Agroecological Transition: A Territorial Examination of the Simultaneity of Limited Farmer Livelihoods and Food Insecurity

Abstract

Nutritional disease, persistent food insecurity, ecological devastation, and limited sustainable livelihoods among small and beginning (SB) farmers coexist as unintended consequences of trying to address these challenges separately. Agroecology is useful for holistically understanding a community’s food system dynamics, identifying regime lock-ins, and developing pathways to transition to a sustainable food system. Focusing on two often divergent publics, SB farmers and food-insecure populations, this research answers the questions: What critical agroecological characteristics are lacking in a food system contributing to both limited livelihoods of SB farmers and food-insecure populations? In what ways might the relationships of these two publics be central to an agroecological transition to a regional sustainable food system? We present a case study for the city-region Duluth-Northland, Minnesota, USA, by combining methodological and theoretical insights from participatory action research, agroecology, and sustainability transitions literature. Results include a current state of regional food flows, illuminate the food system’s enabling and inhibitory factors, and highlight opportunities for exercising local agency to transition to a sustainable food system using agroecological principles. This research suggests developing relational spaces where two typically divergent publics can dialogue and build reciprocal relationships to construct new food pathways. Findings also highlight a need to develop a social infrastructure to support SB farmer livelihoods, recognize their contribution to the public good, and simultaneously address multiple dimensions of food insecurity. This study provides preliminary guidance for mobilizing action at the nexus of health and food access, environment, and regenerative agriculture livelihoods.

1. Introduction

Despite scientific and technical advancements, the current global industrial food system carries significant ecological impacts, food insecurity, nutrition-related problems, farmer livelihood challenges, and persistent food system-related inequities. Within this system, subsidies and policies favor larger agribusinesses, challenging the viability of small (according to the USDA, a small farmer grows and sells between $1000 and $250,000 per year in agricultural products) and beginning (emerging or beginning farmer is a term used by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) to include “historically underserved communities including Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, immigrants, women, veterans, persons with disabilities, young and beginning farmers, LGBTQ+ farmers, and others”) (SB) farms that struggle to make ends meet as younger generations shy away from the livelihood altogether. Simultaneously, food and nutrition security defined by the USDA (https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/, accessed on 5 February 2022) as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life” remains a challenge for many Americans. In 2020, 10.5% of households were food insecure (https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/#foodsecure, accessed on 10 December 2021), with the rate being highest among households with income below the poverty line (34.9% in 2019) [1]. Historically, to address food insecurity, the USDA has focused on unequal geographic access to food, giving rise to the concept of “food desert.” However, causes of food insecurity, especially among low-income households, extend beyond geographic access to systemic problems associated with institutional and cultural practices that perpetuate inequity. Some cities have called for more equitable approaches to food insecurity [1,2]; for example, Misiaszek and Buzogany [3] have developed new local definitions for healthy food priority (HFP) areas that better capture underlying structural economic and social failures.

Two food systems issues—a lack of sustainable livelihoods among SB farmers, and food and nutrition insecurity—are rarely addressed holistically despite the fact that efforts to address any one component of the food system without considering the other can and has resulted in unintended consequences. Too often organic practices or environmental sustainability in an agricultural production system are prioritized at the cost of the human and social aspects of food systems [4], resulting in barriers for disadvantaged consumers who cannot access, afford, nor identify with food from these alternative agri-food systems [4,5].

Similarly, where food security policies and interventions have prioritized food availability and access to resources, they do not address SB farmers’ livelihood challenges, ecological concerns, or caring for the nutritional value of their products. Free meals and food shelf programs are abundant in many HFP areas ensuring food availability, and when considered, nutrition security and malnutrition are thought of as health problems rather than availability of nutritious foods [6]. Furthermore, food security policies are market-oriented and ecological outcomes or SB farmer livelihoods are not of prime consideration [7,8]. Holistic food security initiatives integrating nutrition security with food availability and access and ecological considerations need attention.

A high-level panel of experts on food security and nutrition [9] defined a sustainable food system as “a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised.” Transitioning to a sustainable food system requires socio-economic and ecological changes to the conventional food system. Dominant approaches tend to be “reductionist” as a disparate collection of components rather than look at the entire system as a coherent whole. In contrast, agroecology, defined as the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable food systems, is promoted as an integrated and holistic approach capable of addressing multiple crises in the food system [10,11]. Agroecology provides a practical framework to simultaneously examine SB farmer livelihood and a need for accessible, healthy food to combat poor health in vulnerable populations and aid in the sustainable transition of the community or region’s food system. This study embodies a less siloed approach typical in research on sustainable transitions of agri-food and sheds light on important levers and related linkages for implementing an agroecological transition. Although there is an abundance of research on agroecology-based food systems transition and the impact on food security and nutrition in the context of strong farmer-to-farmer collaborations, there is a dearth of research on fostering direct producer-to-disadvantaged consumer markets in developed economies. In summary, although alternative approaches to sustainable food systems have become more common in response to ecological injustices associated with a globalized food system, locally grown regenerative foods are rarely accessible to disadvantaged consumers in HFP areas. Understanding reciprocal and non-complimentary relationships between these divergent publics can provide useful information to design instruments, programs, and policies to transition to a more sustainable regional food system.

Using an agroecological lens and with an eye to the need for more socio-economic approaches, this research explores the connections between SB farms’ localized and ecological food production and more equitable and healthy food access in HFP areas. To this aim, we take a regional approach to seek deeper insights and ask: (1) What critical agroecological characteristics are lacking in a food system contributing to both limited livelihoods of SB farmers and food-insecure populations? (2) In what ways might the relationships of these two publics be central to an agroecological transition to a regional sustainable food system? We present a case study for a city-region (Duluth-Northland, MN, USA), using a participatory action research approach with mixed qualitative and quantitative data. Findings help illuminate the enabling and limiting factors that can contribute to both livelihood strategies and household resilience to food insecurity.

The following literature review begins with a brief overview of agroecology literature followed by an exploration of livelihood-related barriers faced by SB farmers in the United States and by disadvantaged consumers in HFP areas. We conclude with an agroecological perspective of the barriers these often divergent publics face.

2. Agroecology: A Brief Overview

It is important to us to acknowledge the long history of traditional ecological knowledge systems that predate agroecology and the literature in this review. The co-creation of knowledge in agroecology presents an adaptive approach and outcome for the increasingly complex challenges humanity is facing. The term has been redefined multiple times to consider a more diverse set of voices and networks of actors (i.e., farmers, hunters, gatherers, aggregators, processors, distributors, and consumers) and is typically used to mean the ecology of food systems [12,13,14]. Agroecology includes holistic, system-focused perspectives in place of reductionist approaches in the agricultural sciences and is applicable at both a hyper-local and a global scale. An agroecology-based food system is ethical, focused on reciprocity, justice, and economic and biophysical considerations [10]. The approach is intuitive and reflexive, characterized by minimizing external inputs, prioritizing resource recycling, building local resilience, and stressing contextuality, equity, and nutrition [14,15]. Agroecology emphasizes creating self-perpetuating feedback loops that contribute to healthy, resilient, diverse functioning agroecosystems. Agroecology-based food systems use a bottom-up governance approach [16,17], resulting in higher yields, employment opportunities, and improvements to farmers’ incomes and the agricultural sector as a whole [12]. The Food and Agriculture Organization has also started an initiative called “Scaling up Agroecology” to study its potential to contribute to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals agenda.

3. Small and Beginning Farmers’ Barriers for Livelihood

3.1. A Global Perspective of the Importance of Small-Scale Farmers

Agroecology is primarily practiced in the developing world, where small-scale and beginning farms help generate employment, strengthen local economies and the social fabric of their communities while protecting ecological systems [18,19,20]. Globally, SB farms’ traditional and innovative agricultural practices contribute to ecological restoration, soil fertility, flood control, and biodiversity [11]. Worldwide, indigenous peoples, peasants, and smallholder communities are at the forefront of agroecological innovation. SB farms provide more than 50% of the world’s food supply, and research suggests that small and regenerative farming can provide a more stable food supply than the industrial food system [21]. These farms can also be more resilient to a changing climate. Innovative approaches, for example, paying for ecosystem services [22,23], can be found that support farmers. However, Lovell et al. [21] emphasize that if these farms are to feed the world, then underlying structural inequities of race, gender, and class, and labor-related challenges must be addressed, and producer and consumer networks must be strengthened. Similar barriers exist limiting sustainability transitions of the agri-food system in the United States where agroecological practices are gaining traction on small-scale and beginning farms.

