# What scale for local food system planning? Insights from French case studies

Tianzhu Liu

► To cite this version:

Tianzhu Liu. What scale for local food system planning? Insights from French case studies. The Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2025, pp.1-21. 10.5304/jaf-scd.2025.141.015. hal-04902538

HAL Id: hal-04902538

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04902538v1

Submitted on 21 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# What scale for local food system planning?
## Insights from French case studies

Tianzhu Liu *

INRAE, Université Paris-Saclay, AgroParisTech, UMR SADAPT

Submitted May 7, 2024 / Revised September 1 and September 26, 2024 / Accepted September 26, 2024 /

Published online January 2, 2025

Citation: Liu, T. (2025). What scale for local food system planning? Insights from French case studies.

*Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development*. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2025.141.015

Copyright © 2025 by the Author. Published by the Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems. Open access under CC BY license.

## Abstract

This paper explores the critical role of scale in food system planning. Although there is growing awareness of the importance of considering the city-region scale in food system planning, a comprehensive understanding of the scale of planning is lacking in this evolving policy field. This study addresses this gap by analyzing a series of food system planning projects developed at different scales in France. Drawing on document analysis and semi-structured interviews with officials, the paper explores three key dimensions of scale: administrative, action, and governance scales. Findings reveal that there is no relevant one-size-fits-all administrative scale for all food system planning projects. Instead, each administrative scale has its own

strengths and limitations. Smaller-scale planning is often more efficient for rapid implementation but may fall into the local trap, whereas larger-scale planning offers a more appropriate scale to meet the food supply-demand balance at a city-region scale but risks a long process of coordination and inefficient implementation. The study identifies local political willingness, legal competences, and spatial appropriateness as significant factors when determining at which scale to develop food system planning. Moreover, the study investigates how localities define “local” within their food system planning practices. They vary from the ambiguous “as close as possible,” administrative units, to

## Funding Disclosure

This work was a part of the author's PhD work supported by China Scholarship Council (grant numbers 201908310135) during 2019-2022.

## Author Note

I conducted the research as a PhD candidate at INRAE, Université Paris-Saclay (France), and wrote, submitted, and revised the paper as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

<footnote>* Tianzhu Liu, PhD candidate, INRAE, Université Paris-Saclay, AgroParisTech, UMR SADAPT, 22 Place de l'Agronomie, 91120 Palaiseau, France.</footnote>

<footnote>Dr. Tianzhu Liu is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bern, Institute of Geography, Hallerstrasse 12, 2012 Bern, Switzerland; tianzhu.liu@unibe.ch;</footnote>

<footnote>ID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8396-4398</footnote>
quantified distances, but most action scales extend administrative boundaries. Finally, the study identifies locally designed governance strategies to match action scales and administrative scales, with empirical evidence from food system planning experiments applying cross-scalar and cross-local governance models. It also highlights challenges such as unclear distribution of responsibilities among jurisdictions, which hinders local implementation of actions. By providing empirical evidence, the paper contributes to a nuanced understanding of the scale issue in food system planning and emphasizes the importance of governance strategies and institutional design. The paper offers practitioners guidance on identifying and determining the scale of planning and governance strategies, while also providing scholars with directions for future research.

### Keywords

agriculture, food planning, food policy, food security, food strategies, multilevel governance, public policy analysis, sustainable food system, regional planning, urban planning

### Introduction

Local food systems are increasingly recognized for their potential to address challenges such as climate change, food insecurity, and social segregation (Allen, 2010; Baldy & Kruse, 2019; Feagan, 2007; Sherriff, 2009; Stein & Santini, 2022). In an era dominated by global food systems, public policies are critical in facilitating a transition towards local food systems. Public policies on food systems have long been a concern at international and national levels, addressing food insecurity through increasing productivity and the global food trade (Barling et al., 2002; Sonnino, 2016). However, this productive approach has shown its deficiency, as it falls short in addressing localized issues regarding unequal access to healthy food and the ecological consequences of food systems (Morgan & Sonnino, 2010; Sonnino, 2016). Recognizing this shortcoming, practitioners and scholars have searched for solutions at the local level, thereby making food systems an issue in the local political agenda.

Over the past two decades, an increasing number of local authorities have initiated measures to support various aspects of food systems, ranging

from production to consumption. While many authorities have adopted segmented actions, others have embraced integrated policies to systematically support local food systems (Candel, 2020; Karetny et al., 2022; Liu, Korthals Altes, et al., 2024; Mattioni et al., 2022; Robert & Mullinix, 2018; Sibbing et al., 2021). These integrated policies, referred to here as *food system planning*, outline goals and actions for developing more sustainable local food systems (Sonnino, 2016). Such policies are also known by other terms, such as *food planning* (Horst, 2017; Liu, 2024) and *urban food policy* (Morley & Morgan, 2021). The content of food system planning may address different aspects of food systems—such as allocating land, organizing food distribution facilities, and locally sourcing for public catering—depending on the different targets to be achieved (Candel, 2020; Liu, 2024). Food system planning is a burgeoning field with numerous unanswered questions, one of which pertains to the appropriate scale of planning.

The scale of food system planning is inherently linked to the *local* scale of food systems. Researchers have argued that “local” encompasses multiple dimensions of proximity, with geographical proximity being the most essential (Enthoven & Van den Broeck, 2021). However, “local” is not a fixed geographical distance. In food studies, the concept of “local” food systems is often operationalized through the lens of “city-region,” which emphasizes connecting urban areas with their surrounding peri-urban and rural hinterlands (Carey, 2013; Fei et al., 2023; Jennings et al., 2015; Moragues-Faus & Marsden, 2017). These hinterlands are also referred to as a foodshed, or a geographic region that produces food for a particular population (Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Freedgood et al., 2011). In food system planning practices, the spatial boundary of “local” or “city-region” varies. It may span distances of 80 to 100 km (50 to 62 mi) or encompass a county, a subregion, or a whole country (Battersby & Watson, 2019; Carey, 2013; Morgan & Sonnino, 2010; Sonnino, 2016). Most food system planning projects do not rigidly delimit the local food system but rather describe it through the expected benefits (Mendes, 2007; Sonnino, 2016). Researchers have suggested that the boundary of city-region food systems should consider various
factors, such as foodshed, geographical appropri-
ateness, jurisdictional boundaries, social coherence,
and cultural identity (Borrelli & Marsden, 2018;
Cavallo & Olivieri, 2022; Dubbeling et al., 2017).

Despite the emphasis on the city-region scale,
planning mainly operates within jurisdictions. Most
studies focus on food strategies adopted by munici-
palities (e.g., Mendes, 2007; Cretella & Buenger,
2016; Doernberg et al., 2019; Sibbing et al., 2021;
Candel, 2020) or regional authorities (Ben-Othmen
& Kavouras, 2022; Horst, 2017; Parsons et al.,
2021). Some studies have shown that different
food system issues correspond to different relevant
scales (Battersby & Watson, 2019; Mendes, 2007).
Born and Purcell (2006) have warned that scale is
socially constructed and a given scalar strategy
brings a certain direction of outcomes; they have
alerted planners to the “local trap,” noting that not
all local activities result in positive outcomes.

