Sustainable Food Purchasing in an Urban Context: Retail Availability and Consumers’ Representations

Abstract

The adoption of sustainable food products by consumers is often hindered by both perceived and actual barriers within retail environments. This study investigates the interaction between the objective availability of sustainable food, its in-store visibility, and consumer perceptions of and discourses about these aspects, specifically examining how these factors contribute to socio-spatial disparities in access within an urban context (Turin, Italy). The research combined qualitative interviews with 50 consumers—to understand their perceptions and purchasing criteria—with quantitative observations of the presence and presentation of products in 56 supermarkets and 28 open-air markets across different socio-economic areas. The findings indicate that while sustainable products are more widely available than commonly perceived, their visibility (shelf positioning, signage) is significantly lower in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. This “invisibility” creates a crucial perceptual barrier, particularly for consumers who rely on immediate environmental cues and efficient shopping strategies, thus limiting purchases despite the actual presence of the products. The study concludes that in-store presentation strategies are critical mediators of perceived availability, disproportionately affecting consumers in lower socio-economic contexts and highlighting an innovative dimension of food access inequality that calls for targeted interventions at both the retail and policy levels.

1. Sustainability, Food, and Consumption

Among the sectors most involved in the sustainability challenge, the food sector plays a key role in the sustainability challenge [1]: on the one hand, the food system is one of the main contributors to unsustainability, due to the environmental impact of agricultural production, resource use (water, soil, energy), gas emissions, waste production and inequalities in access to food; on the other hand, as a consequence, the food system is a source of potential solutions.

The transition to more sustainable food systems involves all stages of the food chain—production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste management—and each presents specific challenges and requires dedicated interventions [2]. But one of the phases on which communication campaigns and public interventions, as well as scientific reflection, often focus is that of consumption, believing that purchasing choices significantly influence—with an inverse domino effect—the entire food system (even in a catalogue such as Scopus, among about 1600 articles published in journals in the last ten years with a reference to food and sustainability in the title, more than 600 refer to the theme of consumption in the abstract). In parallel, an increasing number of political and social initiatives aim to raise consumer awareness and encourage the adoption of more sustainable diets.

The change in consumer behaviour in this direction is, however, hindered by a multifaceted framework of potential barriers, which, from the most recent literature, seems to be summarised with the following five main factors [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]: lack of information or awareness, the link with traditions and eating habits, the cost in economic terms of more sustainable products, their availability, and the difficulty in recognising them at the points of sale.

As is clear even from this synthetic picture, some of these factors are properties of the system in which consumers act, while others are properties of the consumers themselves. It thus becomes crucial to analyse the interaction between these two sides, that is, between the real opportunities and obstacles that actors could encounter and the representations that actors have of these opportunities and obstacles [30]. And, on this interaction, two of the previously mentioned factors seem to constitute a privileged point of observation—and will be central to the analysis presented in this article—namely, the availability and recognisability of the most sustainable products in the retail trade.

2. Product Availability and Recognition

As is well known, purchasing choices are not solely constructed on the basis of motivations related to price and product quality or the personal convictions of the actor, but are also strongly influenced by contextual and situational elements. Among these, the convenience of the point of sale and the visibility of the product within it emerge as central factors [31,32].

The convenience of the point of sale, understood as proximity to one’s place of residence or work and ease of reaching it [33], is a crucial variable in consumption habits, sometimes even taking priority over other elements such as price or variety [34]. The choice of a point of sale, in this sense, responds to the logic of optimising the daily management of time and mobility in which the spatial and temporal dimensions intertwine [35,36]. This factor is reinforced in contexts where the organisation of daily life is increasingly accelerated, and time is, therefore, a scarce resource [37,38,39].

The visibility of the product also has a strong impact on choice. Its location at the point of sale—on the shelves, in promotional islands, or near the checkout counter—affects the likelihood that it will be noticed, evaluated, and purchased. Many studies highlight that the physical position of a product significantly influences sales, regardless of the preferences previously expressed by the consumer [40,41,42]: apparently, minimal elements, such as the height of the shelf, are capable of directing visual attention and favouring choice in a pre-reflective manner [43,44].

These effects, moreover, do not only affect individual practices, but can produce socially widespread habits starting from the way the commercial space is organised. Indeed, product visibility contributes not only to its perceptual relevance, but also to its social legitimisation. The stable and prominent presence of a product in a non-specialised shop reinforces the idea that this product is normal and suitable for a wide audience, i.e., it builds familiarity, and familiarity builds trust [45,46,47]. Moreover, visibility also acts as a symbolic indicator: placing a product in a central, well-lit, and easily accessible position implicitly communicates a message of approval and promotion, helping to build the symbolic hierarchy of goods in the shop [48,49].

Convenience and visibility, therefore, facilitate material access to goods, reduce the cognitive and temporal effort required for choice, and participate in constructing the horizon of what is considered common, acceptable, and desirable. For this reason, they represent two central dimensions for understanding the processes through which preferences are structured and practices are oriented in purchasing contexts.

This set of dynamics is particularly relevant when considering the purchasing practices of less popular food products, such as those with high sustainability. Numerous studies show that a substantial proportion of consumers declare a general willingness to purchase such products, but then fail to convert this willingness into concrete action [50,51]. Among the factors that contribute to this gap, the visibility of products at the point of sale may play a key role [52,53]. Research has shown, for example, that consumers often struggle to identify highly sustainable foods, especially when multiple labels, unfamiliar symbols, and highly technical information are present. Moreover, a visible but not segregated placement of these products within the store can help overcome their perception as niche, expensive, and aimed at a limited target audience [54,55]. The likelihood that such products will be purchased thus also appears to be influenced by their being highlighted through clear and explicit visual communication [56,57], which serves as a cognitive shortcut: it makes relevant information immediately accessible, reduces the consumer’s analytical and reflective load, and increases the chances that latent intentions will translate into action.

