Food Systems Resilience Strategies for Local Governments and Regional Commissions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Context

Food System Resilience

About This Guide

Project Background

Funding Statement

Detailed Strategies

Assess Local Food System Strengths and Vulnerabilities

Form a Coalition or Food Policy Council

Revise Zoning to Support Urban Agriculture

Mobile Market “Veggie Van”

Incentivize Healthy Food Offerings in Corner Stores

Locality Owned Grocery Store

Appendix: Strategies Identified Without Publicly Available Implementation Guides

Partner with Research Institutions to Assess Local Risks to the Food System

Support Production of Food on Public Lands (e.g., Park Land) Develop or Collaborate on a Composting Program that Redirects Landfill Waste

Establish Protocols and Execution Plans for Mobile Food Distribution Following Disasters

Support or Create Centralized Resource Guides for Local Food Access

Partner with Local Nonprofits to Aggregate and Distribute Local Food Boxes

Tax Incentives for Active Farms Producing Food for Local Consumption

Partner with Extension to Provide Cooking Classes Alongside Food Assistance Programs

Address Transportation Gaps Affecting Food Access

Seek Grants for Small-Scale Meat Processing, Cold Storage, Food Hubs, and Shared-Use Kitchens

Acknowledgements

References

FOOD SYSTEM RESILIENCE

Food systems resilience refers to the ability of a food system to withstand, adapt to, and recover from disruptions while continuing to nourish its population. As defined by Tendall et al. (2015, p. 19), it encompasses “the capacity over time of a food system and its units at multiple levels, to provide sufficient, appropriate, and accessible food to all, in the face of various and even unforeseen disturbances.” This definition highlights several critical dimensions: resilience is not a static quality but one that unfolds over time; it operates across multiple scales, from individual farms and local markets to national supply chains and global trade networks; and its ultimate measure is whether all people can access food that is not only adequate in quantity but also culturally appropriate and physically and economically reachable. In an era of increasing weather changes, geopolitical instability, and economic shocks, building food systems resilience has become a central challenge for policymakers, agricultural scientists, and communities alike. Moving toward resilience requires diversifying food sources, strengthening local production capacity, reducing supply chain vulnerabilities, and ensuring that social safety nets protect the most food- insecure populations when disruptions inevitably occur.

ABOUT THIS GUIDE

This guide presents practical strategies for strengthening food system resilience at the municipal, county, and regional levels. It is designed for local governments and regional commissions seeking actionable approaches to improve food access, support local food economies, and prepare for disruptions that affect food systems.

The strategies included in this report are drawn directly from group interviews with local and regional officials across Appalachia. Participants shared current initiatives, emerging ideas, and policy approaches they believe are relevant to food system resilience in their communities. In response, this guide compiles those strategies and pairs them with examples and resources to support implementation. We prioritized strategies for which we could identify practical tools, case examples, or step-by-step guidance. For strategies raised in group interviews where publicly available resources were limited, we include a summary list at the end of the report to document these ideas and highlight areas where additional research or technical assistance may be needed.

The goal of this guide is to provide local and regional entities with concrete options that can be adapted to their specific context, capacity, and priorities.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

Between 2024 and 2025, we conducted 31 group interviews with 113 individuals representing Appalachian municipalities, counties, and regional commissions. Participants included municipal sustainability professionals, county planners and administrators, and regional commission directors and planners. The purpose of these conversations was to better understand how local officials across Appalachia are currently addressing food systems resilience and how they perceive their role in strengthening regional food systems.

The group interviews were organized in four stages. In the first stage, we introduced and discussed a working definition of food systems resilience, drawing on Tendall and collaborators (2015), who define resilience as “the capacity over time of a food systems and its units at multiple levels, to provide sufficient, appropriate, and accessible food to all, in the face of various and even unforeseen disturbances” (p. 19). Participants were invited to reflect on how this definition resonated with their experience and whether important elements were missing.