Further, studies have highlighted the need to match the planning scale with the scope of local food systems it addresses. Zasada et al. (2019) suggested that a challenge for food system planning is the mismatch between administrative boundaries and the spatial extent of the local food systems that the planning addresses. This mismatch leads to planning inefficiencies because the competence of an administrative body is linked to the actions it can undertake within its jurisdiction (Hayhurst et al., 2013; Prové et al., 2019). Governance strategies have been proposed to address this mismatch. For instance, some have advocated fostering collaboration between neighboring localities to jointly develop actions covering foodshed (Calori et al., 2017; Wascher & Jeurissen, 2017). Drawing from empirical studies on Vancouver's planning, Mendes (2007) argued that municipalities can serve as effective “brokering institutions” that coordinate multilevel governance strategies.

The abovementioned literature outlines three
dimensions of scale within food system planning:

1. The administration scale, which delineates the scope of the administrative jurisdiction within which planning authorities wield their power.

2. The action scale, which pertains to the spa-
tial area that planning aims to cover.

3. The governance scale, which indicates the spatial scope wherein planning actions can be implemented through collaboration with partners.

However, several scale-related inquiries need
*empirical* investigations for a deeper understanding.
Concerning the administrative scale, although a
recent study has shown how administrative scales
affect the policy focuses of planning (Karetny et
al., 2022), it remains unclear how the scales affect
planning outcomes. Regarding the action scale,
ambiguity exists surrounding how planning con-
ceptualizes local food systems. In terms of the gov-
ernance scale, although multilevel governance is
increasingly acknowledged, it remains underdevel-
oped in planning practices (Fattibene et al., 2023;
Sonnino, 2023). A comprehensive understanding
of governance strategies, including their motiva-
tions and mechanisms, is lacking.

Thus, this paper aims to enhance the under-
standing of scale in food system planning by
empirically examining a series of food system plan-
ning projects at various scales. This understanding
will benefit both practitioners and scholars in the
field of food system planning. For practitioners, a
comprehensive grasp of scales will enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of implementation by
identifying the appropriate actors to mobilize, set-
ting suitable goals, designing achievable actions,
and establishing governance strategies to manage
cross-scalar matters. For scholars, the concept of
scale presents a compelling framework to analyze
and reflect on local governance within this emerg-
ing area of public policy. The research is guided by
three questions and corresponding hypotheses
derived from the literature:

1. Administrative scale: How do leaders at administrative levels of food system planning leaders affect planning approaches?

Hypothesis: Food system planning project leaders<fnref n="1" /> possess distinct competencies. These

<footnote n="1">¹ “Project leaders” in this paper refer to entities that develop food system planning projects.</footnote>
competencies shape their roles and the policy instruments they employ across different administrative tiers.

2. Action scale: How is “local” conceptualized in food system planning?

Hypothesis: Food system planning projects define “local” based on geographic, cultural, and administrative factors, aligned with their objectives. This action scale often transcends administrative boundaries.

3. Governance scale: What strategies does food system planning employ to bridge the gap when the action scale differs from the administrative scale?

Hypothesis: Food system planning leaders establish partnerships with other stakeholders to create governance structures that extend beyond administrative boundaries to match the action scale. These strategies are based on the complementarity between stakeholders.

The empirical studies are based in France and focus on French local food system planning projects (Projet Alimentaire Territorial, or territorial food project). France offers an ideal test case because, unlike many other countries where food system planning is dependent on local initiatives, it has seen the widespread development of local food planning projects driven by a national scheme that actively encourages these efforts. These planning projects operate across various scales, offering a diverse array of samples for this study (Lamine et al., 2023). Despite the existence of the French Agriculture Act enacted in 2014,<fnref n="2" /> which provides a nationwide framework for food system planning, food planning remains flexible, allowing ample room for local territories to explore different scales and experiment with locally adapted approaches to policymaking (Liu, Melot, et al., 2024). This institutional context is detailed in the methods section, together with case study areas and methods. Following this, the third section presents the results, aligning with the three dimensions of scale. The

paper concludes by discussing the results and providing implications for policymaking and for researchers regarding fostering sustainable local food systems.

## Methods and Case Study Areas

### Institutional Contexts

French food system planning, officially established by the 2014 Agriculture Act, aims “to bring producers, processors, distributors, public authorities and consumers closer together and to develop local agriculture and improve food quality” (Article 1). The state encourages local stakeholders to develop food system planning through annual financial programs managed by the Ministry of Agriculture. A call for projects has been issued annually to finance projects that meet the requirements of the call. Food system planning is not a statutory responsibility for any public authority, and the law does not define any responsible entity for launching and managing food system planning projects. Both public and private stakeholders are eligible to apply for funding through the call for projects. Private stakeholders serving as food system planning leaders must be nonprofit or for-profit entities with collective interests.

France has three tiers of local authorities: municipality (*commune*), département, and région. A group of municipalities form an intermunicipal structure (*intercommunalité*), which receives increasing power delegated by municipalities. Additionally, territories of projects are other forms of public entities, including territorial clusters (*pôles d'équilibre de territoires ruraux*, or rural clusters, and *pôles métropolitain*, or urban clusters) and regional natural parks (*parcs naturels régionaux*). Territories of projects contain multiple municipalities or intermunicipalities and ensure regional coherence. Existing food system planning projects operate at the scales of municipality, intermunicipal structure, département, territorial clusters, and regional natural parks. They are led mostly by public entities but occasionally by associations, cooperatives, or Chambers of Agriculture (farmers' support organizations). Food system planning leadership can involve a combina-

<footnote n="2">² Agriculture Act: Loi n° 2014-1170 du 13 octobre 2014 d'avenir pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et la forêt.</footnote>
tion of entities, such as two neighboring inter-municipal structures (France PAT, n.d.; Lamine et al., 2023).

Food system planning is not an embedded
responsibility for any public authority but relies on
leveraging diverse local capabilities, including land
management, spatial planning, school catering,
mobility, and territorial development (Bodiguel,
2018). No clear responsibility is defined by law.
The major agrifood-related roles of public entities
vary:

* Département councils manage canteen catering in high schools, own land, provide nonbinding advice on regulatory land-use planning, and have the capacity to establish perimeters for farmland and natural resources preemption rights.

* Municipalities and intermunicipal structures<fnref n="3" /> have land-use planning capabilities, manage primary schools and their canteens, and have the capacity to own and sell or bestow publicly owned land.

* Territorial clusters facilitate (inter-)munici-
pal structures, particularly in rural areas, and
may establish master plans, which are bind-
ing supradocuments for local land-use
plans.

* Regional natural parks develop regional
natural park charters, in which urbanization
control and environment protection are
included to guide territorial development.