3.2. Small-Scale and Beginning Farmers in the United States

In the United States, a small and beginning farmer might have a farm or engage in farm activities and produce farm income but not qualify as a farmer under some tax provisions [24]. Broad descriptions of farms based on U.S. averages can also mask variations among farm sizes and types. Of the 2 million farms in the United States, most are considered family farms (98%). Although the average value of production of family farms in the US amounted to $168,218, almost half of those farms only produced $6000 or less [24]. Based on USDA typology, most (90%) farms are small (with a gross cash farm income of less than $350,000) and account for 22 percent of production [24]. Typology related to tax benefits and policy can limit the effective participation of disadvantaged stakeholders and negatively affect their livelihoods [24]. The USDA provides SB farmers with access to technical, financial and business-related resources, including grants (https://www.usda.gov/topics/farming/resources-small-and-mid-sized-farmers, accessed on 5 February 2022).

Although ecological advantages are inherent in SB farmers’ efforts, a lack of literature suggests that they are largely unpaid for the ecosystem services they provide. Most SB farms in the United States are not financially viable without additional off-farm income. Smaller farms tend to rely more on off-farm income than larger farms and derive more than half of their total household income from off-farm revenue [25]. Further, their farms’ operating profit margins are less than 10%, posing high financial risks [26]. They are expected to compete with the industrialized agri-food systems and comply with the norms of the capitalistic systems for accessing resources, markets, and rewards [27,28]. Environmental, social justice, and community considerations central to SB farms are externalized in industrial agri-food systems. SB farmers are attempting to break away from competitive productivism and respond to the rising demand for organic, nutritious, and local foods. They are innovative and create new ways to scale their sales but continue to face challenges.

3.3. Barriers to Scaling Sales

3.3.1. Direct-to-Consumer Sales

SB farmers work to create relational spaces for processing and distribution arrangements. Some examples are “farm to fork”, “direct (on-farm) sale”, “pick your own or U-pick”, “box schemes”, “farmers’ markets”, “collective farmer shops”, “Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)”, “solidarity purchasing groups”, and “collective buying groups” [12,28,29]. These initiatives aim to embrace transparency, democracy, equity, and access. Engaging in relational spaces and direct marketing provides an opportunity to bring high value for their products relative to selling in conventional markets by cutting down the supply chains.

Howerton and Trauger [30] and Larimore [5] found that community organizing, social inclusion, and place-making activities are important to facilitate access for all. An innovative example, the Farm Fresh Food Box project [31], aimed to expand SB farm sales while also improving food access by making food boxes available at convenient retail locations in the community. A longitudinal study of the project highlighted two areas of improvement: the need to have deep relationships between the farmers and the retailers; and achieve a price that is affordable for consumers and profitable for farmers [32]. The aforementioned food box project and other direct to consumer initiatives discussed by Lutz, Smetschka and Grima [33] and Berti and Mulligan [28] highlight that developing and maintaining collaborative relationships requires scarce knowledge and time. These direct-to-consumer approaches lack adequate infrastructure for collective aggregation necessary to produce volumes needed to meet the growing demand for local, sustainable and nutritious food [34].

3.3.2. Food Hubs

Cooperative management arrangements such as food hubs, cooperatives, and growers’ collectives can provide an opportunity to benefit SB farmer livelihoods. Food hubs address the lack of market access and growth opportunities by aggregating, distributing, and selling products from multiple producers [35]. Moreover, they attempt to reterritorialize regional and local agri-food systems [16,17,36] through innovative organizational strategies based on creating shared value and shortening regional supply chains. This includes a three-pronged strategy of redefining products and markets, supply chains, and building industry clusters aimed at expanding the connections between social, ecological, and economic progress. Similar to direct-to-consumer approaches, these arrangements are also anchored in the values of democracy, transparency, equity, and access, but primarily from the producers’ perspective. Interestingly, as food hubs focus on food quality, consistency, sustainable production methods, and price, in the United States, approximately 50% of their purchases come from SB farms. Historically, food hubs have dissolved due to lack of financial sustainability and disagreement over price setting. However, the 2019 National Food Hub Survey Report [37] concludes that more food hubs are maturing and progressing towards financial sustainability. The multiple barriers faced by SB farmers also contributes to a lack of access to local regeneratively grown foods for low-income residents in healthy food priority areas and can collectively impact health.

4. Barriers for Disadvantaged Consumers in Healthy Food Priority Areas

Persistent poverty, financial instability, and low wages are a complex socio-economic problem that cannot be tackled alone by any single policy, government department, organization or initiative. We must confront the institutional, systemic, and cultural practices that perpetuate inequity if we wish to address it. For these reasons, researchers are rethinking the use of the term food desert and are adopting alternative terminology in an effort to better acknowledge diverse perspectives and aspects of food insecurity. Some city governments have adopted alternative language, e.g., Baltimore City (MD), Pittsburg (PA), and Seattle (WA), referring to such areas as Healthy Food Priority areas (HFPs) [2]. This term is a good fit for an agroecological lens as it accounts for greater complexity and for looking at multiple dimensions of the food system together. HFP areas, contrary to “food deserts”, are a better way to illustrate the underlying structural elements of a community’s food system [3]. HFP areas have low availability of healthy foods in all of their food stores, have concentrated poverty, a significant percentage of the population have no vehicles, and the distance to a supermarket is more than one-quarter of a mile. They have uneven development, racial inequality, and people in HFP areas lack representation in food policy. In the United States, in 2019, approximately 23 million people lived in 6529 food deserts found in all types of communities and states [38], indicating the magnitude and nature of the issue.

Healthy foods are primarily available in supermarkets, and although sometimes found at corner stores, gas stations, restaurants, and convenience stores, healthy items are available at higher prices and a lower quantity or quality [38,39]. Food availability, defined by HLPE [9] as sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis, is challenged in HFP areas that lack supermarkets and stores carrying healthy foods. The situation poses a challenge for residents who cannot access supermarkets on their terms, i.e., when and how they wish to shop. The lack of transportation, unsafe neighborhoods for walking, and time due to work schedules compound the problem of accessing healthy foods outside their immediate vicinity [39]. HFP neighborhoods in the United States are disproportionately people of color experiencing high poverty rates. Compared with more affluent areas, the food prices in these neighborhoods are higher, and food quality is poorer, often inedible [39,40], exacerbating consumers’ challenges accessing healthy foods. Although online food delivery is emerging and has gained momentum during COVID-19, Karpyn et al. [38] suggest that how they address the needs of lower-income communities is still unclear. Although the primary mission of food banks is to alleviate hunger, there has been a growing interest in the United States to leverage food banks for increasing access to healthier foods to disadvantaged consumers [41]. Their approach includes setting goals for healthy food inventory and refusing donations of unhealthy foods. However, they lack guidelines for nutrition due to concerns relating to consumer choice and that it might inhibit quantity of the supply.

The direct-to-consumer markets sell fresh fruits and vegetables to HFP areas; however, the products are seasonal and often at prices higher than those found at supermarkets as they are not as subsidized. Thus, food availability and accessibility for disadvantaged consumers remain an issue due to the lack of year-round availability and affordability [8]. Larimore and Schmutz [42] highlight a key limiting factor for sustainability transition relating to a need to place less emphasis on economic relationships and market exchanges, explaining that such a focus reinforces inequalities favoring affluent consumers over more marginalized individuals. Howerton and Trauger [30] highlight similar structural issues of well-intentioned alternatives to address food insecurity:

“The “doing of good” in underserved neighborhoods draws attention away from the production of inequality under capitalism, and it allows advocates for alternative food systems to normalize middle class whiteness… [It] obscures the food procurement strategies of low-income people of color…The “community imaginary” that is often held by advocates of and consumers in alternative food networks reflects liberal, white, affluent identities, and tends to obscure and justify structural barriers to entry for those who do not fit within this idea of “community.” This imaginary constitutes an unmarked category of perceived “goodness” that works to empower particular groups (i.e., white farmers and white, and higher income consumers) while at the same time marginalizes others (i.e., low-income consumers, nonwhite laborers)”.

