Master-thesis
The spatial characteristics of short food supply chains in urban
food strategies and their relationship with spatial planning
Picture taken from: http://www.wolfstad.com/2009/03/foto-friday-american-gothic-statue-in-chicago/
By Theofilos Anastasiou
Wageningen University 2015-2016
This master-thesis is written as an assignment for the master programme: Urban Environmental
Management (MUE), specialization Land Use Planning at Wageningen University.
MSc Thesis Land Use Planning (LUP-80436) 36 ECTS
Land Use Planning Group
Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB
Wageningen, The Netherlands
Supervisor: Dr. ir. Gerrit-Jan Carsjens
Land Use Planning Group
Wageningen University
Second Reviewer: Dr. ir. Wim van der Knaap
Land Use Planning Group
Wageningen University
Author: Theofilos Anastasiou
Registration Number: 870819014130
Abstract
Alternative food networks, local food and short food supply chains get eminent as counter
movements to the current industrialized mainstream food sector. Spatial aspect of short food
supply chains (SFSCs) and local food is relevant in scientific literature, however there is
cloudiness in defining spatial characteristics of SFSCs and in the way they are used, which
triggered this research. Hence, this master-thesis aims to identify the spatial characteristics of
SFSCs in the literature and in urban food strategies and to assess the relationship of spatial
characteristics, urban food strategies and spatial planning. In order to assess the later, empirical
data were gathered from Toronto and London. Through a document review and a conduction of
interviews qualitative data were gathered to lead to the assessment of the role of spatial
characteristics of SFSCs for spatial planning while crucial points in which spatial planning
overlaps with urban food strategies and spatial characteristics of SFSCs were pinpointed.
Keywords: Alternative food networks (AFNs), spatial aspect of short food supply chains
(SFSCs), urban food strategies, spatial planning, food planning.
Summary
Current industrial food world showed some weak spots such as outbreaks of food scandals and
massive production of food of unknown provenance. In the scientific literature there are
accusations of this modern industrial food sector for displacing the consumption from the
production of food. The counter movement to this modern (or conventional) food cycle is
focused on alternative food networks which include short food supply chains (with smaller
distances) and local (or localized) food. Therefore, the alternative and local(ized) food sector
showcases a connection between the places of production with the places of consumption of
food. Although scientific literature on alternative food manifests the short(ened) distances in the
food chain and consequently the places of food, there are no concluded and solid remarks of
the spatial characteristics of the short(ened) food supply chains
Hence, this research attempts to identify the spatial characteristics of SFSCs, to assess if and
how these are addressed in urban food strategies and to identify the implications for spatial
planning.
A literature review was carried out in order to identify the spatial characteristics of SFSCs. In
addition, two cities were selected as case studies, Toronto (Canada) and London (UK). For
these two cases a document review of urban food strategies, policy documents and other official
city documents was executed in order to assess the use of spatial characteristics. Furthermore,
interviews were conducted in order to assess the reason of the inclusion of spatial
characteristics in the urban food strategies and the role of spatial characteristics of SFSCs in
spatial planning through the urban food strategies. The interviews were conducted via Skype
and e-mail to persons who are related with food chains of the cities through their profession.
The results show that spatial characteristics are defined using a radius of distance (kms or
miles) between production and consumption or more broadly using areas which are easily
discriminated (e.g. parts of the city, the city itself, the region in which the city belongs). In
addition, spatial characteristics are also locations such as neighborhoods, town centres of the
cities as foodhubs. Spatial characteristics were identified in the urban food strategies. Some of
them such as the distance from production to consumption are not enforced as a paradigm for
the food chain of the cities and some others (neighborhood scale and foodhubs of the mainly
the city centre) are highlighted as significant places of local food (mostly places of food
production and food retail). Regardless of the way these spatial characteristics are used in the
cases, the value of them is important for establishing healthy food networks, providing food
access to people and food planning. The role of planning is really important for supporting
SFSCs and urban food strategies are the podium on the top of which the spatial aspect of
SFSCs connects with spatial planning. Spatial planning connects with food chain management
of the cities through transportation/distribution of food, through policy-making, through defining
land uses and finding spaces for food related land use(s) and through mapping the food chain.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Ir. Gerrit Jan Carsjens for his guidance and support
throughout the master thesis journey. Certainly, special thanks to my family and my friends for
their fruitful comments on my work and most importantly for their unceasing psychological
support. Moreover, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Arnold van der Valk and Maxim Amosov for
helping me to find contact-persons so I could conduct my last interviews. Finally, thank you to
everyone who accepted to spare his/her time in order to get interviewed by me.
Table of Contents
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................
Summary .........................................................................................................................................................
Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................................
List of figures ...................................................................................................................................................
List of tables ....................................................................................................................................................
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Systemic placelessness of the modern industrial food sector versus the place-based alternative
food sector ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Urban food strategies ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Problem description ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Research objectives and questions ..................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Methodology....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.7 Generic information on the cities-case studies .................................................................................. 7
2. Food supply chains and food entailed in spatial planning and urban strategies ...................................... 9
2.1 Shortened food supply chains. Definitions for food supply chains and short food supply chains. .... 9
2.2 Aspects of ‘local’ scale and the prominence of place and space of food supply chains................... 11
2.3 Spatial indications of SFSCs ............................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Spatial indications of SFSCs through the proximity and the distance between production and
consumption of food........................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Spatial indications of SFSCs through the reference to a popular and self-defined areas and
locations .............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.3.3 Discriminated spatial characteristics ......................................................................................... 15
2.4 Food Access ....................................................................................................................................... 16
2.5 Food planning ................................................................................................................................... 16
2.6 Urban food strategies ....................................................................................................................... 18
2.7 Analytical framework ........................................................................................................................ 19
3. Case study Toronto ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.1 Canada and food system management ............................................................................................ 24
3.2. Toronto and food system management .......................................................................................... 26
3.2.1 Spatial characteristics in Toronto’s food chain .......................................................................... 27
3.2.2 Components of SFSCs in Toronto’s Food Strategy and their spatial characteristics ................. 31
3.3 Spatial planning and short food supply chains in Toronto ............................................................... 33
3.3.1 Mixed use development, zoning and farmland preservation .................................................... 34
3.3.2 Transportation and Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 34
3.3.3 Policies ....................................................................................................................................... 36
3.3.4 Mapping food ............................................................................................................................. 37
4. Case study London .................................................................................................................................. 41
4.1 UK and food system management .................................................................................................... 42
4.2. London and food system management ........................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 Spatial characteristics in London’s food chain ........................................................................... 46
4.2.2 Components of SFSCs in London’s Food Strategy and their spatial characteristics .................. 49
4.3 Spatial planning and short food supply chains in London ................................................................ 54
4.3.1 Mixed use development, zoning and farmland preservation .................................................... 55
4.3.2 Transportation and Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 55
4.3.3 Policies ....................................................................................................................................... 56
4.3.4 Mapping food ............................................................................................................................. 56
5. Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 60
5.1
Spatial characteristics of short food supply chains ..................................................................... 60
5.2
Spatial characteristics of SFSCs in the urban food strategy documents ..................................... 60
5.3
The reasons for the way the spatial characteristics of SFSCs are used in the food strategies ... 62
5.4
Spatial planning’s role in the development of SFSCs through food strategies ........................... 63
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 66
6.1 The spatial characteristics’ meaning for a holistic food system management and the implications
for spatial planning ................................................................................................................................. 66
6.2 Reflection on the methodology used................................................................................................ 67
6.3 Recommendations for further research ........................................................................................... 68
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 71
Document Study London ........................................................................................................................ 74
Document study Toronto ........................................................................................................................ 75
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
Interviewees............................................................................................................................................ 77
Answers of Interviewee 1 ....................................................................................................................... 78
Answers of interviewee 2 ....................................................................................................................... 82
Answers of interviewee 3 ....................................................................................................................... 85
Answers of interviewee 4 ....................................................................................................................... 90
Answers of interviewee 5 ....................................................................................................................... 95
Answers of interviewee 6 ....................................................................................................................... 99
Answers of interviewee 7 ..................................................................................................................... 102
List of figures
Figure 1. A typical food supply chain .......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. The Canadian Food Strategy Pyramid .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 3. Density of ‘Healthier’ Food Outlets by Dissemination Area Population in Toronto, 2012 .......... 38
Figure 4. Analysis with aerial radius 1km ................................................................................................... 39
Figure 5. Street network analysis per 1 km. ............................................................................................... 39
Figure 6. Modified Retail Food Environment Index by Census Block – Toronto, 2012 .............................. 40
Figure 7. Six issues towards a sustainable food system.............................................................................. 44
Figure 8. The Town Centres of London (as in GLA 2004). ........................................................................... 52
Figure 9. The Town Centres of London (as in GLA 2011) ............................................................................ 52
Figure 10. Open spaces of London. ............................................................................................................ 53
Figure 11. Distance of residential areas to fruit and vegetables retail ....................................................... 57
Figure 12. Distance of residential areas to green spaces ........................................................................... 58
Figure 13. Boroughs and their stance towards community food production and local planning policy.... 59
Figure 14. Residential areas with problematic access to food stores......................................................... 64
List of tables
Table 1. Research Framework......................................................................................................... 7
Table 2. Selected aspects and the methods for their assessment ............................................... 20
Table 3. Keywords for document study ........................................................................................ 21
Table 4. Frequency of use of keywords. Case of Toronto ............................................................ 29
Table 5. Frequency of use of the keywords. Case of London ....................................................... 47
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Nowadays, urbanization is galloping. United Nation’s calculations (UN 2010, 2012) reveal that
more than fifty percent of the world population lives in urban areas. A percentage that is
expected to increase for the years: 2011 to 2050. The world’s population is going to increase by
2.3 billion, escalading from 7 billion at 2005 to 9.3 billion at 2050. Moreover, the population living
in the urban area is going to gain 2.6 billion, passing from 3.6 billion in 2005 to 6.3 billion at
2050. Adding to this, food is in the heart of every living community. Therefore, the emergence of
food provision (in high quantities) for the masses and the political and economic polities that
support private corporations and companies, have driven the food management to industrial
production and distribution of food (and agribusiness) as we experience them today. Large
quantities of food are provided to the population through the food industry that uses machinery
to achieve fast processing of goods and vehicles for the food’s transportation.
This conventional system receives criticism though, strong enough to induce the creation of
alternative ideas to the current conventional and industrialized system of food production and
distribution. As Broekhof and Van der Valk note: ‘’This conventional system is perceived by a
growing number of experts, politicians and opinion leaders as unsustainable, unhealthy, unjust
and a danger to landscape heritage. The system enforces landscape uniformity, low prices for
producers, bulk production, global injustice and alienation between producers and consumers.’’
(Broekhof and Van der Valk 2012, p.395). This way, ‘’Scholars have introduced the term
alternative food system (AFS) to cover many different forms of food production that started as
alternative to agri-business...’’ (Broekhof and Van der Valk 2012, p.395). The term Alternative
Food Networks is often found in scientific literature. Feenstra defines the alternative food
networks as: “rooted in particular places, [AFNs] aim to be economically viable for farmers and
consumers, use ecologically sound production and distribution practices, and enhance social
equity and democracy for all members of the community”. (Feenstra 1997, p. 28)
1.2 Systemic placelessness of the modern industrial food sector versus the
place-based alternative food sector
Obviously then, there are a lot of opposing approaches between these two food worlds. One of
which, is the difference in the conceptualization of place. The conventional food system seems
efficient in provisioning food of unknown or distant provenance in several spots of a city. Hence,
there is a separation of the consumption of food from the place of its production on this system.
The conventional and industrialized food systems managed to succeed in food provision to the
growing population through a systemic ‘placelessness’, while place is foundational for the
alternative food systems (Goodman and Watts 1997, Dupuis 2002, 2005, Dupuis and Goodman
2005). Counter to the ‘placeless and faceless’ food (Goodman 2009), the alternative methods of
food production and provision suggest shorter food chains, hence the reduction of distance
between the production and the consumption of food. This means reduction of ‘food miles’
(Halweil 2002, Nordberg-Hodge et al. 2002, Feagan 2007, Tregear 2011). In short food supply
chains are included the following: farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture, farm
1
shops and other collective forms of producing and distributing food. Except for the various types
associated with short food supply chains (SFSCs), very important is to note the different
parts/processes of the function of SFSCs (e.g. growing/cultivating, preprocessing, packaging,
distribution).
1.3 Urban food strategies
Due to recent food scandals (e.g. foot and mouth disease in UK) and due to the proclaimed
benefits of short food supply chains in ecology, economy and social life, urban governments
showed interest in them. Thus, short food supply chains got included in local governments’
goals. Amongst citizens, researchers and activists, policy-makers of Western countries got
‘mobilized’ as well from short food supply chains and this led to the creation of food-related
agendas in North America and Europe (Kebir and Torre 2013). Since policy-making started
involving short food supply chains (as a part of the alternative food movement), food strategies
also appeared in local governance. The reason for this is that these strategies encompassed
the various policies related to food world. Urban food strategies are official compilations of
policies of cities related to the food cycle of a city. ‘’A municipal food strategy is an official plan
or road map that helps city governments integrate a full spectrum of urban food system issues
within a single policy framework that includes food production (typically referred to as urban
agriculture (UA)), food processing, food distribution, food access and food waste management.’’
(Mansfield and Mendes 2012, p.38)
In addition, Mansfield and Mendes (2012) underline the multi-functionality of the urban food
strategy’s goals. They note that the urban food strategies bring together different policies and
they incorporate them into urban planning and broader sustainability goals: ‘’Not only do food
strategies coordinate and integrate ‘stand-alone’ food policies, they also embed them within
broader sustainability goals. The results are argued to be further reaching than ‘stand-alone’
food policies, and more in keeping with a multi-functional approach to urban planning and
development that aims to increase social, economic, environmental and health outcomes.’’
(Mansfield and Mendes 2012, p.38). As Wiskerke puts it: ‘’Although urban food strategies differ
from city to city, the common denominator is the intention to connect and create synergies
between different public domains (environment, spatial planning, public health, education,
employment, social cohesion, et cetera) that are in one way or the other related to food’’.
(Wiskerke 2009, p.376). Examples of urban areas that developed food strategies are among
others: San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York, Toronto and London. (Mansfield and Mendes
2012)
1.4 Problem description
Except for the governmental interest in SFSCs, scholars from various disciplines conducted
research on alternative food systems and SFSCs as well. In principal, scholars from rural
sociology (Marsden et al. 2000, Renting et al. 2003, DuPuis and Goodman 2005) and from
geographical science (Watts et al. 2005, Feagan 2007, Goodman 2009, Kneafsey 2010) have
dealt with the SFSCs or AFNs. What initiated this master thesis were the claims of scholars
(Feagan 2007, Broekhof and Van der Valk, Harris 2010) that the conventional food system is
creating a disconnection between food and communities. Goodman and Watts (1997), Dupuis
(2002, 2005) and Dupuis and Goodman (2005) highlight the systemic ‘placelessness’ of the
2
current food world, while noting that space/place is foundational for the alternative food
systems. Since space/place is significant for the AFNs and SFSCs by definition manifest for
short distances of production and distribution of food, the spatial aspect of these alternative food
movements got in the spotlight.
The alternative food systems are being examined mostly at a city or at a regional scale. For
instance, Kneafsey (2010) focuses on the significance of the region in food provision. Jarosz
(2008) is focusing on the metropolitan areas and on the relationship of urban and rural
landscape, while most of the literature is either being referred to the urban context or there is
not further specification. Regardless of the scale under which the alternative food systems are
being examined, place and space are on the core of research that is based on alternative food
systems. This can be observed through: Feagan (2007), Goodman (2009), Harris (2010),
Dansero and Puttilli (2013). Except for the terms of alternative food systems/networks and short
food supply chains, the term ‘local’ is often used in everyday life and in scientific literature as
well. Due to the trending topic of producing and consuming local food, scientific interest was
drawn on re-localization and re-territorialisation. These are terms used by scholars Watts et. al
(2005), Sonnino and Marsden (2006), Feagan (2007), Harris (2010) on issues of alternative
food systems (or networks) and they express current ideas about the reconnection of production
and consumption of food. This reconnection is meant in a spatial and a social way (Wells et al.
1999, Feagan et al. 2004, Broekhof and Van der Valk 2012). In localized or short food supply
chains the distances between production and consumption are smaller. There is proximity of
production and consumption.
Place, space, terroir, territorial and local are words that are often encountered in the scientific
literature. On the contrary, using Feagan’s words: ‘’The place of food seems to be the quiet
centre of the discourses emerging with these movements.’’ (Feagan 2007, p.23). By ‘these
movements’ Feagan refers to movements, practices, and writings of ‘Local food systems’. In
addition, Goodman and Goodman (2009) underline the lack of trustworthy data on the temporal,
spatial, and evolutionary dynamics of AFNs. Reasons for this are the variable circumstances
under which the AFNs function in every area (tradition and the dominating discourses for
example can be different in each area, therefore different food habits and food systems are
constructed). (Sonnino and Marsden 2006, Kneafsey 2010, Broekhof and Van der Valk 2012).
The absence of solid information on spatial characteristics of SFSCs in the literature is
underlined. The spatial aspect of short food supply chains is ‘discussed’ mostly through a social,
a semantic point of view or through the lens of quality food and labeling of food. The literature
deals with the ‘local’, ‘regional’ and the short distances of SFSCs pointing out the differences of
each area’s characteristics and giving only broadly clues on spatial characteristics of SFSCs
without presenting a clear list of them.
Sonnino (2007) highlights the importance of spatial and temporal characteristics of local food
systems, throughout the narrative description of the local food network. Marsden et al. (2000),
Blay-Palmer and Donald (2006) and Jarosz (2008) also point out the dynamics that are inherent
to AFNs when AFNs are parts of metropolitan development and change. Moreover, there are
quite a few current examples of cities in which the authorities feel the need to facilitate change
3
in the urban land use and landscape. For example, the authorities of the city of Rotterdam have
created a master-plan to move old harbor facilities to the West of the city while facilitating
innovation at the new implementations. Thus, in situations like the above, the facilities of SFSCs
cannot remain intact. Special care should be given to this point in order not to conflate the
temporal aspect with the spatial one. However, as described above the temporal aspect is
closely related to the spatial one, because one affects the other.
Urban food strategies and their holistic approach on the food circle as described in 1.3 could
help in dealing with the spatial and temporal aspects of short food supply chains. According to
Mansfield and Mendes (2012), there is an emerging body of literature that examines urban food
strategies. However, questions on the spatial aspect of the short food supply chains regarding
the urban food strategies have not been addressed yet. It is unclear if and how the spatial
aspects of food systems are addressed in food strategies.
Overall, the concepts of AFNs and SFSCs contain a spatial element. However, although the
aforementioned concepts are mentioned and highlighted in scientific research, the
characteristics of space/place of established SFSCs remain unclarified. This current lack of solid
data and concluding remarks on the spatial and geographical characteristics of SFSCs
propelled this thesis.
1.5 Research objectives and questions
The objective of this thesis is to analyze the spatial characteristics of SFSCs, to assess how
these are or can be addressed in urban food strategies and to identify the implications for
spatial planning. Thus, the main research question is:
What is the role of spatial characteristics of SFSCs in urban food strategies, and what are the
implications for spatial planning?
Sub questions:
1. What are the spatial characteristics of SFSCs?
2. Which spatial characteristics of SFSCs are present in urban food strategy documents and
which are not?
3. What is the reason for the inclusion/exclusion of the spatial characteristics in urban food
strategy documents?
4. What is or what can be the role of spatial planning in supporting the development of SFSCs in
the context of urban food strategies?
1.6 Methodology
In this thesis a qualitative study approach was followed. The nature of this thesis’ research
objective and more importantly the nature of the research questions were pointing towards the
qualitative design. Moreover, the complexity of the topic in hand and the fact that this thesis is
entering a relatively new field of research showed that qualitative design would be suitable.
4
Literature study was necessary for identifying the spatial characteristics of SFSCs. Therefore,
through the review of literature, the first sub research question was answered and the analytical
framework for this master-thesis was formed. The domains of literature and the relevant
theories and concepts that were used in order to satisfy the above, are the following:



Geographical science
The geography groups provide concepts and theories on the geographies of place,
community and local (Feagan 2007), SFSCs as spatially alternative (Watts et. al 2005),
(re)-regionalizing, re-scaling, re-spacing and re-connection (Kneafsey 2010), space and
place of SFSCs (Harris 2010).
Rural sociology
With relevant concepts: morphology of SFSCs (Renting et al. 2003), geographical
proximity of SFSCs (Renting et al. 2003, Danserro and Puttilli 2013, Kebir and Torre
2013), construction of ‘local’ and ‘localism’ through reflexive politics (Dupuis and
Goodman 2005).
Spatial Planning
Geographical proximity of SFSCs (Marsden 2000), spatial and temporal nature of
alternative food networks (Sonnino 2007).
The differences of the characteristics of local and alternative food networks in each region were
highlighted in the problem description. Therefore, empirical methodology was suitable for this
research, due to its ability to provide insights and further knowledge in specific cases. Hence, a
case study on urban food strategies was chosen. In specific, Canada’s Toronto and Great
Britain’s London were the two cases.
Both of the chosen cities had expressed their interest in food planning officially (through
Municipal documents and presentations) really early compared to other American and European
ones. In fact, as Mansfield and Mendes (2012) notes, Toronto and London were two of the first
local governments of the global North that developed food strategies. The fact that these two
cities are pioneers in putting food in the policy-making and planning agenda was encouraging
for acquiring valuable data and insights. Since the urban food strategies were going to work as
the most important tool for this research, basic prerequisite was that they were written in
English. Thus, both of the cases are English-spoken cities. Aggregated, the criteria for choosing
the above cities were:
•
•
•
English language used in writings.
Cities that entail food in planning.
Cities that have developed urban food strategies.
In order to determine whether the spatial characteristics were present in the urban food
strategies, a document study was fundamental. An answer to the second sub-research question
was provided through a descriptive analysis of:

Urban food strategies.
For the case of London the strategy published on May 2006 ‘’Healthy and Sustainable
Food for London. The Mayor’s Food Strategy’’ was reviewed. Moreover, the follow-ups
5