Case Study Areas

Case study areas were located in two French
regions, Occitania and Normandy. I identified
them in the framework of a PhD project on land
and food policies relating to the reterritorialization
of agricultural activities. Their distinct agricultural
characteristics offer a solid foundation for explor-
ing a broad range of conditions and gaining a more

generalizable understanding of the consequences of
scale. Normandy has the highest proportion of uti-
lized agricultural areas and larger average farm
sizes, whereas Occitania has a larger number of
farms, a higher proportion of organic farming, and
greater agricultural diversity (Chambre d'Agricult-
ture Normandie, 2024; Chambre d'Agriculture
Occitanie, 2022). These case studies included food
system planning projects at diverse scales (Figures
1 and 2): municipality (n = 1), intermunicipal
structure (n = 16), two neighboring intermunicipal
structures (n = 2), département (n = 3), territorial
cluster<fnref n="4" /> (n = 12), regional natural park (n = 5), and
one regional natural park plus one rural cluster (n =
1). These planning projects exhibited complex
spatial relations such as adjacency, overlap, or
containment (Figure 3). Not all project leaders
were public entities. The studied cases included
three projects led by associations or a cooperative.

Data Collection and Analysis

I conducted data collection and analysis through semi-structured interviews and document analysis. These methods aimed to address the three research questions concerning administrative, action, and governance scales. For the administrative scale, data collection and analysis were conducted to understand the role of project leaders and the factors influencing their decisions in developing food system planning at its current scale. I used document analysis to compare policy instruments adopted by different levels of public entities. For the action scale, I focused on understanding the local conception of local food systems. For the governance scale, I collected and analyzed data to identify strategies and challenges for project leaders to take action beyond their administrative boundaries.

Semi-structured interviews took place between
January and October 2021 as part of the aforemen-
tioned PhD thesis. Relevant interviews included
principally project managers responsible for food

<footnote n="3">³ Municipalities and intermunicipal structures have similar rights. Municipalities can choose to or are obliged to delegate some of their capabilities to intermunicipal structures. This is also because municipalities in France are extremely small.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ The territorial clusters apply to urban or rural areas (in the studied cases, mainly in rural areas). They are composed of a group of intermunicipal structures. The common major objective of these clusters is reinforcing the collaboration between local authorities (municipalities or intermunicipal structures).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1. Studied Food System Planning Projects**</figcaption></figure>

system planning. I identified them as principal interviewees because of their comprehensive knowledge of the entire process and their relatively neutral political positions. I also interviewed additional stakeholders, including staff from the Chamber of Agriculture and elected officials. They were invited either by the project managers for their local knowledge or by the author to provide

complementary information at the regional level. Interview questions related to this study covered (1) the role of project leaders, (2) the definition of “local” in food system planning, (3) the rationale for launching the food system planning at its current scale, and (4) strategies for collaborating with neighboring, supra-, or infraterritories in food system planning development and implementation. I
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Dataset of Food System Planning Case Studies by Spatial Scale</figcaption></figure>

Note. (a) Food system planning at the scale of two intermunicipal structures was categorized as a “rural cluster” considering the spatial scale. They were both at the scale of the pre-existing rural cluster. (b) Food system planning at the scale of a regional natural park plus one rural cluster was categorized as a “regional natural park.”

recorded all the interviews with the interviewees' permission and transcribed them. I used the qualitative analysis software Atlas.ti to code the interview transcripts based on these four topics. I conducted the original interviews in French and translated them into English for all quotes included in this paper.

I collected food system planning documents from official websites and those provided by interviewees, including working documents. To address the question of administrative scale, I analyzed documents to compare the policy instruments adopted for food system planning at different administrative scales. I compared 10 policy instruments across four topics: land, collective catering, environment protection, and local food facilities. I grouped administrative levels with similar legal capabilities to facilitate comparison. The single municipality was combined with intermunicipal structures, and territorial clusters were combined with regional natural parks. I also reviewed documents

to identify the definition of local food systems and governance strategies.

## Results

### Administrative Scale: Compare Planning Approaches and Roles of Project Leaders

#### Planning approaches and roles of project leaders across scales

I identified the prevalence of selected policy instruments used by administration scales of food system planning through document analysis (Table 1). These policy instruments reflect the specific planning efforts involved in each project. Across all administrative scales, planning projects consistently addressed some topics and applied policy instruments to achieve them, such as collective catering and farm incubator development. Other instruments showed significant differences. For example, intermunicipal structures were particularly active in
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Overlap of Food System Planning Projects at Different Scales: Example in Ariège</figcaption></figure>

leveraging publicly owned land, whereas regional natural parks and territorial clusters were more inclined toward facilitating product diversification than other structures by providing analysis and strategies to improve product diversification and offering information, communication, and advice to facilitate farmers’ transitions to being more eco-friendly (Table 1).

The roles played by project leaders further illustrated these disparities in policy instrument usage. Interviews reported that most food system planning project leaders play roles as project coordinators (including overseeing the plan, coordinating actions, organizing committees, monitoring agendas and budget, and applying for funding) and project managers (acting as project owners when implementing actions). However, their dominant roles vary depending on the scale of food system planning.

Municipalities and intermunicipal structures played a more significant role as *project managers* compared to other structures. They actively engaged in actions related to dispensing publicly owned land and buildings to facilitate local farming activities and food facilities (Table 1). Moreover, according to interviewees, (inter-)municipal structures

often directly intervene in facility investments, such as managing logistics platforms or allocating publicly owned land for vegetable centers.

In contrast, territories of projects, that is, territorial clusters and regional natural parks, fulfilled more roles as *coordinators* and *facilitators*. These structures primarily coordinated partners due to their limited capacity to implement actions requiring substantial material or financial investment. These territories were active in developing food facilities (farm incubators, local processing facilities, and distribution facilities; Table 1). However, interviewees confirmed that they did not execute concrete projects themselves but rather coordinated partners involved in projects. Additionally, territories of projects played a specific role as *facilitators*, aligning with their responsibility to facilitate very local-scale authorities (intermunicipal structures and municipalities). For instance, these structures were the most active in training local authorities on land preservation tools (Table 1). As well, although collective catering is not an official responsibility of territories of projects, they actively supported school canteens through providing analysis, advice, and communication activities (Table 1).
<table><caption>Table 1. Comparison Between Policy Instruments Leveraged in Food System Planning Across Administrative Scales</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Administrative scale of food system planning</th><th>Collective Catering</th><th colspan="3">Facilities</th><th colspan="4">Land</th><th colspan="2">Environment</th></tr><tr><th>Provide analysis, advice, and communication to improve collective catering</th><th>Create farm incubators</th><th>Create local processing facilities</th><th>Create local food distribution facilities, e.g., food hubs, logistics, storage facilities</th><th>Use publicly owned land and buildings for local farming</th><th>Leverage land-use planning & associated instruments</th><th>Fallow land reclamation</th><th>Train local authorities on land preservation tools</th><th>Provide analysis and strategies to improve product diversification</th><th>Provide information, communication, and advice to facilitate farmers' ecological transition</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(Inter-) Municipality (N = 13)</td><td>92.3% (12)</td><td>30.8% (4)</td><td>46.2% (6)</td><td>46.2% (6)</td><td>69.2% (9)</td><td>23.1% (3)</td><td>7.7% (1)</td><td>7.7% (1)</td><td>23.1% (3)</td><td>30.8% (4)</td></tr><tr><td>Territorial cluster/ regional natural park (N = 11)</td><td>81.8% (9)</td><td>63.7% (7)</td><td>54.5% (6)</td><td>36.4% (4)</td><td>18.2% (2)</td><td>36.4% (4)</td><td>18.2% (2)</td><td>63.7% (7)</td><td>54.5% (6)</td><td>63.7% (7)</td></tr><tr><td>Département council (N = 2)</td><td>100% (2)</td><td>50% (1)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>50% (1)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Food system planning project of Pyrénées Cathares was categorized under (inter-)municipality because the project was led by two intermunicipal structures; food system planning projects of Haute Vallée de l'Aude, of Pyrénées Catalanes, and of Pyrénées Orientales were not included in this comparison because their project leaders were not public entities.
Département councils mainly functioned as coordinators, with a dual role of coordinating both intradepartmental planning projects and numerous intermunicipal structures. According to the interviewees, however, this coordinating responsibility was still evolving:

This is a real question that the département is wondering: How it should be positioned? Should it encourage sharing and pooling? Can it be a support to help territories that do not necessarily have the means to develop food system planning or that have not thought about it too much; should it be positioned as a support? Should it take charge of certain actions on particular competences? So the question of the articulation of the positioning ... and the legitimacy of the actors to intervene in the different territories, it necessarily arises. (Staff, Chamber of Agriculture of the region of Normandy, June 11, 2021)

Département councils were only involved in a few concrete actions among the analyzed instruments (Table 1), one of which was collective catering in high schools, a core legal responsibility of département councils. Additionally, they may approach food system planning differently than other authorities, as reported by one interviewee who described their planning as a “road map”

rather than a regular “action plan.” As such, food system planning serves as a framework guiding food policies for future years, with detailed actions developed progressively.

### *Advantages and disadvantages of food system planning at different scales*

According to the interviewees, scale was often not a primary consideration when launching food system planning projects. Most interviewees reported that localities typically initiated these projects as an extension of existing local agrifood initiatives, combined with incentives from the national initiative for developing food system planning. For example, rural clusters that had already implemented measures to enhance local supply chain activities frequently developed food system planning projects in response to national encouragement. However, scale emerged as an influencing factor in the initiation and evolution of certain planning projects. Evidence from five projects shed light on the advantages and disadvantages of small and large planning scales (Table 2).

The first two cases in Table 2 demonstrate the development of small-scale food system planning to seek implementation efficiency. The municipality of Albi intentionally developed planning at the municipal scale to guarantee implementation of measures to improve local agriculture and social justice, despite recognizing potential constraints

<table><caption>**Table 2. Five Cases in Which Scale Played a Role in Food System Planning Processes**</caption><thead><tr><td>Food system planning project leader</td><td>Size (population; area)</td><td>Scale-related action and rationales</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Municipality: Albi</td><td>48,526 p; 44 km² (17 mi²)</td><td>Developing food system planning at the municipal scale: Seeking efficiency</td></tr><tr><td>Rural cluster: Dieppe Pays Normand</td><td>109,821 p; 855 km² (330 mi²)</td><td>Down-scaling of rural cluster scale food system planning to intermunicipal structure scale: Seeking efficiency</td></tr><tr><td>Rural cluster: Armagnac</td><td>43,387 p; 1,700 km² (656 mi²)</td><td>Developing food system planning at the rural cluster scale due to failure at the intermunicipal scale: Political willingness</td></tr><tr><td>Rural cluster: Pyrénées Comminges</td><td>77,435 p; 2,137 km² (825 mi²)</td><td>Developing food system planning at the rural cluster scale because of an intermunicipal proposal: Territorial coherence</td></tr><tr><td>Intermunicipal structure: Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées</td><td>127,086 p; 614 km² (237 mi²)</td><td>Wishing to upscale food system planning from intermunicipal to departmental scale: Balancing food supply-demand</td></tr></tbody></table>

Sources: Population and surface area data: Insee (2024), data in 2021; rationales: interviews.
related to administrative boundaries. Similarly, the rural cluster-scale food system planning in Dieppe faced obstacles due to the unequal political engagement of intermunicipal structures within the cluster. Consequently, one intermunicipal structure where stronger political interest existed developed its own food system plan.

However, small-scale food system planning also encountered challenges due to resource constraints. For example, although the municipality of Albi established a steering committee to develop actions beyond municipal boundaries to make use of other partners' capabilities, implementing certain actions proved challenging. These challenges were exemplified by restrictions on land use intervention:

> When I set up market gardeners, for the moment, I do it on the scale of Albi. On this type of action, it is difficult to go elsewhere because each municipality is responsible for its own land; we will not “steal” land from our neighbors. (Civil servant, municipality Albi, Occitania, September 27, 2021)

Conversely, three other territories (Table 2) experienced the upscaling of food system planning, driven by either political or spatial considerations. In the rural cluster of Armagnac, initial attempts to develop intermunicipal scale planning were hindered by a lack of political interest in the intermunicipal structure. Consequently, the rural cluster took over responsibility. The two other projects were developed (or aimed to extend) beyond the spatial area under the initiating structures' administration. They sought to encompass both consumer and producer areas or to ensure territorial coherence across mountainous landscapes.

## Action Scale: Diverse Interpretations of “Local” Beyond Administrative Boundaries

I examined the action scales of planning by analyzing the interpretation of “local” in food system planning. Interestingly, none of the food system planning documents explicitly defined “local.” I obtained insights into the interpretation of “local” from interviews, uncovering a diverse range of understandings across territories (Figure 4).

“As close as possible” was the most frequent interpretation of “local,” acknowledging the varying distances needed for sourcing different types of food due to physical constraints. Through a local food hub example, an interviewee illustrated how this notion would be implemented through different grades of proximity:

> It will be done by priority. ... The first suppliers will be the shareholders of the cooperative with collective interest ... Then, if the necessary products are not available among these shareholders, the platform can buy from producers in the Pyrénées-Orientales département. Then, if the necessary products are not available from producers in the Pyrénées-Orientales, it will go to neighboring départements and then to the Occitania region, but really each time by strata. (Staff, Chamber of Agriculture Pyrénées-Orientales, September 24, 2021)

Interviewees of four food system planning projects, all managed at relatively large scales (rural administrative boundaries. In rural cluster Haute Vallée de l'Aude, “local” was linked to planning goals. The boundary was limited administratively because the central goal of the planning was to cluster and département), reported “local” as the support local producers rather than improve local supply chains. This interviewee also emphasized that “local” would go beyond the administrative boundary if planning goals changed.

In three territories, interviewees indicated that “local” food would be within the département or neighboring départements, considering food supply capacity. In Normandy, two intermunicipal structures defined “local food” as regional products, reflecting both spatial feasibility and cultural identity considerations.

Two territories defined “local” with physical distances. One suggested a radius of approximately 100 km (62 mi), reflecting consumers’ living areas and local producers’ capacity to reach consumers without intermediaries. In another territory, the definition referred to a radius of 150 km (93 mi), aligning with the concept of a production basin or academically termed “foodshed” (Kloppenburg et al., 1996).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Interpretation of “Local” in the Framework of Food System Planning</figcaption></figure>

Note. (a) Data included 23 food system planning projects. (b) For the category “administrative boundary,” interviewees emphasized the administrative boundary but also mentioned food from neighboring territories or neighboring département might also be recognized as local.