In the second stage, we asked whether addressing food security is part of their organization’s mission and whether their organization is actively working on food security issues. The third stage focused on environmental-related stressors, including changing precipitation patterns, extreme heat, and more intense storms, and asked to what degree these projected changes are being considered in food security planning. In the fourth and final stage, participants identified local or regional policies and programs they believed could strengthen food systems resilience and discussed which of those actions were already underway.

Based on responses across these stages, we compiled a set of strategies that local governments are currently implementing or identified as feasible within their authority or influence. This guide reflects those conversations and is intended to support continued action and collaboration across Appalachian communities.

FUNDING DISCLOSURE

This work is supported by the Education and Workforce Development program, project award no. 2023-67012-40300, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.

Assess Local Food System Strengths and Vulnerabilities

Description

A food system assessment describes the components of a local or regional food system and identifies conditions that support resilience. For communities beginning resiliency work, an assessment helps establisha shared understanding of how the food system functions under normal conditions and where vulnerabilities may exist during disruptions. Collecting baseline information such as the location and scale of food production, processing, distribution, and storage, as well as the populations most vulnerable to food system shocks supports preparedness, response, and recovery planning. The assessment process creates opportunities for collaboration and discussion among stakeholders and community members, while the resulting data provides a foundation for local and regional planning efforts, including comprehensive plans, hazard mitigation plans, and economic development strategies. Engaging community members is essential, as their knowledge and lived experiences help identify both challenges and potential solutions. Data for the assessment can be collected through surveys, interviews, and analysis of existing secondary data sources (Laclair, 2016).

Process

A food system assessment typically begins with clearly defining the purpose and scope of the effort. This includes identifying the geographic area to be assessed, the parts of the food system to be examined (such as production, processing, distribution, access, or waste), and the questions the assessment is intended to address. Early in the process, a coordinating group or steering committee is often formed to guide decision-making, manage logistics, and ensure that the assessment aligns with community priorities. Clarifying roles, timelines, and available resources at the outset helps set realistic expectations and supports coordination among partners. Some local governments or regional commissions choose to hire a consultant to assist with scoping and conducting the assessment (Laclair, 2016).

Stakeholder and community engagement is a central component of the assessment process. Engaging a range of participants such as producers, food businesses, community organizations, institutions, and residents helps ensure that the assessment reflects local knowledge and lived experiences. Engagement can take multiple forms, including focus groups, interviews, surveys, and public meetings. Alongside public engagement, the assessment team identifies and reviews existing data sources, such as agricultural statistics, public health data, or regional plans. Decisions about whether additional data collection is needed, and which methods are most appropriate, are typically made after this stage (Laclair, 2016).

Once data collection and analysis are complete, findings are synthesized to identify key patterns, strengths, gaps, and vulnerabilities within the food system. These findings are often shared with stakeholders for review and validation before being finalized. Communicating results in accessible formats such as summary reports, presentations, or community forums supports transparency and shared understanding. The assessment can then serve as a foundation for future planning, helping local governments, regional commissions, and community partners identify priorities and inform policies, programs, or investments related to the food system (Laclair, 2016).

Examples

• A practical toolkit for assessing community food access and strengthen local food systems
• Online community survey used to gather resident input on local food access and food resilience

Additional reading or key resources

• Planning for Agriculture in Virginia toolkit from American Farmland Trust
• A Guide to Community Food Assessment
• Community-Based Food System Assessment and Planning: A Guide to Working with Your Community
• Food System Toolkit with a Stakeholder Mapping Tool useful for identifying key partners
• Food System Resilience: A Planning Guide for Local Governments from Johns Hopkins University

Form a Coalition or Food Policy Council

Description

A food policy council or coalition provides a structured way for communities to examine how their food system operates and to develop recommendations that improve coordination, access, and resilience. For local governments and regional commissions, councils can serve as an ongoing forum for engaging stakeholders and integrating food system considerations into preparedness, recovery, and long-term planning efforts. Councils typically include a diverse group of participants such as government staff, producers, food businesses, health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and community members who bring different perspectives on food system challenges and opportunities.