to the above strategy were reviewed as well: ‘’Healthy and Sustainable Food for London.
The Mayor’s Food Strategy Implementation Plan’’ September 2007 and ‘’The Mayor’s
Food Strategy: Healthy and Sustainable Food for London. An Implementation plan 20112013’’.
For the case of Toronto the following strategy was reviewed: ‘’Food Connections:
Toward a Healthy and Sustainable Food System for Toronto. A Consultation Report’’
Published on February 2010 by Toronto Public Health.
Current official policy documents (presentations and announcements as well) related to
the food system of the city and national food strategies.
Other documents related to the food cycle of the city found on the internet (e.g. papers
and articles).
In order to find out the reason(s) why the spatial characteristics of SFSCs are included or not in
the urban food strategies and in order to assess the role of spatial planning to the above, six
semi-structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were conducted through ‘skype’
calls and e-mails when ‘skype’- communication was not possible. Opinions and information from
persons that have specialized knowledge on the topic in hand are going to work as a source of
information. Local planning-practitioners and people from the food policy councils are going to
be interviewed. This way, data are going to be gathered in order to answer the second scale of
the second sub research question, the third sub-research question and conclusively the main
research question.
Table 1 shows which methods serve which scope. In this point, it is crucial to note that initially, it
was not expected from the document review to provide answers neither on the reasons for the
use of spatial characteristics of SFSCs in urban food strategies, nor on the implications for
spatial planning. However, after the document review it was proven that the documents
indicated argumentation on the reasons of use of the spatial characteristics of SFSCs in the
urban food strategies while they also showed ways of connection with spatial planning. Still, the
interviews were the crucial method to answer the two aforementioned questions.
6
Table 1. Research Framework
Research Framework
Literature review
Mainly in domains of:
· Rural sociology
· Geographical science
· Spatial planning and food
planning
Document study
· Urban food strategies
Steps
· Food policy documents
and
· Other relevant documents found
methods on the internet
Interviews
To members of food policy councils
and to urban planners
Scope
To discover concepts on the spatial
characteristics of SFSCs 1st Sub-R.Q.
To find out the inclusion (or not) of
spatial characteristics of SFSCs - if they
are included, to assess the context in
which those spatial characteristics are
used 2nd Sub-R.Q. To discover the
role of spatial planning in supporting
the SFSCs in the context of urban food
strategies Main R.Q. and 4th Sub-R.Q.
To discover the reasons for the
inclusion (or not) of spatial
characteristics of SFSCs in urban food
strategies 3rd Sub-R.Q.
To discover the role of spatial planning
in supporting the SFSCs in the context
of urban food strategies Main R.Q.
and 4th Sub-R.Q.
1.7 Generic information on the cities-case studies
Toronto generic information
The Greater Toronto Area is hosting 5.5 million residents. The city of Toronto with a population
of 2.79 million inhabitants is the largest city in Canada and the fourth largest in North America.
(City of Toronto) Multicultural According to the 2011 Census, 45% of Toronto residents had a
mother tongue other than English or French. Surrounding the city of Toronto lies the Greenbelt;
the largest protected green area-near an urban environment in the world (Toronto Public Health
2010) that covers over 1.8 million acres (Toronto Public Health 2010).
Toronto is a city with a vibrant food economy. There are older and traditional companies of
international scale that were established in the era of post-war such as Kraft, General Mills and
Heinz. There are also newer companies that deal with local, organic or specialty food. No matter
if these newer food companies are driven by social equity and environmental sustainability
concerns or not, they are surely corresponding to newer political and cultural routines. (BlayPalmer and Donald 2006) Moreover, according to (Toronto Public Health 2010, p.3) food ‘’is
7
recognized as the city’s number one service and industrial employer’’. One person in eight is
engaged (professionally) with either the production or processing or distribution or marketing or
retail and relevant services of food. (Toronto Public Health 2010)
London generic information
London is not just a large city but one modern metropolis with a population of more than 8.6
million, which is the highest for the city so far (Mayor’s Press Releases 2015). With a covered
area of 1,572 square kilometers (607 sq. m) and with a population density of 5,197 people per
square km, London is the largest city in Europe. (BBC 2015) Undoubtedly it is a multicultural city
with residents from all over the world. ‘’Nothing better illustrates the hybrid character of London
than its food system’’. (Morgan and Sonnino 2010) The quality of the mainstream food system is
poor, due to processed foods high in salt, sugar and fat. Whilst at the same time, the city’s food
system is complemented by an array of various cuisines. (Morgan and Sonnino 2010)
8
2. Food supply chains and food entailed in spatial planning and urban
strategies
In this chapter the theoretical framework of this thesis is provided. Hence, the review of scientific
literature plays a foundational role in the ‘construction’ of the analytical framework and in the
continuation of this research as well. In the first subchapter (2.1) the food supply chains and the
short food supply chains are described using definitions from the scientific literature. In the
second subchapter there is a focus on the space and place of the short food supply chains and
local food. Specific aspects with relevance to spatial and geographical meanings are unfolded to
lead to the subchapter 2.3, in which the characteristics of the SFSCs are discriminated and
presented. The part 2.3.1 deals with distances and proximity and 2.3.2 deals with locations. In
2.3.3 the spatial characteristics are presented. The fourth subchapter (2.4) deals with food
access as an aspect that brings together the last part of the food supply chain with spatial
planning. The next subchapter (2.5) focuses on spatial planning’s connection with food issues.
Therefore, the main scholars that have dealt with planning food systems are noted. In addition,
the reasons for the absence of the food matters from the planning manual is underlined and the
driving forces that led to the involvement of food-related issues in are noted as well. The third
paragraph highlights the significance of the coupling of food with spatial planning as well as the
reasons that recommend this connection. In the last paragraph specific types of planning that
potentially increase local food access are underlined. In the sixth subchapter (2.6) the urban
food strategies are presented along with a description of their establishment and their function.
Concepts and views on what characterizes the urban food strategies are under discussion.
Towards the end of this chapter, the formation of the analytical framework takes place (2.7). The
most relevant aspects are selected to form the analytical framework that is needed for the
assessment of the case studies that follow. It is explained how these aspects are going to be
assessed in the cases.
2.1 Shortened food supply chains. Definitions for food supply chains and short
food supply chains.
By the term food supply chains all the necessary processes from the production of food to its
consumption are included. Therefore, production, processing, distribution and disposal are
included. Three main sectors of food chains are underlined: the agricultural one, the food
processing industry and the distribution sector which includes wholesale and retail. There is a
wide diversity of products in food chains and a wide diversity of companies that deal with parts
of the food chains. The markets are the places where the food is sold and the official regulations
are influencing the food chains at every sector (agricultural/production sector to retail sector).
(Bukeviciute L., et al. 1999). A schematic of a typical food supply chain and its sectors /
components is provided in figure 1.
9
Figure 1. ''A typical food supply chain'' Source: (Dani and Deep 2011)
Taken into consideration the different sectors, the various products and various stakeholders
(e.g. farmers/producers, processors, distributors) of the food supply chains, the food supply
chains can be considered as spatial patterns that have to connect all these different sectors and
stakeholders. This connection is facilitated through the modern industrial and conventional food
system. However, this connection is accused of providing food of unknown provenance, thus it
is challenged by the alternative food system that protests for shorter distances and transparency
on food supply chain’s locations.
The spatial aspect is recognizable in the definition of SFSCs. As mentioned in the first chapter,
SFSCs are ways of producing and distributing food, alternative to the conventional/industrial
way of producing and distributing food that displaces food by separating the production from the
consumption of it (Dupuis 2002, Dupuis and Goodman 2005, Goodman and Watts 1997). What
mainly characterizes SFSCs is the shortening of the food chains. The ‘short’ food supply chain
refers to small/smaller distance between the stages of food chains, i.e. production and
consumption of food. This distance is both social and geographical / spatial (Wells et al. 1999,
Feagan et al. 2004, Feagan 2007, Broekhof & Van der Valk 2012). This thesis though is
concerned about the spatial distance. Because of the reference on ‘short’ or shortened
distances, interest is led to spatial structures and spatial patterns. The spatial aspect of these
alternative food movements gets in the spotlight and questions can rise on the existence and
the significance of spatial aspects of the SFSCs.
In the literature that is engaged with alternative ways of food production and provision there are
several examples in which instead of short food supply chains, other terms are used such as:
‘local’ food or ‘local food systems’ (Feagan 2007, Tregear 2011, Kneafsey et al. 2013), or
‘relocalized’ food (Feagan 2007, Harris 2010, Kneafsey 2010, Broekhof & Van der Valk 2012).
In addition, the terms of ‘alternative food networks’ or ‘alternative food systems’ (Renting et al.
2003, Sonnino & Marsden 2006, Goodman 2009, Harris 2010) are also frequently used in the
literature. There is no published work on a clear discrimination of the above terms and in several
cases the terms of local food systems and alternative food systems or networks are used
interchangeably (Goodman 2009, Tregear 2011, Kneafsey et al. 2013). There are small
differences between them that can be distinguished, because each of the terms highlights
different aspects of the same movement of placing food in an ecologically, economically and
10
socially sustainable ground and ‘away’ from the current agribusiness model. Overall though,
there is a respected overlap among the variety of terms. For instance, the centrality of
space/place - (that is relevant to this research) - is frequently highlighted through all the
aforementioned terms. After the review of literature that is relevant with the alternative food
movements, it can be stated that the use of ‘local’ stands out in discourses on sustainable and
healthy food chains. The tendency of the scholars to use the term ‘local’ for the alternative and
sustainable food-(the term overlaps with the term of short food supply chains)-created a body of
literature that deals with space or place through the terms of ‘local’, ‘localization’ and
‘relocalization’. The theoretical constructions of local are basic for understanding the SFSCs and
more generally the alternative food world. Theoretical constructions of local as in Dupuis and
Goodman (2005) and Tregear (2011) are important, because there is a danger of assuming that
local is inherently good. (Tregear 2011) points out the conflation of spatial or structural
characteristics of AFNs with desirable outcomes, desirable actor behaviours and desirable food
properties. During both the preparation (earlier stage) and the development (latter stage) of this
thesis there never was a strict preference of a particular term. Undoubtedly, weight is given to
the SFSCs, however because of the overlap with the rest of the terms of the alternative food,
the literature using these other terms was also taken into account.
2.2 Aspects of ‘local’ scale and the prominence of place and space of food
supply chains
Taking into account the overlap that exists among the SFSCs and the ‘local food systems’, or
the ‘alternative food systems/networks’ it is worth finding out what the literature on the ‘local’ has
to offer concerning the place and space of these alternative movements. Adding to that, the
construction of ‘local’ is the base to establish an explicit spatial model (Harris 2010 p.361).
‘Local’ indicates itself geographical/spatial relevance as well. Although published scientific work
refers to ‘local’ through a social point of view (social justice), an economic view, and an
ecological point of view (Jarosz 2008), there are also examples such as (Ilbery & Maye 2005,
Kneafsey et al. 2013, Harris 2010, Marsden et al. 2000, Renting et al. 2003 and Feagan 2007)
which are dealing with the geographical construction and the geographical characteristics of it
as well. The exact way by which the latter study the spatial aspect is presented in the following
subchapters.
The ‘Curry Report’ got issued in Britain after the foot and mouth disease of 2001. Within this
report that Ilbery and Maye (2005) refer to, local food is considered as the food with regional
provenance. (The Curry Report 2002 cited in Ilbery and Maye 2005, p. 332). According to EUfunded research programmes such as IMPACT or SUPPLIERS local food systems position the
production, processing, trade and consumption of food in an area ranging from 20 to 100 km
(Kneafsey et al. 2013, p.13). Moreover, Kneafsey et al. (2013 p. 23) present the following
popular conceptions of local: According to The Institute for Grocery Distribution (2005) the
majority of consumers perceives their ‘county’ as local or 30 miles (50 km) from where they live
or purchased the product. The Food Standards Agency (2006) research showed that 40% of
their respondents take local as being within 10 miles (≃ 16 km). The National Farmers Retail
and Markets Association (FARMA) supports that ‘local area’ can be defined in various ways,
depending on geographical location and types of product. This way, local is understood through
11
a defined radius from the market. 30 miles (≃ 48km) is perceived here as ideal, but the distance
can be increased to 50 miles (≃ 80km) for larger cities or remote regions and as maximum
distance 100 miles (≃ 161 km) are recommended. The second understanding of local does not
use a defined radius as a measurement. Instead, it is in relation to a recognized bounded area,
such as county, National Park or other distinct geographical area.
Furthermore, there are theoretical constructions of ‘local’ that use the ‘un-reflexive’ and
‘reflexive localism’ to point out the different forms the localism movement can give to the
construction of local (Dupuis and Goodman 2005). The reflexive localism is characterized by
openness and diversity, in order to avoid turning into a rigid regime that rejects what is outside
of its boundaries and separates the ‘local’ from the proceedings of the ‘’outside world’’ like unreflexive localism does.
Except for the above work, numerous other theoretical constructions of local are relevant to this
research, as they give prominence to the acquisition of a reflexive and critical attitude towards
stimulation of awareness in case of a localized food system. Born and Purcell (2006) and
Morgan (2009) mention the ‘local trap’ to underline the negative effects of assuming a priori that
local is desirable; something that food activists and researchers are accused of doing. In
specific, the ‘local trap’ notes that sustainability of local is not only about food miles. Food miles
are only one aspect of sustainability of a food system. Tregear’s work (2011) should not be
neglected, as in the same line with the above, she emphasizes the danger of assuming that
local is inherently good. In particular, really significant is the conflation of spatial or structural
characteristics of AFNs with desirable outcomes, desirable actor behaviors and desirable food
properties. (Tregear 2011, p. 425)
Still, place and space is basic for alternative food chains. Dupuis and Goodman (2005) besides this ‘systemic placelessness’ – they also point out that through their work (Dupuis 2002,
Goodman and Watts 1997) they support that space/place plays a foundational role for the
alternative food systems. Feagan (2007) is occupied with the discovery of issues of place of
local food systems. In the latter research, the centrality of place gets prominence. Harris (2010)
in agreement with Feagan (2007) supports the importance of place for the AFN’s discourse.
Harris (2010) is using the geographical place theory to understand and process the local food
systems. He brings out the semantic differences between place and space by noting that place
is more specific and space is broad. At the same time though, using several geographers’
agreeing opinion (Agnew 2005, Cresswell 2004, Hinrichs 2007, Massey 1999) he notes that
these two terms are co-constructive. In almost all the parts of Harris’s (2010) work the
importance of place is prominent, especially in the part in which he presents spatial rules and
correspondent areas of AFNs. More on the areas and their characteristics are following in 2.3.
It should be clarified in this point that both the space and the place of short food supply chains
are taken into account, since their difference is minor for this thesis. Moreover, this thesis is
taking into account all the facilities and all the parts of SFSCs (growing/cultivating,
preprocessing, packaging, distribution) without focusing on a specific part of a food supply
chain.
12
2.3 Spatial indications of SFSCs
As it is noted in the preceding parts, there are numerous discourses on space and place of
AFNs (and of SFSCs). Still, the absence of solid information on spatial characteristics of SFSCs
in the literature has been underlined in the first chapter. Place and space and local are
confronted mostly through a social perspective. Short food supply chains (and their attribute of
proximity) are ‘discussed’ mostly through a social, a semantic point of view or through the lens
of food quality and food labeling (Goodman 2009). The literature deals with the ‘local’ and the
short distances of food supply chains pointing out the differences of each area’s characteristics
(Broekhof and Van der Valk 2012, Feagan 2007, Kneafsey 2010, Sonnino and Marsden 2006)
without presenting a clear list of spatial characteristics.
Community supported agriculture (CSA), farmers’ markets and similar ways of food provision
that reduce the distances between production and consumption indicate spatial relevance by
definition. In specific, CSA refers to the (socio-)spatial area of a community (Cox et al. 2008
cited in Harris 2010, p.361). Another spatial model noted by (Smith 2007 cited in Harris 2010,
p.361) is that of ‘100 mile diet’, which takes over a diameter not bigger than 200 miles.
Foodsheds in turn are giving out indication of space. Feagan (2007) points out the spatial
aspect of the foodshed by emphasizing that it stems out of the term ‘watershed’. He also
underlines that foodsheds are bounded in ‘specific delineated places’ (Feagan 2007, p.26).
Therefore, as (Kloppenburg et al. 1996 cited in Harris 2010, p.361) notes, the ‘natural’
characteristics define the biophysical area of the foodshed. Foodsheds like watersheds hold
certain boundaries. Feagan (2007) underlines that the boundaries of SFSCs (no matter how
flexible they are), they have to be recognized in order to give a relief to the vague term of place
and community.
Marsden et al. (2000), Blay-Palmer and Donald (2006), Sonnino (2006) and Jarosz (2008)
highlight the importance of dynamics that are inherent to AFNs. The temporal aspect of these
movements has to be kept in mind, due to its relation with the spatial aspect. In addition, Harris
also points out the importance of the temporal nature of SFSCs and recognizes the close
relationship of this temporal aspect with the spatial one: ‘’The intertwining of spatial and
temporal geographical imaginaries therefore serves to demonstrate the great complexity of
constructions of place and of the politics built upon them. (Harris 2010, p.364)
Since space/place is foundational for SFSCs (Feagan 2007, Harris 2010), examining the
relationship between SFSCs and characteristics of space/place is relevant. Moreover,
examining the extent to which the spatial and geographical characteristics are taken into
account in the literature and in which way these spatial characteristics are used for the
construction and the function of SFSCs.
2.3.1 Spatial indications of SFSCs through the proximity and the distance between
production and consumption of food.
It is already stressed that the scientific literature is relatively poor in the clear provision of spatial
characteristics of SFSCs. Yet, Marsden et al. (2000), Renting t al. (2003) and Feagan (2007)
are the scholars who focused more on the spatial aspect of SFSCs, especially on the
geographical proximity as a characteristic of the SFSCs. They also provide with spatial
13
attributes of SFSCs. Dansero and Puttilli (2013) and Kebir and Torre (2012) are successors to
this work. Ilbery and Maye (2005, p. 344) use the EU-funded programme SUSTAIN
(www.sustainweb.org) for defining proximate food: the food that comes from the closest
practicable source or the minimization of energy use for its cycle. Ilbery & Maye (2005) use
proximity as a criterion to assess the sustainability of their selected case-studies of food chains.
Kebir and Torre (2012, pg. 334) note that geographical proximity is all about distance and is
simply defined as a kilometrical distance between two entities. However, they also note that in
spite of the simple definition, the geographical proximity is reliable to several factors as the
morphology of the landscape, the means of transportation and the financial comfort of the ones
that use transportation. This way, interest is shown in geographical proximity that SFSCs stand
for and consequently in the geographical distances that characterize this proximity.
Thus, Marsden et al. (2000), later Renting et al. (2003) and more recently Dansero and Puttilli
(2013) and Kebir and Torre (2013) mention three categories of short food supply chains
according to the distances between production and consumption of food and according to the
number of intermediaries between production and consumption of food:



Face to face interaction (between producer and consumer)
Proximate SFSCs (there is an extent beyond direct transaction and it is based on
relations of proximity),
Extended SFSCs (these food chains extend in time and space).
In the first category the consumer gets the food directly from the producer. The second category
refers on the sales of ‘proximity’. In specific, food is sold in places that belong in the region of its
production. Retailers and wholesalers as middle-men can be included in this category. The third
category refers to sales that find place outside of the region of production or even outside the
country. In this case, the consumer knows about the place and the way of production through
the labeling of the food product. The characteristic of the food chain that gets prominent is the
value-laden information that the product holds until it reaches consumption. The last two
categories include intermediaries, however short food supply chains in general do not
encourage their presence and prefer direct transaction between the producer and the consumer
(Renting et al 2003, Ilbery and Maye 2005, Kneafsey et al. 2013).
Moreover, in Feagan’s work (2007 p.25) the distance from a local farm to a local consumer is
noted as an indication to the spatial aspect of SFSCs. However, the distances, the
transportation and transaction ways between the different sectors of a food chain (as mentioned
in 2.1) are not clarified in any of the above work. Furthermore, the way that these distances are
used from the city authorities, the planners and decision makers is unreported. The geographic
study of the shortened food supply chains has primarily focused on either production or
consumption, neglecting the other stages of food chains. ‘’…there is little discussion about how
and by whom the product is transported to the end consumer.’’ (Ilbery & Maye 2005, p. 334).
In the same line as Marsden et al. (2000), Renting et al. (2003), Dansero and Puttilli (2013) and
Kebir and Torre (2013), Ilbery and Maye (2005 p.340, 341) refer to the (geographical) distance
as a characteristic of the short food supply chains. In addition, more scholars used distances to
suggest ideal purchasing limits. Still, there is no clarification of the distances between each
14
stage of a food chain. A spatial model noted by Smith and McKinnon (2007) is the one of ‘100
mile diet’ (or 160 kilometers), which takes over an area of diameter not bigger than 200 miles.
According to Novel (2010), 200 km should be the distance of the purchasing area as ideal limit.
2.3.2 Spatial indications of SFSCs through the reference to a popular and self-defined
areas and locations
Local is defined by some through a reference to familiar areas such as a county. Similar spatial
references to either SFSCs or local food are found in the scientific literature. The neighborhood,
the town, the city and the region are bounding the SFSCs and they are often used in the
literature that describes the space/place of food chains. Community supported agriculture
(CSA), farmers’ markets and similar ways of food provision that reduce the distances between
production and consumption indicate spatial relevance by definition. In specific, CSA refers to
the (socio-)spatial area of a community (Cox et al. 2008 cited in Harris 2010, p.361).
Foodsheds in turn are giving out indication of space. Feagan (2007) points out the spatial
aspect of the foodshed by emphasizing that it stems from the term ‘watershed’. He also
underlines that foodsheds are bounded in ‘specific delineated places’ (Feagan 2007, p.26).
Therefore, as (Kloppenburg et al. 1996 cited in Harris 2010, p.361) notes, the ‘natural’
characteristics define the biophysical area of the foodshed. Foodsheds like watersheds hold
certain boundaries. Feagan (2007) underlines that the boundaries of SFSCs (no matter how
flexible they are); they have to be recognized in order to give a relief to the vague term of place
and community. Brinkley (2013) points out the significance of the foodshed and uses it to
assess the urban food system through urban planning. She is borrowing the term of ‘footprint’
as defined by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) and she is using it to support that the piece of land
that is required for growing the necessary quantity for feeding the residents of a city is
synonymous with the foodshed. Thus, the size of the area can be considered as a spatial
attribute as well. Unfortunately though, the above do not necessarily reveal solid and specific
spatial reference.
2.3.3 Discriminated spatial characteristics
In sum, regardless of the way of defining space and place of food chains, the spatial
characteristics that were found in the scientific literature are:







Geographical proximity between production and consumption of food,
Geographical proximity between different stages of the food cycle,
Predefined distances between production and consumption of food,
Predefined distances between the different stages of the food cycle,
Reference to a spatial area that is popular and easily distinguished (neighborhood,
city/town, county, region, providence),
Boundaries that delineate any of the stages of the food cycle and/or boundaries that
delineate the area of production and the area of consumption of food.
Locations of any part of the food chain.
15
2.4 Food Access
As stressed in 2.3.1 the proximity that characterizes food chains is dependent on other factors
and transportation is one of them (Kebir & Torre 2012, p.334). Reducing food travel’s distance
and using proximate sources for food production and distribution requires a proper
transportation network and an income that is allowing people to reach local production. Hence,
access of consumers to local food gets prominent. FAO (2009) defines: ‘‘Food security exists
when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’’.
Sonnino (2009 p.431) poses the problem with food access: ‘’Simply put,... too many consumers
do not have access to affordable, healthy food.’’ Ilbery & Maye (2005, p. 333) use ‘accessible
food’ in geographical and economic terms, as another criterion for food’s sustainability. This
thesis is concerned about the access of food on a planning and on a transportation level, while
the affordability and the economic side of the topic is out of the scope of this research.
Food sources can be close to the market and to the place where food will be consumed but they
make no sense when the existing spatial pattern and transportation pattern are not allowing a
continuous flow of food from the production to the consumption. Proper distribution services and
distribution infrastructure are required to ensure this flow of food (food access) and support the
small and medium-sized (food) enterprises (Lerman et al. 2012). Hence, spatial planning’s role
gets prominent in the management of food supply chains and in increasing local food access as
well. In addition, Brinkley (2013) notes that food access is one important part that food planning
inquiry should work on.
2.5 Food planning
Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) are among the first ones to deal with food matters and their
entailment in urban planning. Food has not been on the urban planning agenda until quite
recently (Sonnino 2009). Food planning is an emergent field for urban planners (Pothukuchi and
Kaufman 2000). Food planners themselves come from different domains, hence there is a
multidisciplinary approach to food planning. Morgan’s work (2010) is also dealing with food
planning and food policy-making. She points out the belated attempt of the American Planning
Association to develop guides for food planning in the year 2007.
Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) note four main reasons for this belated entanglement of
planners with food. The first and general one is the fact that in modern urban areas food is
taken for granted. The second one is the historically established view that issues about food are
not urban but rural issues. Food issues were faced as agricultural issues and that was one main
reason for the urban professionals to avoid dealing with food. This perspective according to
Sonnino (2009) has negatively affected the field of food access and security. Further, the
mechanized production and distribution of the industrialized food made consumers to simply
forget the land of production of the food on their plate. Using their words to support the previous
argument: ‘’ Food was always “there,” unproblematic, even if no longer local.’’ (Pothukuchi and
Kaufman 1999). The last reason refers mostly to the United States and it has to do with the
urban and rural policy. The food issues are barely being confronted with urban policy, and not
even affected by the policies formulated in the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).
(Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999)
16
Moreover, Pothukuchi and Kaufman’s (1999) work provides arguments that support the
inclusion of food in the planners’ manual. Food issues reflect on the individual’s health, on the
neighborhood’s health and on the health of ‘locality’. Urban food system affects the local
economy, the local land use, the transportation the preservation of the rural land. (Pothukuchi
and Kaufman) Therefore, food plays a very important role in the quality of life of the ‘local’ and
consequently of the wider area. In addition, Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) support that a
planning perspective -once used- can clarify the local food system and serve the actions for a
healthy food system.
Both the urban and the rural environment should be given importance, in order to accomplish a
healthier food system. Feenstra (1997) mentions the preservation of agricultural land as a topic
that should concern local food systems management. Besides Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999),
more food planning scholars (Marsden and Sonnino 2008, Sonnino 2009, Brinkley 2013) note
the preservation of farmlands of the urban fringe and their adaptation to the ‘food cycle’ as very
important for the development of a healthy food system. Once a planner works on preservation
of local farms, he instantly gets affiliated with local food planning (Brinkley 2013 p.248)
Mixed-use development could be an answer to the sprawl of the urban environment. It could be
positive for a sustainable development of the rural/agricultural environment and for a closer
relationship between the urban and the rural environment. (Brinkley 2013) Marsden and
Sonnino (2008) use the term ‘multifunctionality’ of the rural/agricultural land and they call for ‘’
new, creative and more spatially embedded forms of supply and demand management in agrifood’’. Multifunctionality of the agricultural areas could lead the way towards sustainable rural
development. Another tool that can be used by planners is food mapping. Recent research from
Taylor & Lovell (2012) uses mapping of food for urban food production (urban agriculture).
Policies play such an important role in the construction and the support of a healthier food
system. Since the political masters treat food policy more seriously nowadays, the planners are
also dealing with food policy (Morgan and Sonnino, 2010). ‘’Given currently available
technologies, consumption patterns and climate change, food security for all will become more
difficult to achieve unless food security policies are better calibrated with sustainable
development policies.’’ (Morgan and Sonnino 2010 p.2) Policies and planning should
complement each other in order to improve food access (Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999,
Sonnino 2009, Morgan and Sonnino 2010).
In order to accomplish a healthy food system as described above, the role of the city is crucial.
The Municipal level’s power to improve the urban and regional foodscape is highlighted in
Pothukuchi and Kaufman’s (1999) and Sonnino’s (2009) work. A city food department is
proposed by Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999 p.218) as equivalent to the already active
departments of transport or housing, while the city planning agency -as responsible for the
urban food system- should complement the work of the food policy council on the local food
issues.
Thus, the following ways are underlined in order to reach a functioning food planning:
17





Comprehensive planning that recognizes the integration of health and sustainability
(therefore also food) besides the economic vitality. (Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999)
Policies, regulations are also underlined because they enable and help the preservation
of agricultural land and they impact on the character and design of neighborhoods, open
spaces, and on the location of any land-use (e.g. housing, leisure) and infrastructure.
Policies and planning should go hand in hand. (Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999, Sonnino
2009, Morgan and Sonnino 2010)
Planning that recognizes the importance of transportation in food access is desirable.
Especially public transit routes could determine food access for the residents of a city.
(Pothukuchi and Kaufmann 1999).
Food mapping as a tool of local food management and spatial planning. Mapping of sites
of urban food production (Taylor & Lovell 2012)
Mixed use development and zoning that incorporates agriculture and food production
and distribution into the city’s other land uses is complementary for food access and
proximate food production. (Marsden and Sonnino 2008, Brinkley 2013)
2.6 Urban food strategies
The current food system induced water and air pollution, waste problems, food deserts and
more that led to health problems. To deal with this, some city governments have given weight in
developing a healthy food system for their residents and they recently have been taking
initiatives for the amendment of the food cycle that include the fields of urban policy and spatial
planning. In the United States and Canada local food policy councils started to get a form
around 1990. The first one to be created was in Knoxville, Tennessee in 1981. Usually, food
policy councils are comprised of professionals of various food-related backgrounds that have a
consulting role to the official government. However, the Toronto Food Policy Council is an
exception as it is a sub-group of the Board of Health. (Pothukuchi & Kaufman 1999)
The food strategies then took their turn as a more collective way of setting goals and visions for
the food system of a city. Ken Livingstone, the mayor of the city of London, launched the first
London urban food strategy in 2006. This strategy came into the foreground to tackle the health
and obesity problems of London and to reduce the environmental consequences from the
industrialized food system (since agriculture and the transportation of food are responsible for a
big part of harmful emissions).
Every food strategy has its own focus and its own goals according to the specific assets and
issues that every city holds. Accordingly, every strategy has its own way of decision-making as
well. For example, the newly developed strategy of Amsterdam started as a top-down process
while the strategy of Utrecht -which is also new- is a bottom-up initiative. (Morgan 2010) Despite
their differences though, the urban food strategies can reveal issues in various fields that are
relevant to food sector of the city due to their multidisciplinary nature. In other words, due to the
contact and connection of the different disciplines that join forces to form the urban food
strategies. ‘’Clearly, a focus on cities’ strategies for food security and sustainability uncovers
problems related to food transport, waste, access to water, logistics and distribution.’’ (Sonnino
2009 p.433, 434) Urban food strategies are regional approaches, as they incorporate a city and
its surroundings by connecting the public domain and stakeholders related to food. Thus,
18
various domains of a city’s human resources have to work together in order to defend their food
issues. Wiskerke (2009) underlines this multidisciplinary characteristic of the urban food
strategies. Therefore, food strategies improve urban food systems by creating links between
policies and new ideas on ways to improve the ‘food world’. At the same time though, urban
food strategies work by keeping a close attachment to the principles of sustainability. (Mansfield
2012)
2.7 Analytical framework
The most relevant aspects that were found in the literature are:
I.
‘Local’ as an area with predefined distance(s) between production and consumption of
food. ‘Local’ as a familiar and popular reference area (such as a city or a province or a
region. See 2.3.2). (Ilbery and Maye 2005, Kneafsey et al. 2013). This thesis is not
attached to any notion that predefines numbers of kilometers or miles as an ideal
purchasing distance. In the selected cases there is further elaboration on what is
considered as ‘local’.
II.
The relationship between SFSCs and the spatial characteristics: geographical proximity
(geographical distances) between production and consumption of food, geographical
reference to a familiar area (e.g. county/province, city) when defining the location of
stages of the food chain, or their boundaries. (Marsden et al. 2000, Renting t al. 2003,
Feagan 2007, Smith and McKinnon 2007, Novel 2010, Kebir and Torre 2012). The
document review will be used at this point, in order to assess whether the spatial
characteristics are taken into account. The interviews will look into the ways in which the
spatial characteristics are used in the cases and the reasons for it. In other words, In
order to assess and explore what is applied in the case studies both the document
review and the interviews can help. To investigate further insights and the reasons for
the use of spatial characteristics, the document review helps but not as much as the
interviews. In specific:
a. Similarly with ‘local’, this thesis aspires to assess whether the distance between
the production and the consumption of food is predefined in kilometers/miles, or if
there is another indication of distance, area and location/position such as:
‘foodshed’, community, neighborhood, city, region, province (See 2.3.2).
b. Apart from the production and consumption, are distances between various
sectors of food chains and distribution methods noted in the cases? Moved by
the absence of information on the stages of food supply chains, this thesis
explores the spatial characteristics of the stages between the production and the
consumption of food as well.
Hence, this thesis assesses whether the stages of the food chain are mentioned in
the urban food strategies and then looks into the reason for the inclusion (or not) of
them.
III.
Spatial planning’s connection with food issues and its role in supporting the SFSCs.
Comprehensive planning that goes along with transportation, mixed use zoning and
development and municipal policy-making can support SFSCs by increasing local food
access. (Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999, Morgan 2009, Sonnino 2009, Morgan and
19
Sonnino 2010, Brinkley 2013). Which type(s) of spatial planning are used in the cases?
Are urban food strategies the tool for spatial planning to influence policy-making?
Document study is used to look into the relationship between urban food strategies and
spatial planning. Through the interviews though, this thesis will explore the planning
methods that are used in the cases and the potential of planning to assist the food
chains.
Table 2. shows an outline of the selected aspects and the methods used to assess them and
the corresponding sub-research questions to be answered.
Table 2. Selected aspects and the methods for their assessment
Research subquestions
Aspects
I. Local (production to consumption)
defined using distance (km/miles) or
defined using a reference area/location.
Document study
Interview
questions

II.a Geographical proximity (includes
2. Which spatial
characteristics of SFSCs
are present in urban food
strategies and which are
not?
distances) between production and
consumption of food as predefined
number of km/miles
II.a Geograhical proximity (includes
distances) between production and
consumption of food using a reference
area/location to define
II.b Geographical proximity (includes
distances) and locations between the
various stages of the food chain
3. What is the reason for
the inclusion/exclusion
of spatial characteristics
in the documents?
4. Spatial planning’s
connection with food
issues and its role in
supporting the SFSCs



I., II.a and II.b The way in which spatial
characteristics are defined and the way
they are used. Argumentation on the
significance of the above
III. Comprehensive planning allied with
transportation, mix use zoning and food
mapping. Which types are used in the
cases?
The above types if teamed with municipal
policy-making can increase food access.
What is it in the cases?








