Transforming urban food systems: could food democracy and food citizenship be advanced by personal and community impacts of co-production processes?

For complex challenges like food systems transformation, scholars suggest co-production involving multiple actors including citizens is essential. Additionally, some argue for a transformation towards ‘food democracy’. This vision aims for food system decision making to be shared across diverse actors, and people to move from being consumers to citizens (food citizenship). Urban food policy initiatives are examples of innovation in food democracy and food citizenship, but delivering authentic participation is an ongoing challenge and the impacts on those engaged have rarely been studied. Furthermore, personal transformations are essential for societal transformations and similarly receive minimal focus. The need for development in these areas is reflected in Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP) goals including enhancing stakeholder participation (action 2) and enhancing food knowledge and action through participatory education, training and research (action 19).

Our objectives were to explore the experiences of and impacts on people engaged as community food researchers (CFRs) within transdisciplinary food system research in UK urban settings (FoodSEqual). Interviews with 12 CFRs were delivered between 2023-2024, follow by iterative dialogue and engagement throughout analysis and write up. Creative methods used during interviews and analysis included participatory mapping, collage, and poetic inquiry; alongside utilising assemblage theory concepts. Our results show CFRs developed relationships within and beyond their communities, expanded their food system knowledge and hope for change, and gained advocacy-related skills and beliefs. We conclude that personal and social outcomes from co-production could support urban food systems transformation by creating conditions and capacities for food citizenship and food democracy; potentially catalysing further collective action. We also highlight CFR model potential to contribute to delivery of MUFPP goals, particularly actions 2 and 19 (described above). Overall, this strengthens the case for co-production methods and suggests that personal and social outcomes warrant more attention in funding, design and delivery.