By creating space for regular dialogue and coordination, food policy councils support information sharing, help align local and regional priorities, and strengthen connections between community experience and public decision- making related to the food system (Henne et al., n.d.).

Process

The process of forming a food policy council or coalition often begins with identifying the need for coordinated food system work within a defined community or region. This need is frequently informed by a food system assessment, listening sessions, or other community engagement activities that document challenges, gaps, and opportunities. These early efforts help clarify the issues the council intends to address and build awareness and support among stakeholders. During this stage, communities often convene informal working groups or advisory committees to discuss priorities, explore existing models, and determine whether a council or coalition is the appropriate structure for advancing food system goals (Public Health Law Center, 2017).

Once there is agreement on the council’s purpose, attention turns to defining scope, membership, and functions. Clear objectives should be established to guide the council’s work and connect it to local or regional planning efforts. Membership is typically drawn from multiple sectors and across the community to ensure a range of perspectives and expertise. Roles and responsibilities should be clearly articulated to support accountability and continuity; these elements are commonly recorded in a written charter. In many localities, councils are formalized through a city or county resolution that establishes the council’s authority or relationship with the government, specifies membership and reporting requirements, and outlines responsibilities and evaluation methods (Public Health Law Center, 2017).

Sustaining a food policy council requires attention to capacity and resources, including staff support, funding (grants or local government contributions), and regular meeting and communication practices. Ongoing reporting and periodic evaluation help assess progress toward objectives and maintain transparency with partners and the public. Over time, councils may adapt their structure or focus in response to changing community needs, emerging food system challenges, or new opportunities for collaboration at the local or regional level (Public Health Law Center, 2017).

Examples

• Buncombe County Food Policy Council: sample grant to support listening sessions
• Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission Regional Food System Plan
• Roanoke Foodshed Network: Local Environmental Agriculture Project | LEAP | Roanoke | Virginia | Regional Food Planning

Additional reading or key resources

• Drafting a Resolution to Create a Food Council from the Public Health Law Center
• Voices for Food: Food Council Creation Guide from Voices for Food
• Food council development: A toolkit for communities from seed to start-up

Revise Zoning to Support Urban Agriculture

Description

Updating zoning codes to permit urban agriculture is a policy strategy that supports food system resilience by reducing regulatory barriers to local food production and distribution. For local governments, zoning revisions provide a mechanism to integrate food system considerations into land use planning, preparedness, and long-term community development. Supportive zoning can expand opportunities for food access, small-scale entrepreneurship, and neighborhood-based food production, particularly during disruptions that affect regional or national supply chains. Urban agriculture activities commonly addressed through zoning include community and market gardens, small-scale livestock or chickens, high tunnels, composting, and on-site produce sales. Clear and consistent zoning standards help create predictable conditions for residents and growers, reduce enforcement challenges for staff, and encourage investment in locally driven food initiatives (Turner & Phelps 2024).

Process

The process typically begins with reviewing existing zoning ordinances to identify where urban agriculture is prohibited, restricted, or not clearly defined. This assessment helps localities understand how current regulations affect different forms of food production and where revisions may be needed. Community engagement is an important next step, allowing residents, growers, and other stakeholders to share priorities, concerns, and desired safeguards related to issues such as noise, odor, setbacks, and animal care. Input from this stage helps determine the scope of urban agriculture activities the locality wishes to permit, such as gardens, chickens or bees, composting, farm stands, or related uses (Turner & Phelps 2024).

Once priorities are identified, local governments often review zoning models and best practices from peer communities to identify language that can be adapted to local context. Proposed amendments typically include clear definitions, permitted and conditional uses, and design or performance standards. Coordination across departments such as planning, public health, parks and recreation, and sustainability offices helps ensure alignment with other local policies and programs. Draft amendments are then reviewed by the planning commission and governing body for modification and adoption. After adoption, jurisdictions can support implementation by communicating changes clearly through public guides, frequently asked questions, and updated permit procedures (Turner & Phelps 2024).