Two other territories adopted unique interpretations of “local.” In the rural cluster of Haut Languedoc et Vignobles, the concept extended to a governance scale involving neighboring partners (the neighboring regional natural park, which has overlapping areas with the rural cluster). For example, their digital map for local food information encompassed the area of the rural cluster and the regional natural park. For the Metropolis of Montpellier, “local” addressed the logic of a short supply chain: “we stick to farmers who can sell through short supply chains in the metropolis, who can sell directly without going through wholesalers” (civil servant, intermunicipal structure Metropolis Montpellier, October 7, 2021).

Moreover, *none* of the food system planning projects identified self-sufficiency as an operational objective. Although the municipality of Albi initially aimed for self-sufficiency, it later abandoned the idea “because otherwise, we would not succeed; it would be discouraging after a while” (civil servant, municipality Albi, September 27, 2021).

The other two projects in rural areas engaged with the concept of “self-sufficiency,” interpreting it as improving local high-quality food production and distribution outlets.

## Governance Scale: Overcome Administrative Boundaries Through Multilevel Governance

When the definition of “local” extends beyond administrative boundaries, food system planning needs to seek support from neighboring or supraterritorial entities to match the action and administrative scales. Case studies offered insights into strategies and challenges in transcending boundaries through multilevel governance. This governance approach entails both horizontal collaboration across localities and vertical collaboration between public entities at different administrative levels.

### *Cross-local collaboration*

I identified four types of cross-local collaboration in food system planning. The first type of collab-
oration involved *formalized organizational relation-
ships*. For example, two urban metropolises estab-
lished collaborative partnerships with neighbor-
ing rural areas through conventions or reciprocal
contracts (Comité interministérial aux ruralités,
2015). These agreements were based on the
limited capacity of metropolises to support their
own food supply and included coherent agrifood
policy directions for the surrounding rural
territories to follow.

The second type of cross-local collaboration
was the *co-development of food system planning strategies
between neighboring areas*. Although exchanges
between most food system planning projects
remained at the stage of technical communication
and experience learning, some territories went fur-
ther by collaboratively developing strategies. For
instance, an “interplanning” document was devel-
oped to guide the food system planning projects of
the Haute Vallée de l’Aude rural cluster (led by a
cooperative, Maison Paysanne de l’Aude) and
Castelnaudary (led by a municipality; Figure 5a).
This collaboration aimed to ensure coherence,
avoid competitive actions, and, most essentially,
help each area complement each other due to the
specialization of resources. The two collaborated
projects valued this complementarity because live-
stock farmed in mountainous areas could be fed by
crops provided from the plains, while public can-
teens in the municipality of Castelnaudary could be
supplied by livestock from rural mountainous areas
(Figure 5b). The two projects developed shared
strategies in the field of food education, structuring
supply chains, raising awareness among elected
officials of farmers’ setups, and supporting food
system planning management. The planning docu-
ment also included budget estimates and responsi-
bilities.

The third collaboration pattern involved *leverag-
ing civil society organizations or private-sector actors* to
overcome administrative boundaries, as these
actors are not restricted by jurisdictional limita-
tions. Interviewees reported that partnerships with
entities such as farmers’ associations at départe-
ment levels naturally extend actions to a larger scale
beyond the administrative boundaries of food sys-
tem planning.

Fourthly, *economic projects* provided opportuni-

ties to connect neighboring localities. Initiatives
such as processing centers, transport and logistic
platforms, food hubs, and producers' shops were
reported to facilitate collaboration between adja-
cent areas. While these initiatives prioritized prox-
imity in sourcing suppliers or members, they were
not constrained by the administrative boundaries
of food system planning.

*Cross-scalar governance*

Governance involving entities at different levels
was examined among overlapping food system
planning projects, for example, in the case when a
département and intra-département territories sim-
ultaneously developed their own food system plan-
ning projects (see, for example, Figure 3). Inter-
viewees emphasized key collaboration issues such
as coordinating actions on a global scale, avoiding
vicious competition, and fostering synergies. For
example, an interviewee from a département coun-
cil highlighted the need to coordinate intra-
département food system planning (i.e., planning
developed within a département but at a level
below the entire département area) to optimize the
arrangement of collective food infrastructure:

Not all the food system planning projects are
going to have their own vegetable centers or
logistics platforms, even though this is an
ambition in every food system planning [pro-
ject]. It is clear that we cannot all have our own
vegetable centers throughout the territory. So,
the objective of the département's food system
planning is rather to enable exchanges between
project leaders to see if pooling and sharing is
possible. (Civil servant, département council
Seine-Maritime, May 11, 2021)

Major challenges emerged in cross-scalar
collaboration among overlapping food system
planning projects due to the unclear distribu-
tion of responsibilities among administrative
levels. This lack of clarity made project leaders
cautious when exercising their power in plan-
ning processes. For example, département
councils have the capacity to establish perim-
eters for farmland and natural resources pre-
emption rights and integrate them into food
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Collaboration Between Food System Planning Projects of Haute Vallée de l'Aude and of Castelnaudary</figcaption></figure>

Note. 5a. Location relationship of food system planning projects. 5b. Major food production types and complementarity. 5b is adapted from a map of the dominant agriculture of municipalities in Occitania (DRAAF Occitanie, 2022).

system planning. However, none of the studied cases showed a willingness to do so. An interviewee explained that département councils tended to be hesitant in linking their prerogative with agriculture, in order not to offend other authorities or oppose their legal capabilities:

The relationship [between pre-emption perimeters and agriculture] could be made, there is no problem. ... The problem is really the politics of the *département* [council]. ... The agricultural competence was withdrawn from the *Gers* *département* within the framework of the
New Organization Act.<fnref n="5" /> ... So, there is an interplay of actors in the territory for which we have to be careful; we should not carry out an agricultural policy within the *département* in order not to offend other players in the territory. That is also why the *département* decided to go for food system planning, because it was politically easier. (Civil servant, *département* council Gers, June 17, 2021)

Due to these challenges, collaboration between different levels of food system planning mainly involved technical communication between project managers. I observed an exception in the *département* of Aude, where cross-scalar food system planning collaboration occurred. The action plan of an intra-département food system planning project, led at the scale of a rural cluster, integrated the actions of the département food system planning (Table 3). The rural cluster scale food system planning took into consideration the departmental actions to ensure complementarity and avoid repetition. However, it should be noted that the rural cluster-scale food system planning was led by Maison Paysanne de l'Aude, a cooperative operating at the département scale.

## Discussion

This study examined the scales of local food system planning in the French context across administrative, action, and governance dimensions. Findings indicate that planning at different administrative scales plays different roles but does not have clear-cut characteristics in applying policy instruments. Moreover, there is no single relevant scale for food system planning; each scale presents advantages and disadvantages. The action scale, however, tends to transcend administrative boundaries, offering opportunities and challenges for governance structures to implement planning effectively. Although innovative governance structures were identified to implement actions beyond administrative boundaries, they encounter challenges in navigating multilevel governance within this evolving policy field. These challenges suggest the necessity of appropriate institutional design in food system planning.