This method contributes
in the assessment of the
relevant aspect
This method is crucial for
the assessment of the
relevant aspect
20
A set of keywords is established in order to make the process of the document review feasible
and easier. The goal is to assess the frequency and the way that the following terms (keywords)
are used in the urban food strategies of the two selected cases. These keywords are
representatives of the aspects that are noted above. The more (frequently) each keyword is
used; the more important this keyword is according to the food strategy. This way, this masterthesis will create an indication of the importance given from the food strategy to each keyword.
In addition, to get a better idea of the exact use of each keyword, the context in which each
keyword is used will be assessed as well. In other words, the way that each keyword is used will
be assessed. However, there are chances that the keywords will not be found verbatim in the
food strategies but described in other words (having of course the same meaning). In that case,
their synonyms will be noted.
This way, the keywords (and meanings) that will be looked for in the document review are listed
in Table 3, where they are also matched with every aspect that was discriminated above.
Table 3. Keywords for document study
Document study
Aspects
Corresponding Keywords
Aspect I.
Local (food)
Aspect II.a&b
(Geographical) proximity
Aspect II.a&b
(Geographical) distance
Aspect II.a&b
Particular distances in kilometers or miles
Aspect II.b
Aggregation of food
Aspect II.b
Distribution of food
Aspect II.a&b
Foodshed
Aspect II.a&b
Neighborhood
Aspect II.a&b
Boundaries
Aspect III.
Spatial planning
Aspect III.
Urban planning and food planning
Aspect III.
(Local) food access/accessibility
Aspect III.
Transportation network/infrastructure
Aspect III.
Transit planning
Aspect III.
Mixed use zoning
21
The interview questions are listed right below along with their corresponding aspects.
Aspects
Interview questions
1st set:
I.
• What do you consider as ‘local’?
• Do you discriminate ‘local’ from regional using distance in miles?
2nd set:
II.b
• Can you provide with information on the location and of these stages?
• How does the food strategy ensure their connection/synergy?
3rd set:
II.a
• Are specific distances of the stages between production and
consumption of food planned before-hand?
II.a
• What is the proximity between facilities of any stage and other
reference points of the city (e.g. city center, schools, ‘streets’)?
• Are there specific boundaries for the facilities of the food chain?
II.
The food strategy highlights small distances between production and
consumption and waste of food. However, a clear indication of
particular locations and distances is not present, nor information is
provided on the stages of the food chain that follow the production.
• Is there a reason for this?
4th set: ‘Foodshed’, food production ‘nearby’ its consumption,
II.
‘neighborhood level’.
• Could you elaborate on these?
5th set:
III.
• Are the proximities/distances dependent on other facts?
• How do you consider (local) food access that is underlined in the food
strategy?
6th set:
III.
• First off, can you describe the relationship of spatial planning with
food in Toronto/London?
• What is the role of spatial planning in supporting the SFSCs (or
sustainable food) in the context of food strategies?
• What types of planning are complementary for increasing food
access?
22
3. Case study Toronto
Source: http://www.hungrycitybook.co.uk/blog/?p=156
Source: http://www.toronto.ca/health/dinesafe/mobile/system.htm
23
This chapter gives empirical data from the case study (document study and the interviews) of
Toronto. Subchapter 3.1 describes the food policies and food goals on a national level. Relevant
policies to local food and to the spatial aspects of food are also included. The next subchapter
(3.2) focuses on policy bodies of the city and their driving forces and goals related to food.
Subchapter 3.2.1 provides with spatial characteristics that were spotted in Toronto’s food
strategy and the context under which they are used. Subchapter 3.2.2 focuses on the
components of the food chain and the spatial relationship between them, their spatial
characteristics and the context in which these spatial characteristics are used. Both parts 3.2.1
and 3.2.2 include results on the reasons of use of the spatial characteristics of local food and
SFSCs. Subchapter 3.3 notes spatial planning’s relation with food through the acquired
empirical data. Then, 4 points are discriminated, in which spatial planning gets in touch with
local or mainstream food chains of the city. These 4 points stem from the scientific literature on
food planning and they are noted as follows: mixed use development in 3.3.1, transportation
and infrastructure in 3.3.2, the crucial parts of policy-making (related with food issues) in 3.3.3
and mapping of food in 3.3.4.
3.1 Canada and food system management
The country of Canada focuses on a holistic management of the food chain that is oriented
towards sustainability at a national administrative level. A ‘’National Food Strategy’’ / ‘’Stratégie
Alimentaire Nationale’’ was developed in 2011 that goes by the name: ‘’Towards a National
Food Strategy. A framework for securing the future of food’’ (The Canadian Federation of
Agriculture 2011).
The report defines the National Food Strategy as: ‘’…a longterm framework for policy and
programs for food.’’ (The Canadian Federation of Agriculture 2011) Further, it recognizes the
multidisciplinary and complex nature of food management and underlines that: ‘’As food touches
so many elements of our lives, so the NFS must necessarily address multiple concerns and
considerations.’’ (The Canadian Federation of Agriculture 2011) The National Food Strategy
clearly states its mission: ‘’Canada will be a leader in providing safe and nutritious food through
a vibrant, competitive, responsive and sustainable farming, processing, distribution and sales
sector.’’ (The Canadian Federation of Agriculture (2011) The Canadian Federation of Agriculture
(CFA) led this initiative representing the primary food producers. All stakeholders of the food
chain were included (from suppliers through processors and distributers etc. to consumers)
without neglecting the Government. Other organizations closely related to the food sector such
as the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI), the Conference Board of Canada and the
People’s Food Policy Network were also joined in this initiative. (The Canadian Federation of
Agriculture 2011) Also worth mentioning are other examples of unified documents for food
system’s management that were all published in the same year of 2011: Food Secure Canada
(FSC) hold a participatory ideology and involved 3500 Canadians to released ‘Resetting the
Table’, which identified five key policy directions: localism, ecological production, poverty
elimination, national Children and Food strategy and full citizen participation in food policy. The
Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) released ‘Towards a National Food Strategy’, and the
Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI) published ‘Canada's Agri-Food Destination: A New
Strategic Approach’.
24
A newer food strategy for the country entitled: ‘’From Opportunity to Achievement: Canadian
Food Strategy’’ was issued in 2014 by The Conference Board of Canada. The goals of this
strategy do not differ from the goals of the previous one, however this report sets a framework
for achieving these goals and ways to keep in line with them and track the progress towards the
achievement of goals and desirable outcomes. This framework explains the sequence and the
order of setting goals, monitoring them and achieving them. In specific, this report discriminates
5 major elements in regards to food. Then, it identifies strategic challenges associated with the
5 elements and uses them to set goals for each element. Afterwards, it specifically identifies 62
desired outcomes and changes that are needed in the food sector and sets 110 action
strategies as ways to achieve the desired outcomes. Thus, the report notes 400 specific actions
(e.g. workable solutions, policies, tactics, practices). Then sets metrics to monitor the progress
in achieving the desired outcomes and the goals and it also takes into account the actions that
are actually taken from stakeholders to achieve the desired outcomes and goals. (Bloom 2014)
Figure 2. ''The Canadian Food Strategy Pyramid'' Source: (The Conference Board of Canada 2012 in
Bloom 2014 p. 9)
25
In the picture above, the order and connection of every part of the framework is highlighted. In
general, the report of Bloom (2014) is clearly legible as it clarifies its goals and the approaches
to achieve them and it is also detailed as for every goal the actions needed are matched.
The report looks after three levels in food management: global, national and local while
environmental sustainability is noted (Bloom 2014 p.19, p.25, p.29, p.34). Production,
consumption, processing and waste are mentioned but the spatial aspect of them is not under
discussion, while interestingly land use planning, zoning and infrastructure are recognized as
possible supporters of local food production and consumption. In order to create prosperous
local food economies the action strategy needs to:

’’Help local food economy producers and processors access domestic markets through
large retailers and local vendors and distributors.
 Support specialized production for niche markets.
 Ensure land-use planning, zoning, and infrastructure support local food production and
consumption.’’ (Bloom 2014 p. 18)
Thus, the good example was set for the lower administrative levels (cities) so the latter can take
similar steps in the food system management while an extra motivation was also given to
Toronto and other cities to develop visions and strategies for their urban food strategies.
3.2. Toronto and food system management
Toronto Public Health is an organization that reports to the city’s Board of Health and works for
the public health of Torontonians since 1883. The prevention of the spread of diseases, the
promotion of healthy living, the monitoring of the health status of the population and the
development and implementation of public policy and practices that enhance the health are in
the core of the organizations actions. (Toronto Public Health not dated)
Already in 1991 Toronto has established the Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC) as a
subcommittee of the Board of Health. The aim of the council is to advise the City of Toronto on
food policy issues. The TFPC connects diverse people from the food, farming and community
sector to develop innovative policies and projects that support a healthy food system, and
provides a forum for dialogue and action amongst different actors across the food system. The
TFPC has contributed to a number of municipal policies such as the City’s Official Plan, the
Environmental Plan, the Golden Horseshoe Food and the Food Strategy of the city (which is
going to be assessed in the following subchapters). (Interviewees 1 and 3)
Major driving forces for the creation of an official food strategy for the city of Toronto was the
concerns on health issues like hunger and obesity, as well as on environmental and agricultural
issues like pollution and the loss of agricultural land. (Toronto Public Health 2010) Thus, in 2008
the Toronto Board of Health endorsed the food strategy project, which was carried out by a
Steering Group of senior City staff and community food experts with the help of Toronto Food
Policy Council (Toronto Public Health 2010). The outcome of this effort is the consultation report
‘’Food Connections: Toward a Healthy and Sustainable Food System in Toronto’’ as the city’s
food strategy. Since 2008 Toronto adopted a ‘’local food procurement policy’’ that works in favor
of homegrown products (Toronto Public Health 2010). Moreover, the city has earned a
reputation of an environmental champion because of the adoption of green attitude and green
26
technologies such as the requirement of green roofs on new development and the support to
urban agriculture. (Toronto Public Health 2010) It is also worth mentioning that there is a newlyrevised food strategy for Toronto that cannot be assessed, because it is going to be issued in
June 2015 and that The Food Strategy team has mapped healthy food access across the City,
launched a Mobile Good Food Market, and is undertaking research related to healthy small food
retail and community food procurement (Interviewees 1 and 3)
3.2.1 Spatial characteristics in Toronto’s food chain
The report of Toronto Public Health (2010) highlights a health focused food system as a major
goal. A new food system is envisioned, in which health is prioritized, healthy food choices are
assisted and promoted, food access is taken into account when planning neighborhoods, food is
used as means for the city to meet multiple goals and collaboration is established amongst
governments and the residents. (Toronto Public Health 2010)
In order to reach those goals, the report discriminates six directions:
‘’1. Grow Food-friendly Neighborhoods.
2. Make Food a Centerpiece of Toronto’s New Green Economy.
3. Eliminate hunger in Toronto.
4. Empower Residents with Food Skills and Information.
5. Connect City and Countryside Through Food.
6. Embed Food System Thinking in City Government.’’ (Toronto Public Health 2010, p.18)
Considering the spatial scope of this master-thesis, the 1st and the 5th direction are really
interesting. This is because these two directions are associated clearly with the spatial aspect.
Disclaimer – Clarification on the assessment of the keywords and the document review as a
whole
Keywords with spatial reference were set with the help of the literature review. (See 2.7).Then,
the food strategy document (Toronto Public Health 2010) got assessed and the frequency of the
use of the spatial characteristics was analyzed, in order:
•
To gain an idea of the spatial aspect and the presence of spatial characteristics in the
food strategy.
•
To assess the way and the depth that these spatial characteristics are used in Toronto
Public Health’s (2010) report.
The frequency of the spatial characteristics in the document of Toronto Public Health (2010) is
presented in Table 4. This table does not represent the whole document review though. In
addition, a further analysis on the specific use of these keywords was done (e.g. in which
context are they being used).
27
The keywords found at Toronto Public Health (2010) are sometimes used only namely, without
the provision of more details on how the keywords are used or in which actual places of the city
specifically the keywords refer to. In other cases there is further elaboration on the keywords.
For example the keywords foodhub/foodcluster etc. are mentioned frequently but there is not
always further information provided for their space, their location or the distances between
them. There is a reference of the food cluster of the area Golden Horseshoe (Toronto Public
Health 2010). In another occasion foodhubs are mentioned as places in neighborhoods in which
people can learn or teach food skills (Toronto Public Health 2010). Existing examples of these
foodhubs (in neighborhoods) are: the Scadding Court Community Centre, the Lawrence Heights
Community Centre, the Stop Community Food Centre and the Green Barn (Toronto Public
Health 2010). Occasionally, instead of the keyword itself, there is text in the food strategy that
provides important information using other words (text with the same or relevant meaning with
the meaning of the keyword). For example ‘on foot’/’walking’ (distance) were not selected as
keywords; however the walking distance (between the consumer and the food distribution
points) is used quite often in (Toronto Public Health 2010) as a goal to be reached in terms of
food access. Thus, the synonyms of the keywords and other words with the same meaning of
the keywords were taken into account.
28
Table 4. Frequency of use of keywords. Case of Toronto
Scope and
Corresponding
Aspects
Keywords
Local (food)
Spatial
Regional (food)
characteristics of
SFSCs - Aspects I & Geographical proximity
Geographical distance*
II.a
Components/Stag
es of the food
chain and their
spatial
characteristics Aspect II.b
Frequency of use
16
1
0
0
Distance in miles/kms
Foodshed/Foodhub/Foodcluster/Foodbank
/Foodcentres/Foodscenes
0
Neighborhood (in terms of food)
15
Boundaries
0
Aggregation of food
0
Processing
1
Distribution of food
3
Consumption of food
0
Packing
1
Caning
2
Retail
Spatial planning/Urban planning/Food
planning
4
Local (food) access/accessibility
14
Spatial planning's Transportation/Transit
role - Aspect III Infrastructure
8
7
6
6
Transit planning
1
Mixed use zoning
0
Zoning
4
* ’Geographical distance’ was not found verbatim, however 'connecting rural and urban' areas
was found x4 times. For ‘walking distance’ / ‘on foot’ there is a frequency of x3 times.
Local food and SFSCs, the spatial aspect of them and argumentation on the use of the spatial
characteristics
The term local food is very frequently used in the food strategy, likewise the local farms are also
frequently mentioned (6 times). There is not a part in the urban food strategy that defines clearly
what local food is. Nevertheless, whenever it is used in Toronto Public Health (2010), it is given
a meaning of a place in the city or close to the city as for the outskirts of it or the wider region
29
that the city belongs to. The interviewees pinpoint a definition of ‘local’ using kilometers of
distance, however similarly with the food strategy; they keep a flexible and more general
definition in mind, using the limits of the city.
‘’Local=Ontario to me. But I ‘m interested in this regional perspective. I think this is the future of
our food systems work, the future of short food supply chains. Centric approach to promote food
access from our urban farms and then the peri-urban.’’ (Interviewee 1)
‘’We have never done the analysis of the geographical distance of ‘local’. We are interested in
making good food accessible to the entire population with a focus on most low-income-marginal
residents. ‘’Some people use 100km. To some extent that works in Toronto because that would
include the primary agriculture areas outside of Toronto. The true definition would be 100km.’’
(Interviewee3) ‘’… but I would think local as the greater Toronto area’’ (Interviewee3) ‘’... Local
gets defined as Ontario here. Ontario is very big but that becomes more of a proxy for local.’’
(Interviewee 3)
‘’In terms of defining local, that's not something we focus on. If it's required then we usually
follow the definition of our provincial government which defines local as anything grown in
Ontario.’’ (Interviewee 2)
A reason for not dealing in detail with ‘local’: ‘’…for growing food locally. That could do 5-10 %
of the needs of the city at best. This is I don’t think that this (sticking to local) really is the answer
to food security or the food system.’’ (Interviewee 3)
‘’The spatial element is critical’’ according to interviewee (1). Moreover, ‘’geography is very
much an area of focus when it comes to addressing inequity’’ (Interviewee 2). ‘’The provincial
government has rules about separation distances, e.g. between farms and residential areas.
This comes up especially in suburban areas where new housing is encroaching on farmland.’’
(Interviewee 2) Nevertheless, most of the spatial characteristics of the literature that are present
in the food strategy are not mentioned as explicitly defined areas or distances. On the contrary,
they are mentioned as well-known areas and reference points/areas. For example: The outskirts
of the city and the city itself, the region that Toronto belongs, the neighborhoods of Toronto. The
Ontario Food Terminal that lies in Toronto’s west end is mentioned as the largest wholesale
market for vegetables and fruits, the food cluster of the ‘Golden Horseshoe’ is also noted and
the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is highlighted as one on the best agricultural lands of the
country (Toronto public Health). Moreover, neighborhoods are used really frequently (in p.5, p.
17,18 and 19) and this gives out a strong intention of the food strategy to put weight at the
neighborhood scale and to support the food initiatives on a neighborhood level (Toronto Public
Health 2010). For example: Growing ‘‘food-friendly neighborhoods’’ as a goal of the food
strategy (Toronto public Health 2010) ‘’Neighborhoods are planned with a food access in mind’’
(Toronto Public Health 2010 p.14). In agreement to that, the interviewees (1, 2 and 3) also refer
to the neighborhoods as a very important scale for the food management of the city.
‘’The spatial piece is very much in place-based innovations and place-making, neighborhoods,
mobilizing neighborhood cohesion. Strong neighborhood strategy Toronto where they are
looking at what Toronto has done over the years is designated what they began to call
30
neighborhood improvement areas. So there are certain neighborhoods in the city that identified
as a place with funders and community agencies and government together to have interventions
on that spatial level.’’ (Interviewee 3)
‘’The City and many community agencies are focusing on "place-based" interventions, including
the establishment of new priority areas called Neighborhood Improvement Areas.’’ (Interviewee
2)
While a part of the interviewee’s reply when asked about food access (5th interview question)
was:
‘’I would interpret that as neighborhood access so we could look at that as geographical
proximity to good food as well as demographics in terms of income and the ability to purchase
good food. Are there some good food stores within walking distance? or easy bus-ride?’’
(Interviewee 3)
3.2.2 Components of SFSCs in Toronto’s Food Strategy and their spatial
characteristics
Toronto Public Health (2010) acknowledges the different stages of the food system (production,
processing, distribution, marketing, consumption and disposal) that are required for food to
reach the table, and gives weight on the ‘’food system thinking’’ meaning that all the stages of
the food chain should be taken care of. The components of the short food supply chains that are
present in the food strategy are the following: Production of food, processing of food, packing of
food, caning of food, retail and distribution of food, the consumption and waste. Mostly used in
the document of Toronto Public Health (2010) are the distribution and retail of food (See table 4)
and the production of food. The rest of the components of the food chain are not getting enough
attention. As the interviewees note; not enough work has been made on the parts of the food
chain after the production and retail.
‘’We just completed a very interesting process (internal to my own organization) to try to bring a
broader food assessment on the table. We saw that incredible concentration on the one end.
…in terms of the production there is only urban agriculture, very little on distribution piece, more
and more involvement on food waste.’’ (Interviewee 3)
‘’Still I don’t think we will do a lot in certain parts of the system.’’ (Interviewee 3)
The parts of caning, packing and processing are found in (Toronto Public Health 2010) but there
are not extra information given on them. The consumption of food is meant and not expressed
verbatim. No specific spatial indications of the location and size of these components are found
in Toronto Public Health (2010) except for the main agricultural areas such as the Greater
Toronto Area and the Golden Horseshoe as food production areas (Toronto Public Health 2010)
and the foodhubs in the neighborhoods of the Scadding Court Community Centre, the Lawrence
Heights Community Centre, the Stop Community Food Centre and the Green Barn as main
retail and distribution areas (Toronto Public Health 2010). However, a reader can understand
though that the report of Toronto Public Health (2010) ideally sets mostly the outskirts of the city
as food production areas. The neighborhoods are ideally food retail and distribution areas but
31
also food production areas (Toronto Public Health 2010), while the distribution points should be
found in a walking distance from the neighborhoods of the city or in a distance that can be
covered by public transport (Toronto Public Health 2010).
Interviewee (1) mentions urban agriculture and urban farms as food production activities in the
urban area. In addition, ‘’there is a movement for promoting urban agriculture and putting
pressure to the Municipal government to make land available.’’ (Interviewee 3) What is more,
public parks are made available for farmers markets and for community gardens (Interviewee 1)
‘’We‘ve also done a lot of research on the food retail environment’’ (Interviewee 1)
‘’In Toronto, we have zoning categories that tend to separate industrial and urban agriculture
from residential or institutional uses. Food manufacturing and processing does happen in the
city but it's moving more and more toward the suburbs where land is cheaper and downtown
real estate can be sold for a lot of money for condos.’’ (Interviewee 2)
Similarly to the general spatial characteristics of the short food supply chains of Toronto and to
the spatial characteristics of ‘local’, the definition of geographical distances, locations and
boundaries of the facilities of the stages/components of short food supply chains are not clear.
There are not enough details found on where each stage could or should be located, nor for the
distances between the stages of the food chain. Nevertheless, the words ‘‘near’’/’’nearby’’ and
‘‘close’’/’’close(r)’’ (meaning close distance between the production and consumption of food)
were found 2 times each. Moreover, the connection between the urban and the peri-urban and
rural environment is highlighted without explicitly explaining how this can be achieved. The
farmers’ markets were found 4 times, the community kitchens/gardens 8 times and the word
neighborhood (see table above) is one of the keywords with the most hits. The neighborhoods
should be places that host distribution and retail, consumption but also the production of food
(Toronto Public Health 2010).
‘’In our Food Strategy report we weren't thinking about specific distances, these aren't relevant
in our context. The emphasis was more on the concept of reconnecting to food sources whether
it be school gardens, urban agriculture or supporting local producers.’’ (Interviewee 2)
Clearly defined spatial relationships between the different components of the food chain are not
found in the food strategy of Toronto either. The report acknowledges: ‘’The basics of local food
infrastructure – from farmers’ markets to canning facilities and meat packing plants - started to
disappear. In recent years, interest in rebuilding local food systems has grown rapidly.’’ (Toronto
Public Health 2010 p.12) However, the food strategy’s goal to bring the production and
consumption of food closer (geographically) is underlined. The connection of the urban and rural
environment is repeated in Toronto Public Health (2010). This way, the ideal smaller distances
between the different components of the food chain of Toronto. In addition, the strategy’s
intention to keep short distances between the stages of distribution and consumption can be
presumed due to the emphasis on the ability of the strong and healthy neighborhoods to get
food by walking or using public transport. In the same line, the food strategy favors food
production in the these strong and healthy neighborhoods as well (Toronto Public Health 2010),
therefore the food production gets much closer either right away to the food consumption or to
the processing and the rest of the stages of the food chain.
32
‘’We are in the beginning stages of fully understanding the local food infrastructure.’’
(Interviewee 1) ‘’We’re beginning to understand what those facilities are (referring to the
facilities of the stages of the food chain) so the next step will be to link some of those and to
understand the flows between those facilities’’ (Interviewee 1)
‘’…mapping of in general the food assets: farms, distribution hubs, manufacturing facilities,
processing facilities -we’re just in the beginning of that (we have the maps)- but through those
maps we at least have a baseline of information about that kind of spatial interpretation of the
food system.’’ (Interviewee 1)
‘’The provincial government (Ontario) defines land uses and each municipality prescribes those
land uses but we don't have any process to look at the synergies or distribution of various parts
of the food chain. We should be doing exactly that because the local food supply chain
infrastructure has been eroded for decades’’ (Interviewee 2)
3.3 Spatial planning and short food supply chains in Toronto
Spatial planning is frequently discussed in the document of Toronto Public Health (2010) (see
table). The food strategy of Toronto points out that planning should pay attention to food access.
(Toronto public Health 2010 p.13) As noted above, the food strategy underlines close or closer
distances between the production and the consumption of food. In order to achieve these, the
city of Toronto has taken steps forward in giving attention to food planning, while the planners
have also started to realize the use of inclusion of food in their work.
‘’I think planning plays a huge role.’’ (Interviewee 3)
‘’I think there is first of all a very direct relationship between planning and the food system I think
in Toronto and most places planning field at a municipal levels all about mitigating land use
conflicts.’’ (Interviewee1)
‘’Our City Planning department has been pretty supportive of our work over the last few years
but food isn't a big focus for them. We worked with them to add broader wording about food in
the City's most recent Official Plan.’’ (Interviewee 2)
‘’Our planners are really getting more involved with that. The American Planning Association
(APA) recently put access to food as one of their criteria. That’s big progress’’. (Interviewee 3)
‘’We had some success in working with spatial planners of the city who had never considered
food access in their planning deliberations. When we had started working with them 5 years ago
they thought that food has nothing to do with spatial planning. …by working together on this
mapping project they realized that access to food is as important as access to green space,
access to school, access to transit. They have changed, they have put some elements into our
official plan in access to food. That was a very big win for us and a very big win for the
planners.’’ (Interviewee 3)
‘’Having more language around the importance of planning for food access’’ (Interviewee 1)
33
3.3.1 Mixed use development, zoning and farmland preservation
Zoning designation is very important when it comes to implement food facilities (street food,
food stands, food stores etc.). All of the interviewees stressed how zoning designations affect
the food initiatives and pinpointed a new zoning designation for the city that entails several land
uses.
‘’Zoning is huge. Fighting within our corner store project, working with our zoning and licensing
folks, you know we have stupid bylaws in Toronto that do not let us put a sign. The zoning is
residential so they cannot have a sign that says: ‘’there is a store there’’. We have created the
‘Residential Apartment Commercial’ zoning. The suburbs outside of the downtown hall they
were historically residential and they were not allowed to commercial activities. What happened
is that the demographics have changed there, so the planners are now seeing that now they
have to change the zoning and they call it ‘shrimp trap’ zoning cause it is tight and you can’t
change that. There is a new zoning designation that will allow certain commercial activity and
food is a huge piece of that’’ (Interviewee 3)
‘’The biggest contribution that Planning has made recently is the creation of a new zoning
category – Residential Apartment Commercial. This new category will permit a wide range of
non-residential uses in and around apartment buildings, including markets, gardens and smaller
food retail.’’ (Interviewee 2)
Mixed land-use development should be a tool of planners in order to achieve a more healthy
and sustainable food system (Dunn 2013 p.7). ‘’Planning for food requires mixed use zoning’’
(Dunn 2013 p.7). Mixed use zoning allows several uses such as residential housing, industry
and commercial activity in one single zone. Therefore, the communities are more complete and
liveable. This way, local food sources are also included in the mix and consequently local food
access is supported. (Dunn 2013 p.7)
Another focal point of food planning is the preservation of local farm and agricultural land. Since
local agricultural land is getting decreased (Toronto Public Health 2010 p.2 , p.4), local farm
viability is included in the overall goal of creating a comprehensive health focused food system
(Toronto Public Health 2010 p.12). What is more, ‘’In an era of rising energy prices and threats
from climate change, it’s essential for Toronto to support local farmers and help protect local
farmland.’’ (Toronto Public Health 2010 p.23)
In the same line with the food strategy of the city, Dunn (2013 p.2) stresses the preservation of
agricultural land/farmland as a part of planning and regulating for a: ‘’comprehensive ‘planning
for food’ framework’’. Moreover, interviewee (1) notes that as pressure to peri-urban green belt
is being exercised by urban growth, the relevant peri-urban areas that need preservation are a
matter of priority.
‘’we can check the areas that need specific preservation’’ (Interviewee1)
3.3.2 Transportation and Infrastructure
After mapping the food system and after the ‘realization’ of the facilities of the stages of the food
chain from the food strategy team, ‘’ ...you link not only the preservation of agricultural land but
34
you think about the infrastructure that short food supply chains require and the specific supports
that they require to survive in these conditions of sprawl, increased growth and population
growth.’’ (Interviewee 1). In agreement to that, the preservation of agricultural land that is
needed for the production of food is certainly basic, but not enough to support food access
without looking further in the food chain stages, for example at the incorporation of food
production and food processing and related infrastructure and distribution mechanisms. (Dunn
2013 p.6-7)
The power of Municipalities to implement action plans for food access and food security through
their food policy councils is underlined in the Institute for Food and Development Policy (2009
cited in Clean Air Partnership 2011 p.22). Hence, Dunn (2013 p.7) stresses that the above
recognition should be taken into account by the officials (Provincial and Municipal government)
in order to provide space, infrastructure and transportation that enable and assist food access.
To further support the above: ‘’Local food access requires distribution mechanisms’’ (Dunn 2013
p.10) ‘’Through provincial policies and plans, and municipal plans and by-laws, government can
support local food distribution mechanisms.’’ (Dunn 2013 p.9) Also in agreement, the food
strategy notes the growing efforts to stimulate regional food infrastructure (Toronto Public
Health 2010 p.7) and envisions that local government would embrace ‘’good neighbour’’
policies, in which supporting the expansion of local, sustainable food infrastructure is entailed.
(Toronto Public Health 2010 p.14)
Food planning should join forces with transit planning, because the latter:



Acknowledges the role of transportation in food access.
Acknowledges the importance of transportation options between residential areas and
food providing areas.
Can complement the shortening of distances that people have to cover in order to get
food. (Dunn 2013 p.7)
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of land use planning initiatives that has made
progress in increasing access to healthy food. In some cases government, transit agencies and
private developers partner with each other in order to create ‘complete communities’. In other
cases, cities are stimulating development in proximity to public transit stations. In other cases,
governments used TOD to attract grocery stores. (Dunn 2013 p.8)
Special attention is given to public transportation in terms of leveraging food access. Land use
planning and transit planning should coordinate so that public transit routes, bike lanes and
pedestrian routes increase access to sources of healthy food. Land use planning can allocate
food sources in places that are accessible by multiple transit options. This way, food access is
assisted and at the same time agricultural spaces and the urban fringe are protected because
development is redirected to existing areas. (Dunn 2013 p.7 -8)
In the same line, the food strategy not only realizes the current reliance on ‘’long-distance,
centralized food system’’ and the importance of the sources used for the transportation of food.
(Toronto Public Health 2010, p.4) but also recognizes the potential of transportation to improve
food access. As a vision of the food strategy, food activities would be incorporated with the
35
expansion of public transit of the city. In specific, the Transit City Plan should incorporate food
planning. Therefore, transit city’s vehicles that are not underground (subway) can assist food
provision to the commuters. Transit transfer points used in order to provide easier access to
food to commuters. For instance, the commuters can do their groceries using the public
transport. Since Toronto is moving towards a more pedestrian friendly and transit oriented city,
re-designed landscapes can be equipped with food businesses, community gardens and
markets. (Toronto Public Health 2010 p.15)
3.3.3 Policies
Dunn (2013) stresses that mixed use development and transport-oriented approach are actions
of food planning that complement food access, but still those are not enough without the support
of appropriate policies. ‘’Land use planning has great potential to increase food access only
insofar its policies incorporate food access considerations and the needs of community
members especially low-income members.’’ (Dunn 2013 p.8). In Toronto Public Health (2010)
next to the planning perspective that is prominent, the licensing of food initiatives is also
mentioned 4 times (see table of sub-chapter 3.2.2).
Land use planning deals with the management of land and resources to the extent that it
decides for the future use, character and allocation of land. Therefore, land use planning
accompanied with regulations can impact on the character of neighborhoods, on the location of
residential areas, schools etc. and on the permissible uses of space, hence food access can be
improved, especially when planning and regulations are working under a comprehensive
framework that is aligned to food. (Dunn 2013 p.2) This way, Dunn (2013 p.3) discriminates 3
policy areas that are crucial for food access and food planning: comprehensive planning for
food, making healthy food available in all neighborhoods and supporting urban and peri-urban
agriculture. Furthermore, Toronto Public Health (2010 p.19) notes in the ideas for action the
development of enabling policies for hosting food in public places and markets. Interviewee (1)
also supports the cooperation between planning and regulating for the designation of space for
urban agriculture activities:
‘’But it is that working with our planners and regulatory bodies in the city to help them see that
we need to have some room there for new practices and then we can come back to regulate
after and see if there are conflicts with that land(use).’’ (Interviewee 1)
In another aspect of the envisioned policy-making, local Government should imply policies that
favor the development of the local and sustainable food infrastructure. (Toronto Public Health
2010 p.14)
Planning along with zoning and licensing all have to be used by the local Government in order
to facilitate equity of food access. (Toronto Public Health 2010 p.13) The interplay between
planning with zoning and policy-making with licensing is showcased in Toronto Public Health
(2010), in Dunn (2013) and in the interview answers. Especially, the connection of zoning with
policies is explained below:
‘’So, on the one hand in Toronto we have very progressive language in our official plan… But
when we get down to the specific planning decisions that relate to all of these food systems
36
ideas that we want to promote, I think is very difficult, because then its reduced to our zoning
framework in the city of Toronto. And a lot of these activities are hybrid activities. They are not
only residential, or recreational or commercial activities. They reflect a hybrid space in the city a
public space that may have market-commercial elements. And this is where we have trouble.
For example in our parks we are not allowed to sell any of the produce.’’ (Interviewee 1)
‘’So heavily regulated that there is no room for entrepreneurial activities. So we’re trying to sit
down with our municipal licensing services on a street food committee. They look at this issue
so narrowly. So what about all the regulations?...We need to open up the space and
reregulate.’’ (Interviewee 1)
3.3.4 Mapping food
Food mapping is not getting attention in the report of the urban food strategy, however the
interviewees were aware of food mapping processes and their answers were concise. The
interviewees pointed out that the Food Strategy Team has already been active on mapping food
locations of the city.
’’We have this map and we found fascinating to see ourselves in the overall food system’’
(Interviewee 3)
‘’We have done some food-asset mapping… but more around the community food assets …and
then we’re setting goals for those neighborhoods.’’ (Interviewee 1)
‘’…mapping of in general the food assets: farms, distribution hubs, manufacturing facilities,
processing facilities -we’re just in the beginning of that (we have the maps)- but through those
maps we at least have a baseline of information about that kind of spatial interpretation of the
food system.’’ (Interviewee 1)
‘’We did some mapping in terms of geographical proximity and then we overlaid the
demographic profiles and then we did some analysis of proximity to unhealthy food and in a
process now on looking at good and good healthy food access. So we’re getting a more cranial
analysis from a mapping perspective on local neighborhood level for those parts of the city that
people have to travel far to get access to healthier food’’ (Interviewee 3)
We have a database, a longitudinal database of all the places that sell food (prepared, or fresh
food) so we were able to map that out, and also look at the type of food access. Is it
Mcdonalds? Is it a full scale supermarket? Is it corner store with good quality produce? That has
given us a much finer picture where they be pockets of the city that are very lucky. In Toronto by
a strict definition there are no food deserts cause nowhere in the city is there no food for people
to buy in close proximity, but there are many places that there is no good food in close
proximity’’ (Interviewee 3)
Some examples of the mapping process that has been carried out for the city are showed in
figures 3 to 6. Those figures show how food mapping can be used for managing food in the city
and for improving food access.
37
Figure 3. ‘’Density of ‘Healthier’ Food Outlets by Dissemination Area Population in Toronto, 2012’’.
Source: (Emanuel 2013 p.12)
The map right above shows no obvious correlation of food deserts or low food access areas
with income. It dispels the myth that high income areas have healthy food and low income areas
don’t. (Emanuel 2013)
38
1km aerial radius
Figure 4. Analysis with aerial radius 1km Source: (Emanuel 2013 p.14)
1km radius - street network
Figure 5. Street network analysis per 1 km. Source: (Emanuel 2013 p.14)
These two maps depict the broad food retail environment. The map with the circle shows how
previous analysis was done (as the crow flies), whereas the one right above is a network
analysis per one kilometer of walking distance. Therefore, taking the total number of healthier
food retail and dividing it by all food retail and multiplying it with one hundred gives us the index
39
of modified retail food environment (used in the US). ‘’Healthier food retail’’ / All food retail *100
= Index. (Emanuel 2013, p.14)
Figure 6. ‘’Modified Retail Food Environment Index by Census Block – Toronto, 2012’’ Source:
(Emanuel 2013, p.15)
The modified retail food index is also used to measure the kind of food retail as well. On the
map above, the areas that either have no retail or no healthy food retail or are heavily weighted
to less healthy are yellowish. The darker areas have more of a balance to healthier food retail.
Limitations of the method are that the number of stores, the pricing and the easiness to access
(walkability) are not taken into account. (Emanuel 2013).
40
4. Case study London
Source: http://www.sustainweb.org/news/aug12_putting_sustainable_food_on_the_map/
Source : https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs
Source: http://www.sustainweb.org/londonfoodlink/
41
This chapter deals with the case of London and provides the results from the document review
and the interviews. The structure of the sub-chapters is the same with the one of the 3rd chapter.
The first sub-chapter gives an overview of the food chain management in the country though the
discussion on national food-related policy documents and national food strategies. Goals and
policies which are relevant with local food, SFSCs and the spatial aspect of them are also
included. Subchapter 4.2 deals with London’s food management and presents London’s policies
related to local food and the spatial aspects of the city’s food chains. In 4.2.1 spatial
characteristics that are identified in London’s food strategy are presented and subchapter 4.2.2
focuses on the components of the food chain, their spatial characteristics and the spatial
relationship between these components. Furthermore, both subchapters 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 assess
the context in which the spatial characteristics are used in the food strategy and provide with
results on the reasons of the way the spatial characteristics are used. Moving on to the
subchapter 4.3 spatial planning’s relationship with short and normal food chains is highlighted.
Then, 4 crucial points in which spatial planning connects with the city’s food chain issues are
discriminated. These 4 points are presented respectively in the subchapters 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3
and 4.3.4.
4.1 UK and food system management
The Administrations across the UK have turned to food policy by issuing either food strategies
or documents focused on issues related to food and on goals to be reached (in response to food
related issues). Scotland has issued a national food policy, Wales also have issued national
food strategies and Northern Ireland has published a vision for its food sector. (Cabinet Office
2008, HM 2010) These administrations are in communication with each other to ensure that
they share a common understanding of the future of food policy. ‘’…we can learn from each
other.’’ (HM 2010 p.6) This way, collaboration is feasible whenever there is a need. (HM 2010)
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) should be noted as it
coordinates all UK Government policies on food. What is more, the Secretary of State for
Environment Food and Rural Affairs chairs a Cabinet sub-committee on food in action since
October 2008. (HM Government 2010) Much of the food policy of the UK is influenced by EU
legislation as UK is part of the European Union. (HM 2010)
A report published in 2008 by Cabinet Office stands out as an example of setting policy
guidelines for the whole country about food issues. This report is entitled: ‘Food matters.
Towards a strategy for the 21st century’. This strategy intends to complement previous
strategies such as: ‘Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: a Cross-Government Strategy for England’
published by the Government to tackle obesity in England. ‘Food Industry Sustainability
Strategy’ published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs focused on
industries of the country with goals to reduce the overall environmental impacts (waste,
transport, energy and water use) in the food chain. Moreover, Food Standards Agency’s
strategic plan for 2007-2010 in order to improve food safety and address UK’s nutrition issues.
(Cabinet Office 2008)
Hence, according to the terms of reference of the report the Strategy Unit (team responsible for
the development of this strategy appointed by the Prime Minister) with help from the Department
42
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Department of Health, the Food
Standards Agency and other departments were required to:




‘’ Review the main trends in the production and consumption of food in the UK.
Analyze the implications of those trends for the wider economy, society (including public
health) and the environment – including an analysis of the main drivers of change (e.g.
public attitudes).
Assess the robustness of the current policy framework for food in the face of current and
future trends and the various drivers of change.
Review what should be the objectives of future food strategy and identify what (if any)
changes or measures might be needed to achieve them.’’ (Cabinet Office 2008 p.5)
The production and consumption of food are the stages of the food chain mostly under
discussion in the parts of reviewing the main trends on food and their implications to the society,
the environment and the economy. Local food’s increasing popularity is recognized in the report
and the connection between the food production and consumption is favorable, but there is no
information on locations of food production or distribution and consumption, nor on their spatial
integration. The part of food retail is noted as well but mostly in terms of economy and society.
(Cabinet Office 2008)
As it is noted by the terms of reference, after the review of the new trends, the analysis of their
implications and the assessment of current policies in view of the emerging trends, the report
sets four key strategic policy objectives for food. Those have to do with the safeguarding of:




‘’fair prices, choice, access to food and food security through open and competitive
markets;
continuous improvement in the safety of food;
the changes needed to deliver a further transition to healthier diets; and
a more environmentally sustainable food chain.’’ (Cabinet Office 2008 p.43 and 68)
In the latter parts of the report of Cabinet Office (2008, 4th to 6th chapter), the rest of stages of
the food chain and the food chain as a whole have a more intense presence. Food access is
discussed, however it is not analyzed in spatial terms. Worth mentioning is that the report is
occupied with planning in favor of the competition of highly concentrated local food retailing
stores and to overcome restrictive arrangements regarding the use of land, so the competition
of local grocery shops can flourish in a higher concentration locally (Cabinet Office 2008).
The report of Cabinet Office (2008) may not valuable for its provision of spatial information on
the food chain, however it set the standards for a systematic and holistic management of the
food chains using policy to complement them. The strategy of Cabinet Office (2008) acted as a
preamble for the newer national strategy for the Government ‘Food 2030’ published by DEFRA.
The vision of the report of HM Government (2010) ‘Food 2030’ is similar with the one of Cabinet
Office (2008). In specific, the vision includes:

Informed consumers who can choose healthy and sustainable food.
43



Production, process, and distribution of food that feeds a global population in ways that
use global natural resources sustainably and support animal welfare.
Food security for the UK is ensured through strong agriculture and food sectors and
international trade links
A food system which is efficient with resources – low carbon emissions and waste is
reused, recycled or used for energy generation. (HM Government 2010)
Therefore, sustainability is showcased as a basic goal for the food sector. What is more, the
vision of this report includes a discrimination of stages of the food chain while pushing for
sustainability as the basic goal for each of the stages. Furthermore, the strategy of HM
Government (2010) discriminates certain issues that require attention in order to assist in the
creation of a sustainable food system. The document is developed around those issues as well:
Figure 7. Six issues towards a sustainable food system. Source: (HM Government 2010 p.9)
Local food is a concern of the national strategy, but not to the extent that information on spatial
characteristics can be found in the report. However, local food has got a more intense presence
in the report of HM Government (2010). Making land available for community food production
and helping local businesses are encouraged, while indicators are used to calculate food
accessibility (HM Government 2010 p.74). Moreover, the mentions of factors that influence the
food supply chain differentiate the national strategy from the earlier one. In specific, the
transport system is recognized as crucial element for a productive supply chain and national
infrastructure is also critical for energy and water demand and consumption.
44
4.2. London and food system management
There are several official bodies that are involved with food management for the city. Greater
London Authority (GLA) is a body of regional management that serves both the Mayor and the
London Assembly. It was established by the GLA Act 1999 (GLA 1999). GLA consists of the
Mayor of London and an Assembly for London of 25 members (the London Assembly) (GLA
1999). Out the 25 members, 14 are members for the constituencies (each constituency has one
member) and the rest eleven are members for the whole Greater London. GLA published
several reports that focus on food management some of those are noted in the following
subchapters.
The London Food Board (also known as London Food) is an agency that was established in
September of 2004 by the Mayor. London Food is responsible for leading on food matters for
the Mayor. The role of London Food is to assist in the guidance and development of food policy
for London, working with regional and local agencies, businesses and voluntary sector groups.
This way, it represents the plurality of London’s food system. (London Development Agency
2006) London Food is funded through the London Development Agency (London Development
Agency 2006). What is more, London Food contributed in the development of the food strategy
of the city; the report of London Development Agency issued on May 2006 called ‘’Healthy and
Sustainable Food for London. The Mayor’s Food Strategy’’. (London Development Agency
2006)
Driving forces for the creation of this food strategy were the negative outcomes of the
contemporary industrial food world. The consequences of the current food cycle in the
environment (e.g. through transportation and the emissions caused by transportation and
waste), pushed for a more environmentally sustainable food cycle. In addition, people who are
lacking knowledge and information on healthy food and diet-related diseases (e.g. obesity
outbreaks, certain cancers, coronary heart disease and type-2 diabetes) moved for action in
food quality and food management. (London Development Agency 2006)
Therefore, London Development Agency (2006) set the following objectives: An overall one,
according to which London should become a world-class sustainable city (London Development
Agency 2006, foreword) and five strategic ones: improvement of the health of the citizens and
reducing food inequalities through food, reduction of the environmental impacts of the food
cycle, build up a vibrant economy, celebrate the food culture and develop food security for
Londoners. (London Development Agency 2006)
In order to achieve the above objectives the strategy identified six priority actions:
 Ensuring commercial vibrancy
 Securing consumer engagement
 Levering the power of procurement
 Developing regional links
 Delivering healthy schools
 Reducing waste
(London Development Agency 2006)
45
The 4th listed action (as seen above) is the most relevant to this master-thesis. The
development of regional links targets several stages of the food chain (that are settled in the
region or in proximity to the region). Theoretically, by developing such links includes the
identification of food places in the region and then taking actions to bring the different stages
together. However, in practice London Development Agency (2006) does not focus on the
locations, the distances and the spaces of food in the region. Instead, the report suggests the
development of brokerage and support systems to enable producers of the region to understand
and access the London market. Access here gets another meaning: the ability of producers to
sell their products in the region’s markets.
The report (London Development Agency 2006) refers to the London Spatial Development
Strategy (the London Plan) especially when noting the policy concerns that are related to food.
The London Plan was first was published by Greater London Authority in 2004. In 2008 and
2011 it was revised and republished. The revision of 2011 is still in effect. The London Plan sets
an overall framework of economic, transport, environmental and social aspects for the
development of the city of London (GLA 2011a) Details on the way that these two official
documents relate follow in the next subchapters (4.2.3 – 4.3.3).
There are several London Boroughs such as Newham and Greenwich, which have also
developed food strategies. These strategies have achieved to build partnerships between
various fields like Primary Care Trusts, Environmental Health, Planning and Education. (London
Development Agency 2006) Except for the report of London Development Agency (2006), there
are two revisions of it: ‘’Healthy and Sustainable Food for London. The Mayor’s Food Strategy
Implementation Plan’’ (London Development Agency 2007) and ‘’The Mayor’s Food Strategy:
Healthy and Sustainable Food for London. An Implementation Plan 2011-2013’’ (GLA 2011b). In
terms of content, the revisions stay in line with the basics (goals, framework) of the report of
2006 and they do not add ‘game-changing’ information.
To sum up, food seems to be involved more and more in London’s governmental actions and
concerns. Food management for the city is supported by responsible authorities and agencies
while the food strategy of the city is rich in terms of content and envisioning of the future food
sector for Londoners and has high goals set. The sensitive part though is the integration of all
these policies and visions into a working action plan or policy framework (Cabinet Office 2008,
HM Government 2010).
4.2.1 Spatial characteristics in London’s food chain
The food strategy of London (London Development Agency 2006) and its revisions (London
Development Agency 2007, GLA 2011b) were analyzed for the frequency of use of the spatial
characteristics, in order to gain an idea of the spatial aspect and the presence of spatial
characteristics in the food strategy and to assess the way and the depth that these spatial
characteristics are used in the food strategy (see 2.7 and 3.2.2) The results are shown on the
table 5.
46
Table 5. Frequency of use of the keywords. Case of London
Scope and
Corresponding
Aspects
Keywords
Local (food)
Spatial
Regional (food)
characteristics of
Geographical proximity
SFSCs - Aspects I &
Geographical distance
II.a
Distance in miles/kms
Foodhub/Wholesalehub/Geogr
aphical & Sector-based clusters
Neighborhood (in terms of
Components/Stag food)
es of the food Boundaries
chain and their Aggregation of food
Preparation
spatial
characteristics - Distribution of food
Consumption of food
Aspect II.b
Packing
Disposing
Retail
Spatial planning/Urban
planning/Food planning
Local (food) access/accessibility
Spatial planning's Transportation/Transit
role - Aspect III Infrastructure
Transit planning
Mixed-use development
Zoning
Frequency of use in
Frequency of use in
London Development
London Development
Agency 2007 and in
Agency 2006
GLA 2011
9
6
1
3
1
4
2
0
0
0
2
1
6
0
0
6
15
2
2
1
12
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
16
22
23
3
0
5
0
0
12
3
4
0
0
0
In the same way with the case of Toronto, except for keeping the numbers of frequencies of the
keywords, this report analyses the context in which these keywords are used in the food
strategy as well, as explained below.
Local food, the spatial aspect of it and argumentation on their use
In spatial terms, the size of London is such that definition of local requires a modification. The
accreditation given from National Farmers' Retail & Markets' Association (FARMA) for local food
is typically food sourced from a radius of 30 miles (≈ 48.3 km) of the market, which can be
extended to 50 miles (≈ 80.5 km). Some markets define local as the area within their county
boarders. For London it is 100 miles (≈160.9 km) due to the size of the capital. (London
Development Agency 2006, Interviewee 4) However, the food strategy report and the
interviewee (4) are not strictly attached with the 100 miles definition. In the food strategy report
47
except for the above definition, local food is also noted as the food that is coming from the
surrounding area, neighboring regions and within the UK. (London Development Agency 2006).
In the same line, the interviewee (4) acknowledges a definition of local using miles of distance
but also used another definition that discriminates locally sourced food, regionally sourced and
nationally sourced food:
‘’…when we speak about sourcing food local food in a London context, we would normally refer
to the Greater London boundary and when we speak of regionally sourced food, we probably
refer to the South East of England, and after that as closely as possible from within the UK.’’
(Interviewee 4)
Furthermore, one of the interviews reveals significant insight about the way local is accounted or
used by the food actors:
‘’…because he [the Mayor] cannot enforce those rules anyway. So those are kind of loosely or
flexibly defined depending on the individual case. For example, if the Mayor says this should be
local, then it doesn’t really matter if he considers local within 30miles or 30kms. Because it is not
him or his organization that is doing the contracting, it is the individual school or hospital or a
company that’s doing the contracting.’’ (Interviewee 5)
Already from the foreword of London Development Agency (2006) it is being clear that the food
strategy intends to connect the production with the consumption of food in order to secure food
in the capital and reduce the ecological footprint of it. (London Development Agency 2006) At
the same time, the food strategy acknowledges that Londoners ask for food that comes from
abroad, for example some of the city’s diverse communities that have established food habits
that require food that is not grown in England (London Development Agency 2006). Hence, the
food strategy deals with food maters in all the scales from local and regional to international.
Therefore, the geographic length of the food chain varies according to the product, method of
production or control of the supply chain. For example, primary production may occur either in
London, or in the UK, or internationally, which will itself influences the rest of the chain (e.g.
distribution distance). (London Development Agency 2006)
The location of facilities of the food chain (such as store location) is mentioned 6 times in
London Development Agency (2006) and one in the revisions of it, however it is not always
clarified where these locations are or where should they be. In some cases location is used only
namely and in other cases locations are demarcated. For instance, retailers are reportedly
getting more and more attached on an agenda that gives attention to issues of sensitive store
location and mixed retail/residential development. However, in this case the report does not
further specify what and where these locations are (London Development Agency 2006).
Whereas, an example of specified location is the intensification of Town Centres as food retail
areas. In addition, more examples are noted in the next subchapter (4.2.3)
Town centers are frequently found in London Development Agency’s (2006) report (9 times).
Except for the food strategy though, their role is underlined in GLA’s London Plan as well. They
are significant for the development of the capital. Hence, GLA (2004, 2011a) supports the
48
identification and the establishment of various Town Centres as hosts of mix use development
and mainly providers of leisure and retail throughout the city, in order to achieve a polycentric
development in London. This Mayoral policy from GLA’s London Plan (2004 p.44 p.132-134) for
Town Centres is projected in the food sector and it is ‘discussed’ in terms of food in London
Development Agency’s (2006) report. That is why this mixed use development that is targeted
for Town Centres in GLA (2004) is used in London Development Agency (2006) to promote and
support food retail. Thus, Town Centres are frequently found (in pages: 27, 29, 78 and 108) in
the urban food strategy of London Development Agency (2006) as places of food retail that
provide sustainable access to food. Town Centres are determined taking into account their
accessibility. To be more specific, in order for them to be able to provide leisure and retail (in
our case food retail), they need to be accessible to the nearby citizens through walking or
cycling or by public transport (London Development Agency 2006).
Distance to shops is mentioned in the report in terms of food mapping research and food
deserts research that should be done (London Development Agency 2006) On the other hand,
the mode of transport (road, rail, sea or air); the efficiency of the supply chain network; and
wider life cycle considerations in the food chain make proximity not always reliable for
measuring carbon sustainability. ‘’It is, for example, less CO2 intensive to import certain crops
than grow them locally where that would require greenhouses with intensive inputs of energy,
water and chemicals.’’ (London Development Agency p.45) Distances are mentioned mostly in a
vague way except for the definition of local food probably for the reason described right above.
Nevertheless, the fact that walking and cycling are used in London Development Agency’s
(2006) document (on foot/walking 3 times Cycling 2 times) as goals for food access for the
Londoners, is an indication of the will of keeping at least the retail/wholesale and provision of
food close to the consumption.
4.2.2 Components of SFSCs in London’s Food Strategy and their spatial
characteristics
Eight stages of the food chain are discriminated in London Development Agency’s report
(2006). These eight stages of the food chain include: primary production, processing and
manufacture, distribution and transport, retailing, food purchase, food preparation and cooking,
consumption and disposal. Moreover, the stages of food system are noted in the strategic
framework for London’s food strategy alongside with five key policy themes related to food (i.e.
health theme, environment theme, economic theme, social and cultural theme and food security
theme) and key organizations (names of actors involved in food sector).
This framework is formed this way in order to account comprehensively all of the food issues
and to unveil the relationships within the food system. (London Development Agency 2006) ‘’All
elements of the framework do of course have a spatial dimension’’. (London Development
Agency 2006 p.33) However, no specific guidelines are given on distances between the stages
of the food chain, little information is available on their locations (which are noted in the
following paragraphs) and no significant information were found neither on the overall food
chains’ flow nor on the collaboration between the food chain stages. Possible reasons for that
are noted by the interviewees:
49
‘’The mayor again has no power to influence food supply chains in London either the short ones
or the larger ones. Food comes to London through several wholesome markets operated by
local borroughs or private companies or a mix between that.’’ (Interviewee 5)
‘’Perhaps most importantly, local and short supply chains tend to be transparent. Post
horsegate, this is an issue.’’ (Interviewee 6)
‘’The whole food chain is independent, it is not being organized or managed or controlled. That
is part of the problem also, how food strategy came to be at the first place.’’ (Interviewee 5)
‘’That’s part of this idea that they should address the whole food chain, not only the production’s
side or the consumption part but also the in-between stages. They discriminate between the
different stages but the main issue with the strategy is that it is always very nice, but London
itself is not producing, or distributing food, or trading food, so they can say whatever they want
but nobody has to follow these rules.’’ (Interviewee 5)
As for the location of the production, manufacturing/processing and retail stages of food chain of
the capital, the following information is noted in the food strategy: ‘’agricultural land is
concentrated in outer London; manufacturing activity is concentrated in a number of industrial
locations; retail provision is distributed across London’s town centre network and out-of-centre
developments)’’ (London Development Agency 2006 p.33)
The food production stage, the distribution stage and the retail stage of the food chain get the
most attention in the food strategy. To begin with the food production, as in the national food
strategies (Cabinet Office 2008, HM Government 2010), the increase of food production within
London & surrounding regions is a crucial goal of the food strategy of the capital as well
(London Development Agency 2006). There are 12,064 hectares of farmland in Greater London
and they need to be used for food production. Predominantly five boroughs contain between
them 85% of London’s farmland: Bromley (30%); Havering (24%); Hillingdon (13%); Enfield
(12%) and Barnet (6%). (London Development Agency 2006) The Mayor will seek to encourage
and support thriving farming and land-based sectors in London, particularly in the Green Belt.
What is more, growing of food as a land use will be encouraged nearer to urban communities
through mechanisms as ‘Capital Growth’ (GLA 2011a). Capital Growth was established by
‘London Food Link’ in partnership with the Mayor of London and the Big Lottery’s Local Food
Fund with aim to assist in the creation of 2,012 new community growing spaces across London
by the end of 2012 (Sustain 2014). Moreover, the capital’s Boroughs should protect existing
vacant areas and identify other potential places for food production (commercial food production
or not, such as community gardening and green roofs). (GLA 2011a)
To continue with, distribution of food has got a strong presence in the food strategy, and the
latter envisions effective and affordable distribution channels to be available to
producers/processors of all sizes and ownership structures in London (London Development
Agency 2006) and the establishment of local food distribution/wholesaling hubs (London
Development Agency 2006). What is more, in line with the recognition of local food chain(s) the
food strategy is willing to push for research on the feasibility of developing a ‘’secondary food
hub distribution system that operates in parallel to the mainstream distribution network and
50
enables smaller farms to share resources and distribution mechanisms for mutual benefit and
access the London market. This research should take account of the current review of London’s
existing wholesale markets at Covent Garden Market, Billingsgate, Smithfield, Spitalfields and
Western International.’’ (London Development Agency 2006 p.93) Relevant is also the Policy
7.26 of the London Plan with title: ‘’Increasing the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for freight
transport.’’ The title of the policy is self-explanatory. The water bodies of the capital should be
used for transport of goods (that includes food). By this policy the freight transport should be
safeguarded along with wharfs. Moreover, the wharfs should be redeveloped according to their
viability which is dependent –amongst others- on the wharf’s proximity and connections to
markets, on the wharf’s connections with other modes of transport, on the wharf’s ability to
reduce road transport and on the surrounding land-uses. (GLA 2011a)
Since the provision of food to the Londoners is important for the food strategy, food retail gets
significant. High Streets is an area in the center of the city that is mentioned in the food strategy
report of London Development Agency (2006). High streets are supported by the food strategy
as mainly food retail areas (London Development Agency 2006). Moreover, Town Centres in
inner and outer London are categorized in the (GLA 2004) and they are given significant
attention in both the two latest versions of the London Plan (the reports of GLA 2004, GLA
2011a) and in the food strategy of the city (the report of London Development Agency 2006). As
it is noted in the subchapter 4.2.2, the Town Centres are destined to be food retail areas and
mixed use development is also encouraged for them. Therefore, apart from the retail use that
has been acclaimed for Town Centres other uses related to food can also be prescribed for
them. For example, food production could also take place there. What is more, the
Supplementary Planning Guide for Town Centres points out that London’s Boroughs should
support local food stores and look for areas with lack of food access so they can ‘’inform retail
policies and planning decision making’’ (GLA 2014 p.64). Nevertheless, (besides retail and
leisure) specific land uses (of the proposed mix land use) are not clearly mentioned in London
Development Agency (2006). Maps of the Town Centres as categorized by the London Plan is
following below (Figure 8 and Figure 9).
51
Figure 8. The Town Centres of London. Source: GLA (2004 p.134)
Figure 9. The Town Centres of London. Source: GLA (2011 p.64)
52
The London Plan provides with a categorization of public open spaces (mainly parks) according
to their size in hectares and according their distances form homes. (GLA 2011a). Two points of
attention stem from this part of the London Plan on open spaces. One point of attention is the
distance from residential areas. Residential areas could be important when planning for
proximate green areas. They could be also important when planning for areas of food
interference. A second one is that although there is not a clear mention of food in the London
Plan, these open spaces should deliver multiple benefits (GLA 2011a). Hence, food could be
one of those benefits (and food could be entailed in this part and generally throughout the entire
document, clearly and boldly. Not as a side-topic that could be also attached to the plan.)
Figure 10. Open spaces of London. Source: GLA (2011 p.71)
53
4.3 Spatial planning and short food supply chains in London
Spatial planning is given a special status by the food strategy. Besides the regulation and
control of land that was always entailed in the planning manual, spatial planning nowadays
offers the potential to bring together and integrate other policies and programmes which also
have an influence on the way our communities function and develop. In this line, planning can
reflect social, economic and environmental objectives in a way that is closer to sustainable
development. It can improve food access, especially in deprived areas, and through policymaking it can pinpoint shortcomings in the capital’s food supply. Another task given to spatial
planning is to push for the development of on-farm processing facilities, the provision of food
distribution systems and the protection of fresh food markets such as street markets, farmers’
markets or specialist markets. Moreover, planning should work for the maintenance of the High
Street (in the center of the city for food related activities-mainly providing food) and for tackling
food ‘deserts’. (London Development Agency 2006) The planning system should be used to
protect the diversity of food retail where it is appropriate, including the positive functions of
street markets. (London Development Agency 2006)
London’s report (London Development Agency 2006) is underlining its partnership with the
Spatial Development Strategy otherwise known as the London Plan. ‘The London Plan’ should
contribute in various ways to the delivery of the objectives in the food strategy of the city and
has indeed a key role in delivering the food strategy for the city. However, there are also
inevitably limits on the ability of the planning system (and by extension, on ‘The London Plan’) to
deliver against the entire food agenda. Therefore, besides planning many other strategic and
institutional forces will need to make a contribution as well, in order to succeed in the in the
delivery of the London Food Strategy. (London Development Agency 2006)
In spite of the link between the London Plan and the food strategy, in London Assembly’s report
which is a few years newer and deals with the new Mayor’s actions is noted: ‘’However, the
Board’s current work programme does not include an examination of the impact of the planning
system on food growing. There is currently no direct link to the London Plan as to how planning
guidance can assist in achieving this. Neither does the Food Strategy mention how its proposals
support any London Plan policies.’’ (GLA 2010, p.50)
Overall, the food strategy of London acknowledges spatial planning’s connection with food
sector. In addition, other official city documents such as GLA’s (2010) and The Food
Commission’s (UK) and Sustain’s (2005) are dealing with this connection as well. On the
contrary, the interviewees were not very aware about spatial planning’s connection with the food
sector.
‘’I don't think there is a lot of spatial strategy and planning to manage food chains, other than in
some institutions that specialize.’’ (Interviewee 6)
‘’However, international and national surveys show that urban planning professionals often have
a low level of awareness of issues relating to urban agriculture and food growing and lack
information on how to deal with agricultural and related proposals, e.g. applications for
expansion or modernisation.’’ The Food Commission (UK) and Sustain (2005 p.24)
54
4.3.1 Mixed use development, zoning and farmland preservation
The area of farmland in London had already declined from the year 1997. Although horticultural
holdings in London continue to represent 17.5% of all farm types (compared to a UK average of
3.8%), they have been decreased due to urban development pressures and, in particular, the
development of Heathrow airport. The same goes for livestock numbers which are also
declining and only seven dairy farms now remain. (London Development Agency 2006) Hence:
‘’The London Plan seeks to encourage and support a thriving agriculture sector in London as
well as protecting the greenbelt…’’ (London Development Agency 2006 p.27)
Mix use development is favored by ‘The London Plan’ (GLA 2004, GLA 2011a). Mix use
development is also included in the policies that relate to the food sector and potentially can
improve food access (London Development Agency 2006). Taking account of how suitable
areas are for hosting mix use development is suggested in order to strengthen local
communities (GLA 2004, London Development Agency 2006) while supporting mix use
development in Town Centres in order to sustain and improve the viability and the vitality of
them is also noted (GLA 2004, London Development Agency 2006).
4.3.2 Transportation and Infrastructure
Transportation’s presence is highly noticeable in the report of London Development Agency
(2006). To begin with, transportation is one of the Mayoral strategies that influence food issues
(London Development Agency 2006). In some occasions transportation is stressed in terms of
environmental sustainability because of the emissions of malevolent fumes or food miles
(London Development Agency 2006). In another part of the report, the Mayoral strategies on
transportation modes and cleaner and quieter transport technologies are considered crucial for
the distribution of food (London Development Agency 2006). In other occasions it is being noted
as an important factor that is related to the function of food chains and to food access. For
example in (London Development Agency 2006) where transport is crucial for supporting food
access.
As stressed in 4.2.3 London Development Agency (2006) formed an architectural framework in
order to show the food issues and the relationships between food stages, the key actors of the
food sector and the key policy themes. Through this framework the close relationship of
transport with the food sector is pointed out via several ways. For example transportation is
important in terms of health and environment (due to emissions of malevolent gases) but it is
also important in terms of food access (due to dependence on mode of transport, infrastructure).
(London Development Agency 2006) What is more, The London Plan of GLA (2004) may not
refer directly on food as food is not the heart of the topic, however there are several Mayoral
policies that can be related to the food sector and also improve food access. That is why the
report of London Development Agency (2006) notes those policies in its Appendices.
Transportation’s significant role is highlighted in those policies according which, development
occurs or will occur in the places that is planned to happen and access to these places has to
be ensured through public transport, walking and cycling. Moreover, it has to be ensured that
development takes account of the existing or planned infrastructure (such as public
infrastructure or community infrastructure). (GLA 2004), London Development Agency 2006
GLA 2011a). In another example, the policies about ‘Town centres’ and ‘outer London centres’
55
points towards the identification of local centers and the support given to them by public
transportation, walking and cycling (GLA 2004, London Development Agency 2006, GLA 2011a)
Despite the relevance of transportation to food access and food planning as shown above, the
interviewees did not talk about it extensively.
‘’ ’Transport for London’ is an organization that operates buses and metro and they sometimes
provide these pieces of land alongside railways for local initiatives to grow food. So in that way
they are helping out and this is helping them in their image. Showing to the outside world how
good they are. ‘Transport for London’ is for public transport but also for roads. Not sure how
they are involved in transportation in terms of food.’’ (Interviewee 5)
4.3.3 Policies
Α powerful example of the close relationship between food planning and policy making and the
potential that lies in the integration and harmonization of them is the connection of The London
Plan with the food strategy of the city. As it is stressed above (4.3.2), policies that are entailed in
‘The London Plan’ of GLA (2004) can be beneficial for food planning and food access and this
got recognized/spotted by the food strategy and then showcased in the report of London
Development Agency (2006).
The report of the food strategy of the city is giving special attention to policies that are or should
be entailed in food management. For instance there are 5 basic considerations around:





Health
Environment
Economy
Society/Culture
Food Security
(London Development Agency 2006)
As explained in (4.2.3 and 4.3.2) there are some themes of importance of the London Plan that
link food policy with the food strategy and these have to do mainly with the establishment of a
viable, vibrant and coherent local community which consists of mix use development and town
centre development (in inner and outer London) that goes hand in hand with transportation in
order to provide food access food security to Londoners.
Legislation could form a barrier for food initiatives because many enterprises, especially smaller
ones find it hard to cope with the bulk of food-related legislation and ‘’frequently consider it
‘unfair’ ’’. (London Development Agency p.29)
4.3.4 Mapping food
Research and food skills are promoted in the food strategy of London. In specific, action on food
mapping and food deserts along with the inclusion of broader aspects of affordability and
distance to shops is proposed (London Development Agency 2006). ‘’Mapping can help
individuals and organisations to understand the problems faced by communities experiencing
56
food poverty, to assess local needs (e.g. the existence of food deserts) and target
interventions.’’ (The Food Commission (UK) and SUSTAIN p.22)
‘’East London did some mapping on affordability and accessibility of food. They went to all the
shops and markets and they mapped prices and variety and through that they investigated if
people had access to affordable and healthy food. This was related to this idea of food deserts.’’
(Interviewee 5)
The report of Food Commission and Sustain (2005) is occupied with how London’s planners
can help to improve food access. Mapping and monitoring are suggested and in specific:
‘’• Undertaking retail need and capacity assessments and Health Checks
• Contributing data and expertise to mapping exercises
• Helping to relate data to other demographic measures
• Helping to analyse the findings in terms of what can realistically be done to alleviate the
problems revealed (e.g. food deserts).’’ (Food Commission and Sustain 2005 p. 22)
In the same report there are examples of mapping efforts. The map below (Figure 11) shows
which residential areas of Brent are within easy walking distance of a shop selling fruit and
vegetables.
Figure 11. Distance of residential areas to fruit and vegetables retail. Source: The Food Commission
(UK) and Sustain (2005 p.22)
57
The following map (Figure 12), produced by the planning department of the London Borough of
Croydon, shows which residential areas of Croydon are more than 400m from green space.
Figure 12. Distance of residential areas to green spaces. Source: The Food Commission (UK) and
Sustain (2005 p.23)
More examples of food mapping are provided in Sustain (2014), where actions of (London’s)
Boroughs in terms of food are showcased through maps. For instance, the map right below is
showing a classification of the Boroughs according to each Borough’s involvement in community
food growing and local food planning. Capital Growth that is mentioned in the Legend of the
map is a network on food growing for all of London’s boroughs (see also 4.2.3)
58
Figure 13. Boroughs and their stance towards community food production and local planning policy.
Source: Sustain (2014 p.7)
59
5. Discussion
In this chapter the results of both case studies are discussed in the context of the scientific
literature. This chapter includes four subchapters. Subchapter 5.1 discusses the first
subresearch question and hints on the second subresearch question, subchapter 5.2. focuses
on the second subresearch question and subchapter 5.3 discusses the third subresearch
question. Subchapter 5.4 deals with the last subresearch question.
5.1
Spatial characteristics of short food supply chains
The first subresearch question was: ‘’What are the spatial characteristics of SFSCs?’’
SFSCs, alternative food (networks/systems) and local food are used interchangeably. In the
literature there is an overlap between the terms alternative food, local food and short food
supply chains (with closer distances between production and consumption). This overlap is also
noticed in the case studies. This master-thesis is focusing on SFSCs, however local food was
also reviewed as a synonym, due to the overlap of their definitions.
After the literature review some spatial characteristics that were discriminated are: Geographical
proximity between production and consumption of food and/or geographical proximity between
different stages of the food cycle, predefined distances between production and consumption of
food and/or predefined distances between the different stages of the food cycle, reference to a
spatial area that is easily distinguished (neighborhood, city/town, county, region, providence),
boundaries that delineate any of the stages of the food cycle and/or boundaries that delineate
the area of production and the area of consumption of food and indication of locations of any
part of the food chain. Definitions of local food/SFSCs using a radius of miles/kilometers and
definitions using the area demarked by boarders of the city or the region were found in the
literature and in the case studies. Overall, the case study showed that spatial characteristics of
SFSCs are information on location of food stages, on their size, on their distances. The same
vague way of discussing the spatial aspect of SFSCs was found in both the literature and the
case studies. Taking into account the length of food supply chains, this master-thesis considers
the spatial characteristics of the stages from production to consumption as demarcated areas
that belong to a map of the flow of the SFSCs. In this map the food hotspots are also included.
5.2
Spatial characteristics of SFSCs in the urban food strategy documents
The second subresearch question was: ‘’Which spatial characteristics are present in the urban food
strategies and which are not?’’
In Toronto’s food strategy there are no distances in miles noted between production and
consumption of food. Instead, bringing production closer to consumption and having closer
distances in the food chain are noted. However, the interviewees did acknowledge a distance of
100 kms when defining local for Toronto, a distance that they do not necessarily use as a
pattern for their local food plans. Locations of some foodhubs and of some areas of stages of
the food chain are noted though. The food strategy of London provides with distances between
production and consumption in the definition of local food (see also 4.2.2) and notes proximity in
the food chain. Locations of areas of the food chain are given as well and they are noted in 5.2.
In a similar way with the case of Toronto, walking, cycling and bus-route distances are also
60
mentioned in the food strategy of the city. Therefore, spatial characteristics are found in the
strategies, but their presence overall is not an intense one and still those characteristics are not
defined clearly as their meaning gets lost in more vague notions of local food. In addition, the
spatial characteristics are sometimes noted in the food strategies but without further explanation
of them, while in other instances spatial characteristics could be spotted through the whole
meaning of the narrative text and not expressed verbatim.
Spatial characteristics of SFSCs of the components of SFSCs
The case studies showed their basic interest in a holistic management of the city’s food supply
chain. ‘’From throw it to grow it’’ for Toronto and ‘’From farm to fork’’ for London. In both cases
the stages (components) of the food supply chain are noted. In London’s food strategy these
stages are not only noted but they are used as thematic chapters of the document. London
Development Agency (2006 p.27) notes the connection of Mayoral Strategies with sectors of
food chain, however there is not rich information provided on their spatial characteristics and
even less information on the synergies between the various food chain sectors. The same goes
for the case of Toronto. In general, London’s food strategy notes that agricultural land is
concentrated in outer London, manufacturing activity is concentrated in a number of industrial
locations and areas of food retail are distributed across London’s town centre network and outof-centre developments. The food production stage, the distribution stage and the retail stage of
the food chain get the most attention in the food strategy. Although the distribution part is found
frequently in the food strategy, it is not discussed in terms of connections with the rest of the
stages. The locations of stages of London’s food chain (found in the food strategy) are the
following: Food production areas in Greater London and the Green Belt and a 85% of London’s
farmland is found in mainly five boroughs: Bromley (30%), Havering (24%), Hillingdon (13%),
Enfield (12%) and Barnet (6%) In both cases (pre)processing, packing or caning and distributing
channels are not explained in terms of spatial aspect. Most of the attention is drawn by food
production and food wholesale and retail. Food production takes a big part in food strategy of
Toronto. Areas of food production are noted such as the outskirts of the city, the Greater
Toronto Area and specifically the Golden Horseshoe area are noted as food production sites.
Moreover, in food production sites are included the food-friendly neighborhoods and the
community food centres of the city (in terms of urban agriculture and community agriculture). To
continue with, the retail stage is prominent in the food strategy of Toronto and spatial
information are given on already existing food retail sites and on proposed future retail sites.
The food-friendly neighborhoods can be also food retail spots and the same goes for the urban
parks, the community centres of the city while the big wholesale market of the city is the ‘Ontario
Food Terminal’. Again in a similar way London highlights High streets as mainly food retail
areas and the same goes for Town Centres (that are mapped out as well). Similarly with
Toronto’s case, food access is a main concern of the food strategy and this means that people
should have access to healthy food by covering walking distances or by using a public transport
route (retail sector to consumption).
Food access is prominent in the food strategies and this means that weight from the strategy is
given to the ease of access of consumers to healthy food. The food strategies underline the
61
close distances between neighborhoods and food retail points. This distance should be
coverable by walking or by bus route. Interviewees from the case also underlined the same.
Other documents such as Dunn’s (2013) push for a provision of space and infrastructure for
local production, processing, distribution and retail of local food by the Municipality. The
interviewees of Toronto point out that the food policy and the food strategy teams haven’t done
a lot on the other stages of the food chain besides food production and retail. Moreover, they
noted that they are not fully aware of the exact flows of food and synergies in-between the
components of the city’s food chain although they deemed it is necessary to happen.
5.3 The reasons for the way the spatial characteristics of SFSCs are used in
the food strategies
The third subresearch question was: ‘’What is the reason for the inclusion/exclusion of spatial
characteristics of SFSCs in urban food strategy documents?’’
Toronto and London do not have the advantage of a good climate so they cannot produce
throughout all the year, thus relying to a big extent to local production is not feasible. London’s
empirical data underline that the Mayor is not able to implement on his own and he can only
aspire and stimulate Londoners. In addition, the empirical findings note that it makes no sense
for the Mayor to pinpoint exact distances in local food. The food policy and food strategy teams
do not stick to argumentations over notions of ‘local’ and of specific distances between the
production and the consumption of food. Instead of getting entangled with alternative/local
versus mainstream/industrial battle, they just frame healthy food and use this as a main goal.
Therefore, the spatial characteristics of SFSCs are not a part of the discussion neither a point of
interest in food policy and food strategy teams. This way, the various companies, entrepreneurs,
farmers either local/alternative or mainstream are following their own strategy, which is decided
in a big part by profit. Hence, these food ‘actors’ will need an extra motive to put sustainability
and short supply chains in their agenda. On the other hand, the case studies (mostly the
interviews) showed an interest in the components of the food chains and in the spatial
characteristics of them because by getting to know the locations and the proximities of the
components of the food supply chain, knowledge is also gained on the interplay between these
components and it is then easier to establish a trustworthy food network.
On the whole, discrimination of components of the food chain needs attention both from the
scientific literature and the urban food strategies. There is no need to get stuck in specific
distances or proximities or locations as if they are the ideal ones. But when it comes for the
establishment of a healthy food system or improving it and for supporting SFSCs, knowing
locations, distances and boundaries of the components of the food chain is basic and helpful for
future studies and implementation of plans and policies. For example, through the case studies
two important goals of the cities stand out. Both cities aim for preservation of food production
areas (-while growth from built environment pushes against that) and for finding new food
production sites not to mention and explain the new ways of food production that are also
getting important in management of current megalopolis. In order for the cities to deal with the
above, a good and overall view of the food chains that run through the cities is fundamental and
is going to assist decision-making.
62
5.4 Spatial planning’s role in the development of SFSCs through food
strategies
The third subresearch question was: ‘’What is or what can be the role of spatial planning in supporting
the development of SFSCs in the context of urban food strategy documents?’’
To answer this subquestion, the roles of spatial planning are given first and in the next
paragraphs the urban food strategies are discussed as the means to connect and harmonize
the development of SFSCs with spatial planning.
Spatial planning’s actions include: Preventing loss of agricultural land. Finding the proper
spaces for growing food. Creating healthy food networks that serve people, especially deprived
people. Promoting mix-use landscapes that incorporate food production transportation and food
selling or any of the stages of the food chain and assist food access as well. Including food
issues and goals in transportation projects and plans. Working so transportation assists the
creation of food networks and ensuring a continuous flow of healthy food in these networks.
Moreover, food mapping indicates specific areas in relation to food (food access, food facilities,
existing or potential food production sites) Examples of food mapping are given in the chapters
3 and 4. Another example though is given on Figure 14. This example assists the work on food
access in specific neighborhoods. In this map a residential area of Toronto is surrounded by
industrial facilities, hence food access is deprived. The aforementioned actions/roles of spatial
planning were found in the scientific literature relevant with food planning as noted in 2.5
(Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999, Marsden and Sonnino 2008, Sonnino 2009, Morgan and
Sonnino 2010, Brinkley 2013) and in the case studies. While the next actions of spatial planning
derived from the case studies. Assessing the location of food facilities of stages of the food
chain and prevent from overloading food places in a certain area while other areas are deprived
of food facilities (especially for food retail). Making sure that housing doesn’t stand on the way of
creating healthy and sustainable food networks. Instead housing should take into account food
networks and it could provide spaces for food.
All the above roles need to team up with policies that enable the food production the food
preprocessing and the food distribution, take care of the land-use to make sure there is enough
space for food initiatives and also proper space that will increase food access would make a
promising way of action towards healthy food in a city. Moreover, working on policies that are
restrictive to food facilities/initiatives as a valid land use should be a core interest of food
planners (licensing problem was highlighted by Toronto Public Health 2010 p.13, p.17 and
Interviewees 1 and 3) This way, an extra role of spatial planning is to recognize the importance
of policies that relate to food issues and stay close to the policy-making process.
63
Figure 14. Residential areas with problematic access to food stores. Souce: Emanuel (2013, p.16)
Brinkley’s research (2013) underlines the need of ‘’communication’’ between the different
departments and between the different levels of government in order to assist food planning and
food management. Through the document review Dunn (2013) stresses that jurisdiction over
food and agriculture in Canada belongs to local, provincial, and federal levels of government as
well as between ministries or departments. Eight federal ministries, departments and agencies
are responsible for the different departments and levels of government are not working with an
integrated food systems planning. This can lead to contradictions of departmental goals and
objectives. Furthermore, Ontario decides for the land uses in Toronto as interviewee 2 notes. In
the same line Toronto’s food strategy urges that cities should partner with and advocate to other
levels of government such as provincial and federal authorities (Toronto Public Health 2010
p.17). Once again: ‘’food requires horizontal management or, in a municipal context,
collaboration across city divisions’’. (Toronto public Health 2010 p.24) What is more, food
management is itself a multidisciplinary process as food is in the basis of people’s everyday life
and a lot of scientific fields are occupied with food. In this point, the importance of food
strategies gets celebrated as the strategies can work as an ideal stimulant and the ideal
platform for all the different fields of expertise to deal with food issues and the different levels of
government to get together for a healthier food system that is oriented towards sustainability. In
other words, urban food strategies as a multidisciplinary approach towards the goals of the city
on food issues, they are the ideal advocators for planning and SFSCs.
The food strategy needs the contribution of other administrative or research fields and levels in
order to be able to carry out its mission towards its goals. Team work is required at national
level, regional level and local level and various scientific fields (e.g. environmental and
agriculture, policy studies and planning, economic studies) need to work together in order to
establish transparent and sustainable food chains. The Mayor cannot enforce the food agenda
through the food strategy (Interviewee 5). The food companies and food professionals and the
contractors need to be stimulated so they view and comprehend the goals of the food strategy.
Planning’s role is important but without assistance and support from other institutional and
strategic forces planning cannot deal properly with the issues and goals set (for food
64
management) (London Development Agency 2006, p.22). Therefore the urban food strategies
and spatial planning should complete each other. A healthy and close relationship between the
two will not only ease their actions and goals but it will also create a powerful channel that leads
to sustainable food management. Spatial planning is already close to urban food strategies,
however their relationship should get even better and their agendas should truly fulfill each
other. For example if the London Plan was aware of the food strategy’s specific goals and
specific actions to reach these goals, then the presence of food in the London Plan would be
more clarified and solid. Because at the moment the London Plan contains policies that fit
exactly with the food strategy’s aims but only someone who studied both documents can realize
the connections (e.g. in mix use development, in retail in Town Centres) between the urban food
strategy and the London Plan (for more on London Plan’s connection with the food strategy see
chapter 4). The example that follows right below was given by Interviewee 5 and it adds to the
importance of the food strategy and connects it with planning as well.
‘’ ‘Queensmarket’. It is a market with fresh food that is also cheap. The rest of the area has just
chicken and chips which is unhealthy. The municipality wanted to downsize and relocate the
market. There was also a supermarket there. The people protested and they said that if you
downsize this market, it will be less access to healthy and affordable food and they showed that
by referring to the local food strategy or the Mayor’s food strategy. That’s how food strategy is
used it’s an argument for shops, local people, or municipality to make in a decision or another.’’
(Interviewee 5)
‘’Like the example that I gave you with this redevelopment area, local Municipality or local
borough can make planning documents as these planning documents can be evaluated by
people but also by other planners, or politicians they can be evaluated in light of some of the
food strategies (local or the Mayor’s strategy) and then people can point out whether or not it is
in line with the food strategy and if it’s in their favor. Planning policies maybe want to downsize
fresh market and this is in contradiction with what your earlier promises, with what you have in
the food strategy and what you want for London.’’ (Interviewee 5)
65
6. Conclusion
The concluding chapter of this master-thesis contains three subchapters. The first subchapter
attempts to give an answer to the main research question by connecting the information
attained by the scientific literature and by the case studies and by keeping a reflexive attitude on
them. The second subchapter reflects on the methodology and the framework that were used
for fulfilling the objectives of this research and reviews the credibility of the process followed
throughout the data collection and assessment. This way, the third subchapter completes this
master-thesis by suggesting future research that can support alternative food networks, short
food supply chains or normal food supply chains and food planning.
6.1 The spatial characteristics’ meaning for a holistic food system
management and the implications for spatial planning
The main research question was: ‘’What is the role of spatial characteristics of SFSCs in urban food
strategies and what are the implications for spatial planning?’’
Reaching the main research question of this master-thesis, a step back needs to be taken in
order to view the bigger picture that contains the spatial characteristics of the SFSCs, the food
chain management and food planning. In the next two paragraphs the role of spatial
characteristics is concluded and in the last paragraph the implications for spatial planning are
noted.
The research showed that the role of some spatial characteristics in urban food strategies is
more significant than the role of other spatial characteristics. To be precise, the kilometrical (or
mile) distance from consumption to production of food and the radius of local food are not found
very important in the case studies, whereas the locations of the components of the food supply
chains, the distances or proximities between them and their intercommunication were found
much more significant in the case studies. Specific distances between production and
consumption of food are not defined in order to be used ad hoc in every situation because the
size of cities varies and the gist is not in strictly abiding by the kilometrical distances but in
keeping attention to a healthy food system that does not overexploit sources and provides
healthy food to the people at the same time. Local should not be embraced or glorified instantly
without further scrutiny, because local itself is not the answer to sustainability. The answer lies
in establishing healthy food networks. Therefore, spatial characteristics that reveal the interplay
between the components of the food supply chains lead to a better management of the food
chain. Moreover, these spatial characteristics make evaluation and feedback of the food chains
easier. Knowledge on the parts of the food supply chains helps food experts, planners, policymakers and the Government to deal with the whole food chain. In terms of awareness and
clarity of each city’s food chains, the interconnection of food stages, the quality of food, the
economical assessment of value -added are assisted. Hence, in the last place, sustainability
can be assisted as well.
To properly support the above, let’s start from food production and the places/spaces of food.
As it is already underlined in the previous chapters, food production needs to be boosted but
sustainability and climate change has to be taken also in account. Hence, the intensity of
producing food should not just go on in the same source-depleting way that was going till today.
66
At the same time, concerns and questions rise on the space(s) of food chains. In an era of fast
development in various fields (e.g. transportation, leisure etc.) questions rise on how are those
developments in different fields going to satisfy their demands for space (Defra 2009 p.27). The
document of Defra (2007) shows analysis that supports greater transparency and clear terms of
contract in the supply chain would not only promote fair business practice but could also reduce
over-production, waste and resource inefficiency. As noted in the last paragraph of 5.2, current
administrations need to deal with preserving the existing food production sites and finding new
areas of food production. These needs find current development of cities in built environment,
housing, offices etc. (sprawl of cities) as an obstacle for the establishment and preservation of
spaces for food, because those ‘hunts’ for space lead to conflicting land uses. Moreover, the
mix-use development that is also a goal of the administrations the planning groups and the food
policy teams of the case studies steps in this spot to provide food facilities close with other
forms of land use. In this crucial spot, the relevance and the significance of having a proper view
of the spatial characteristics of the short or longer food chains gets highlighted. In addition, both
cases pinpoint a goal of their food strategy and their planning group. This goal is to establish
networks of food that serve as many people of city as possible. Town Centres highlighted in
London’s food strategy and food centres (or foodhubs) in neighborhood level are underlined in
Toronto’s food strategy. Therefore, the more clarity on the spatial characteristics of the
components of the food chain, the easier the process of establishing food networks is and there
are more chances of a successful effort in creating these food networks.
As a result, the implications for spatial planning are significant. The spatial characteristics that
are valuable for the establishment of a healthy food network, are themselves a proof of the
inclusion of food in the planner’s manual. First off, a serious implication for spatial planning is
that the need to assess the spatial aspect of food chains (spatial characteristics, mapping,
understanding the flows of food) showcases spatial planning’s entanglement to food
management. Some spatial characteristics highlight gaps in food chain management and point
towards a deeper understanding of the complex world of food. ‘’Where transparency is
concerned, understanding the location of each point in the journey food travels from trough to
table is essential.’’ (Thompson 2015)
6.2 Reflection on the methodology used
General reflection
To begin with the empirical dimension of this research, case studies provide a rich source of
insights when the research aims at ‘’exploring and explaining process’’ (Tregear 2011 p.429),
therefore they fit for the present topic of research. On the other hand though, ‘’case studies in
AFN research appear to play a primarily demonstrative role - to show or reveal the existence of
a phenomenon introduced as a pre-defined concept in a study’s contextualisation. The risk with
this approach is that empirical material becomes a confirmatory adjunct to a pre-determined
argument, rather than a source of complex insights upon which arguments can be tested and
refined.’’ (Tregear 2011 p.429) Therefore, both the researcher who is using case studies and
the reader have to be aware of the latter in order to avoid biased results and conclusions.
67
Reflection on document study
Document study was a successful way of assessing the relevant research questions. In specific,
food strategy documents proved reliable for the provision of information on spatial
characteristics. The documents for the city proved also helpful in giving a good idea of the
context in which the spatial characteristics are used. Further, since food strategies are a
cumulative effort in food issues they gave valuable information on spatial planning’s relationship
with food and food strategies. Through the urban food strategies the reader gets prompted to
other official city documents. The rest of the official documents (e.g. The London Plan) were
also a rich source of information on specific goals of spatial planning, policy – making and they
were completing the picture.
Reflection on conducting interviews
First off, interviewing various people who are associated with the food chain (either managing it
or taking care of it or taking part in it) in practice proved a good way of gathering information and
data due to the richness of information that the interviewees can give due to their special
knowledge (field knowledge, on practical matters). Toronto’s interviewees were both eager to
discuss and they were all well informed on food issues, hence they provided me with interesting
information. However, there were difficulties in the process of interview making as well. In order
to get a satisfactory number of interviewees with a satisfactory profession or knowledge on food
was really time consuming. For example, for the case of London it took a lot of time to conduct
all the needed interviews. The interviewees were not so eager to give their time and they didn’t
really seem to be fully focused on my questions. Therefore, London interviews didn’t give
neither the quantity nor the quality of data that the interviewees from Toronto gave. Some of
them didn’t know specific details about the spatial aspect of the city’s food chain. For the case of
London there was a struggle to find interviewees that were experienced or well informed on my
topic. Board members of ‘London Food’ were the ‘target group’ for this research, because they
know first-hand the latest ideas, goals on food and they could provide reasoning behind them.
Unfortunately, even after several efforts to reach some of them, the contacts never happened.
One the one hand I was fortunate enough to find people who were professionally or
academically dealing with food for both cases. On the other hand though, the results from the
interviews would be more complete if food planners would be interviewed. Planners could give
more solid information on the spatial characteristics and their meaning and for the spatial
planning’s role. Moreover, the results would have been more complete if I could have
information on both the official-municipal/regional level and the entrepreneurship and the farmer
level.
6.3 Recommendations for further research
Instead of being only based on theoretical views, the mapping of food hubs, food hotspots
should be boosted because it can give solid data on every part of the food chain no matter if the
data are on mainstream food chains or alternative (SFSCs). Broekhof and Van der Valk (2012)
point out the importance of this and they are not the only ones that do so. There is research on
mapping food such as identification and depiction of urban agriculture sites using ArcGIS and
68
Google images, which showed that land of food production in the city is an extensive land-use
type (Taylor and Lovell 2012) Another research that uses multiple data (except the spatial ones)
puts together economic data, population density data and spatial data meaning distances to
farms in order to form a tool for territorial analysis. Important, as it helps planners to know the
agricultural areas (that have to be preserved and not overwhelmed by the expansion of cities)
and to plan for them.
Food mapping has already been initiated in both the case studies of the present master-thesis
as well. Maps that contain geographical data compared with non-geographical ones exist.
However, it seems that the food policy council and the food strategy team need more time to
interpret the results from those maps and to get a good picture of the various stages of their
food chain and to actually implement these maps and data to real case projects of the city.
(Interviewees 1 and 3) Therefore food mapping should move on, become more popular and
collect new kinds of data. These new kinds of data such as data on what kind of process the
food went through, data on hygiene of farms and other facilities of the food chain, or data on
animals paired with geographical data together they can produce new insights. New insights
that are valuable in terms of environmental sustainability, in terms of economy, in terms of food
quality, in terms of animal care and in terms of a holistic management of food by cities. In other
words, people occupied with food professionally, authorities and consumers get significant
knowledge on what is happening in their food supply chain. (Thompson 2015) To sum up, as
Thompson (2015) clearly notes: ‘’By linking geographic information to non-spatial data it’s
possible to simplify the complex web of origins and process points so food chains can be more
easily understood, accessed, traced and tracked.’’
Food waste is rightfully a trending topic currently, because it is the part of the food system in
which the food cycle can be closed. Instead of filling landfills with food waste, new ways of using
food waste should become easily implemented. Similarly with food mapping, although food
waste is in the heart of relevant research, it still requires more attention
Time’s influence should not be neglected in research on sustainable food. Cities nowadays are
after resiliency. Being able to ‘afford’ future changes in land uses, landscape and in needs and
goals of the community or of the government is of vital importance. Food clusters equipped with
this resiliency could be the answer to the ongoing need of cities to develop and adjust to the
modern needs/trends. Scientific literature (Blay-Palmer and Donald 2006 and Jarosz 2008),
interviewees 1 and 3, Dunn (2013) and Toronto Public Health (2010 p.12) all point out the role
of time in food systems. ‘’We’re trying to understand the shifts that are happening because of
this development and pressure’’ (Interviewee 1). Research that puts food chain management
and food planning, especially alternative and local food into the perspective of time is more than
desirable as food initiatives can be a solution to the ongoing changes on a city’s land-uses that
result in vacant and unexploited lots. Assessment of the dynamics in food growing sites, food
processing and distribution sites etc. should be conducted and supported. Hence, local and
healthy food is supported and healthy food access can increase but also the governance and
management of land-uses can be assisted, especially in urban areas that suffer from vacant lots
and empty old areas.
69
Economic research and logistics are also a significant part that requires attention by scholars
and government. It is obvious that since tracking food, and hosting a sustainable cycle of food
requires labor, technology and of course money. As stressed in 6.2, transparency throughout
the food chain and proper communication between the different stages of the food chain is
supporting sustainability. Therefore, in this crucial part logistics should function in
acknowledgement of the transparency of the food chains. Economists should test implicated
initiatives in monetary terms, but they should also produce future scenarios of food chain
management.
Last but not least, the social aspect is also important. All the above prescriptions would not
really mean something unless they are not in line with citizens’ needs, desires and their way of
life. Moreover, through social research a lot of issues throughout the food chain can be revealed
that official plans and policies cannot easily identify.
On the whole, this master thesis has noted and underlined the nature of food sector issues. The
connection of various fields of science, various levels of administration and various stakeholders
is also highlighted. Therefore, this multidisciplinary nature of food issues demands
multidisciplinary research and collaboration between different scientific fields, between different
levels of administration and between different stakeholders. Further, collaboration between the
scientific field, the administrative and official field and of course the people/residents of cities is
also required. The harmonization of all the above can provide with new astonishing solutions on
food issues. Cities should realize that they do have the potential to move on towards
sustainable food. ‘’Cities have more influence over how food systems work than many suppose,
and could have more influence if they started to identify, name and internationally leverage what
they can do in support of a healthy, sustainable food system.’’ (Toronto Public Health 2010
p.16)
70
Bibliography
Agnew, J. (2005). "Spaces of geographical thought: deconstructing human geography’s binaries. Space:
Place" Cloke, P. and Johnston, R.(eds.) London, Sage.
Blay-Palmer, A. and B. Donald (2006). "A Tale of Three Tomatoes: The New Food Economy in Toronto,
Canada." Economic Geography 82(4): 383-399.
Born, B. and M. Purcell (2006). "Avoiding the local trap scale and food systems in planning research."
Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(2): 195-207.
Brinkley, C. (2013). "Avenues into food planning: a review of scholarly food system research."
International Planning Studies 18(2): 243-266.
Broekhof, S. and A. Van der Valk (2012). "Planning and the quest for sustainable food systems:
explorations of unknown territory in planning research. " Sustainable food planning: evolving theory and
practice. Wageningen Academic Publishers The Netherlands, 2012: 393 - 404.
Bukeviciute L., et al. (1999). "The functioning of the food supply chain and its effect on food prices in the
European Union." European Commission, Brussels Belgium.
Cox, R., et al. (2008). "Common ground? Motivations for participation in a community-supported
agriculture scheme." Local environment 13(3): 203-218.
Cresswell, T. (2004). "Place: A Short Introduction." Wiley.
Dansero, E. and M. Puttilli (2013). "Multiple territorialities of alternative food networks: six cases from
Piedmont, Italy." Local environment 19(6): 626-643.
DuPuis, E. M. (2002). "Nature's perfect food: How milk became America's drink." NYU Press.
DuPuis, E. M. (2005). "From Veils and Chains to Nets and Scales: Some Notes on the Strawberry
Commodity and the Ironies of Body and Place." Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting.
DuPuis, E. M. and D. Goodman (2005). "Should we go “home” to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of
localism." Journal of Rural Studies 21(3): 359-371.
FAO (2009). "More People than Ever Are Victims of Hunger." Rome.
Feagan, R. (2007). "The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems." Progress in Human
Geography 31(1): 23-42.
Feagan, R., et al. (2004). "Niagara region farmers' markets: local food systems and sustainability
considerations." Local environment 9(3): 235-254.
Feenstra, G. W. (1997). "Local food systems and sustainable communities." American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture 12(01): 28-36.
Goodman, D. (2009). "Place and space in alternative food networks: Connecting production and
consumption." Environment, Politics and Development Working Paper Series 21.
71
Goodman, D. and M. K. Goodman (2009). "Food Networks, Alternative." International Encyclopedia of
Human Geography. R. Kitchin and N. Thrift. Oxford, Elsevier: 208-220.
Goodman, D. and M. Watts (1997). "Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring."
Routledge.
Halweil, B. (2002). "Home grown : the case for local food in a global market" / Brian Halweil ; Thomas
Prugh, editor. Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute.
Harris, E. M. (2010). "Eat Local? Constructions of Place in Alternative Food Politics." Geography Compass
4(4): 355-369.
Hinrichs, C. C. and T. A. Lyson (2007). "Remaking the North American food system: Strategies for
sustainability." U of Nebraska Press.
Ilbery, B. and D. Maye (2005). "Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food
producers in the Scottish/English borders." Land Use Policy 22(4): 331-344.
Jarosz, L. (2008). "The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas."
Journal of Rural Studies 24(3): 231-244.
Kebir, L. and A. Torre (2012). "10 Geographical proximity and new short supply food chains." Creative
Industries and Innovation in Europe: Concepts, Measures and Comparative Case Studies 57: 194.
Kloppenburg Jr, J., et al. (1996). "Coming in to the foodshed." Agriculture and Human Values 13(3): 3342.
Kneafsey, M. (2010). "The region in food—important or irrelevant?" Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society 3(2): 177-190.
Kneafsey, M., et al. (2013). "Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play
of their Socio-Economic Characteristics." S. G. y. P. Fabien Santini, European Commission. Joint Research
Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Lerman, T., et al. (2012). ''A practitioner's Guide to Resources and Publications on Food Hubs and
Values-Based Supply Chains: A Literature Review''. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Program. Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis.
Mansfield, B. and W. Mendes (2012). "Municipal Food Strategies and Integrated Approaches to Urban
Agriculture: Exploring Three Cases from the Global North." International Planning Studies 18(1): 37-60.
Marsden, T., et al. (2000). "Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development."
Sociologia Ruralis 40(4): 424-438.
Marsden, T. and R. Sonnino, (2008). "Rural development and the regional state: Denying multifunctional
agriculture in the UK." Journal of Rural Studies 24(4): 422-431.
Massey, D. (1999). "Spaces of politics." In: Massey, D., Allen, J. and Sarre, P., (eds.) Human geography
today. Cambridge, Polity Press.
72
Mazzocchi, Chiara, et al. (2013). "Land use conversion in metropolitan areas and the permanence of
agriculture: Sensitivity Index of Agricultural Land (SIAL), a tool for territorial analysis." Land Use Policy
