights for planning and policy, as they reveal that achieving some community objectives in certain ways can result in significant tradeoffs in other aspects of local sustainability and quality of life.

Developing the visualization tool as a realistic, detailed, and navigable environment contributed to the tool’s usefulness for scenario assessment, as the high degree of detail allowed users to more comprehensively assess the scenario. Scenario assessments using realistic/detailed visualizations can involve aspects of scenarios that visualization developers did not intend to assess. For example, in Newell et al.’s [50] visualization of park management scenarios, participants commented (unfavorably) on the design of a sign when the scenario was designed primarily to solicit feedback on its placement. Similarly, participants in this study commented on the fact that one of the scenarios (i.e., food affordability) appeared to include members of the community who are in wheelchairs without adequate wheelchair accessibility in the food storage facilities. Such findings demonstrate that developing a realistic visualization with high degrees of detail can stimulate comprehensive and in-depth discussions on scenarios that go beyond what was initially considered by visualization designers and planning teams.

Similar to other visualization studies, key visual elements contributed to users’ impressions of the scenarios and how the visualizations represented a real-world place. Such elements include ecological features, and aligning with this observation, previous research has found that the design and presence of vegetation in virtual environments influence how a user perceives it in terms of effectively representing a real-world place (e.g., [51,52]), as well as whether a visualized scenario is desirable (e.g., [17]). As another example, the presence of accurate viewshed models and imagery has been found in other visualization research to contribute to the visualization tool’s ability to represent a real-world place (e.g., [5,20]). Similarly, this research found that the modeled viewshed contributed to the impression that the scenarios represent changes/transformations to a local, familiar site in Revelstoke. However, as also noted in other works (e.g., [5,53]), a weakness of most visualization tools is that they only depict the conditions of scenarios as they would occur in one type of weather (such as a sunny day) or season. The visualization in this study also had such a drawback, as pointed out by workshop participants, and future visualization research should include options to explore scenarios under different weather and seasonal conditions.

Although this research is centered on the case study community of Revelstoke, the findings have broader implications and are comparable to work performed in other communities. For example, participants in this study reacted favorably to the medium-density residential form of the food affordability scenario, noting that this was the residential development direction they would like to see in their community. Similarly, in visualization research conducted in Squamish [13], which also used stakeholder workshop methods, participants discussed preferences toward a development scenario that featured medium-density development, explaining that this residential form is a key aspect of their current local planning. What these findings demonstrate is that visualizations are valuable tools for displaying current plans and planned development pathways, as they can present what these plans and development directions would look like if implemented ‘on the ground’ and in the real world.

It is important to recognize that this study involved a small sample size of participants, which is a limitation of this research. Although the study followed other research that used similar sample sizes (e.g., [14,20]), and the participants in this work represented a variety of sectors, the limited number of participants affected the range of ideas and thoughts that contributed to the research. For example, previous research on visualizations as planning tools had included developers (e.g., [13]) and farmers (e.g., [45]) in stakeholder workshops, and such perspectives would have been useful in this research. Future research on the use of visualization tools for long-term food system planning should consider including different (and a wider range of) perspectives when testing a visualization tool.

Overall, this research has demonstrated that visualization tools can be useful tools for long-term planning; however, these tools have limitations. As noted by the participants, visualizations can stimulate ideas about possible futures for a community and its local food systems; accordingly, these tools may be particularly useful in visioning processes. In addition, participants expressed how the tools can provide a common image of what local plans and strategies may look like if implemented in the real world, which aligns with other visualization literature that discusses the ability of these tools to provide a common language among the government, stakeholders, and others involved in participatory planning processes [7]. The visualization tool in this study provided a common image of what implemented local development approaches or philosophies (i.e., the seeds used to form the scenarios) may look like over a long-term period when matured. Such images are useful for forming visions and plans that capture long time horizons.

The limitations of developing and using visualization tools to support long-term planning include those related to the challenges of effectively capturing and conveying radically different food systems and lifestyles than what occurs today. As noted by Appleton et al. [54], developing visualizations that completely and comprehensively simulate reality is not feasible due to the immense amount of detail needed; therefore, visualization planning tools always exclude and oversimplify aspects of real-world environments. As found in this research, such exclusions can create challenges for visualization users when attempting to interpret a scenario and its implications, particularly when the scenario represents unfamiliar conditions and lifestyles. For example, workshop participants found the food governance scenario to be unclear and missing too much information to be able to understand and assess it sufficiently, even though, at the same time, many participants found aspects of the scenario to be favorable. In contrast, the food supply scenario was easily understood by the participants, as they noted that it represents a plausible outcome of the current trajectory of food systems and society. However, the participants also expressed that the scenario presents an undesirable future. These findings reveal that planners and practitioners can face significant challenges when attempting to develop and use visualizations to stimulate transformative change, as much more detail and information are needed in these tools to effectively capture and convey a radically different future (i.e., a future that occurs from transformative change) than is needed when visualizing a scenario that represents more modest, incremental changes.

