Food Supply Chain Shocks and the Pivot Toward Local: Lessons From the Global Pandemic

Studies of how consumers acquired food provisions during the COVID-19 lockdown indicate that some US consumers and institutional provisioners pivoted to locally produced food. In some locations local food system organizations, along with state governments, created the infrastructure to enable this pivot. Research on this phenomenon—what we call “the local pivot”—has been extensive. However, evidence collected so far has mostly been reports of case studies looking at particular communities. Using Google Trends and Twitter data, we examine whether “the local pivot” was evident as a general trend in the US during the depth of the COVID-19 food supply crisis in 2020, and whether places with high local food infrastructure allowed more people to pivot to local food provisioning. Our Google Trends analysis indicated a temporary rise in searches for local food. However, we found very little discussion of local food systems on Twitter. We then compared three states with a “high,” “medium,” and “low” local food infrastructure based on the Union of Concerned Scientists rankings. We found a weak but positive relationship between places that were classified as high local food system infrastructure and a pivot toward local food reflected on Twitter. We did, however, find strong support for local restaurant businesses during this period on Twitter, although this support did not necessarily reflect a local food system pivot. We acknowledge that Twitter results are not generalizable to the entire population: local food system actors may not be using Twitter in their interactions, so Twitter activity may not reflect local food system activity in general, or COVID food sourcing behavior in particular. However, our results do indicate the need for more research on whether or not the evidence of a pivot to local food systems during COVID in the United States reflected a larger national movement or occurred in just a few scattered communities. Further research on this topic can help ascertain the ability of local food system infrastructure to provide a resilient response to future global food supply chain crises.

Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8.

A qualitative study of Southern U.S. consumers' top of the mind beliefs about the safety of local beef

Following the Reasoned Action Approach, the aim of this study was to explore consumers' top-of-mind food safety beliefs about local beef. Beef consumers recruited from farmers' markets (N = 101) and grocery stores (N = 174) across the state of Alabama participated in face-to-face intercept surveys. The survey included closed- and open-ended questions designed to elicit consumers' food safety beliefs about local beef. Results indicate that beef safety was not a top-of-mind concern for a majority of participants, however of the total number of participants familiar with the term "local beef" (n = 168, 61%), a majority (n = 105, 63%) associated local beef with improved food safety. Content analysis of verbatim text revealed that consumers believed local beef was safer because they possess greater knowledge about the product and less shipping was involved. Respondents also believe that locally processed meat is derived from small-scale operations which provided the assurance that local beef is more likely to meet U.S. regulatory standards and therefore be safer. Consumers believe they have more oversight of local beef due to both their relationships with supply chain actors and proximity which also provided food safety assurances.