According to the Committee on World Food Security [6], nutrition security exists when food security is combined with a sanitary environment, adequate health services, and proper care and feeding practices to ensure a healthy life for all household members. Many food provision interventions for HFP areas, until recently, were not designed with nutrition security as a primary goal. Despite the increased use of Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) (the program provides nutrition benefits to supplement the food budget of needy families so they can purchase healthy food and move towards self-sufficiency; refer to https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program, accessed on 10 December 2021) benefits at farmers’ markets, low-income residents continue to consume less than recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables and have higher diet-related chronic diseases [38]. These authors conclude

“Our next generation of efforts to make healthy foods “accessible” to residents of food deserts requires an understanding of meaning and context, as well as of place and space. Both quantitative and qualitative research are needed to understand how food retail availability and store operations—including retail jobs, community and family perceptions of the relative value of healthy and less healthy foods, food cultures and traditions, food marketing efforts and food prices—collectively impact health.”

(p. 8)

In their systematic review, Kerr et al. [43] found that adopting comprehensive agroecological approaches to food systems increases the likelihood of improved food security and nutrition. Interestingly, the authors highlight an abundance of research on agroecology-based food systems transition and the impact on food security and nutrition in the context of strong farmer-to-farmer collaborations and in developing economies, but a dearth of it for fostering direct producer-to-disadvantaged consumer markets in developed economies. In summary, although many alternative approaches to food systems have become more common in response to the ecological injustices associated with a globalized food system, local and organic foods are rarely accessible to disadvantaged consumers in HFP areas. Community infrastructure, population, history, and issues such as redlining restrict access to food from alternate systems, marginalizing food security and nutrition issues.

5. Agroecological Perspectives of the Barriers

Oteros-Rozas et al. [44] argue that agroecology perspectives are needed to transition towards sustainability. They provide a platform for “holistic and interdisciplinary views to analyze the complex relationships that are generated between ecological functioning, human wellbeing, socio-technical innovations, governance models, and land-use policies” (p. 2). Not limited to technological change, agroecology can facilitate shifting political and economic power for addressing common ‘lock-ins,’ where lock-in refers to pressures associated with dominant regimes that can impede the success of alternative and more sustainable configurations [45,46]. The review of SB farmers’ barriers suggests that farmers are locked into the capitalistic values of the food systems. As a result, they prioritize scaling up direct-to-consumer markets and models of farmer cooperation, often catering to privileged consumers but contributing to ecologizing food systems and decreasing environmental damage. On the other hand, the literature review relating to HFP area residents suggests that geographic access-focused interventions to address food insecurity in the United States have produced insignificant results. They have provided more food for more food-insecure people but have not improved nutrition security nor addressed systemic changes for justice and equity.

Ong and Liao [47] suggest that paying attention to the drivers that influence these two publics’ values can help avoid social traps and discover new pathways for sustainable regional food systems. Similarly, emphasizing the need to explore enabling and disabling conditions, Anderson et al. [16] suggest that bottom-up community self-organization presents the most potential for overcoming lock-ins and enabling transformation. Actors can collaborate and self-organize to exercise agency [14,17] and find new sustainable and just food systems pathways. The literature shows scarce and emergent cases of pathways (for example, Clark et al. [35]) that might address barriers for both publics of interest in this research. For example, food hubs aiming to address food security issues in HFP areas are emerging [48]. Like other social enterprises, they face competing priorities of simultaneously being market based and fulfilling their social mission [49]. However, scholars are helping to characterize the transition pathways to address the dilemmas, such as Clark et al. [35], suggesting food hub developers aiming to serve disadvantaged consumers can understand the market demand by understanding their customers’ profiles and needs.

The uncomfortability relating to simultaneously exploring these divergent social, environmental, and economic needs within a food system accentuates inherent challenges relating to food as a commodity and the urgency of the need to feed the hungry. Understanding reciprocal and non-complimentary relationships between these divergent publics can provide useful information to design instruments, programs, and policies to transition to a more sustainable regional food system. Inclusive, participatory, and safe spaces can support these actors who hold the rights and knowledge to govern and transform regional food systems and renegotiate as difficulties are encountered, and new knowledge emerges.

6. Analytical Approach and Scope

Participatory action research can aid in the co-creation of knowledge that focuses on context-specific articulated needs and can result in highly practical interventions [50,51]. Because of the need to establish relationships and trust, participatory action research approaches take time to unfold. However, spending time upfront to determine the values and principles that will guide the effort pays off later and for the long term. This provides a strong base for changing direction when stakeholder priorities or needs change and supports co-creation of knowledge central to agroecological perspectives. Typically based on root cause analysis and directed action, these approaches endorse investing effort into understanding broader ecologies, using all five senses, and relying on “…observations and sense-making activities…carried out in real-life situations—in the field and in vivo. Careful observations and inclusive conversations help map, analyze, understand and respond to complex and ever-changing natural and social phenomena in place-specific situations” [12]. Additionally, visual mapping is helpful for understanding complex relationships [52], such as within a food system, demonstrating the contributions of actors as food passes from producers to consumers [53]. This research builds an understanding of the whole system by applying agroecological principles and protocols (https://agroecologyresearchaction.org/principles-and-protocols/, accessed on 5 February 2022) during participatory action research and developing food flow maps. Further, a city-region approach [15] is used for the geographical boundaries of the analysis.

USDA data show that several Duluth, Minnesota, neighborhoods face systemic food insecurity. While the region enjoys a strong network of farmers and citizens, SB farmers find farm-based livelihoods challenging. The scope of this research is SB farmers in the Northland region (See https://www.sfa-mn.org/lake-superior/farm-directory/, accessed on 10 December 2021) and three Duluth HFP area neighborhoods (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/, accessed on 10 December 2021), namely the Central Hillside, Morgan Park, and Lincoln Park. While all three neighborhoods lack a large grocery store, they each have the following characteristics: one local specialty grocery store, two to three convenience stores, two food shelves, at least five fast food joints, a couple of locally owned restaurants, seasonal farmers’ markets at fixed locations that accept SNAP benefits with matching dollars, recent pilots for CSA through the food shelf specially for low-income residents, and a seasonal mobile food truck with a fixed schedule and free produce distribution sites. Important demographic information was compiled from MNCompass.org and 2020 Bridge to Health Reports (https://www.bridgetohealthsurvey.org/images/pdfs/BTH2020reports/Duluth_City_2020_Bridge_to_Health_Survey_Report.pdf, accessed on 10 December 2021) summarized in

Table 1. Demographics for food-insecure neighborhoods (from Minnesota Compass and the City of Duluth Bridge to Health Surveys).

For Those with Income 200% of Poverty or Less	Hillside n = 337	Lincoln Park n = 470
Demographics (total population; income 200% of poverty or less; % households with no vehicle; % households on SNAP)	7486; 54.4%; 31.8%; 27.2%	5816; 50.8%; 18.8%; 32.8%
Visited food shelf more than once a month	33.10%	21.50%
One or more barriers to access food	51.30%	55.60%
Cost barrier	59.50%	64.70%
Lack of time to shop	14.20%	11.70%
Access to transportation	13.50%	16.30%

.

The Northland region encompasses fifteen county regions of northeast Minnesota and northwest Wisconsin (based on bio-cultural and physical aspects) [54]. As per the USDA and Minnesota Agriculture, the Northland region is traditionally low income, and most producers in the region rely on non-farm income as their primary source of livelihood. The region is defined by a cool, short growing season and challenging soils that include clay and sand. Farming in this region includes chickens, pork, grass-fed beef, diversified vegetables, berries, maple syrup, and cheese.