The hypothesis regarding the administrative scale of food system planning assumed that project leaders' capabilities influence their roles and planning instruments. The results only partially support this hypothesis. Although project leaders' roles are indeed shaped by their legal capabilities, distinct

<table><caption>Table 3. Example of an Action Plan Integrated with Supra-Scale Food Planning</caption><thead><tr><th>Main Topic</th><th>Subtopic</th><th>Action</th><th>Corresponding food system planning project</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Collective catering</td><td rowspan="3">Supporting out-of-home catering projects to be sustainable and local, favoring introducing local and organic products in collective catering</td><td>Collective catering assessment of the rural cluster</td><td rowspan="3">Food system planning of the rural cluster: Funding from the recovery plan</td></tr><tr><td>Locating the territorial offer in collective catering</td></tr><tr><td>Supporting voluntary municipalities to regain the re-municipalization of their canteens</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Awareness-raising in collective catering</td><td>[...]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Animal- and plant-based protein: Finding a balance</td><td>Food system planning of the rural cluster: Other funding</td></tr><tr><td>Promoting local and organic products in the institutions</td><td rowspan="2">Food system planning of the département</td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Developing activities for schools “taste the world around me”</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Translated and adapted by the author based on the food system plan of Haute-Vallée de l'Aude, 2021.

<footnote n="5">⁵ The département councils' capability for agricultural oversight was removed according to the New Organization Act 2015: LOI n° 2015-991 du 7 août 2015 portant nouvelle organisation territoriale de la République (1).</footnote>
differences in policy instruments used by different administrative structures were not evident.

Municipal and intermunicipal structures function as both project managers and coordinators, often undertaking direct actions and managing concrete projects that require material investment. In contrast, territorial clusters and regional natural parks primarily act as coordinators and facilitators, supporting lower local authorities. Département councils play a role in coordinating actions as well as intra-département food system planning projects. It is worth noting that the limited number of projects led by départements in this research restricts the ability to draw general conclusions. Nevertheless, the findings reveal no clear distinction between policy instruments adopted by different administrative scales of food system planning. Three reasons likely explain this. Firstly, agrifood policies do not clearly distribute responsibilities across government scales, leading project leaders to reinforce their legitimacy by trying different possibilities. Secondly, many policy instruments are not coercive or are reliant on nongovernmental partners. These instruments are not associated with any embedded legal competence and can be managed by any scale of food system planning. Thirdly, the codevelopment nature of food system planning allows project leaders to expand their capacity by collaborating with partners (Ben-Othmen & Kavouras, 2022). It should be noted that this codevelopment depends heavily on coordination and communication work and may hinder efficiency (Santini & Fournier, 2024).

The results also highlight that food system planning can be managed at different scales, with no single scale being the most relevant. Although agrifood matters are new for all scales of local territories, territories have the flexibility to leverage capabilities held by different public entities. This flexibility may explain why food system planning is undertaken at various scales. Each scale can mediate multiscalar actions, which Mendes (2007) referred to as “brokering institutions.”

Additionally, the rationales of project leaders for developing food system planning at specific scales help explain the advantages and disadvantages associated with administrative scales. Smaller-scale planning tends to offer efficiency in

rapid implementation but may fall into the “local trap” (Born & Purcell, 2006). By contrast, larger-scale planning provides a more appropriate scale to address food supply-demand balance at a “city-region” scale (e.g., Carey, 2013; Fei et al., 2023) but risks a long coordination process and inefficient implementation. This raises the question of the pertinent scale for the coordination and mobilization of actors. These findings suggest that the choice of food system planning scale entails trade-offs between political willingness, scale appropriateness, and implementation effectiveness.

In this study, I did not systematically explore the causal relationship between motivation and planning scale, partly due to the unique context of French food system planning. The national initiative has significantly influenced local food system planning by giving localities financial support and legitimacy. Thus, French food planning projects, which are primarily initiated by public authorities, are distinct from those in other contexts (Liu, Korthals Altes, et al., 2024). This study shows that most localities developed their plans at their own scale, driven by the national initiative and based on existing agrifood initiatives. The few cases in this study where scale considerations influenced planning highlight the evolving nature of this new policy field. Future studies could investigate how driving stakeholders and the initial motivation of planning influence planning scales, especially in contexts where these factors vary significantly.

Concerning the scale of actions, I hypothesized that the definition of “local” food systems is influenced by geographic, cultural, administrative factors, and that the scope of actions often extends beyond administrative boundaries. The results reveal varied interpretations of “local,” ranging from the concept of “as close as possible” to administrative units or quantified distances. None of the interpretations perfectly align with the ideal foodshed, suggesting that the “foodshed concept is more a metaphor than an actuality” (Freedgood et al., 2011, p. 98). These interpretations also reflect the logic of geographical proximity, cultural identification, and the economy of proximities (Torre & Wallet, 2014). Furthermore, the findings support the hypothesis that most action scales extend beyond administrative boundaries, highlighting the
need for governance strategies to match the scale of action and the scale of competence.

None of the food system planning projects examined in this study explicitly defined “local” in their written documents. This finding is consistent with Sonnino’s (2016) findings from international food system planning cases. A possible explanation is that project leaders mean to keep food system planning open and to avoid limiting actors’ participation. This raises a fundamental question in planning practices: Should a clear definition of “local” within food systems be established in planning to delineate the scope of actions, or is it preferable to maintain an open and inclusive approach?

In terms of governance scale, the hypothesis proposed that when action scales and administrative scales do not match, food system planning leaders may establish partnerships with other stakeholders to ensure mutual benefit and action implementation beyond administrative boundaries. The results reveal diverse forms of governance structures that involve private entities, neighboring territories, and other levels of public bodies. However, these governance structures were locally developed through experimentation and not universally established. Cross-scalar governance appears to be particularly complex due to unclear responsibilities between different levels of authorities, highlighting a need for guidance on relevant scales for actions.

I identified cross-local collaboration as primarily driven by economic and political motivations, consistent with previous findings on French food system plans (Corade & Lemarié-Boutry, 2020). Examples include collaboration between neighboring territories based on urban–rural resource complementarity, cooperation on collective food infrastructure for economic viability, and partnerships with associations and private actors who operate beyond administrative boundaries.

Despite pioneering projects testing innovative ways of cross-scalar collaboration, the results highlight challenges for cross-scalar governance between food system planning projects developed within the same territory. What scale is appropriate for what policy instrument remains unclear. This unclarity introduces uncertainty to project leaders when they seek to implement actions that are not clearly within their legal capabilities. A previous

study has argued that different food system issues correspond to different relevant scales (Battersby & Watson, 2019). My study suggests that the design of policy instruments should consider both social-economic viability and political appropriateness (i.e., aligning with the capabilities and existing projects of project leaders at that scale).

In summary, the findings of this study on the three dimensions of scales of food system planning offer valuable insights into addressing the concern over the “local trap” proposed by Born and Purcell (2006), who have argued that local does not inherently yield benefits from environmental, social, and economic perspectives. Indeed, there can easily be a “local trap” from a technical standpoint due to limitations related to administrative boundaries and legal competences. Nevertheless, this study demonstrates that appropriate cross-scalar and cross-local governance mechanisms can overcome these barriers and avoid such a “trap.” The process of organizational institution design must be accompanied by the process of learning, as illustrated by the studies on the evolution of the London metropolis food system planning (Morgan & Sonnino, 2010; Parsons et al., 2021; Reynolds, 2009).