35: 155-162.
Morgan, K. (2009). "Feeding the City: The Challenge of Urban Food Planning." International Planning
Studies 14(4): 341-348.
Morgan, K and Sonnino, R. (2010). "The urban foodscape: world cities and the new food equation."
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society: rsq007
Norberg-Hodge, H., Merrifield, T., Gorelick, S. (2002). "Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local
Alternatives to Global Agribusiness." Zed Books, London.
Novel, A.-S. (2010). "Le guide du locavore pour mieux consommer local." Editions Eyrolles.
Pothukuchi, K. and J. L. Kaufman (1999). "Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of
municipal institutions in food systems planning." Agriculture and Human Values 16(2): 213-224.
Pothukuchi, K. and J. L. Kaufman (2000). "The food system: A stranger to the planning field." Journal of
the American Planning Association 66(2): 113-124.
Renting, H., et al. (2003). "Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food
supply chains in rural development." Environment and planning A 35(3): 393-412.
Smith, A. and J. B. MacKinnon (2007). "Plenty: one man, one woman, and a raucous year of eating
locally." Harmony Books.
Sonnino, R. (2007). "Embeddedness in action: Saffron and the making of the local in southern Tuscany."
Agriculture and Human Values 24(1): 61-74.
Sonnino, R. (2009). "Feeding the city: Towards a new research and planning agenda." International
Planning Studies 14(4): 425-435.
Sonnino, R. and T. Marsden (2006). "Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between alternative
and conventional food networks in Europe." Journal of Economic Geography 6(2): 181-199.
Taylor, John R. and Lovell, Sarah Taylor (2012). "Mapping public and private spaces of urban agriculture
in Chicago through the analysis of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth." Landscape and Urban
Planning 108(1): 57-70.
Thompson, S. (2015). "From trough to table: mapping the food chain saves lives. Tracking produce
prevents the spread of disease and tackles food fraud." The Guardian newspaper. Guardian sustainable
business. Supply chain. Accessed online on 15 May 2015. url: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/2015/jan/16/trough-table-mapping-food-supply-chain
Tregear, A. (2011). "Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: Critical reflections
and a research agenda." Journal of Rural Studies 27(4): 419-430.
UN (2010). "World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision. Highlights." United Nations, Department
of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York (2010).
73
UN (2012). "World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision." United Nations, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division
Wakernagel, M. and W. Rees (1996). "Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth."
Gabriola Island, New Society Publishers.
Watts, D. C., et al. (2005). "Making reconnections in agro-food geography: alternative systems of food
provision." Progress in Human Geography 29(1): 22-40.
Wells, B., et al. (1999). "Growing food, growing community: community supported agriculture in rural
Iowa." Community development journal 34(1): 38-46.
Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2009). "On Places Lost and Places Regained: Reflections on the Alternative Food
Geography and Sustainable Regional Development." International Planning Studies 14(4): 369-387.
Document Study London
BBC (2015). London's population hits 8.6m record high. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/ukengland-london-31082941.
Cabinet Office (2008). Food Matters Report. London, Cabinet Office.
Defra (2007). Food Industry Sustainability Strategy. © Crown copyright 2006, Defra, Area 4A, Nobel
House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR.
Defra (2009). UK Food Security Assessment: Our Approach.
GLA (1999). Greater London Authority Act. Chapter 29. London. Part I, Section 2. ‘Membership of the
Authority and the Assembly.’ p.2
GLA (2004). The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. City Hall Queen's Walk
London, Greater London Authority.
GLA (2010). Cultivating the capital. Food growing and the planning system of London. London Assembly.
Planning and Housing Committee. City Hall The Queen's Walk London, Greater London Authority.
GLA (2011a). The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. City Hall The Queen's
Walk London, Greater London Authority.
GLA (2011b). The Mayor’s Food Strategy: Healthy and Sustainable Food for London. An Implementation
Plan 2011 – 2013. City Hall The Queen’s Walk, London. Greater London Authority.
GLA (2014). Town Centres. Supplementary Planning Guide. London Plan Implementation Framework.
City Hall The Queen’s Walk, London. Greater London Authority.
GLA (not dated). Greater London Authority. Retrieved from: https://www.london.gov.uk/mayorassembly/gla.
HM Government (2010). Food 2030. London, The Stationery Office.
London Development Agency (2006). Healthy and Sustainable Food for London. The Mayor's Food
Strategy. London, London Development Agency.
London Development Agency (2007). Healthy and Sustainable Food for London. The Mayor's Food
Strategy Implementaion Plan. London, London Development Agency.
74
Mayor’s Press Releases (2015). Mayor’s Press releases. London population confirmed at record high.
Retrieved from: https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2015/02/london-populationconfirmed-at-record-high.
Sustain (2014). Good Food for London 2014. How London Boroughs can help secure a healthy and
sustainable food future. Sustain, Development House, 56 - 64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. Notes:
The statements and opinions expressed in this report should not be attributed to any individual or
organisation unless explicitly connected, “by quotation”, with that person or organisation. The report is a
compilation of work of independent members of Sustain, London Food Link and several members of the
London Food Board. The London Borough maps of action that are shown in this report are correct to the
best of the evidence available to us at the time of publication. We have made every effort to ensure that
we highlight good practice of London Boroughs. However, if things have improved in your borough, or if
you think there is more good food activity that we have missed, please let us know and we will update
the maps and commentary. We further note that the City of London is a much smaller borough than
others, with different infrastructure and opportunities to promote good food. On some issues, the City of
London may therefore be less able to act than on others.
The Food Commission (UK) and Sustain (2005). The alliance for better food and farming. How London’s
planners can improve access to healthy and affordable food. London.
Document study Toronto
Baker, Lauren (2013). Municipal Food Policy From the Ground Up: The Toronto Experience. Toronto
Public Health, Toronto Food Policy Council.
Bloom, Michael (2014). From Opportunity to Achievement: Canadian Food Strategy. Ottawa Canada,
The Conference Board of Canada.
City of Toronto (not dated). Toronto Facts. Diversity. Retrieved 13/06/2015 from:
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=dbe867b42d853410VgnVCM10000071d60
f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=57a12cc817453410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
Clean Air Partnership (2011). Local Food Procurement Actions and Reports Scan. Toronto Canada, Clean
Air Partnership.
Dunn, Burgandy (2013). Increasing Access to Local Food: Policies From Other Places as a Guide to
Increasing Local Food Access through Land Use Planning in Ontario, Sustain Ontario; Canadian
Environmental Law Association.
Emanuel, Barbara (2013). The Toronto Food Strategy: Integrating Food into Local Government. Toronto
Public Health Toronto Canada.
Food Secure Canada (2011). Reseting the Table. A people's food policy for Canada. Canada, Creative
Commons.
Institute for Food and Development Policy (2009). Food Policy Councils (FCP): Lessons Learned. Institute
for Food and Development Policy, place published not available.
The Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (2011). Canada's Agri-Food Destination. A new strategic
approach. Otawa Canada, The Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute.
75
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture (2011). Towards a National Food Strategy. A framework for
securing the future of food. Canada, The Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
The Conference Board of Canada (2012). Improving Health Outcomes: The Role of Food in Addressing
Chronic Diseases. Otawa Canada.
Toronto Public Health (2010). Food Connections: Toward a Healthy and Sustainable Food System for
Toronto. Toronto, Toronto Public Health.
Toronto Public Health (not dated). About Toronto Public Health. Our Role - Who we are. Retrieved
13/06/2015 from:
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=4cc64485d1210410VgnVCM10000071d60f
89RCRD.
76
Appendix
Interviewees
Interviewee 1
 Coordinator of the Toronto Food Policy Council.
 Policy Specialist at City of Toronto, Toronto Public Health’s Food Strategy team.
 Instructor at University of Toronto.
 Research Associate with Ryerson University.
Interviewee 2
 Health Research Specialist at Toronto Public Health
 Research lead for the Toronto Food Strategy
Interviewee 3
 Senior Policy Advisor at the Toronto Board of Health
 Manager of the Toronto Food Strategy
 Co-author of the City’s food strategy report, ‘’Cultivating Food Connections: Towards a
Healthy and Sustainable Food System for Toronto.’’
Interviewee 4
 Senior Policy and Project Officer - Food Programme at Greater London Authority
 Delivering Mayor’s Food Strategy for London
Interviewee 5
 Managing the London Food Flagships project
 PhD at the Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research
 Researcher with focus on the politics of urban food markets
 He has conducted ethnographic fieldwork in London, Amsterdam and Istanbul, as well
as on the island of Sardinia, and has recently published a Special Issue of the journal
‘Built Environment’ on ‘Marketplaces as Urban Development Strategies’
 Teacher at the Departments of Anthropology, Sociology, and Political Sciences, and for
the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, he has taught "Food and the City"
 Co-founder of the research and consultancy company ‘Stil Novo’ and of the international
platform for knowledge exchange ‘Urban Markets Platform’
Interviewee 6
 Professor of Population Ecology at the University of Leeds
 Research Dean at University of Leeds – Faculty of Biological Sciences
 Champion for the UK’s Food Security Programme
Interviewee 7
 Co-ordinator of: ‘’From the Ground Up (FGU)’’, which is organic fruit and vegetable
service, initially aimed at private customers.
77
Answers of Interviewee 1
Introduction
To begin with, I would like to make clear that the information that will be gathered from this
interview is going to be used only for my master-thesis. The interviewees will remain
anonymous.
I)
Opening questions
Could you tell me in short about what you normally deal with in your job?
The food policy council has been around for over 20 years now; my position has been also for
that long. When the city of Toronto created the food policy council they created a position in
Toronto Public Health to support the activities of the council and to link the council members –
including citizens and counselors (elected officials) together but also in the food city system. I
have a variety of things. Members from all over the city. City of Toronto is a large city. The
council members are diverse (geographical diversity) we also have farmers on the food policy
council, we have youth positions (in Toronto food policy council) other members. There are
different perspectives (health, community development, entrepreneurship, institutional, farmers)
we also have an active food community, so the Toronto Food Policy Council acts to provide a
forum in exchanging information in a way it is like a professional development opportunity
because the directors and the members see each other and work on projects that are outside of
their organizations and (they) address any policy barriers, by working together in an agenda.
We are subcommittee of the Board of Health, so every year we report to the Board of Health
and the Board of Health appoints our members. The Municipality and the Province pay for the
staff time. Now the city has a food strategy. I sit on the food strategy team and the food policy
members are the right community reference group, so often the food strategy initiatives-those
are more on the ground projects not so much on policy- are partners in those initiatives.
Toronto’s food policy led the development to the food strategy but the strategy is more like a city
document, like a public health document, which is great. When that was endorsed, Toronto
Public health created a larger team to think about food systems reform and access to healthy
food in the city as a core part of Toronto pub health’s work. So the food policy council and the
food strategy teams were joined and now we work really close. We work at the same place; we
see each other every day we are very integrated I would say. The food policy council members
too feel a lot of ownership over food strategy. And they are often partners in the implementation
of (pause) you know, our strategy was not like: ‘’you do this‘’. It is more articulating an approach
to working on the food system on a municipal level. The initiatives came from partnerships that
our team has through the food policy council and other working on food issues. There’s not
really a lot of difference between the work of the (Toronto Food Policy) Council and of the food
strategy. But the food strategy team is working on specific initiatives around access to healthy
food (e.g.) good food market, food-share, healthy corner store project, healthy food procurement
for the community. A lot of food policy council members are involved with those, but the food
policy council members identify policy changes (food waste policy, urban agriculture policy,
employment…). There’s a lot of crossover and integration I would say. Nice partnership that the
food policy council can be involved with the food strategy.
78
II) Research Questions
Food supply chains (especially short food supply chains) are in the core of my research. In the
food strategy of Toronto I stumbled upon references on the short/shortening of food supply
chains (examples:’’ through the local’’, ‘’the neighborhood scale’’, the word ‘‘nearby’’, the
‘’connection of rural peri-urban land and the city’’). How do you deal with these short/shortened
food chains?
Well this is of course extremely important because it’s in the communities where people access
or not food. The spatial element is critical. We are working on a number of initiatives to address
that daily experience in accessing healthy food and having access to a health-focused food
system/food provisioning system. It is very complicated of course (laughs), because food is on
the private sector. But it is about building this idea of public food and community food. So I‘ll just
give you a couple of examples. One is that we made public parks available for markets of
different kinds. None is perfectly happening in the city of Toronto (micro-conflicts – we can get
back to this later). We made parks available for farmers markets and for community gardens
and bread ovens so this is about an animation of public space through food and also providing
access through our public parks. We‘ve also done a lot of research to understand the food retail
environment across the city and (to understand) how people experience the food retail
environment. So we have a whole methodology around the ratio between healthier and
unhealthier food. It moves beyond the idea of food deserts and it really correlates health
outcomes with access to unhealthy food. So then focus of our work has become trying to layer
and access to healthy food to our neighborhoods and community. So that’s why we ‘ve gone
forward with the mobile good food market and the healthy corner store model where we try to
understand what incentives we can provide to convenient store owners to offer more fruits and
veggies and snacks. We‘ve also developed a city zoning change in the city of Toronto. We have
these apartment towers (buildings) and we’re not allowed to have any commercial activity in the
main floor of those buildings but the zoning change allows for commercial activity, and for a
variety of new uses (e.g. market gardens, cafes, restaurants , retail stores…) so that would be
key. It hasn’t been implemented yet but it’s been passed by the council so the pilot will be
coming soon and finally urban agriculture. So understanding the role of urban farms as a way to
support communities in their food justice work and also to have real tangible experience to
growing food and eating fresh food. So those are a number of things that we are trying to move
forward. It is not easy and it is a bit slow but there is a lot of interest. And of course interest
really comes from communities. It is driven by people and communities.
‘Local’ is often found on the relevant literature, likewise for the food strategy document of the
city. What do you consider as ‘local’? Do you discriminate ‘local’ from regional using distance in
miles? What is the relationship between ‘local’ and the place and space of food chains in
Toronto?
It is really difficult to reconcile local with access issues. So in a sense for our access to healthy
food initiatives we stay away from the imposing this idea of local. We frame it first as healthy. By
healthy we mean fresh, unprocessed. Then local is something we strive for in terms of
79
connecting our farmers with whatever initiatives we have. Local is Ontario for me. But I’m really
interested in this regional perspective. I think this is the future our food systems work the future
of short food supply chains. Centric approach to promote food access from our urban farms and
then the peri-urban. I think you actually need an interpretation of local but not a strict measure
that you have to follow.
Taken the different stages of food supply chain (e.g. production, storage, distribution,
consumption), can you provide with information on the location and of these stages? How does
spatial planning ensure their connection/synergy?
Yeah, I think we are just at the beginning stages of fully understanding the local food
infrastructure so this brings us to our work with the regional- greater the Golden Horse Shoe
(that’s the region that Toronto sits in the middle of, the horse shoe refers to the greater area
around Ontario) ‘The golden horseshoe food and farm alliance’ . It is a partnership between 7
municipalities and regional Governments as well as food system stakeholders to take this more
regional approach and in the city of Toronto we have done some food asset mapping but more
around the community food assets, e.g. farms gardens, supermarkets but what’s interesting in
our partnership with the alliance is that we have done some mapping of in general the food
assets (farms, distribution hubs, manufacturing facilities , processing facilities)and we’re just in
the beginning of that , (we have the maps) but through those maps we at least have a baseline
of information about that kind of spatial interpretation of the food system then we can also begin
to do economic analysis about each sector of the food system; we can check the areas that
need specific preservation, our green belt and urban growth. So we‘re trying to understand the
relationships between all of those factors. Ontario has a very progressive peri-urban green belt
and theoretically this land is preserved for ecological agricultural and cultural landscapes but of
course there’s tremendous growth pressure all around the greenbelt. Not only in front of the
green belt but also now on the other side of the greenbelt. So we’re trying to understand
working with our farming associations, specific pressures that farmers face in this region and
how about 60 percent of all the food that’s grown in Ontario is processed in this region (the
greater Toronto region) and we ‘re trying to understand the shifts that are happening because of
this development and pressure.
Are there solid numbers that you have to stick to? Are there miles or other characteristics that
you use to plan the food chain and the facilities of the food chain?
We ‘re beginning to understand what those facilities are, so then the next step will be to link
some of those and to understand the flows between those facilities. I think now that we have
done this work the opportunity lies is around a landscape approach. So in the same way that
you would do a conservation plan or an ecological landscape plan, how do you extend that into
agricultural landscapes where you link not only the preservation of agricultural land but you think
about the infrastructure that short food supply chains require and the specific supports that they
require to survive in these conditions of sprawl, increased growth and population growth.
80
I am interested in the terms: ‘’foodshed, neighborhood level, bringing food on the streets’’. Can
you elaborate on them? How do you take actions on these? How do you create these?
There’s a number of things. One is to understand what exists already. Food-friendly words
analysis. Mapping out all the community assets and then we’re setting goals for those
neighborhoods. For example: your neighborhood does not have a farmers market or a
community garden, so let’s make that a priority over the 4 next years if also the community
wants it. That links to the city’s interest in equity and neighborhood equity, because some
neighs have a lot of resources while others don’t.
I ‘ll give you an example that is hard. On street food in Toronto we have hot dogs (saying this
without being pleasant) and the city wants to diversify the availability of street food so you can
have kiosks selling fruits and veggies, more interesting food -not just hot dogs. But right now
this is so heavily regulated that there’s almost no room for entrepreneurial initiatives. So we’re
trying to sit with our municipal licensing & services on a street food committee. They look at this
issue so narrowly. So how about all the regulations? Did we take an approach that’s a little bit
broader? We need to open up the space and reregulate. There’s no opportunity for the new
initiatives.
Another example is community kitchens. Success has been on community. We have community
kitchens. We sent health inspectors to the kitchens and then the community can cook and sell
that food to the park or at farmers markets or their neighborhood.
But it is that working with our planners and regulatory bodies in the city to help them see that we
need to have some room there for new practices and then we can come back to regulate after
and see if there are conflicts with that land(use).
Finally, on the food strategy document there are references on spatial planning, urban planning
and food planning as well. Could you describe the relationship of spatial planning with food in
Toronto? What is the role of spatial planning in supporting the shortened food supply chains (or
sustainable food) in the context of food strategies? What types of planning are complementary
for increasing food access?
I think there’s first of all a very direct relationship between planning and the food system. I think
in Toronto and most places planning field at a municipal level is all about mitigating land use
conflicts. So, on the one hand in Toronto we have very progressive language in our official plan
which guides all planning decisions and land use decisions on the food system of the city. We
have a knod to the importance of our agricultural connection, we have info on farmers’ markets
and parks and community gardens as an acceptable land use, access to healthy food, street
food and the food sector as an economic driver. But when we get down to the specific planning
decisions that relate to all of these food systems ideas that we want to promote , I think is very
difficult, because then its reduced to our zoning framework in the city of Toronto. And a lot of
these activities are hybrid activities. They are not only residential, or recreational or commercial
activities. They reflect a hybrid space in the city a public space that may have market81
commercial elements. And this is where we have trouble. For example in our parks we are not
allowed to sell any of the produce. But we’re not talking about big profits here. It’s about
community engagement and development. We’re trying to work with our planning colleagues to
bring some of that language into the interpretation on what is acceptable use in our
communities. And we’re actually making a lot of progress in having more language that supports
urban agriculture for example. Having more language that supports the idea of selling food in
the city. Having more language around the importance of planning for food access.
In the end you don’t want to be really prescriptive about how do you plan a community. On the
other hand you don’t want to say no to every single possibility because it exists in this hybrid
space. Luckily We have a good relationship with our planning colleagues and from what I have
observed more n more people are thinking of food, retail, mixed retail in our urban plan and
we’re able to bring food into some of our larger planning initiatives. For example, we have a big
initiative around ‘complete streets’ right now and we’re making sure that food is a central
element in ‘complete streets’ plan. Food is essential element in resiliencies, climate adaptation
policy etc., right?
Answers of interviewee 2
Introduction
To begin with, I would like to make clear that the information that will be gathered from this
interview is going to be used only for my master-thesis. The interviewees will remain
anonymous.
I)
Opening questions
Could you tell me in short about what you normally deal with in your job?
It's a wide range of things:
 Project management – coordinating Healthy Corner Store research and evaluation
project
 Coordinating research teams, currently conducting post-intervention household surveys
in 3 sites
 Troubleshooting – connecting one on one with our pilot convenience storeowners,
dealing with distributors, advising on-site survey coordinators, etc.
 Budget administration – managing multiple budget lines (federal and provincial grants
mainly) including invoicing for vendors
 Write reports to the Board of Health to whom we report, briefings for senior
management, progress reports to funders
 Presentations on our work to various audiences (universities, conferences, City staff
groups, senior management)
 Advising on other projects that our team is leading or those of staff; advice to staff in
other health units in the province
82
 Lots and lots of emails and voicemails!
Is there a connection between your job and Toronto’s food strategy? If so, in which way is this
connection active?
Yes, I'm the lead researcher for the Toronto Food Strategy. I'm on the Food Strategy team and
was the lead author of the 2010 Cultivating Food Connections report that lays out the vision and
proposed actions.
Food supply chains (especially short food supply chains) are in the core of my research. In the
food strategy of Toronto I stumbled upon references on the short/shortening of food supply
chains (examples:’’ through the local’’, ‘’the neighborhood scale’’, the word ‘‘nearby’’, the
‘’connection of rural peri-urban land and the city’’). How is the city government using them
(now)?
The City and many community agencies are focusing on "place-based" interventions, including
the establishment of new priority areas called Neighbourhood Improvement Areas. So
geography is very much an area of focus when it comes to addressing inequity. But at an official
City level, short food supply chains are not something that's talked about a lot. There is an
official urban agriculture plan call GrowTO and the Toronto Food Policy Council (closely linked
to the Toronto Food Strategy) and community networks are very active on that. The City did
adopt a local food procurement policy a few years ago but it ended up being quite watered
down. We, on the Food Strategy team, are the only ones in City government who are actively
looking at alternative supply chains. We're set to test an aggregated healthy food procurement
system for community agencies, schools and independent convenience stores. It's an online
food ordering portal that will aggregate the purchasing power of these smaller buyers and
support local producers wherever possible too. There's also a Greater Toronto Area Agricultural
Action Committee that has representatives from farming groups and each municipality in the
region.
There's lots of interest in supporting urban and near-urban agriculture at a community level. But
I would argue that we're behind other cities in being proactive at a government level. Not
enough residents feel this is a high priority. In Canada we're lucky to have a huge amount of
natural resources, fresh water, lots of land and easy access to prime farming areas in Ontario,
and elsewhere across the continent, so it can be harder to make the case to the public that we
need to grow more food locally.
II)
Research questions
Due to this short/shortened supply chains I am stimulated to the spatial/geographical aspect of
the food supply chains. What is in your opinion the role of space/place of these chains? ‘Local’
is often found on the relevant literature, likewise for the food strategy document of the city. What
83
do you consider as ‘local’? Do you discriminate ‘local’ from regional using distance in miles?
What is the relationship between ‘local’ and the place and space of food chains in Toronto?
In terms of defining local, that's not something we focus on. If it's required then we usually follow
the definition of our provincial government which defines local as anything grown in Ontario. I
don't stress local food a lot in my work, mainly because I want to advance the discussion about
food and don't want the debate to get stuck on local vs imported or organic vs conventional.
There are lots of good reasons to support local producers but people often view "local" as
inherently beneficial. It's only a means to an end, i.e. fresh food, supporting local employment
and the viability of farming communities but local isn't always the better choice in all situations.
So I prefer people to think about a broader vision for our food system, what are the values we
want to embed and what does that look like in practice? It also gets complicated by virtue of the
fact that half of all Torontonians were born outside Canada so emphasizing local is sometimes
interpreted (mistakenly) as "we can't have mangoes or bananas".
Taken the different stages of food supply chain (e.g. production, storage, distribution,
consumption), can you provide with information on the location and of these stages? How does
spatial planning ensure their connection/synergy?
Do you mean – how are they arranged geographically in our region? The provincial government
(Ontario) defines land uses and each municipality prescribes those land uses but we don't have
any process to look at the synergies or distribution of various parts of the food chain. We should
be doing exactly that because the local food supply chain infrastructure has been eroded for
decades. In Ontario we have fewer and fewer abattoirs, and I think the province's last fruit
canning facility closed last year. The provincial government has started to focus on this more.
They launched a $10 million Local Food Fund that has supported many smaller projects
(including our distribution portal). But I would say there's no serious work going on at the
provincial level to address this issue right now.
Are specific distances of the stages between production and consumption of food planned
before-hand? What is the proximity between facilities of any stage and other reference points of
the city (e.g. city centre, schools, ‘streets’)? Are there specific boundaries for the facilities of the
food chain? The food strategy highlights a preference for small distances between production
and consumption and waste of food. However, a clear preference for particular locations and
distances is not there, nor information is provided on the stages of the food chain that follow the
production. Is there a reason for this?
The provincial government has rules about separation distances, e.g. between farms and
residential areas. This comes up especially in suburban areas where new housing is
encroaching on farmland. In Toronto, we have zoning categories that tend to separate industrial
and urban agriculture from residential or institutional uses. Food manufacturing and processing
does happen in the city but it's moving more and more toward the suburbs where land is
84
cheaper and downtown real estate can be sold for a lot of money for condos. In our Food
Strategy report we weren't thinking about specific distances, these aren't relevant in our context.
The emphasis was more on the concept of reconnecting to food sources whether it be school
gardens, urban agriculture or supporting local producers.
Are the proximities/distances as discussed above dependent on other facts? How do you
consider (local) food access that is underlined in the food strategy?
It would be good to describe the context for our Food Strategy and that 2010 report. The goal
was really to make the case for Toronto to be a proactive leader in supporting a healthier, more
sustainable food system. The key audience was political and senior level management within
the City. You should also distinguish that report from what the Food Strategy project is pursuing
today. We're certainly reflecting that same vision but many of the areas of focus have shifted
because conditions have changed and with our limited resources we also focus on where
existing momentum and resources are. So the 2010 report wasn't meant to be prescriptive in
any way. In fact, that's why we don't use the word "recommendations" to describe the list of
actions at the end of the report.
Finally, on the food strategy document there are references on spatial planning, urban planning
and food planning as well. First, can you describe the relationship of spatial planning with food
in Toronto/London? What is the role of spatial planning in supporting the SFSCs (or sustainable
food) in the context of food strategies? What types of planning are complementary for
increasing food access?
Our City Planning department has been pretty supportive of our work over the last few years but
food isn't a big focus for them. We worked with them to add broader wording about food in the
City's most recent Official Plan. The biggest contribution that Planning has made recently is the
creation of a new zoning category – Residential Apartment Commercial. This new category will
permit a wide range of non-residential uses in and around apartment buildings, including
markets, gardens and smaller food retail. Toronto has a huge number of older apartment
buildings, 2nd only to New York. But current zoning prohibits these other uses in hundreds of
RA zoned buildings. The RAC zoning will finally be implemented this summer (we hope) and
there's a network of city staff that is planning various projects to take advantage of these
changes.
Answers of interviewee 3
Introduction
To begin with, I would like to make clear that the information that will be gathered from this
interview is going to be used only for my master-thesis. The interviewees will remain
anonymous.
85
II)
Opening questions
Is there a connection between your job and Toronto’s food strategy? If so, in which way are they
connected?
Not asked because the answer is obvious and the interviewee was eager and into the point for
my research/questions.
Food supply chains (especially short food supply chains) are in the core of my research. In the
food strategy of Toronto I stumbled upon references on the short/shortening of food supply
chains (examples:’’ through the local’’, ‘’the neighborhood scale’’, the word ‘‘nearby’’, the
‘’connection of rural peri-urban land and the city’’). How is the city government using them
(now)?
It isn’t. The thing is we re a really big city. So we do officially have a local procurement policy as
city government that has I would say only been very modesty successful. There is a few units
that have some percentage of their food purchasing as local, mostly in our children services
division, so the child care centers (brief pause)… it is much harder to implement that and it is so
frustrating because the funding for that is so narrow. The budget for food is way below what we
believe the healthy diet should be and so those facilities use preprocessed food and they don’t
do any of the actual cooking that’s the way many of these institutions these have gone. What
we believe is that food has the potential in edible cities to realize multiple goals. They can be
environmental goals, social development goals, health goals, economic development; food is in
all these systems as you already know. A lot of the way that we work in the city is to establish
collaborative partnerships with multiple city divisions and the way it best works, or frankly to me
the only way it works is to bring people together around very specific initiatives. So we are
working together on some very specific things that people see themselves in that solution, so
they can pull out the success and practice the success but when we are able to do it that way is
leverage many many more resources. The report should be available in our website in a month
…(brief pause) I wanted to share an emerging project that is a global project that could be
interesting with you. We have been seeing the potential of linking food and municipal level of
governance. We have been working globally and we‘re working with a city in the Netherlands
actually Almere. What we’re doing here is we’re partnering with Ryerson University here that
runs an online course in food security and food systems and shortening the food chain would be
a big piece of that. We also partnering with the city of Nairobi and the city of Cape Town in
Africa to look at developing a program course or workshops to build the capacity of municipal
officials on multiple on disciplines to bring food into their portfolio to realize multiple solutions.
So we’re trying to re-begin a food systems approach into municipal governments. Quite far long
in developing this curriculum that is a food systems curriculum specifically targeting municipal
government. so we have a case study, each of the 4 cities: Toronto, Almere, Nairobi and Cape
Town and hopefully within 4 months we ‘ll have this curriculum in place …to try out first in these
4 cities and the Ryerson University will have it as open source data so the course can be
available to anybody anywhere in the world and can be adjusted.
86
II)
Research questions
Due to this short/shortened supply chains I am stimulated to the spatial/geographical aspect of
the food supply chains. What is in your opinion the role of space/place of these chains? ‘Local’
is often found on the relevant literature, likewise for the food strategy document of the city. What
do you consider as ‘local’? Do you discriminate ‘local’ from regional using distance in miles?
What is the relationship between ‘local’ and the place and space of food chains in Toronto?
Oh boy that’s a really big conversation but I would think local as the greater Toronto area, but in
terms of our climate here, local would refer only to certain food products. If we would promote
local all year around, we would only be eating potatoes and carrots in the winter. So we do have
to supplement with imports at certain times of the year but local can be all year around for milk,
apples and ... Local gets defined as Ontario here. Ontario is very big but that becomes more of
a proxy for local. The one project that is going to be launching next week and it touches on
spatial aspect and the local. what we saw is that community agencies across Toronto
purchasing food in a variety of ways and we did some baseline research that shows that the not
for profit sector byes about 30million dollars of food per year and all of that food is purchased
through retail sources. There is a fund that is called the ‘Local Food Fund’ a Provincial
Government fund. So we applied for local food funding to develop an e-commerce platform to
promote access to local food for the whole not for profit sector by aggregating our purchasing
power by putting together instead of each agency going to the local supermarket or the local
corner store to buy the food for their program, we are about to launch an online ordering system
that enables the sector to have wholesale prices and delivery. Also we‘re hoping we‘ll be the
new market for local producers. I do not know if you heard of the ‘Ontario food terminal’. I think
it’s the 2nd largest in North America. A lot of the supply chain goes through the food terminal. So
they are partners in our project so we can Link local suppliers to the sector. We look at the profit
sector as a unit for a new market for producers and also as a new market for these agencies to
talk to each other. In case for example there are thousands of pounds carrots who, eats
carrots? What if they can’t sell these carrots? And things like that.
The spatial piece is very much in place-based innovations and place-making, neighborhoods,
mobilizing neighborhood cohesion. Strong neighborhood strategy Toronto where they are
looking at what Toronto has done over the years is designated what they began to call
neighborhood improvement areas. So there are certain neighborhoods in the city that identified
as a place with funders and community agencies and government together to have interventions
on that spatial level.
They would say 100km is one definition. There’s a growing movement in Toronto to make local
even more local and there is a strong movement in Toronto to support urban agriculture. There
is a movement for promoting urban agriculture and putting pressure to the Municipal
government to make land available for growing food locally. That could do 5-10 % of the needs
of the city at best. This is I don’t think that this (sticking to local) really is the answer to food
security or the food system. Other than that it’s good for the community and for the environment.
There are other aspects rather than purely volume of local food production as well (brief
pause)…electricity supplier to make those hydro-corridors available for growing food, because
87
that’s huge amounts of urban land that could be made available to grow food. There was a fight
whether local was enough, because if you are pushing for local, you should push for local and
sustainable.
‘Local Food Plus’ was a really good organization in Toronto and they did a local and organic
food designation. They were working with local farmers and institutions so they had a local and
sustainable designation. Unfortunately, they could not be sustainable themselves due to
financial reasons (they didn’t have enough funds and they didn’t have such a strong market)
and the farmers had not enough funds to step into these platform.
Taken the different stages of food supply chain (e.g. production, storage, distribution,