The following examples include a sampling of organizations and initiatives in the Northland Region working towards more sustainable food systems at multiple scales related to the scope of this paper. In 2011, the Minnesota Food Charter Network (https://mnfoodcharter.com/about/, accessed on 5 February 2022) was conceptualized with a mission to “ensure we have healthy, affordable, and safe food, building a legacy of health for future generations”. It offers a roadmap “for how all Minnesotans can have reliable access to healthy, affordable, safe food in places they work, live, and play”. A key component of the network is to develop a food infrastructure “that improves the health of Minnesota’s consumers while growing the food and farm economy.” It identifies a number of challenges and strategies at the state level that have resulted in three initiatives for the Northland region (http://mnfoodcharter.com/minnesota-food-charter-champion-map/, accessed on 5 February 2022)—the Duluth Community Garden program, Duluth Transit Authority’s Grocery Routes, and the Northland Food Network (NFN) supporting regional food production, access, and education to improve the health and resiliency of Northland’s people, economy, and environment. While the NFN is active on Facebook, to the best of our knowledge, no major food policy changes have occurred in the region since the launch of these initiatives. Another key Northland sustainable food systems initiative includes the Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (https://www.health.state.mn.us/ship, accessed on 5 February 2022) (SHIP) that “strives to make the healthy choice the easy choice for everyone in Northeastern Minnesota through collaborative and community-based policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) change efforts.” SHIP initiatives include increasing access to fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables at farmers’ markets, local corner stores, emergency food programs, mobile markets, and at schools and childcare facilities. Bridging Health Duluth (https://bridginghealthduluth.org/about/, accessed on 5 February 2022), a coalition of local organizations, “strives to be a hub for coordination, communication and resources related to community health improvement”. Every three years, they conduct a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) to identify and strategize the community’s social determinants of health. They identify addressing food insecurity as one of the three health priorities for the region.

7. Research Design

Data were collected between March and September 2021. Mixed methods were used for data gathering, including surveys, interviews, learning circles, and field observations during community-engaged projects to generate a rich picture of the food system in the Northland region. Agroecology practices and principles were applied while working and building relationships with a diverse group of stakeholders to understand the specificities and nuances of the region. Nine semi-structured interviews and eight learning circles (these were based on a protocol) were held with 40 participants. A learning circle invited more than two participants from different stakeholder organizations and positions to a single meeting, whereas semi-structured interviews were scheduled with one or two participants from the same organization and position. Learning circles invited conversation between participants, effectively bringing up ideas that would not have come up in individual interviews alone.

As suggested by Stroh [52] and guided by participatory action research methods [12], participants spanned diverse stakeholders from the Northland region: farmers, planners, agencies involved in food services, grocers, food banks, medical professionals, health and nutrition educators, residents in the three neighborhoods, and researchers. Two learning circles were held with farmers, one each with government officials, food bank, students who conducted community outreach, community members, grassroots organization, and a concluding one with diverse stakeholders. Twelve farmers owning small farms (based on the USDA’s definition) participated in the interviews and learning circles. Their practices were agroecological in that they related to decreasing the environmental damage related to agricultural activity or increasing the ecologization of their farm or growing systems. All farmers grow food to either share with the community and/or sell directly. Farms included market vegetable gardens, orchards, chickens, greenhouse, high tunnel, and root cellar.

The interview and learning circle questions aimed to capture stakeholders’ understanding of community problems of food access and food security, previous local attempts to solve these problems, current approaches, and their ideas to address these problems. Farmers were also asked about their livelihood concerns. Community members represent the largest stakeholder group with the least representation, which is a limitation to the findings of this research.

Field observations were recorded through the following community-engaged projects in the target neighborhoods: plant and weekly fresh food giveaways, handing out alternative currency at local farmers’ markets, volunteering with food bank fresh produce sorting, aiding a community group run a neighborhood food drive, designing a community garden water catchment system, working with a community organization supporting a mobile food truck delivering fresh groceries to neighborhood stops, participation in planning food security survey for a 2022 Community Health Needs Assessment with local hospital organizations, building demonstration bucket gardens and working in community gardens, and helping out with labor on farms.

Survey-based data were collected (food-insecure residents participated in surveys during produce giveaway, local festivities, and at mobile and farmers’ markets) to understand residents’ perceptions of local food purchase behaviors, attitudes towards buying local, and willingness to pay for local foods. Farmers were asked about places they sell, their participation in addressing hunger in the community, collaborations with other farmers, distributors, and food hubs, livelihood challenges, and pricing decisions, particularly for food-insecure neighborhoods. Eighty-three survey responses of a total of eighty-six administered were completed, and important characteristics are summarized in Table 1,

Table 2. Transportation Type Utilization.

Source of Transportation for Grocery Shopping	%
Public transportation	6.02%
Personal car	42.17%
Carpool	6.02%
Uber, Lyft, etc.	2.41%
Do not have one	3.61%
Other	3.61%
Blank	36.14%

,

Table 3. Food and Nutrition Assistance.

Received Food Stamps	%
Yes	45.78%
No	45.78%
Blank	8.43%

,

Table 4. Local Foods’ Health, Taste, Risk of Diseases, Nutrition and Cost.

	Strongly Agree	Somewhat Agree	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Blank
Local is healthier	42.17%	33.73%	16.87%	0.00%	0.00%	7.23%
Local tastes better	45.78%	33.73%	10.84%	2.41%	0.00%	7.23%
Local has less risk of diseases	24.10%	30.12%	33.73%	3.61%	0.00%	8.43%
Local is more nutritious	31.33%	33.73%	21.69%	4.82%	1.20%	7.23%
Local can help save grocery expenditure	16.78%	24.10%	18.07%	31.33%	2.41%	7.23%

,

Table 5. Type of Local Fruit and Vegetable Purchases.

Item Category	None	Some	Most	All	Blank
Fruits	3.61%	49.40%	9.64%	2.41%	34.94%
Root Veg	10.84%	43.37%	21.69%	1.20%	22.89%
Greens	7.23%	45.78%	16.87%	1.20%	28.92%
Beans	21.69%	32.53%	10.84%	3.61%	31.33%
Other Veg	6.02%	46.99%	15.66%	3.61%	27.71%
Herbs and Spices	16.87%	37.35%	14.46%	2.41%	28.92%
Squash	22.89%	32.53%	13.25%	3.61%	27.71%

,

Table 6. Frequency of Fruit and Vegetable Purchases by Venue.

Place and Frequency of Purchase	Blank	Never	≥Twice/Year	≥Monthly	≥Weekly
Large grocery chain	4.82%	4.82%	9.64%	34.94%	45.78%
Alternate grocery store	9.64%	14.46%	18.07%	39.76%	18.07%
Farmers’ market	4.82%	9.64%	59.04%	13.25%	13.25%
Roadside stand	9.64%	36.14%	44.58%	7.23%	2.41%
CSA	7.23%	68.67%	12.05%	7.23%	4.82%
Other	14.46%	53.01%	14.46%	8.43%	9.64%

and

Table 7. Willingness to Pay for Local Fruit and Vegetable (if non-local items were priced at $1).

	≤$1	$1.10–$1.25	$1.3–$2	$2.1–$3	>$3	Blank	Total
Fruits	13.25%	10.84%	32.53%	16.87%	12.05%	14.46%	100.00%
Root Veg	12.05%	12.05%	40.96%	7.23%	13.25%	14.46%	100.00%
Greens	16.87%	8.43%	36.14%	7.23%	15.66%	15.66%	100.00%
Beans	14.46%	10.84%	40.96%	7.23%	13.25%	13.25%	100.00%
Other Veg	10.84%	10.84%	40.96%	9.64%	14.46%	13.25%	100.00%
Herbs and Spices	13.25%	10.84%	39.76%	6.02%	14.46%	15.66%	100.00%
Squash	13.25%	10.84%	40.96%	4.82%	13.25%	16.87%	100.00%

.