## Conclusion

Local food system planning has emerged as a new public policy focus in many localities, with its scale remaining an underexplored question. This study breaks new ground by empirically investigating the impact of scales on food system planning through a series of French cases, analyzing three dimensions of scale: administrative, action, and governance scales. These dimensions provide a nuanced understanding of the complexity of scale, while the empirical approaches illustrate strategies and challenges in practice when operationalizing this theoretical question.

Understanding scales with these multiple dimensions provides insights to practitioners involved in food system planning, including politicians, officials, and grassroots activists. My findings indicate that there is no one-size-fits-all best planning scale for every locality. Therefore, practitioners should consider local contexts—such as political willingness, legal capacity, and spatial appropriateness—when designing food system planning
and be prepared to make necessary compromises. Practitioners at the national or regional level could establish guidelines defining which scales of localities are most appropriate for specific actions. Evidence from this study indicates that larger-scale localities might be more effective at coordinating regional facilities' spatial distribution, managing rural-urban land use, and promoting product diversification. In contrast, smaller-scale localities are better suited for concrete implementation actions, such as allocating public land and establishing test farms. These actions should, however, integrate the legal capabilities and political willingness of localities. Given that each scale presents unique strengths and limitations, localities should develop tailored governance strategies to coordinate stakeholders and ensure effective implementation. The results of this empirical study provide practical guidance for multilevel governance strategies. This guidance includes establishing formal partnerships between localities, co-developing strategies and actions, leveraging private actors to overcome administrative boundaries, and using economic projects to connect neighboring localities. However, it is crucial for localities to adapt these strategies to their specific political and social contexts.

These findings also offer valuable insights into research in food system studies when engaging issues of scale. This study highlights the challenge posed by the unclear distribution of responsibilities among different levels of authorities, which hinders effective food system planning. Further research could focus on identifying the appropriate agrifood competency at each scale to enhance collaboration and resource allocation across jurisdictions. These responsibilities might include organizing food hubs and other distribution facilities, land use, product diversification, educational activities, and school catering sourcing. Additionally, research could draw from traditional planning experiences, such as land-use planning, to explore how the coordination be-

tween different levels of authority can be improved. Future empirical studies assessing the implementation of policy instruments would also help determine which scales are most suitable for specific actions. Studies dedicated to multilevel governance models and their effectiveness could also contribute to the field of food system planning. Scholars could explore the conditions under which such models succeed or fail and develop frameworks that support effective coordination across scales, thereby minimizing conflicts and redundancies. This study also demonstrates the varied understandings of “local,” suggesting future research should be context-specific. Future research could aim to standardize definitions and develop a typology of “local” regarding food systems.

While this study addresses the question of how scales shape planning, it also raises an important question: How does planning shape the scale of local food systems? As Born and Purcell (2006) claimed, scale is socially constructed. Planning should be understood not only by the outcomes but also by the processes through which partnerships take place and stakeholders exchange information and experience. These processes enable planning to shape local food systems that it aims to develop, considering factors such as environmental sustainability, cultural identity, and the population whose quality of it aims to improve. Only by considering these elements together can we contribute to the structuring and improvement of sustainable food systems.

## Acknowledgments

I sincerely thank Romain Melot and Frédéric Wallet (both based at INRAE, France) for their assistance in the data collection preparation and the early draft of this paper. I am also grateful to my interviewees for the valuable information they provided, and to the three anonymous JAFSCD reviewers for their constructive comments.

## References

* Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food systems. *Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society*, 3(2), 295–308.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq015

* Baldy, J., & Kruse, S. (2019). Food democracy from the top down? State-driven participation processes for local food system transformations towards sustainability. *Politics and Governance*, 7(4), 68–80.
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i4.2089
Barling, D., Lang, T., & Caraher, M. (2002). Joined-up food policy? The trials of governance, public policy and the food system. *Social Policy and Administration, 36*(6), 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.t01-1-00304

Battersby, J., & Watson, V. (2019). The planned “city-region” in the New Urban Agenda: An appropriate framing for urban food security? *Town Planning Review, 90*(5), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2019.32

Ben-Othmen, M. A., & Kavouras, J. H. (2022). Developing a community-based local food system in Will County, Illinois: Insights from stakeholders’ viewpoints. *Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 11*(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.112.018

Bodiguel, L. (2018). Le développement des projets alimentaires territoriaux en France: Quel droit pour quelle relocalisation de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation? [French local food plan development: Which law for which relocation of agriculture and food?] In XVe congrès mondial de l'Union Mondiale des Agraristes Universitaires, *Les évolutions actuelles du droit rural et agroalimentaire: Entre globalisation, régionalisation et relocalisation* (UAM ed.) (pp. 409–415).
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01971725

Born, B., & Purcell, M. (2006). Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. *Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26*(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06291389

Borrelli, N., & Marsden, T. (2018). Moving up and down the scale. The food system governance in Portland—Oregon. *Sociologia Urbana e Rurale, 115*, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.3280/SUR2018-115-S1002

Calori, A., Dansero, E., Pettenati, G., & Toldo, A. (2017). Urban food planning in Italian cities: A comparative analysis of the cases of Milan and Turin. *Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41*(8), 1026–1046.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1340918

Candel, J. J. L. (2020). What's on the menu? A global assessment of MUFPP signatory cities' food strategies. *Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 44*(7), 919–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1648357

Carey, J. (2013). Urban and community food strategies. The case of Bristol. *International Planning Studies, 18*(1), 111–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2013.750938

Cavallo, A., & Olivierie, F. M. (2022). Sustainable local development and agri-food system in the post COVID crisis: The case of Rome. *Cities, 131*, Article 103994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103994

Chambre d'Agriculture Normandie. (2024). *Panorama de l'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire en Normandie* [Panorama of Agriculture and Agrifood in Normandy].
https://opera-connaissances.chambres-agriculture.fr/doc_num.php?explnum_id=194351

Chambre d'Agriculture Occitanie. (2022). *Agriculture d'Occitanie* [Agriculture in Occitania].
https://occitanie.chambre-agriculture.fr/chiffres-cles/agriculture-docitanie/

Comité interministériel aux ruralités. (2015, September 14). *Nos ruralités. Une chance pour la France : des avancées concrètes pour les ruralités premier bilan des mesures du Comité Interministériel aux Ruralités du 13 mars 2015* [Our rural areas. An opportunity for France. Concrete progress for rural areas: First assessment of the measures of the Interministerial Committee for Rural Areas of March 13, 2015]. Les services de l'État dans le Gers.
https://www.gers.gouv.fr/contenu/telechargement/14884/117924/file/bilan.pdf

Corade, N., & Lemarié-Boutry, M. (2020). Les projets alimentaires de territoire: Entre reconfiguration des territoires et nouvelles relations villes/campagnes [Territorial food projects : Between reconfiguration of territories and new rural-urban relationships]. *Géographie, Économie, Société, 22*(3–4), 373–397.
https://www.jle.com/10.3166/ges.2020.0013

Cretella, A., & Buenger, M. S. (2016). Food as creative city politics in the city of Rotterdam. *Cities, 51*, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.12.001

Doernberg, A., Horn, P., Zasada, I., & Piorr, A. (2019). Urban food policies in German city regions: An overview of key players and policy instruments. *Food Policy, 89*, Article 101782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101782

