Criteria for selecting assessment tools for local food systems in the context of socio-ecological transitions

Abstract

Local food systems (LFSs) have attracted growing interest around the world as locally rooted alternatives to globalized food supply chains. LFSs address persistent multidimensional challenges such as food insecurity, malnutrition, and environmental degradation while advancing more equitable and sustainable food systems, a process often referred to as a socio-ecological transition. Evalu­ation plays a key role in this process by helping LFS stakeholders clarify priorities, identify strengths and vulnerabilities, measure progress, inform necessary adjustments, and underpin accountability. Numerous LFS assessment tools have been published in scholarly and organizational documents to support holistic evaluation mechan­isms covering the social, economic, environmental, and governance dimensions of sustainability. How­ever, researchers and practitioners lack clear guidance on how to choose appropriate assessment tools. This study aimed to identify criteria for selecting LFS evaluation tools that can support effective socio-ecological transitions. Through a scoping review, we identified 22 holistic evaluation tools encompassing 24 components that contribute to a more sustainable vision of LFS. Our analysis yielded seven criteria to guide tool selection. These include (1) relevance to the local context; (2) capacity to assess strengths, assets, and challenges; (3) capacity to guide action; (4) use of a holistic and innovative framework; (5) comparability across territories and scales; (6) community and citizen participation; and (7) capacity to monitor and evaluate deep, systemic transformations. Following our analysis, we recommend adding an evaluation component focused on transition dynamics to monitor structural changes, particularly shifts in norms, policies, and rules that support local food initiatives. This component would also identify the structural barriers and resistance that impede the initiatives’ consolidation. We further recommend that the selection of evaluation components be driven by a collective, stakeholder-led process to ensure alignment with local priorities. Future efforts should prioritize improving data accessibility, strengthening the inclusion of perspectives from vulnerable and Indigenous communities, and establishing mechanisms to explicitly link evaluation findings to policy decision-making.