Important fragments of text were identified from interviews, learning circles, and field observations [55], signifying the agroecology principles mentioned by Wezel et al. [14], such as recycling, biodiversity, economic diversification, and social values and diets. Further survey data were summarized and analyzed for gender, race, income distribution, and study patterns of healthy food purchases, perceptions of health benefits and nutritious value of local foods, local purchase behaviors, and willingness to pay for local food. The fragments of text and the survey data were organized and analyzed with attention to confusing or contrary information, looking for storylines associating the components of the food system with the phenomenon of interest, raising questions to illuminate the assumptions and conclusions, and identifying levers for systems change [52,53]. Possible consequences of existing and potential interventions conveyed by the data were explored [56]. A mapping of the current state of the food flow pathways from SB farmers to consumers in HFP areas was developed (Figure 1a). The solid lines indicate parts of the system working well for the involved parties as no major concerns were voiced, whereas concerns were expressed by one or more parties involved in food exchange corresponding to the dotted lines and are suggested as opportunities for innovation and change. Two subsystems within the food flows were separated for ease of discussion (Figure 1b,c). A final learning circle was held to share the findings of the current food system and seek stakeholder feedback based on best practices [52] and from other research such as Metta et al. [57], Von Loeper et al. [58], and Queenan et al. [59]. Through this, a rich preliminary picture of the system is painted, highlighting conditions that keep the system locked in, disabling the transition to a sustainable and just system.

The analysis provides insight into why the chronic, complex problems exist as well as the potential enabling conditions and opportunities for the transition.

8. Findings

SB farmers’ decisions about production, pricing, sales and marketing as well as their livelihoods, and HFP area consumers’ food habits and choices to identify regionally significant food system characteristics were analyzed. A nuanced understanding emerged of the interconnections of the entities in the food flows from farmers to consumers, the challenges, and opportunities for a sustainable food system transition. The following sub-sections present the key themes uncovered by the analysis.

8.1. Regional Food Flows

Figure 1a represents the regional food flows in the HFP areas focusing on SB farmers of the region and three HFP areas in the city. Figure 1b,c represent two subsystems involving SB farmers and disadvantaged consumers. The dashed lines in the figures represent shortcomings in the food flows.

8.1.1. SB Farmers’ Access to Markets

The region has limited farmer collaborative networks and lacks aggregators and processors such as food hubs and farmer cooperatives (although efforts in these two areas are budding). Describing SB farmer collaboration challenges, one participant said, “It seems like anytime you try and do like a cooperative farm or something like that somebody gets saddled with administrative burden of it… it seems like for something like that to work there would need a place…somebody that’s designated and like that’s their job and they’re getting compensated adequately”. The region lacks storage, which is essential to extend the supply given the region’s short growing season. From a supply perspective, most SB farmers participate in direct-to-consumer markets through CSAs and farmers’ markets, while some farmers supply to local specialty stores, overall access is limited to middle and high-income consumers (Figure 1b). The city’s large food retailers and health care and educational institutions do not source food from SB farmers—for the most part but not necessarily for a lack of trying. Reasons cited include inconsistent and inadequate supply and structural challenges to negotiate demand and supply due to the lack of aggregators. For example, the Duluth Farm to School is an initiative funded through community benefit dollars from a local non-profit hospital system. The initiative works with schools to support and develop school gardens, develop nutrition education initiatives, and incorporate local food procurement into school menus. However, it struggles with processing local foods such as lettuce and transporting the food from farms and throughout the school district. They have tried to work with a local truck driving school but policies do not allow the new drivers to carry cargo. Farmers expressed a need for more research to better understand institutional needs and challenges.

Food hubs could also help improve market access for farmers including transportation, processing, storage, and aggregation, but SB farmers perceive the risks associated with establishing a food hub to meet institutional demand to be very high. One participant compared the situation with another food hub and said, “it’s like they’re trying to emulate big food distributors, so it’s like 10 farms aggregating that product and then they’re shipping it to Milwaukee and Chicago like in huge quantities so I think that’s where it fails, because the risk is higher, you need more money to get going”. Instead, SB farmers in this study perceived an opportunity to grow sales through niche-based aggregation selling directly to consumers.

SB farmer interviews clarified their decision-making about how and where to sell, i.e., markets they decide to access. Simultaneously, interviews with retailers, food banks, food shelves, restaurants, and institutions provide insights into their sourcing decisions. The majority of SB farmers sell their products directly to consumers through CSAs, farmers’ markets, online, or farm pick-up, as these channels best meet their needs for a fair price. One respondent described farmers’ cooperative cultures of a Latin American country, compared it with that of the region, and said, “I am not surprised there is not a lot of talk of [the example] in the farming community here”. Explaining why farmers in the region are not cooperating as much, they said, “it is already so hard to figure out how to grow things.” Another farmer said, “A challenge too is you can grow broccoli, but it doesn’t always come in at the same rate to be able to harvest all of it at the same time”. A lack of focus on cooperation and food aggregation in these circumstances hinders SB farmers’ ability to provide a consistent and reliable supply to meet institutional demand. Formal and proactive coordination among SB farmers in the region to collate their products and sell to institutional buyers is in the works, but one respondent described the challenges as, “forecasting what any given year is going to look like was kind of difficult…forecasting incorrectly, trying to grow too fast, getting a new cooler…having a successful aggregation year and then having a slow year after that…what that did to the budgets…” SB farmers certainly cannot meet the demand individually. Most grocers, restaurants, institutions, food banks, and mobile markets source through regional and national distributors, limiting local produce purchases for cost and aggregation or efficiency concerns. A national network of corporations forms the first tier of suppliers for food banks, and local grocers constitute the second tier, with local growers benefiting minimally if not at all. Food shelves and related agencies receive their products primarily from food banks and from local food retailers. Foodbank stakeholders and institutions have expressed interest in exploring collaboration with SB farmers and recognize that it takes time. Here is what one respondent had to say,

“There has to be a rationale [behind buying local], and so it takes extra steps for us, we have to plan for that and those relationships are hard to come by sometimes…there has to be a leap of faith on the part of the grower, and also the purchaser…that we are going to get supplied and they’re going to get their money…it took years and years of building relationships [at their restaurant]”.

Institutions have expressed interest in creative backhauling opportunities and non-monetary trade and exchanges, innovative farm pick-up ideas. Recent experiments of supplying CSAs to food shelves show promise but need more work to fulfill the diverse needs of consumers. In the absence of farmers’ cooperation and aggregation, SB farmers strive to increase their sales through niche-based direct-to-consumer markets where farmers can communicate the value of their products by directly engaging with consumers and building a relationship with them.

8.1.2. Disadvantaged Consumers’ Access to Healthy Foods

SB farmers are mostly disconnected from disadvantaged consumers in HFP areas (Figure 1c). On the consumer end, particularly consumers using SNAP benefits in HFP areas, shop for monthly supplies at large grocery stores and access food shelves, free meal distribution, and convenience stores within walking distance at other times (although it is important to note that many expressed discomfort with free handouts). They have limited access to fresh and healthy foods through monthly mobile markets. Although infrequent, disadvantaged residents can access the farmers’ markets, CSA shares, giving gardens, and produce and plant giveaway programs during the growing season. However, this study revealed low usage levels, the reasons for which are discussed in Section 8.4. Additionally, the HFP areas in this study lack easy-to-cook and prepared healthy meal retail options. Urban residents experience limited abilities to grow their own food. Some have access to community garden space or room in their backyards or apartment complexes to grow their food. The community has an extensive and active community garden program. However, residents in the HFP areas have limitations for growing their food; the top reasons are limited access to garden spaces due primarily to contaminated land, water availability and affordability, lack of knowledge about growing food, and inability to engage in animal agriculture besides egg-laying chickens. One participant described the access to land challenges of people living in food deserts this way,

“There is no land for people experiencing food poverty that can lead to transformative change…there is so much talk about community garden in [one of the areas], but when you go and see the community gardens and how small they are and what they’re supposed to achieve, it’s just setup for failure…so land access is very very pertinent issue”.

Referring to Tribal Nations, another participant said,

“Here on [a reservation] I think it’s about 42% of the land here the nations own it…so there’s tens of thousands of acres the nation has, but we leased it out to non-Indians to grow, you know corn and soybeans for animals and we’re not making use of our land and we’re doing so with conventional practices that are damaging the soil”.

Although some affordability options are available such as purchasing plants and seeds with SNAP benefits, donated plants from farmers and organizations, many who have access to space cannot utilize it as they do not have the privilege of time to plant, care for, and grow and store their own food, or have the knowledge to pick produce correctly. The local community garden program has giving gardens but discourages open access from perceived theft and vandalism concerns. In short, from the disadvantaged consumers’ perspective, they too lack a connection with SB farmers or other sources to access fresh and nutritious foods.