consumption), can you provide with information on the location and of these stages? How does
spatial planning ensure their connection/synergy?
Oh we do that a lot actually. We just completed a very interesting process (internal to my own
organization) to try to bring a broader food assessment on the table. We saw that incredible
concentration on the one end. Cities in terms of the production there is only urban agriculture,
very little on distribution piece, more and more involvement on food waste. There is a real
momentum on reducing food waste and integrating that (brief pause) we have this map and we
found fascinating to see ourselves in the overall food system
Even though we aren’t in control of the food system, we can influence it. Also recognizing that
we are working to enable a healthy and sustainable system we have to see the whole chain.
Also to address the retail aspect and the food desert aspect. Still I don’t think we will do a lot in
certain parts of the system.
Are specific distances of the stages between production and consumption of food planned
before-hand? What is the proximity between facilities of any stage and other reference points of
the city (e.g. city center, schools, ‘streets’)? Are there specific boundaries for the facilities of the
food chain? The food strategy highlights a preference for small distances between production
and consumption and waste of food. However, a clear indication for particular locations and
distances is not there, nor information is provided on the stages of the food chain that follow the
production. Is there a reason for this?
Our position is very much around healthy food access as a first priority. Therefore it goes to
local wherever possible but the affordability piece has to be a strong driver. If you talking about
access both in terms of geographical-spatial and affordability, sometimes the local production
just blows it out the boarder. Farmers markets are way too expensive for low-income residents
of the city. We promote farmers markets as a great outlet for farmers but we also promote what
we call ‘Good food’ markets where high quality produce to be sold as affordably as possiblemore important than only local. We have never done the analysis of the geographic distance of
local. We‘re interested in making good food accessible to the entire population with a focus on
most low-income – marginal residents.
88
Some people use 100km. To some extent that works in Toronto because that would include the
primary agriculture areas outside of Toronto. The true definition would be 100km. There’s this
organization called ‘’100km food’’ .They are working with local producers and they’re an icon of
this kind of thinking. They have done more on the geographic designations than we have. We‘re
sympathetic and we want to support the local produce but it is not our primary interest. It is not
our driver.
(Brief pause)This conversation would be really different if we were talking about California,
where they have year-round production and they can really go local within a certain distances
and store and eat locally and support local producer, but it is really different conversation and
Pushing local so far that it requires greenhouse production and the inputs are probably more
than the outputs. It is important but less interesting to me.
Are the proximities/distances as discussed above dependent on other facts? How do you
consider (local) food access that is underlined in the food strategy?
I would interpret that as neighborhood access so we could look at that as geographical proximity
to good food as well as demographics in terms of income and the ability to purchase good food.
Are there some good food stores within walking distance? or easy bus-ride? would be one
piece. We did some mapping in terms of geographical proximity and then we overlaid the
demographic profiles and then we did some analysis of proximity to unhealthy food and in a
process now on looking at good and good healthy food access. So we’re getting a more cranial
analysis from a mapping perspective on local neighborhood level for those parts of the city that
people have to travel far to get access to healthier food.
Finally, on the food strategy document there are references on spatial planning, urban planning
and food planning as well. Could you describe the relationship of spatial planning with food in
Toronto? What is the role of spatial planning in supporting the shortened food supply chains (or
sustainable food) in the context of food strategies? What types of planning are complementary
for increasing food access?
I think it is very much grounded in this mapping portrait that we’re doing. We started out with
that geographic mapping. We have access to a fantastic database, because we work at Public
Health and our inspectors go out and inspect every food premise, whether a restaurant or a
supermarket. We have a database, a longitudinal database of all the places that sell food
(prepared, or fresh food) so we were able to map that out, and also look at the type of food
access. Is it Mcdonalds? Is it a full scale supermarket? Is it corner store with good quality
produce? That has given us a much finer picture where they be pockets of the city that are very
lucky. In Toronto by a strict definition there are no food deserts cause nowhere in the city is
there no food for people to buy in close proximity, but there are many places that there is no
good food in close proximity. You can go to your corner store and buy chocolate and chips. My
researcher gave scores in all the food stores in the neighborhood. Hve you heard of the
89
‘National Evaluation Measurement’ (NEEMS)? NEEMS comes up with proportions of healthy
and unhealthy food. We have maps that are very detailed at the very neighborhood level and we
can pick the tiniest neighborhood.
I think planning plays a huge role. We had some success in working with spatial planners of the
city who had never considered food access in their planning deliberations. When we had started
working with them 5 years ago they thought that food has nothing to do with spatial planning.
We said that we disagree with you and by working together on this mapping project they
realized that access to food is as important as access to green space, access to school, access
to transit. They have changed, they have put some elements into our official plan in access to
food. That was a very big win for us and a very big win for the planners. We have a very good
relationship with planning, where we’re seeing that in a complete community needs access to all
those things. Our planners are really getting more involved with that. The American Planning
Association (APA) recently put access to food as one of their criteria. That’s big progress.
Zoning is huge. Fighting within our corner store project, working with our zoning and licensing
folks, you know we have stupid bylaws in Toronto that do not let us put a sign. The zoning is
residential so they cannot have a sign that says: ‘’there is a store there’’. We have created the
‘Residential Apartment Commercial’ zoning. The suburbs outside of the downtown hall they
were historically residential and they were not allowed to commercial activities. What happened
is that the demographics have changed there, so the planners are now seeing that now they
have to change the zoning and they call it ‘shrimp trap’ zoning cause it is tight and you can’t
change that. There is a new zoning designation that will allow certain commercial activity and
food is a huge piece of that.
Answers of interviewee 4
Introduction
To begin with, I would like to make clear that the information that will be gathered from this
interview is going to be used only for my master-thesis. The interviewees will remain
anonymous.
I)
Opening questions
Could you tell me in short about what you normally deal with in your job?
I am currently part of the Food team at the Greater London Authority, responsible for delivering
the Mayor’s Food Strategy for London as well as supporting the London Food Board, with the
objective to make food more sustainable, healthier and accessible for Londoners. I’m
specifically managing a £1.2million project, the "London Food Flagships" (jointly funded by the
Department for Education and the Mayor), which involves working with two local authorities
delivering interventions that will see a change across the food environment in schools and
beyond, with the ultimate aim to reduce obesity and increase educational attainment.
90
Food supply chains (especially short food supply chains) are in the core of my research. In the
food strategy of London I stumbled upon references on the short/shortening of food supply
chains (examples: ’’local’’, ‘’issue of scale’’, the word ‘‘close (to…)’’, distance between producer
and consumer’’, ‘’food distribution distance’’). How are the creators of the food strategy
(/government) using them (now)?
As you probably have read in the food strategy, the London food board believes that London
needs a safe, secure, healthy, fair, profitable, sustainable and enjoyable supply of food which is
accessible to all, which minimizes the negative social and environmental effects of its
production, and promotes the best of farming and production practices.
II)
Research questions
Due to this short/shortened supply chains I am stimulated to the spatial/geographical aspect of
the food supply chains. ‘Local’ is often found on the relevant literature, likewise for the food
strategy document of the city. What do you consider as ‘local’? Do you discriminate ‘local’ from
regional using distance in miles? What is the relationship between ‘local’ and the place and
space of food chains in London?
When we talk of the benefits of local production it’s with environmental, economic and social
aspects in mind. In the London Plan (the spatial development strategy for London) and the
Mayor’s Food Strategy, providing land for food growing is encouraged as it will have many
benefits including helping promoting active lifestyles, better diets, social benefits and support for
local food growers as well as improving food security. However, while the London Food Board
does support British and local produce it also extend wider than that through their support for
food traceability and safe handling throughout the food chain, sustainable farming practices and
addressing the ethical considerations associated with life stock production. Thus the picture
becomes more complex and local as such does not always provide the answer.
However for the purpose of your masters, when we speak about sourcing food local food in a
London context, we would normally refer to the Greater London boundary and when we speak
of regionally sourced food, we probably refer to the South East of England, and after that as
closely as possible from within the UK.
Taken the different stages of food supply chain (e.g. growing/production, preprocessing and
storage, distribution, consumption), can you provide with information on the location of these
stages? How does spatial planning ensure their connection/synergy?
The interviewee could not provide with an answer.
Are specific distances of the stages between production and consumption of food planned
before-hand? What is the proximity between facilities of any stage and other reference points of
91
the city (e.g. city center, schools, ‘streets’)? Are there specific boundaries for the facilities of the
food chain? The food strategy highlights a preference for small distances between production
and consumption. However, a clear indication for particular locations and distances is not
present, nor information is provided on the stages of the food chain that follow the production. Is
there a reason for this?
You may be interested in the accreditation criteria with regards to Farmers Markets: Since they
first appeared in the UK 14 years ago, the term 'farmers market' has stood for locally produced
food sold by the people who made it. However, as often happens with success ideas, the term,
which is not currently protected by law, has over time been used and abused by markets and
brands with little or no link to local foods. To help preserve the ethos of the sector, and enable
people to identify which farmers' markets are the genuine article, many now undergo voluntary
accreditation from The National Farmers' Retail & Markets' Association (FARMA). This means
that they must undergo rigorous inspection to ensure they comply with FARMA's 3 core criteria:
The one relevant to you in the context of definition of local states:
The food is produced locally
The market must have a definition of local, which the market organisers will decide upon. This is
typically 30 miles, extended to 50 miles for remote and coastal areas and 100 miles for London.
Some markets prefer to define local as within their county borders.
For more information:
http://www.localfoods.org.uk/info/10-farmers-markets-faq/26-what-is-a-certified-farmers-market
‘’Since they first appeared in the UK 14 years ago, the term ‘farmers’ market’ has stood for locally
produced food sold by the people who made it. However, as often happens with success ideas, the
term, which is not currently protected by law, has over time been used and abused by markets and
brands with little or no link to local foods.
To help preserve the ethos of the sector, and enable people to identify which farmers’ markets are the
genuine article, many now undergo voluntary accreditation from The National Farmers’ Retail &
Markets’ Association (FARMA). This means that they must undergo rigorous inspection to ensure they
comply with FARMA’s 3 core criteria:
1.
The food is produced locally
The market must have a definition of local, which the market organisers will decide upon. This is
typically 30 miles, extended to 50 miles for remote and coastal areas and 100 miles for London. Some
market prefer to define local as within their county borders.
2.
The stall is attended by the producer or someone involved in production
Customers should be able to ask the producer about provenance, production, animal welfare and how
to cook or prepare the food.
92
3.
All the goods on sale will have been grown, reared or processed by the stallholders
This distinguishes farmers’ markets from standard street markets, and guarantees provenance.
The recommended standards are based on those adopted by the first UK farmers’ market started in
Bath in September 1997. FARMA’s role is to assess, maintain and reassess these standards over the year,
and work with farmers’ markets to create a set of regulations that work for them.’’ (The text above in
quotation marks is taken from http://www.localfoods.org.uk/info/10-farmers-markets-faq/26-what-is-acertified-farmers-market)
(In the context of the urban area of London: ) ‘Foodshed’, food production ‘nearby’ its
consumption, ‘neighborhood level’. Could you elaborate on these? Are the proximities/distances
as discussed above dependent on other facts? How do you consider (local) food access that is
underlined in the food strategy?
The interviewee could not give an answer.
Finally, on the food strategy document there are references on spatial planning, urban planning
and food planning as well. Could you describe the relationship of spatial planning with food in
London? What is the role of spatial planning in supporting the shortened food supply chains (or
sustainable food) in the context of food strategies? What types of planning are complementary
for increasing food access?
You may also find the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA’s) recently produced ‘A
Plan for Public Procurement’ interesting. It sets out what standards the public sector and
suppliers are encouraged to follow when buying food and catering services and includes a
section on supporting opportunities for British grown produce.
You can find more information about the plan here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-plan-for-public-procurement-food-and-catering
‘’Procuring food and catering services are complex tasks. The majority of the public sector is not aware
of which standards to buy to and consequently, different standards and approaches are used.
Consequently, suppliers perceive the public procurement process to be confusing. This barrier
(perceived or otherwise) makes it difficult for new entrants and SMEs to access the market.’’
‘’We have identified three key areas where public procurement could be improved:
Procurement
Making it easier for procurers to deliver a good service through a clearer, more consistent approach to
buying catering services, or food for on-site kitchens.
Supply
93
Giving a clearer, more consistent method and message to suppliers, to show them exactly what the
public sector is looking for. This helps suppliers identify areas in which to invest and innovate to produce
products that meet this demand.
Supply chain
Opening up the supply chain to a wider range of companies, including SMEs and new entrants, in line
with the Government’s Procurement Pledge.
The Plan has highlighted the need to help change the behaviour of procurers, suppliers and customers.
Change is necessary in order to meet our ambition of making it easier for procurers to deliver what is
needed; for suppliers to be clear about what is wanted, and to make use of a wider supply chain.
Changing the behaviour of procurers
The Plan empowers procurers to voluntarily adopt the following practices, and in accordance with the
Government’s Procurement Pledge:
• Be transparent in setting out what the public sector needs. This gives farmers and food processors a
clear signal of what the public sector is looking for, which will mean new entrants into the market and
investment in systems and competitive production methods.
• Make use of a more consistent and efficient procurement process, making it simpler for procurers to
buy what they need, whilst also helping SMEs gain access to public sector contracts.
• Seek to achieve best value for money, in line with Treasury principles. Those include economic,
environmental and social value benefits, alongside keeping costs to a minimum, and supporting
sustainable production systems, such as those practised by our best food producers.
Changing the behaviour of suppliers
Good procurement will only lead to a strong, efficient and growing sector if the sector also responds.
We want to support farmers, the food and drink industry, public procurers and researchers to create a
movement to expect excellent procurement. This involves:
• SMEs and local suppliers responding to the new set of clear and more consistent requirements,
making sure they are on the relevant portals and registration sites, and putting in bids,
• New entrants coming into the market,
• Existing players adapting what and how they produce for the sector, and
• Systems of assurance and verification being put in place, which are well-aligned to the toolkit to be
used by suppliers. This will allow local farmers and food processors to demonstrate how they comply
with the standards required by the Plan.
94
This needs the commitment of all producers and suppliers, with the support of organisations like
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Local Enterprise Partnerships and the farmers’ unions.
It also requires collaboration of the research and development sector. The approach, as explained
above, is consistent with the principles of the Government’s Procurement Pledge.’’
(All the text above in quotation marks is taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/aplan-for-public-procurement-food-and-catering that the interviewee prompted me to go through)
Answers of interviewee 5
Introduction
To begin with, I would like to make clear that the information that will be gathered from this
interview is going to be used only for my master-thesis. The interviewees will remain
anonymous.
I)
Opening questions
Could you tell me in short about your experience with the case of London (in terms of food as an
officially recognized issue in London)?
My work focused on the politics of urban food markets. I was doing research in London
(conducted ethnographic fieldwork). Last year when Amsterdam started these discussions in
Municipal food strategies and policies and they asked me to say something about the situation
in London. I guess that is why I was recommended to you.
Are you aware of London’s food strategy? If yes, how was it connected with your work in
London?
The city is divided into different Municipalities, Boroughs and there is the Mayor of London that
only deals with certain issues of a higher administration like safety and police. All other things also food- are not within his power. The idea of food strategy in London is to have local
boroughs and other organizations within the city to confirm to the vision of the Mayor. There is
not necessarily something concrete but he invites certain organizations to adopt certain issues
that are in the food strategy as well. It also puts the topic in the agenda. The 1st strategy as you
probably know was from the previous Mayor, Ken Livingston. There was also a chair of the
‘London Food Board’. Her name is Jane Jones. She was the leader of the ‘Green Party’’. She
has her own agenda of course and the food vision or the London Food when they first started
got a budget I think of 4 million maybe not sure exactly setting standards to inspire other
organizations within the city to adopt the principles of the food vision and more kind of
promotional things. Later there was a new Mayor Borris Johnson from a different party. These
type of things normally change, but he realized that food was a popular thing and people were
interested in it. So he continued the London Food with a new chair: Rosie Boycott she has a
different background in media. I was interested to see how this whole London food became
95
something different. Ken Livingstone thinks like sustainability were more relevant and health
because it was in that period also these big food scandals in the UK.
Borris Johnson had other principles, other elements in his agenda that were more relevant, such
as stimulating local businesses and that was much more of his thing. Because it is such a broad
thing, it connects to different planning agendas. Therefore, it can also sustain different
administrations but it changes in emphasis. You can see that clearly also, the things that Rosie
Boycott is promoting are not the same as the things that Ken Livingstone is promoting. At the
same time, even though the London food strategy is not necessarily very powerful at what it
does, it is an inspiration not only to all the organizations in London but also to other
Municipalities outside London for example in Amsterdam. They go to London and they see what
they are doing there. There is this kind of network. Different cities that are being inspired by
London, they all look at each other and they see what’s going on.
The Olympics of 2012 they had their own food vision and they constantly referred to the vision
of the Mayor, the official food strategy (organic and locally sourced food). They were not in a
position to enforce it but they could only invite all other organizations such as the ones that
organizing the London Olympics but also local boroughs to adopt the principles of what they
called. ‘The Olympic food vision’. On a lower level we have the local borroughs that each has
their own food vision as well. Some borroughs have their own vision, some others don’t have
one and very often they refer to the mayor’s food strategy. In that sense, it echoes in the local
food strategy, the local food visions. For example, when they are reconsidering catering for
schools or hospitals, that is really important. And that’s in borroughs level, not in a central
London level.
Food supply chains, specially short food supply chains are in the core of my research. In food
strategy of London I stumbled upon references on the shortening of short food supply chains
(examples: ‘‘farm to fork’’, ’’local’’, ‘’issue of scale’’, the word ‘‘close (to…)’’, distance between
producer and consumer’’, ‘’food distribution distance’’). How are the creators of the food
strategy/gov. using them (now)?
I think that’s also problematic because London is a big city. In the food vision or the other
documents the idea is that the local boroughs will have their own food strategies vision inspired
by the Mayor’s food vision. The mayor again has no power to influence food supply chains in
London either the short ones or the larger ones. Food comes to London through several
wholesome markets operated by local boroughs or private companies or a mix between that.
There is this big one in West London: Covent garden, that is one of the biggest markets and it is
independent from London as city. Also the fish market is managed by local borough inside
London. So the Mayor of London can say that he supports organic food but in the end there is
nothing he can do except for inspiring. That’s what they call it, inspiring. Other organizations like
local borroughs for example when UK doing contracts or being selected for schools or hospitals
they thought of the same principles.
96
II)
Research questions
Due to these short/shortened supply chains I am stimulated to the spatial/geographical aspect
of the food strategy document of London. What do you consider as ‘local’? What do you think
the creators are considering as ‘local’? Do you discriminate ‘local’ from ‘regional’ using distance
in kilometers/miles? Is there a relation between ‘local’ and the place/space of food in London?
The idea is to keep in mind that the food strategy is to inspire and to put on the agenda and to
make people think about the importance of local food, but there is no way of enforcing it. So it
really makes no sense for the Mayor of London to say: if it’s within the radius of 30 miles it’s
local, if it is more than 30miles it’s no longer local, because he cannot enforce those rules
anyway. So those are kind of loosely or flexibly defined depending on the individual case. For
example, if the Mayor says this should be local, then it doesn’t really matter if he considers local
within 30miles or 30kms. Because it is not him or his organization that is doing the contracting, it
is the individual school or hospital or a company that’s doing the contracting. Depending on
what is relevant and efficient, but also depending on the type of food, because there are things
you cannot grow nearby. That of course is relevant and important to realize that the Mayor’s
Food Strategy it is being written by London Food Board within London Food there are
representatives of the Municipality-the different boroughs, but also companies and the industry
such as Sainsbury, Tesco. They do not want any other dictating, because they have their own
strategies. It’s on purpose that they call it local and they leave it to the companies, institutes to
define, support or not support local. What they want is having people think about the locally
sourced food the short food supply chains.
I haven’t come across any specific differentiation between local and regional. It is all depending
on the context. For example the London Olympics they said: we are inspired by the Mayor’s
Food Strategy. To organize the Olympics to the same principle, we are going to write our own in
which all food has to be local. What does this mean? For eggs in means this, for eggs that etc.
Mcdonalds says we only use British beef. For the eggs we only use eggs sourced within 30
miles radius (I am just making this up). There is not a single definition what is local and what is
regional.
Taken the different stages of food supply chain (growing/production, prepackaging, distribution
etc.), can you provide with information on the location of these stages?
Most of the food that people eat in London comes through supermarkets. They can source it
wherever they want. They do not have to follow any of the rules in terms of local, or not local,
organic etc. but of course it is a selling point, so ‘Tesco’ and ‘Gainsburys’ say: All our
strawberries have to be locally sourced. We’re following the rules or the principles of the food
strategy by this and this etc. But that is not something that local governance can control. What
they can do is say in the Town Hall we have our catering and we select these companies for the
catering. For hospitals and schools we select these companies as catering companies that
provide local food for example. The whole food chain is independent, it is not being organized or
managed or controlled. That is part of the problem also, how food strategy came to be at the
97
first place. BSE and mouth and feet disease could happen, because nobody really knew where
their food was coming from, it was produced in a massive scale, distributed by companies
without much of inspection, then people got afraid and some momentum started to arise for
something like a food strategy.
But if you think of Tesco or other companies, they are not going to consult the local Government
on where are they going to buy their food and what food. Most of the smaller markets and also
the restaurants get their food form the wholesome markets there are 5 or 6 wholesome markets
and they work independent. ‘New Covent Garden’ and ‘New Spitalfields Market’ (the wholesome
markets) get their food from all over the world. People, restaurants, owners etc. they all go
there. Everyone and the wholesome markets work independent. That is a separate thing outside
the powers of the local government.
Are specific distances of these stages (between production and consumption) planned beforehand? What is the proximity between facilities of any stage and other reference points of the city
(e.g. city center, schools, region, or neighborhoods (of residential buildings))? Are there specific
boundaries for the facilities of the food chains? The food strategy highlights small distances
between production and consumption. In the food strategy document, the stages of food are
discriminated. However, a clear indication for particular locations and distances is not present,
nor information is provided on the stages of the food chain that follow the production. Is there a
reason for this?
Very often, as far as I know at least, the motorway 25 I think, around London that is used as a
boundary of what is local or not local. If you’re talking about bananas and these kind of things,
the issue in London is due to the climate a lot of the things have to be imported anyway. As far
as the alternative and local food initiatives that I know, they have their own standards of
measuring local and distances. I ‘m not sure if there are criteria for the source of products, but I
don’t think that there is something agreed on distances or radius or location.
That’s part of this idea that they should address the whole food chain, not only the production’s
side or the consumption part but also the in-between stages. They discriminate between the
different stages but the main issue with the strategy is that it is always very nice, but London
itself is not producing, or distributing food, or trading food, so they can say whatever they want
but nobody has to follow these rules.
(In the context of the urban area of London: ) ‘Foodshed’, food production ‘nearby’ its
consumption, ‘neighborhood level’. Could you elaborate on these? Are the proximities/distances
as discussed above dependent on other facts? How do you consider (local) food access that is
underlined in the food strategy?
Food access is part of this agenda that comes from Ken Livingstone this idea that food agenda
is relevant because there are so many people with no access or access only to junk food. Those
are the poorer areas in London. I was doing my research in East London for example they have
98
a lot of chicken and chip shops that connected to diseases. Food becomes an issue then. What
the strategy is doing then is inspiring these local boroughs. One of the boroughs in East London
that has published a plan for the next 10 years or so saying this area is a development
opportunity area. Within that then, because they also have a food strategy, they say we can only
allow so many chicken n chips. We should also make sure that we attract kind of more fresh
food shops that are affordable, because fresh food should be accessible to the people living
here. That is always on a local scale and it is an aspiration or a target instead of strict or
absolute criteria. East London did some mapping on affordability and accessibility of food. They
went to all the shops and markets and they mapped prices and variety and through that they
investigated if people had access to affordable and healthy food. This was related to this idea of
food deserts. What could be interesting is one of my case studies in east London is
‘Queensmarket’. It is a market with fresh food that is also cheap. The rest of the area has just
chicken and chips which is unhealthy. The municipality wanted to downsize and relocate the
market. There was also a supermarket there. The people protested and they said that if you
downsize this market, it will be less access to healthy and affordable food and they showed that
by referring to the local food strategy or the Mayor’s food strategy. That’s how food strategy is
used it’s an argument for shops, local people, or municipality to make in a decision or another.
Finally, on the food strategy document there are references on spatial planning, urban planning
and food planning. Could you elaborate on the relationship of spatial planning with food (in
London)? What is the role of spatial planning in supporting short food supply chains (or
sustainable food) in the context of food strategies? What types of planning are complementary
for increasing food access?
Like the example that I gave you with this redevelopment area, local Municipality or local
borough can make planning documents as these planning documents can be evaluated by
people but also by other planners, or politicians they can be evaluated in light of some of the
food strategies (local or the Mayor’s strategy) and then people can point out whether or not it is
in line with the food strategy and if it’s in their favor. Planning policies maybe want to downsize
fresh market and this is in contradiction with what your earlier promises, with what you have in
the food strategy and what you want for London. The mayor of London planning in a central
level is police or transport. Transport for London is an organization that operates buses and
metro and they sometimes provide these pieces of land alongside railways for local initiatives to
grow food. So in that way they are helping out and this is helping them in their image. Showing
to the outside world how good they are. Transport for London is for public transport but also for
roads. Not sure how they are involved in transportation in terms of food. Wholesome markets
are also relevant but they are not part of the planning of the Mayor.
Answers of interviewee 6
Introduction
To begin with, I would like to make clear that the information that will be gathered from this
interview is going to be used only for my master-thesis. The interviewees will remain
anonymous.
99
I)
Opening questions
Could you tell me in short about what you normally deal with in your job?
I work across the UK governments (in the main) trying to act as a focal point of coordination
about analysis of the challenges to the food systems and identification of evidence (and
evidence gaps), and then try to encourage government and research councils to address the
gaps via funding.
Is there a connection between your job and London's food strategy? If so, in which way are they
connected?(briefly)
No, other than as a generic food expert I have some interesting conversations with people
Food supply chains (especially short food supply chains) are in the core of my research. In the
food strategy of London I stumbled upon references on the short/shortening of food supply
chains (examples: ‘‘farm to fork’’, ’’local’’, ‘’issue of scale’’, the word ‘‘close (to…)’’, distance
between producer and consumer’’, ‘’food distribution distance’’). How does the city government
use/apply them (now)?
Not sure. There is a generic feeling in public procurement that we ought to buy british (though
this is more for local economic benefit) see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/aplan-for-public-procurement-food-and-catering. *This is exactly the same link provided from
Interviewee No2 as an answer to the last interview question.
Many CSOs and people think "food miles" is a good proxy for sustainability (which it is not of
course), so there is a misguided notion that local=sustainable.
Perhaps most importantly, local and short supply chains tend to be transparent. Post
horsegate, this is an issue.
II)
Research questions
Due to this short/shortened supply chains I am stimulated to the spatial/geographical aspect of
the food supply chains. 'Local' is often found on the relevant literature, as well as on the food
strategy document of the city. What do you consider as 'local'(food)? What is the relationship
between 'local' and the place and space of food chains in London?
Local would normally be considered as regional (i.e. from SE England, around
London). Reason being that whilst there may be local food processing (e.g. sausage making,
cheese making, bread making) most production is not close to London (land prices). About what
is the relationship between 'local' and the place and space of food chains in London I don’t
know.
100
Do you discriminate 'local' from regional using distance in miles?
I don't, though some do (the "50 mile meal" I saw in NY a couple of weeks ago).
Taken the different stages of food supply chain (e.g. growing/production, preprocessing and
storage, distribution, consumption), can you provide with information on the location of these
stages? How does spatial planning ensure their connection/synergy?
I don't think there is a lot of spatial strategy and planning to manage food chains, other than in
some institutions that specialize.
Are specific distances of the stages between production and consumption of food planned
before-hand? What is the proximity between facilities of any stage of the food chain and other
reference points of the city (e.g. city center, schools, 'streets')? Are there specific boundaries for
the facilities of the food chain? The food strategy highlights small distances between production
and consumption. However, information on the location, size, boundaries of stages of the food
chain that follow the production (e.g. distribution, pre-packaging) are not present. What could be
the reason for this?
The reason could be a lack of understanding. Food systems thinking is quite rare and many
people are happy to consider "local production" as a means of romanticising small-holder
agriculture and different models of agric. However, numbers become problematic (as per
thishttp://newoptimists.com/2011/12/29/how-self-sufficient-can-birmingham-be-should-we-evenbother-trying/). 10 million Londoners need approx. 1 million Ha to feed them; that is half the
area of Wales. Given land around London is expensive and contested for, a completely local
supply chain for a city is difficult to imagine!
Are the proximities/distances as discussed above dependent on other facts? How do you
consider (local) food access that is underlined in the food strategy?
The interviewee could not give an answer.
Finally, on the food strategy document there are references on spatial planning, urban planning
and food planning as well. Could you describe the relationship of spatial planning with food in
London? What is the role of spatial planning in supporting the shortened food supply chains (or
sustainable food) in the context of food strategies? What types of planning are complementary
for increasing food access and why?
The interviewee could not provide with an answer.
101
Answers of interviewee 7
Introduction
To begin with, I would like to make clear that the information that will be gathered from this
interview is going to be used only for my master-thesis. The interviewees will remain
anonymous.
I)
Opening questions
Could you tell me in short about what you normally deal with in your job?
I run a local organic veg box scheme. We buy organic and some local food and supply local
residents on a weekly basis. We encourage community through a volunteering scheme and are
looking to develop a food school to further engage the community around sustainable food.
Is there a connection between your job and London’s food strategy? If so, in which way are they
connected? (briefly)
We don’t have any connection to public policy.
Food supply chains (especially short food supply chains) are in the core of my research. In the
food strategy of London I stumbled upon references on the short/shortening of food supply
chains (examples: ‘‘farm to fork’’, ’’local’’, ‘’issue of scale’’, the word ‘‘close (to…)’’, distance
between producer and consumer’’, ‘’food distribution distance’’). What is your opinion on the
way the city government use/apply them (now)?
The interviewee could not give an answer.
II)
Research questions
Due to this short/shortened supply chains I am stimulated to the spatial/geographical aspect of
the food supply chains. ‘Local’ is often found on the relevant literature, likewise for the food
strategy document of the city. What do you consider as ‘local’(food)? Do you discriminate ‘local’
from regional using distance in miles? What is the relationship between ‘local’ and the place and
space of food chains in London?
Local is often used without clarification. We are a local veg box scheme in terms of a ‘local
business’ but only some of our food is grown locally (in our borough or a neighbouring borough).
The definition of local varies and each organization needs to define what they mean by local.
Taken the different stages of food supply chain (e.g. growing/production, preprocessing and
storage, distribution, consumption), can you provide with information on the location of these
stages? How does spatial planning ensure their connection/synergy?
The interviewee could not give an aanswer.
Are specific distances of the stages between production and consumption of food planned
before-hand? What is the proximity between facilities of any stage and other reference points of
the city (e.g. city center, schools, ‘streets’)? Are there specific boundaries for the facilities of the
food chain? The food strategy highlights a preference for small distances between production
102
and consumption. However, information on the location, size, boundaries of stages of the food
chain that follow the production (e.g. distribution, pre-packaging) are not present. What could be
the reason for this?
I can’t comment on the reasoning behind a government food strategy.
We buy as local as we can but it very much depends on what is available, whether it’s organic
or not, price, availability, quality etc. We don’t buy to any pre-defined rules, we simply work with
what is available.
Are the proximities/distances as discussed above dependent on other facts? How do you
consider (local) food access that is underlined in the food strategy?
The interviewee could not provide with an answer.
Finally, on the food strategy document there are references on spatial planning, urban planning
and food planning as well. Could you describe the relationship of spatial planning with food in
London? What is the role of spatial planning in supporting the shortened food supply chains (or
sustainable food) in the context of food strategies? What types of planning are complementary
for increasing food access?
The interviewee could not provide with an answer.
103