The limitations discussed above can be addressed in multiple ways, and this paper provides three recommendations. First, future visualization work can further explore the use of narrative and storytelling features to improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of scenario visualizations that present a transformative future. As seen in this research, incorporating narrative features into visualization tools can be advantageous in that such features provide a richer understanding of the scenarios due to their ability to communicate difficult-to-visualize aspects of these scenarios, such as those related to social and economic systems. This finding suggests that narrative features can also be used to enrich understanding and stimulate thinking about a range of aspects of transformative futures, such as new models of governance. Second, future visualization research should explore the development and use of tools that visualize scenarios on multiple scales. In this study, participants expressed curiosity about changes that may occur in the broader community (i.e., beyond the railway site) and its infrastructure in different scenarios, such as changes to the Revelstoke Dam. Allowing users to engage with the scenarios at multiple scales by (for example) offering both ground-level and bird’ s-eye views of the community would enable a richer and more comprehensive understanding of the different futures represented by these scenarios, including those that involve transformative change. Finally, future visualization studies should experiment with ways of presenting other data and information through the tool interface, particularly temporal information. This research revealed how information about previous events that led to a scenario improved a visualization user’s understanding of the scenarios (i.e., population decline in the food governance scenario). Providing more of this type of information through (for instance) graphical user interface objects that present interactive timelines of events could further improve the understanding of scenarios and potentially provide clarity on how transformative change can occur through a series of events and interventions.

5. Conclusions

This study explored the use of visualization tools for supporting long-term food system planning and stakeholder engagement. This research follows other visualization studies that have found that visualization tools can be valuable tools for supporting land-use planning by facilitating thinking and discussion about the implications of changes to place as per different development, management, and/or environmental impact scenarios (e.g., [18,19,28,41]). This study makes a unique contribution and advances visualization research by developing visualization tools that present far-future radical changes to food systems, community dynamics, and uses of space and place. This differs from previous visualization work, which typically focuses on near-term incremental changes (e.g., [6,14]). This approach to visualization is important for supporting the long-term planning of the transformative change necessary to achieve sustainable and just futures.

Developing interactive visualizations of far-future scenarios and radical system changes is challenging in terms of creating useful planning and stakeholder engagement tools. As evidenced by this research, it can be difficult for visualization users to understand and relate to scenarios that are unfamiliar and significantly different from their current way of life. To increase the comprehensiveness and clarity of the scenarios, narrative and storytelling elements were incorporated into the visualization tool. Other visualization scholars have recommended including such elements to provide more context and meaning to visualized scenes and scenarios [32]. As seen in this research, the narratives improved the usefulness of the tools and the ability of users to understand the implications of and assess the scenarios. Scenario visualizations provide a means for local governments and stakeholders to examine local development and/or environmental management scenarios; however, they are not substitutes for other tools and forms of information. This research supports this argument by demonstrating how the integration of non-visual scenario information (i.e., pop-up text related to the scenarios’ storylines) enhances the visualization’s usefulness as a tool for assessing future food system scenarios. Through the development and use of such integrated tools, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and other community actors will be able to comprehensively understand and consider pathways for achieving sustainable, resilient, and just futures.

Although this research focuses on the case study community of Revelstoke, it is possible to adapt it and its methods to other communities. Cities and countries across the world are experiencing common social and environmental challenges related to food systems [1,2], and transforming food systems to make progress toward more resilient and sustainable communities is a widespread imperative. This being said, there is no one-size-fits-all process for integrated planning, and local planning tools and processes need to be responsive and tailored to the social, cultural, economic, and environmental contexts of a community and place [27]. Accordingly, the scenario and visualization development process performed in this study should be repeated in other communities to ensure that the visualization tool meets local needs. However, other communities could use the scenarios created in this work as a ‘starting point’ for the development of their visualization tools; for example, community members could explore what an ecocentric world would look like in their own community. After applying this process to and developing tools in multiple communities, opportunities exist for local governments and stakeholders in different communities to connect with one another and share lessons and insights from their respective planning and tool development exercises. Additionally, such community-to-community partners could (if appropriate) involve exploring the effect that a scenario in one community may have on another in terms of food supply chains, population migration, tourism, travel, and other factors related to inter-city interactions.

This paper concludes with three recommendations for food system planners and visualization developers based on the findings of this research. First, it is important to consider whether a visualization contains enough infrastructure elements for a scenario to be relatable and comprehensible. In the case of the food governance scenario, a lack of such elements raised questions about what (for instance) housing and energy systems look like in the future, which creates difficulties for considering ways of making progress toward this future, even if it appears as a favorable scenario. Second, including narrative elements (e.g., text boxes and introductory text) in a visualization can be very useful for clarifying aspects of scenarios. Such elements can shed light on difficult-to-visualize aspects of scenarios, such as power dynamics, social interactions, and economic systems. Third, including information in the visualization that covers periods and locations beyond the temporal and spatial scales presented in the visualized scenes is important for the user’s understanding of the scenarios. Broader temporal information is particularly important for visualizations that depict far-future scenarios, as it provides a context for how a scenario arises (such as the sharp population decline in the food governance scenario). Broader spatial information is important for describing the regional implications of scenarios. For example, participants in this research had questions about the Revelstoke Dam and the implications of the scenarios for this key infrastructure. Both broader temporal and spatial information can be presented through text elements (as in this research) or pop-up windows that present other forms of visual information, such as maps and diagrams (as in other research [13]).