Examples

• Birmingham, Alabama Office of Resilience Urban Agriculture
• Vacant Lots to Urban Farms: Food Justice in Appalachia - The Architectural League of New York

Additional reading or key resources

• About Urban Agriculture from the Southeast Sustainability Directors Network
• American Planning Association: Urban Agriculture Zoning Guides
• Sample zoning for agriculture-like and urban agriculture
• Zoning for Urban Agriculture: A Guide for Updating Your Community’s Laws to Support Healthy Food Production and Access

Mobile Market “Veggie Van”

Description

Mobile markets, often referred to as “veggie vans,” are a strategy to improve access to fresh, healthy food by bringing produce directly to neighborhoods with limited food retail options. In many communities, mobile markets operate through partnerships in which a farmer, nonprofit organization, or food access organization manages day-to-day operations while local governments provide support through funding, staffing, facilities, policy alignment,

or coordination. For local governments and regional commissions, this partnership-based model supports food system resilience by strengthening last-mile distribution, increasing flexibility during disruptions, and expanding access for populations most affected by transportation barriers or supply interruptions. Mobile markets typically operate on a scheduled route and are hosted at community locations such as housing complexes, schools, senior centers, or health clinics. Effective veggie van models emphasize availability, affordability, accessibility, acceptability, and accommodation to align food offerings with community needs and preferences (Mobile Market Coalition, 2025).

Process

The first step in developing a mobile market is to understand food access needs. This can be done through a combination of community engagement and data analysis (such as through a food system assessment that focuses on food insecurity rates by locations). Engagement often involves collaboration among local governments, farmers, nonprofit organizations, Extension, and community organizations to determine whether a mobile market is an appropriate strategy (Mobile Market Coalition, 2025)

Next, partners work together to define the market model. This includes developing a budget; identifying customers and pricing strategies; addressing financial considerations such as staffing, fuel, maintenance, and insurance; and identifying funding sources such as grants or local government contributions. Decisions about vehicle type (van, bus, or box truck), supplies, and equipment should reflect the scale of operations and partner capacity. Marketing and outreach strategies should also be planned jointly to ensure consistent messaging and strong connections with the target audience (Mobile Market Coalition, 2025).

Once planning is complete, the program can be launched. This stage includes staffing and training, establishing standard operating procedures, coordinating site logistics with host locations, and planning for inventory management and waste reduction. Educational components such as newsletters, nutrition information, or simple guidance on preparing fresh foods can be incorporated through partnerships with Extension or public health agencies. Ongoing communication among partners and periodic review of operations help ensure the mobile market continues to meet community needs and remains responsive during changing conditions or disruptions (Mobile Market Coalition, 2025).

Examples

• Twin Cities Mobile Food Bus
• Veggie Van with online market
• Food Bank that travels to neighborhoods and distribute fresh foods
• A Veggie Van program that delivers fresh produce and healthy foods to communities

Additional reading or key resources:

• Veggie Van Toolkit – Vehicles and Equipment
• Starting a Veggie Van Comprehensive step-by-step Toolkit (requires free sign up)
• Mobile Fruit and Veggie Vans Guide

Incentivize Healthy Food Offerings in Corner Stores

Description

Small grocery corner stores, “dollar” stores, and rural convenience markets play an outsized role in food access across rural America and especially Appalachia. They often serve as the only food retail option for miles. Many store owners or retailers want to carry healthier items but face barriers such as low margins, limited refrigeration, or uncertain demand. Local governments can help shift this landscape by offering targeted incentives, technical assistance, or small grants that reduce risk and encourage stores to stock fresh produce, whole grains, dairy, lean proteins, and locally sourced foods.

This strategy both strengthens community food access and also supports local retailers who are vital to rural food systems (USDA, 2016).

Process

The process typically begins with identifying underserved areas and eligible neighborhood markets or small grocers that could benefit from participation. Local governments or regional commissions can use mapping tools, food access data, and community input to prioritize locations.

