Table 5.

Ranking top three intervention priorities for community or local level strategies

Community-local level strategies	Rank score
Community suite of services (e.g. food access, financial access, social inclusion, growing food, provides food relief, financial and housing advice, counselling, links to training and education, employment opportunities, etc.) (availability, access, utilisation)	70
Food hubs (availability, access)	40
Social supermarkets or social solidarity stores (access)	35
Emergency food relief, food assistance programmes (access)	20
Cooking or other food literacy programmes (utilisation)	20
Social cafes (access)	15
Budgeting programmes (access)	10
Food waste reduction campaign (utilisation)	10
Farmers markets and community food markets (availability, access)	10
Meal provisioning for community dwelling elderly, for example, Meals on Wheels, congregate (meals provided for the elderly at a venue) (access)	10
Community kitchens (utilisation)	5

Additional comments emphasised the need to reconnect people to local food systems to ‘make healthy food choices easily accessible, affordable and available’ (Northern Ireland), and a criticism that the options ‘missed the point that people need more money to be able to afford food and that housing, transportation, childcare, and health care need to be free or more affordable.’ (USA) and ‘Again, many of those interventions are insulting to low-income people. Food literacy and person ‘budgeting’ aren’t the main problems – low wages and high housing costs are the main problems.’ (USA) suggesting that the options in the national policy level were preferred and the priority. There was an acknowledgement that ‘many community interventions are not shown to be effective for FI. Hard to evaluate.’ (Australia).