8.2. Social Infrastructure and SB Farmer Livelihoods

The USDA has tried to improve support for SB farmers but primarily through a focus on the technical side of farming. They have invested in extensive training on production, marketing, and business skills and provided technical assistance to beginning farmers. However, farms are inherently a social entity, and their success depends as much on social infrastructure as on biophysical, technical, and financial. A few participants explained the challenges related to health care, childcare, and college debt as follows,

“We just you know, are in that spot…the healthcare thing is a huge issue right, [if] we make significantly more than we do, then we would have to be forced into private insurance and then all of a sudden would be incredibly unaffordable…but you know we’re kind of in this little sweet spot where we can still get some of those government assistance for health care”.

“I think the health insurance is a huge thing, childcare is a huge thing and for me student loan debt forgiveness, I think, would be really helpful. So…I would say no, I don’t feel like the social infrastructure is there to support making decisions and navigating that side of it in the same way that it’s there for technical assistance with getting a high tunnel and things like that, and all the great programs, that there are for those things”.

Farmers teeter on the decision whether to grow their operations or lose their state-supported health care benefits. Most participating SB farmers in this study had at least one adult working an additional full-time job, often to get health insurance. As one participant said,

“Our northern farmers are on average, maybe making about $3000 a year…in many ways [it] is shunting people into having farm production as a second job”.

While working another job is an affordable option, it takes time and energy away from work on the farm. One respondent described their tough social situation as,

“My husband works full time…I also have a side gig…and I homeschool my kids…I really don’t know how we would do it without that. There’s just no livable wage right now”.

Finally, the lack of land access, especially for non-white farmers, is an issue. The data suggest that the lack of a social infrastructure supporting farmers and farm workers contributes to the challenges preventing farm income as the primary source of livelihood for their households.

8.3. SB Farmers’ Contribution to Public Good

The data suggest that SB farmers choose to farm for the greater good and take action for several reasons. Emphasizing nutritional value, one participant said, “[the food people at Indian reservations have access to] is not indigenous to our diets and it has actually caused great harm to our people…there is a reason to protect and grow native seeds (and foods) as they have the ability reduce negative health outcomes”. A respondent described how they rejuvenate traditional seeds and focus on restoring habitat. They said, “we focus on different varieties of heirloom indigenous crops that are unique to our people, and we grow them for the purpose of sharing the food and also the seeds so that other people can grow them in their plots”. Describing the environmental issues associated with the capitalistic farming practices and emphasizing the need to adopt ecologically sound and innovative farming practices, educating the communities, and providing access to green space, one respondent said, “we are experimenting with different ways to plant our food without having the fertilizer, like the herbicides and pesticides…it’s not going to be you hop on a tractor and that’s how you do your farming, that’s not really friendly to the ecosystem, to the environment, it’s bad for the soil health. So we are trying to make land available to more of our people to be able to grow our foods”. SB farmers are working against the values of capitalism as reflected in the food system. One respondent described the struggles, especially of marginalized farmers, as, “we are in the United States, the center of capitalism, so it will fight back…so we have to be very creative in how we introduce various solutions…we’re bypassing this whole colonial system of putting a value to everything in terms of the dollar”.

SB farmers’ efforts produce an immense public good—in some cases, lasting generations. The public good is not recognized or rewarded through public policy or by the markets as much as they are in other sectors. For example, rural dentists, doctors, and school teachers receive student loan forgiveness. Realtors building affordable housing might be given access to tax-forfeited land for free. One respondent described the dilemma this way, “there is growing awareness that local food is a public good…we subsidize all kinds of things locally, right…if we are going to subsidize winter tourism, why wouldn’t we subsidize something that benefits our regional economy by keeping the food dollars local...by giving farmers a livable wage…by giving our citizens delicious nutritious food…we build and repair roads. Why shouldn’t we build, repair and keep in good condition, food system that feeds our people?” As a result of regional public policy inaction, farmers bear the burden of extra costs, and consumers pay for more than prevailing market prices, thereby shouldering the responsibilities for the public good.

8.4. Multiple Dimensions of Disadvantaged Consumers Food Choices

The findings revealed many critical characteristics influencing disadvantaged consumers’ choices for shopping, preparing, and food consumption.

8.4.1. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Grocery Shopping Choices

A small percentage of surveyed residents reported purchasing local fruits and vegetables most or all of the time (Table 5). The purchases are primarily at an alternate grocery store, some at farmers’ markets, and negligible through CSA (Table 6). It is interesting to observe that majority of the respondents are willing to pay a premium for local fruits and vegetables, up to double the price for non-local produce (Table 7), suggesting that these neighborhoods have a segment of the population interested in buying local produce. There are no noteworthy differences in willingness to pay across various categories of fruits and vegetables, suggesting a lack of awareness of products unique to the region. Several factors explain disadvantaged consumers’ purchase behaviors.

As expected, transportation is a key barrier to access healthy foods (Table 1 and Table 2). Only 42% of participants in this study owned vehicles, and others depended on alternate means of transportation for grocery shopping. Approximately 9% of residents in this study tend to shop once a month at large grocery stores by carpooling or using services such as Uber. As one resident said, “my mom drives me to Sam’s Club once a month, that’s when I do most of my grocery shopping...I make bulk purchases, hoping they will last for the month”. Residents using public transportation for work tend to shop at large grocery stores more frequently on their way back from home, and the distance and physical geography of the walk to their homes influences the shopping list. Others choose to shop at the convenience store adjacent to bus stops, avoiding the need to carry groceries on the bus but limiting their ability to buy healthy foods. The data suggest that access to transportation might be less important for those living in extreme poverty, temporary shelters, or the homeless since they depend more on food shelves and hot meal retail locations in the neighborhoods.

Since a large majority of the residents depend on SNAP benefits, it is not surprising that cost is perceived as the most significant barrier to accessing healthy foods (Table 1 and Table 3). Residents have the greatest control over their food bills than other bills such as electricity, water, and rent. Most of their primary food sources are large grocery chains accepting food stamps, food shelves, and convenience stores. They perceive large grocery chains and convenience stores as affordable, whereas alternate grocery stores are deemed unaffordable. As one resident explained their choice of grocery shopping, “many times I go to the Speedway on 4th and 6th avenue to grab a hot meal for my kids. I never think about the [specialty grocery store] next door, as it is too expensive”. While many study participants conceptually understood the benefits of eating healthy, their explanations described the need to feed children (foods they are willing to eat) and family members on a low budget. High-calorie processed food at convenience stores seemed to offer a solution. Food shelves or food giveaway drives offering free fresh and processed food is undoubtedly an option, and many residents access them regularly. Simultaneously, participants described a few challenges. First, not knowing what to expect at these places and needing to make do with stocked items, one respondent said, “I go to the food shelf only for items like cans of beans and corn because I am sure to get them”. Second, the residents always doubt that some foods might not be of high quality or might be close to their expiry date. One respondent was so concerned, they said, “I never ever go to food giveaway locations even if there is fresh food. I feel like milk, yogurt, cheese and bread they giveaway have a date too close to expiry. Then I don’t want my children to eat expired food”. Third, food shelves typically are open for limited hours and days of the week, and walking down is not an option for many. Even though the food banks have an ample supply to stock food shelves, the perceptions of quality and accessibility remain a challenge, and they have little to no local food.

Disadvantaged residents in HFP areas need to feel a sense of belongingness to access venues such as mobile and farmers’ markets, food giveaway events, and food shelves. Residents’ income, homelessness, race, ethnicity, and reliance on food stamps, often cause them to access food in ways not to be noticed by others due to embarrassment and humiliation related to being food insecure. As one resident said, “we don’t want to feel shamed…we need to get food and not feel shameful about it…so it matters where we go”. At a food giveaway event, the residents in nearby low-income housing units were notified of fresh food they could come pick up. People did not come, but once the event was over, they were again notified that bags of food were at the front reception table and anything left over would be disposed by 8 pm. Surprisingly, the entire food was taken, suggesting a complex relationship between perceptions of self and others, sense of belongingness, location and food choices.