Once potential stores are identified, conducting store assessments helps determine current inventory, infrastructure capacity (such as refrigeration or shelving), and store owner interest in expanding healthy food offerings. These assessments provide a practical understanding of operational constraints and opportunities, which is essential for designing an effective incentive program (USDA, 2016).

Based on assessment findings, incentive options can be developed in collaboration with store owners and community partners. Incentives may include small grants, refrigeration or equipment subsidies, promotional materials, technical assistance, or pricing incentives that reduce the cost of fresh or locally sourced produce. Where feasible, engaging local producers or distributors to establish reliable supply channels can strengthen local economic connections while improving product freshness. Outreach efforts such as in-store signage, coordinated marketing, social media, or Extension communications help build community awareness and demand. After initial partnerships are established and evaluated, the program can be refined and expanded to additional stores within the locality or region (USDA, 2016).

Additional reading or key resources

• CDC Healthy Corner Stores: Making Corner Stores Healthier Places to Shop
• The Food Trust’s Guide to Bringing Incentives to Corner Stores
• United Health Foundation’s tips for Implementing a Healthy Corner Store Program

Locality Owned Grocery Store

Description

A publicly owned grocery store operates just like any other grocery store. The advantage is that since it’s not centered around profit, it has the flexibility to have cheaper prices. Its main objective is to serve the community in a way that private corporations cannot by providing support to marginalized groups who might not have economic access to healthy food. Public grocery stores have the opportunity to eliminate food deserts since they are not influenced by external market factors. Being able to support underserved communities, public grocery stores also provide a competitive market forcing big corporations to raise the quality of their products and have affordable prices (Lawing et al., 2024).

Process

The process of establishing a public, nonprofit, cooperative, or public- private grocery store typically begins with careful planning. Local governments or regional commissions must first determine the ownership and governance structure that best fits local capacity and policy goals. A feasibility study is an essential early step and should examine projected revenues and expenses, staffing and management needs, startup and operating costs, potential risks, and realistic sales expectations. Site selection and facility considerations—including accessibility, renovation needs, utilities, and security—should also be evaluated to ensure the location supports long-term viability. Clear planning at this stage helps decision-makers understand whether a publicly supported grocery model is financially and operationally sustainable (Lawing et al., 2024).

Funding strategies must then be identified, which may include a combination of federal, state, local, philanthropic, or private investment sources. Once funding pathways are clarified, operational planning can move forward, including pricing strategies, supplier relationships, and distribution logistics. Establishing reliable supply chains and competitive pricing structures is critical to maintaining affordability while covering operating costs. Ongoing community engagement is also central to the store’s success. Continued communication with residents, local producers, and community organizations helps build trust, shape product offerings, and maintain responsiveness to community needs over time (Lawing et al., 2024).

Examples

• St. Paul, Kansas, city-owned and community supported grocery store
• Food Access and Municipal Grocery Stores report from Minneapolis
• Grocery Store Start-Up and Operations Guide

Additional reading or key resources

• Public Grocery Stores: A Guide for Policymakers

Appendix: Strategies Identified Without Publicly Available Implementation Guides

Partner with Research Institutions to Assess Local Risks to the Food System

Local governments and regional commissions can collaborate with universities, Extension, or applied research institutions to assess how environmental risks such as extreme heat, flooding, drought, or supply chain disruptions may affect local food production, distribution, and access. These partnerships can help identify vulnerable populations, critical infrastructure, and exposure points within the food system. A structured risk assessment can inform hazard mitigation plans, emergency preparedness strategies, farmland protection policies, and long-term infrastructure investments.

Support Production of Food on Public Lands (e.g., land for parks)

Local governments can evaluate opportunities to allow food production on publicly owned land, such as parks, vacant lots, school grounds, or other locality properties. This may include community gardens, food forests, or small-scale demonstration farms operated by nonprofits or community groups. Supporting food production on public land can increase access to fresh foods, create educational opportunities, and strengthen neighborhood-level resilience, particularly in areas with limited retail food options.