DRAAF Occitanie. (2022). *Cultures dominantes des communes d'Occitanie* [Dominant cultivations of Occitanie municipalities].
Ministère de L'Agriculture et de L'Alimentation.
https://draaf.occitanie.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/jpg/culture_dominantes_cle881728.jpg
Dubbeling, M., Santini, G., Renting, H., Taguchi, M., Lançon, L., Zuluaga, J., de Paoli, L., Rodriguez, A., & Andino, V. (2017). Assessing and planning sustainable city region food systems: Insights from two Latin American cities. *Sustainability, 9*(8), Article 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081455

Enthoven, L., & Van den Broeck, G. (2021). Local food systems: Reviewing two decades of research. *Agricultural Systems, 193*, Article 103226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103226

Fattibene, D., Mazzocchi, G., Antonelli, M., Marino, D., & Romagnoli, L. (2023). Modelling food policies in Italian urban agendas in the time of COVID-19: Experiences, challenges and opportunities. *Cities, 135*, Article 104199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104199

Feagan, R. (2007). The place of food: Mapping out the “local” in local food systems. *Progress in Human Geography, 31*(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507073527

Fei, S., Qian, Z., Santini, G., Ni, J., Bing, Y., Zhu, L., Fu, J., Li, Z., & Wang, N. (2023). Towards the high-quality development of City Region Food Systems: Emerging approaches in China. *Cities, 135*, Article 104212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104212

France PAT. (n.d.). *Carte des PATs* [Map of PATs]. Retrieved May 7, 2024, from https://france-pat.fr/carte-des-pats/

Freedgood, J., Pierce-Quiñonez, M., & Meter, K. (2011). Emerging assessment tools to inform food system planning. *Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2*(1), 83–104.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.021.023

Hayhurst, R. D., Dietrich-O’connor, F., Hazen, S., & Landman, K. (2013). Community-based research for food system policy development in the City of Guelph, Ontario. *Local Environment, 18*(5), 606–619.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.788493

Horst, M. (2017). Food justice and municipal government in the USA. *Planning Theory & Practice, 18*(1), 51–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1270351

Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques [Insee]. (2024, August 1). *Comparateur de territoires* [Territory comparator]. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/zones/1405599?debut=0

Jennings, S., Cottee, J., Curtis, T., & Miller, S. (2015). Food in an urbanised world: The role of city region food systems. *Urban Agriculture Magazine, 29*, 5–7. http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/UAM29.pdf

Karetny, J., Hoy, C., Usher, K. M., Clark, J. K., & Conroy, M. M. (2022). Planning toward sustainable food systems: An exploratory assessment of local U.S. food system plans. *Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 11*(4), 115–138. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.114.008

Kloppenburg, J., Hendrickson, J., & Stevenson, G. W. (1996). Coming in to the foodshed. *Agriculture and Human Values, 13*, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01538225

Lamine, C., Guennoc, D., & Maréchal, G. (2023). *Territorial food projects in France* [Policy brief]. Agroecological Transitions for Territorial Food Systems.
https://obsatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Policy-Brief-PAT-EN-v20230627.pdf

Liu, T. (2024). Governing the reterritorialization of agricultural activities: An assessment of food planning policies in France. *Journal of Rural Studies, 108*, Article 103302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103302

Liu, T., Korthals Altes, W. K., Melot, R., & Wallet, F. (2024). Reterritorialisation of agricultural activities in land-use and food planning: Comparing the Netherlands and France. *European Planning Studies, 32*(5), 952–972.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2244567

Liu, T., Melot, R., & Wallet, F. (2024). Integrating land and food policy to transform territorial food systems in the context of coexisting agri-food models: Case studies in France. *Elem Sci Anth, 12*(1), Article 00063.
https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00063

Mattioni, D., Milbourne, P., & Sonnino, R. (2022). Destabilizing the food regime “from within”: Tools and strategies used by urban food policy actors. *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 44*, 48–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.007

Mendes, W. (2007). Negotiating a place for “sustainability” policies in municipal planning and governance: The role of scalar discourses and practices. *Space and Polity, 11*(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562570701406683
Moragues-Faus, A., & Marsden, T. (2017). The political ecology of food: Carving “spaces of possibility” in a new research agenda. *Journal of Rural Studies*, *55*, 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.08.016

Morgan, K., & Sonnino, R. (2010). The urban foodscape: World cities and the new food equation. *Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society*, *3*(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq007

Morley, A., & Morgan, K. (2021). Municipal foodscapes: Urban food policy and the new municipalism. *Food Policy*, *103*, Article 102069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102069

Parsons, K., Lang, T., & Barling, D. (2021). London's food policy: Leveraging the policy sub-system, programme and plan. *Food Policy*, *103*, Article 102037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102037

Prové, C., de Krom, M. P. M. M., & Dessein, J. (2019). Politics of scale in urban agriculture governance: A transatlantic comparison of food policy councils. *Journal of Rural Studies*, *68*, 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.01.018

Reynolds, B. (2009). Feeding a world city: The London food strategy. *International Planning Studies*, *14*(4), 417–424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13563471003642910

Robert, N., & Mullinix, K. (2018). Municipal policy enabling regional food systems in British Columbia, Canada: Assessing focal areas and gaps. *Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development*, 8(Suppl. 2), 115–132.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.08B.003

Santini, C., & Fournier, S. (2024). De l'émergence des projets alimentaires territoriaux à la transition des systèmes alimentaires. Quels chemins possibles selon les modalités de gouvernance ? [From the emergence of local food projects to food-system transition. What paths are possible depending on the governance arrangements?] *Géographie, Économie, Société*, 26, 99-126. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-geographie-economie-societe-2024-1-page-99?lang=fr

Sherriff, G. (2009). Towards healthy local food: Issues in achieving Just Sustainability. *Local Environment*, *14*(1), 73–92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830802522566

Sibbing, L. V., Candel, J., & Termeer, K. (2021). A comparative assessment of local municipal food policy integration in the Netherlands. *International Planning Studies*, *26*(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2019.1674642

Sonnino, R. (2016). The new geography of food security: Exploring the potential of urban food strategies. *Geographical Journal*, *182*(2), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12129

Sonnino, R. (2023). Food system transformation: Urban perspectives. *Cities*, *134*, Article 104164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104164

Stein, A. J., & Santini, F. (2022). The sustainability of “local” food: A review for policy-makers. *Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies*, *103*, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-021-00148-w

Torre, A., & Wallet, F. (2014). Introduction: The role of proximity relations in regional and territorial development processes. In *Regional development and proximity relations* (pp. 1–44). Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781002896.00006

Wascher, D. M., & Jeurissen, L. (2017). Urban food security at the crossroads between metropolitan food planning and global trade: The case of the Antwerp–Rotterdam–Düsseldorf region. *Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems*, *41*(8), 944–964. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1325432

Zasada, I., Schmutz, U., Wascher, D., Kneafsey, M., Corsi, S., Mazzocchi, C., Monaco, F., Boyce, P., Doernberg, A., Sali, G., & Piorr, A. (2019). Food beyond the city—Analysing foodsheds and self-sufficiency for different food system scenarios in European metropolitan regions. *City, Culture and Society*, *16*, 25–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.06.002