Creating with SystemsCREATING WITH SYSTEMS
← BACK_TO_INDEX

MODELING A LOCAL
FOOD SYSTEM

AuthorAUGUSTINE VON TRAPP
Published2025.12.20
DomainFOOD_SYSTEMS
RegionFLATHEAD_VALLEY_MT

By viewing a local food system as a living ecology rather than a collection of isolated businesses, we can use the tools of systemic design to identify leverage points, bottlenecks, and emerging patterns that can be tactically designed for.

During a stay in the Flathead Valley, Montana, I became interested in looking at various aspects of the valley through a systemic lens. So, building on my own interest as a systemic designer and in permaculture (another channel of systems-related creativity), I wanted to write a few pieces on the local food economy through the lens of my craft.

In this short initial post, my goal is to introduce the idea of a local food system and then show how I would frame one for systemic design. For the sake of not turning this into a long research post, I'm not going to describe the model's content, rather, I'll show how to start building the model, and in later posts, will show the results of the full modeling process as I go along.

DEFINING THE SUBJECT // 01

WHAT IS A REGIONAL
FOOD SYSTEM?

A local food system comprises the people and processes involved in producing, processing, distributing, and consuming food within a specific area. Beyond the geographic constraint, the term "local food system" implies a strong cultural orientation to a region's unique environmental character. It is distinguished from (but coexists with) industrial food systems, which generally prioritize efficiency, standards, and sophisticated logistics that scale over many regions. It should be noted that some organizations may operate on the boundary between these two layers of the overall food system.

Geographically bound food systems are of particular interest to me because, by setting specific boundaries, we can more easily tie the pattern language of systemic design to the specific content of the system itself (the producers, processors, distributors, and consumers) and design for nitty-gritty, everyday experience effectively.

METHODOLOGY // 02

HOW DO WE START SEEING
IT LIKE A SYSTEMIC DESIGNER?

The Foundation Context Layer:

Let's start with the core context. This is the turtle on which all the elephants stand. You can't really understand a system well without examining its context. How deep you go depends on what you are trying to solve, but when it comes to something as interconnected as food, it's best to do a pretty thorough sweep and home in on anything that stands out.

The Geographic Context:

These are the most influential elements. What must all human, state, and natural activities accommodate?

The Human Context:

What must the vast majority of human activity orient itself around?

This stage should already reveal a lot about what will characterize people's decisions and the mainstays of their problems and opportunities. This also grounds your analysis; everyone else is being shaped by these constraints, which helps eliminate any unsubstantiated theories or dumb questions when it is time to start talking to people.

EMERGENT DYNAMICS // 03

THE EMERGENT LAYER

Next, we'll start engaging with the "emergent layer". This is where aggregate behavior forms stable patterns. I like to think of this layer like a whirlpool in a river caused by underwater boulders; the whirlpool can last for many decades, even centuries, but as soon as you remove the stone, it's gone. The layer of context we defined above is the boulder in the metaphor, and the next layer of context we talk about below is the whirlpool.

When applying a systemic lens to a local food system, I think the most illuminating idea is that of an ecosystem. If you prefer, you can accurately think of a local food system as an extension of an underlying, natural ecosystem.

We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking of human economies as bounded by the same rules as natural ecosystems, but if we start thinking of a local food system as an ecosystem (or a human extension of an existing one), we get some very helpful ideas rooted in the dynamics they share as two complex systems:

Emergence:

How collective behavior forms into cohesive, novel, and identifiable things. If you have ever said "the feel of the city" or "the music scene", you have just identified something emergent. A 'scene' is generally comprised of many parts working together without a single source of authority. Some people become guitarists, some open bars and venues, and some become audio engineers, but no one (usually) is telling them all to do so. Studying emergence is our gateway to the information and incentive layer of a local food system. Self-organization relies on many actors coordinating and processing information in real time. We can track down these information networks by engaging with how collective activity proceeds.

Systemic Maturity:

Determining the developmental stage of a natural ecology is a significant element in understanding it. I suspect you interpret a child's behavior quite differently from that of an adult. While there are many differences in the trajectories of human economies and natural ecosystems, there are also many shared dynamics, such as how networks evolve, pioneering vs climax states, generalization vs specialization; emphasizing their developmental stage and pathways gives us deeper insight into why things are the way they are now and how they will inevitably be pulled toward future stages of maturity.

Ecological Analogs:

Similar to the stages of development, ecological roles play out consistently across similar contexts. Predator-prey is perhaps the most iconic recurring pattern, but it has more nuanced implications; for instance, consider how, on remote islands, birds consistently evolve flightlessness to play much the same role as different mammals do across a continent. The same basic dynamics are at play in human economies (via emergence and maturity), and identifying these analogs gives us a level of predictive power. Assuming we can identify the primary layers of a local food ecology and its maturity level, we can have a well-founded idea of what patterns will play out and what the system currently 'craves'.

The foundational analogs in a food system include actors such as producers, aggregators, and advocates, as well as relationships such as competition vs. collaboration, power dynamics, and symbiosis.

These are just three ideas, but they give us a lot of what we need to put together a model that helps us pretty quickly zero in on missing archetypes, leverage points, bottlenecks, patterns ready to be facilitated out of nascency, and short and long-term predictions — all of which can be tactically designed for.

CONCLUSION // 04

BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE

As I continue to explore the food system in the Flathead Valley, I will use this methodology to bridge the gap between abstract systemic ideas and the tangible realities of regional food production that can be designed for.

Viewing the valley not just as a collection of isolated businesses, but as a living ecology, we can begin to see the invisible threads: how information flows, the power dynamics, and the "flightless birds" of our local economy (while being intentional about where analogs guide vs. mislead).

The goal of this modeling process isn't just to document what exists; it's to identify with special rigor where the intervention and tactical design can be applied. By first understanding the foundational context and the emergent behaviors of the Flathead Valley, we can:

FINAL NOTE: A local food system is not just a supply chain. It is a living ecology, and the tools of systemic design let us see it, model it, and design within it.

CREATINGWITHSYSTEMS.COM