Develop or Collaborate on a Composting Program that Redirects Landfill Waste

Composting initiatives can reduce landfill waste, lower methane emissions, and improve soil health for local agriculture and landscaping. Localities or regional commissions may partner with solid waste authorities, farms, nonprofits, or a local university to develop backyard compost education, community drop-off programs, or larger-scale composting operations. Redirecting organic waste into usable soil amendments strengthens local nutrient cycles and supports agricultural productivity.

Establish Protocols and Execution Plans for Mobile Food Distribution Following Disasters

Local governments can incorporate food distribution planning into emergency management and disaster response frameworks. This may include establishing agreements with food banks, schools, farmers, and distributors; identifying staging locations; clarifying agency roles; and conducting periodic exercises to test logistics and communication systems. Pre-established protocols improve coordination during emergencies and help ensure that food reaches affected populations efficiently and safely.

Support or Create Centralized Resource Guides for Local Food Access

Localities or regional commissions can develop and maintain centralized directories that compile information on farmers markets, food pantries, grocery stores, produce box programs, community gardens, and nutrition assistance enrollment sites. Making this information publicly accessible online or in print can reduce confusion, improve service coordination, and help residents identify available food resources more easily.

Partner with Local Nonprofits to Aggregate and Distribute Local Food Boxes

Local governments can collaborate with food hubs, food banks, farmers markets, or community development organizations to support aggregated food box programs (such as CSA-style shares or subsidized produce boxes). Public support may include use of public facilities for distribution, logistical coordination, small grants, or outreach assistance. These partnerships can improve food access for residents while strengthening markets for local producers.

Tax Incentives for Active Farms Producing Food for Local Consumption

Counties and municipalities may explore property tax adjustments, use-value assessments, or other local tax policies that support farms actively producing food for local markets. Incentives tied to local sales or continued agricultural production can help maintain working farmland, reduce development pressure, and stabilize farm operations. These approaches require coordination with tax assessors, legal review, and farmer engagement to ensure feasibility and compliance with state law.

Partner with Extension to Provide Cooking Classes Alongside Food Assistance Programs

Local governments can collaborate with Cooperative Extension particularly Family and Consumer Sciences agents to offer cooking demonstrations or classes at food pantries, produce box pick-ups, or community centers. Integrating food preparation education into food assistance efforts helps households build skills to prepare fresh or unfamiliar foods and may increase long-term dietary quality and food utilization.

Address Transportation Gaps Affecting Food Access

Local governments and regional commissions can examine transportation barriers that limit access to grocery stores, farmers markets, and food distribution sites. Strategies may include conducting transportation gap analyses, adjusting transit routes or schedules, subsidizing rides to food retail locations, partnering with nonprofits for volunteer ride-share programs, or supporting mobile food hubs to bridge last-mile delivery challenges.

Seek Grants for Small-Scale Meat Processing, Cold Storage, Food Hubs, and Shared-Use Kitchens

Local and regional entities can pursue state, federal, or philanthropic grants to expand infrastructure that supports local food production and distribution. Investments in small-scale meat processing, refrigerated storage, food hubs, or shared-use commercial kitchens can address bottlenecks identified through food system assessments. Strengthening processing and aggregation infrastructure increases market opportunities for producers and improves supply chain resilience.

Acknowledgements

We extend our sincere appreciation to the municipal officials, county staff, and regional commission representatives across Appalachia who generously shared their time, experience, and insight through group interviews conducted between 2024 and 2025. Your candid reflections on current challenges, ongoing initiatives, and future opportunities directly shaped the strategies included in this guide. We are especially grateful for your commitment to strengthening food systems in your communities and for your willingness to engage in thoughtful discussion about resilience in practice.

References

For questions or comments on this publication please contact: Dr. Lia Kelinsky-Jones Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Leadership, & Community Education and the Assistant Director for Research in the VT Center for Food Systems and Community Transformation

kelinskyjones@vt.edu