8.4.2. Factors Influencing Healthy Diet and Nutrition

Over 75% of the survey respondents said that local foods taste better and are healthier, and approximately 54% said local foods have less risk of diseases and are more nutritious (Table 4). However, in reality, a subset of consumers do not know what local and seasonal foods really are and how they can be consumed. A participating farmer narrated their experience this way,

“They stop at the farm stand the first time and they’re excited. Then the second time, you know, people are not used to eating, and are not too much interested in eating kale…or Napa cabbage…or collards…people are like “Is this a cabbage, can you like make coleslaw out of it?”…and I’m like I’m not even sure…so part of it has to be when we say local food it has to be coupled with…re-educating people with what eating seasonally means and what there is to grow”.

Another farmer explained a lack of consumers’ awareness of healthy and nutritious farm products and their response to it this way,

“I found myself sitting next to this woman…and she sort of led me to believe that it was hard for her to get to a farmer’s market or get to the vegetables…and then she didn’t know what to do with it…so my idea has been a three part course…in the winter time meet with a nutritionist at a community center, then in the summer visit us or a farmer, and the third part would be a cooking class taught by a chef, just how to make some of these things like napa cabbage easy and accessible and to prove going to a farmers market and eating seasonally can be more nutritious and healthy for your family…”

Recent pilots of free CSA boxes for residents living in extreme poverty were partially successful. Highlighting the learning from the pilot, a participant responsible for the initiative said,

“The food is definitely interesting, and it is a lot of food that our clients have no idea what it is or how to prepare it. So we are looking at ways of fixing that and making people more aware of what’s in their boxes. Part of the problem is, it is not labeled…what they are delivering is not what you see at the grocery store, how it is packaged and all that stuff. We will start working more closely with the farms themselves to make that little more easier...also, the shares are weighing between 3.5 to 5 pounds. For a family of 12, this isn’t going to do much. I could utilize 100 pounds of lettuce, 75 pounds of spinach where I am only getting a pound”.

Clearly, there needs to be more education and better processes to facilitate a match between residents’ needs and available products. Furthermore, only 40% believe that local foods can help save grocery expenditures (Table 4), suggesting that health and nutrition take a back seat when presented with financial and transportation challenges.

Regarding nutrition, physicians described the deadlock they face to guide patients proactively for healthy dietary practices. One participant described the situation this way, “From a practicing physician standpoint, its’ always a challenge. I remember having many diabetic patients who would say, I know, canned vegetables are salty and I’m supposed to eat fresh ones, but right now, I can’t afford, can’t get them home…it is a pretty dismal situation. Even getting to a dietician, you have to have a diagnosis of diabetes or most insurances won’t cover it. So if you are suffering from nutritional deficiencies, none of those things are covered. Frustration for the physician is probably a sense of failure for the patient”. While the health care professionals offer regular community programs and pilots to improve health and nutrition awareness, as well as data collection efforts for the city, none in the region integrate physician–patient consults, prescription food boxes, partnerships with food banks, and health insurance to the best of our knowledge. Consequently, healthy diet and nutrition actions are, at best, post facto medically driven.

9. Discussion

Global agri-food economies exhibit fractures between the economies and their three constitutive elements: nature, consumers, and producers [36]. First, there is a tremendous loss of agro-biodiversity, degradation of forest ecosystems, food waste, and landscape destruction. Second, global agri-food systems are also causing malnutrition, food insecurity, especially in HFP areas, and degradation of the diversity of food products. Third, farmers, especially SB farms, are experiencing cost-price squeeze for commodities, face barriers to access markets, and find making a farm-based living challenging due to the farm’s declining profits. Scholars emphasize the need to focus on the food system issues regionally to generate holistic and integrative responses to these fractures, for example, Berti [36], Anderson et al. [16], and López-García and González de Molina [17]. Contrary to the globalized agri-food system, drawing focus to the region involves processes to reconnect producer and consumer, and as suggested by Jarosz [60], re-socialize food production, distribution, and consumption.

Guided by regionalization in agroecology, we examined the phenomenon of interest for the Northland region and three HFP areas in Duluth, MN, USA. Our aim was to understand the characteristics of the region’s food system focusing on SB farmers and disadvantaged consumers to begin the transition to a sustainable regional food system. This study used an agroecological approach to uncover four main characteristics (discussed below) that are currently hindering but are also opportunities for the region’s transition to a sustainable food system. Re-territorialization as a strategy leverages the fundamentally political nature of agroecology and emphasizes the need for communities to self-organize, exercise agency, and effect change through policies, networking, collaboration, and innovation from the ground up [16,17,28,36]. Agroecology principles of prioritizing relationships over transactions, culture over commerce, and people over profit [46] can be used to challenge the inhibitors that maintain the status quo and turn them into enablers supporting the transition. The four inhibitors identified in this study can be responded to through territorial self-organizing of critical stakeholders, including SB farmers and disadvantaged residents in HFP areas, by developing innovative models and influencing policies addressing the disparate needs of all stakeholders. Next, the inhibitors and the potential opportunities for a sustainable transition are discussed.

9.1. Developing the Social Infrastructure

As in other cases, for example, Leslie [61], Northland farmers are faced with challenges related to health care, childcare, educational loans, and retirement. A quick scan of the USDA site (https://www.usda.gov/topics/farming/resources-small-and-mid-sized-farmers, accessed on 10 December 2021) for resources available to small farmers in the United States shows topics such as accessing capital, managing risks, locating market opportunities, land management, food safety, and other educational resources. Clearly, technical, business and financial support and policies have evolved, and while various resources are available for technical and business assistance, this study shows that farmers lack social support. In its food infrastructure section, Minnesota Food Charter discussed in Section 5 lacks acknowledgment of the need for an infrastructure to provide social support to SB farmers. Only recently, the USDA announced a program, “Rural Childcare Resource Guide” (https://www.usda.gov/media/radio/daily-newsline/2021-09-21/actuality-rural-childcare-resource-guide-and-its-intent, accessed on 10 December 2021), where rural leaders can apply for competitive grants to build capacity to provide childcare. SB farmers are categorized as small businesses (https://newfarmers.usda.gov/health-care, accessed on 5 February 2022) and do not have resources suited for their conditions to access health care. The Farmfest Forum of the Land Stewardship Project (https://landstewardshipproject.org/farmfest-forum-sheds-light-on-positive-role-government-can-play-in-healthcare/, accessed on 5 February 2022) had this to say about health insurance for farmers, “One of the biggest concerns family farmers and small businesses face is the high cost of health insurance in the individual market, with no real relief in sight. And for those who do have insurance, there’s no guarantee the policy will cover care at the nearby clinic”. A similar situation is found with educational debt, begging the question, why do we have several farmer incentives and support programs for technical, business, and environmental quality, but few social incentive programs?

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is working to recognize diversity and intersectionality, and collaborates with the Young Farmers Coalition of Duluth. They can provide county and city officials incentives to help address social infrastructure needs such as higher education debt relief, access to tax-forfeited lands, reducing childcare cost burdens, and access to low-cost water. The Northland Food Network, a food charter champion for the Northland region, offers a platform to progress conversations about the need for social infrastructure. Its networked relationships with state food charter champions and grassroots collaboration with regional farmers provide avenues to apply agroecological principles for influencing state and regional policies and programs that aim to improve social infrastructure needs for SB farmers. The results discussed in Section 8.2 are a starting point to guide issues of importance for Northland SB farmers.

9.2. Recognizing SB Farmers’ Public Good Contribution

Literature on small farms identifies various contributions they make for the greater good: conserve natural resources, soil, and water, and serve as a sanctuary of agrobiodiversity [11,62]; provide employment in rural communities [63]; and contribute to food security and nutrition, and improve health outcomes and social connections [64,65]. The findings suggest Northland SB farmers are motivated by the potential to conserve natural resources and enhance agrobiodiversity. They strive to persevere despite livelihood challenges. While many policies and financial incentives are available for industrial agriculture, they are negligible in recognizing and incentivizing SB farmers’ ecological and social contributions. Leslie [61] says to operate in free markets, SB farmers practicing regenerative and organic farming need built-in safety nets to receive just compensation for their ecological and social stewardship. Therefore, a policy question is, “Who pays for these services that generate ecosystem and social value?”

Although there are studies about market-based policy instruments to pay for ecosystem services, these are rarely in the context of SB farmers in the United States. They are also criticized for commodifying ecosystem services [22]. The value created must be recognized as a public good, but Redford and Adams [23] suggest that payment for ecosystem services should be seen as one of the tools rather than a strategy for conservation. Exploring many case studies, Muradian and Rival [22] emphasize the complexity and multi-layered nature of governing ecosystem services and call attention to consider ecological services in terms of public or common-pool goods. A Brazilian case study suggests several approaches, such as a law for carbon sequestration and financing biodiversity conservation to capture revenue for ecosystem services (p. 348). Findings from this research, knowledge from ecosystem services and agroecological principles can be used to develop a regionally sensitive models. Recognition of SB farming as a public good could result in more public dollars and local cooperation regarding shared hubs, public transit opportunities for distributing produce, shared storage, processing, and food preparation. This recognition of local food production as a public good and its related benefits will likely remain unrealized as long as it remains accessible only to the affluent and privileged. Careful attention must be paid to cultivate a local food system more accessible to all residents.

9.3. Addressing Multi-Dimensional Nature of Food Security

The findings support that food security in HFP areas has multiple dimensions, such as factors influencing residents’ food sourcing, preparation, and health and nutrition priorities. In their systematic review of food access in HFP areas in the United States, Walker and Keane [39] identified four explanatory factors. Findings from this study support the first factor that the built environment plays a critical role in a person’s diet. The lack of a supermarket within a mile radius coupled with limited public transportation forces consumers to depend on unhealthy food options available at convenience stores or bulk purchase groceries with a longer shelf life (that also tend to be unhealthy) to minimize transportation costs and inconvenience. The neighborhoods in this study have seen many food access initiatives and continue to see new experiments such as CSAs through food shelves. However, there is an opportunity to learn from other cases [5,30,32,41,65], and local food banks can build new models of interventions based on agroecological principles. A coalition of the food bank, the SHIP, and the NFN can prioritize sourcing, transporting, and distributing healthy food inventory from regional SB farmers and establish culturally appropriate and diverse nutrition guidelines. Likewise, a coalition of food shelves, community organizations, and disadvantaged consumers can develop integrated models for accessing healthy food and providing health and nutrition education.

A second contributing factor is racial and ethnic disparities, and more recent research shows that adults with disabilities face greater food insecurity [66]. Our study found that individuals with trauma are challenged when planning and managing grocery shopping and preparing meals. This is a potential explanation for consumers in HFP areas consuming fewer fruits and vegetables [38,67] is that living in generational poverty, they have not grown up with healthy foods, and the lack of knowledge and discomfort with unfamiliar foods presents barriers to consuming seasonal and healthy foods. A siloed solution of nutrition education or solely approaching a lack of fruit and vegetable consumption as a health issue is inadequate for transitioning to a sustainable food system. Interventions must be designed to cater to disparate needs, such as experiential education, mentorship and relationship building, ease of accessing cooking instructions, and assistance with food sourcing, storage and preparation.

Alpha and Fouilleux [68] recommend that food security governance mobilize multiple sectors to address the complexity of such interventions. Harris et al. [67] suggest, “Bringing together people with a stake in food systems to debate and decide policy, explicitly recognising disparities in power among them in contributing to outcome and decisions, is likely to lead to the most context-specific and equitable policy in practice when done well”. Findings suggest that disadvantaged groups are largely excluded from SB farmers’ markets, and while food banks and food shelves policy setting involve them as beneficiaries, active participation is lacking in setting the agenda at the nexus of food security, nutrition education, food and nutrition assistance, and transportation. Ultimately, there is a lack of effective pathways for capturing the disparate and multi-dimensional needs of residents in HFP areas. Agroecological approaches can bring disadvantaged groups from the margins to the center, break down the silos and help design multi-pronged practical and contextual approaches with knowledge that is coproduced at the regional and local levels.

9.4. Creating Relational Spaces for Divergent Publics to Innovate

Food hubs can help SB farm livelihoods while pursuing environmental and social goals; however, balancing supply and demand is challenging. This study highlights an important supply-side gap in the Northland region’s food system with only a few informal farmer-to-farmer cooperatives and no food hubs (although one is in the works). Findings suggest Northland farmers’ preoccupation with region-specific growing issues, and as in other cases (for example, Meter [65]), the possible concentration of power in the hands of a few have led to skepticism and restricted attempts at creating food hubs. Additionally, food hubs’ financial success takes significant management effort to secure investments and manage the demand and supply [69], and similar to previous studies [28,31,33,65], SB farmers lack the necessary resources and expertise to go alone in mounting a real challenge to the conventional food system. However, this study reveals institutional buyers’ willingness to collaborate and develop new food pathways between them and SB farmers. In a direct-to-consumer model, SB farmers can communicate why they grow the crops they do and negotiate prices openly and fairly, and in case of a disagreement, as suggested by Meter [65], have the power to decide which way to go. Similarly, institutions can express aggregation, transportation, processing, and food type needs.

An innovative food hub for the Northland region can be a place where institutions and SB farmers discuss and negotiate demand, supply, and prices but should be cautious of common mistakes associated with such structures including governance, pricing, and centralization. This study suggests farmers are interested in cooperative/collective opportunities but concerned about power structures and administration associated with such a model. The findings further suggest that if disadvantaged consumers are to access SB farm products, perceived and actual barriers of cost and transportation must be addressed, a sense of belongingness needs to be created, and uncertainties about healthy food availability must be reduced. One or more relational spaces for the region to establish and administer decentralized governance mechanisms important for the region’s players can be a method to realize reterritorialization of the food system recommended by Anderson et al. [16]. Following agroecological principles, these spaces need to honor the values important for the region’s SB farmers, disadvantaged consumers, and public service-oriented institutional buyers such as health care and educational institutions.

10. Conclusions

Holistic food security initiatives integrating nutrition with food availability, access and ecological considerations need more attention in sustainability transitions research, policy and other related agri-food system interventions. Our research aimed to fill a gap in limited holistic studies relating to sustainable transitions and the transformation of food systems and shed light on important levers and related linkages and challenges for implementing an agroecological transition. This study builds on the recommendations by López-García and González de Molina [17] about the push for multi-actor, bottom-up governance and the need for multi-dimensional equity and multi-level and territorial food policies and governance. This research makes two key contributions regarding agroecological characteristics needed in the Northland region’s food system: 1. relational spaces between SB farmers and HFP area residents; and 2. recognition of SB farms as a public good.

Regarding the first contribution, platforms and pathways are needed for facilitating and cultivating relational spaces, mainly between SB farmers and HFP area residents. These spaces could also be nurtured between regional growers and public service-oriented institutions. Systemic food system inequities coupled with farmer livelihood challenges influence how food is priced and to whom it is sold—ultimately in spaces and ways not accessible nor relatable to disadvantaged residents, especially in HFP areas. When food is provided through organizations and institutions, it is not always considered nutritious nor supportive of local economies and livelihoods. Institutions such as schools, hospitals, and food banks might improve upon access to agroecologically grown local food, but processing, transportation, storage, and aggregation issues persist. The culmination of these challenges results in fewer relational spaces for SB farmers and low-income residents to connect in meaningful ways, although evidence suggests these connections might be more critical for improved health and nutrition than educational programming and campaigns alone.

Relating to the second key contribution, cultivating these relational spaces could result in fewer niche markets and in policies and practices recognizing SB farmers’ efforts as a public good. Government support and programs largely focus on the technological and business perspectives of farming, but social infrastructure (student debt relief, health insurance, retirement, and childcare) is needed to alleviate farmers’ livelihood struggles. Recognition of the socio-economic and ecological services they provide could come in the form of policies and practices that address the many social infrastructure needs of SB farmers.

Many actors in the Northland region are working hard to collaborate and self-organize to exercise agency and find new sustainable and just food systems pathways but could be better supported by government, institutions, and policies to move sustainable transitions in the agri-food system from a lock-in associated with a mostly white, liberal, affluent class-based “community imaginary” to reflect an agroecological and practice-based transition that is more equitable. Findings can lead to mechanisms and/or dialogues for change and co-constructed knowledge of territorializing community food systems or be utilized by stakeholders in the region to collaboratively develop their own bottom-up, place-based governance initiatives.