For all these reasons, with reference to the vast majority of non-specialist consumers, in terms of purchasing more sustainable food products, the convenience of the place of sale and the visibility of these products within it are key factors [58,59].

3. Research Objectives and Methodology

This article aims to reconstruct and analyse the discourses and representations of consumers in Turin regarding the availability and recognisability of sustainable food products, examining how these subjective consumer narratives and perceptions interact with the objectively observed characteristics of product availability and in-store visibility. Furthermore, the study seeks to explore the variability of both these aspects across urban areas with differing socio-economic levels, thereby shedding light on how the interplay between perception and objective supply contributes to differentiated access and potential barriers to sustainable food consumption.

Placed in such a general form, however, this objective would have implied the collection and management of a quantity and variety of data that exceeded the possibilities of the conducted research. Therefore, some operational choices were made in order to narrow down the field.

First of all, a territorial context was defined: the city of Turin, in Italy. This territory constitutes a good observation point for the investigation of the aforementioned processes for three main reasons: it hosts areas with differentiated socio-economic characteristics that are quite distinguishable, but, at the same time, it does not have areas that are too clearly separated; it has a considerable diversity of food retail outlets, ranging from large shopping centres, to small- and medium-sized supermarkets, to open-air local markets, to specialised shops; and it has a considerable tradition—commercial, cultural, and political—of attention to the issue of food and sustainability, in terms of policies, enterprises, and associations.

Then, it was decided to focus on two types of outlets, namely, open-air markets and supermarkets, with a greater emphasis on the latter, which emerged as a priority for food purchases in Italy (based on the data reported in https://www.istat.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/REPORT_Spese-per-consumi_2023_rev.pdf—accessed on 16 May 2025).

Finally, it was decided to develop a spatial analysis by first distinguishing between three macro-areas—north, west–centre–east, south—and then considering the first and third jointly in the analysis, because this division allowed a dichotomous comparison between areas with a higher (west–centre–east) and lower (north–south) socio-economic level (based on the data at http://geoportale.comune.torino.it/web/node/2211—accessed on 16 May 2025; the income indicator will be used in the maps), and because it allowed sufficiently large sub-samples of interviews and points of sale.

More specifically, these are the data that were collected and will be used in the article:

(1)

Interviews with 50 people living in the city, balancing gender (25 men, 25 women), age (25 respondents 18–34 years old, 25 respondents 35–55 years old), educational qualification (25 graduates, 25 with a high school diploma or lower qualification), and area of residence in the city (25 from north zone + south zone, 25 from west–centre–east zone). The interviewees were recruited through contacts obtained from an initial convenience sample to whom the desired profiles were presented, and, subsequently, through snowball sampling using the same strategy. The variables of stratification were chosen based on suggestions from the literature to maximise the variability of the collected data (in the quotations of the interview excerpts, an abbreviation will be used to indicate the person’s ID: A—adult/Y—young; F—female/M—male; educational qualification: L—low (middle school diploma)/M—middle (high school diploma)/H—high (university degree); and area of residence: WCS—west–centre–east/NS—north and south).

(2)

A survey of the presence of more sustainable products and the way they are presented in 28 open-air markets (out of the 42 in the city), which were selected because they host at least 10 food stalls.

(3)

A survey of the presence of more sustainable products and the way they are presented in 56 supermarkets (out of 330 in the city), belonging to 24 chains (out of 33 in the city). The choice of chains was made by excluding those that had less than three points of sale. The choice of points of sale was made by taking locations of the same chain in the different territorial macro-areas and considering 2 or 3 points of sale per chain, depending on the total number of points of sale of which it was composed.

With regard to the interviews, the schedule contained 35 questions about 6 main topics: definitions of sustainable food, public communication about sustainable food, awareness of sustainable food, drivers of consumption of sustainable food, obstacles to consuming sustainable food, and personal consumption of sustainable food. Here, the focus will be on questions concerning the availability and recognisability of sustainable food products in retail outlets (an analysis of the other dimensions was presented in [17]).

The surveys in markets and supermarkets took place in two observation sessions six months apart (the data from the two surveys were then merged), and, during each one, two different forms were used.

The first consisted of a grid of 53 product types (e.g., fruit, vegetables, eggs, meat, fresh fish, pasta, etc.) and 11 labels (fair trade, organic label, “organic” as word, no GMO, sustainable farming/fishing, no pesticides, no treatments, respect for the environment, respect for bees, sustainable packaging, integrated agriculture), for a total of 583 possible references, of which only the presence at the point of sale was noted (only 432 references were observed, even because some labels could only be applied to certain product types—for example, respect for bees could not be found on meat and sustainable packaging could not appear on products sold in bulk). The lists of possible product types and possible labels were constructed from a pilot observation study of the four largest supermarkets in the city (evaluating that the probability that some references were only present in the smaller ones was not high; on the fourth observation, the survey framework indicated saturation). The degree of knowledge and trust that potential consumers attribute to each label may differ, yet their presence constitutes a valuable indicator for connecting the actual availability of products with the emerging representations surrounding them.

The second form noted the following for each product that had been identified: the brand of that product; the number of brands of that type of product; the presence of a tag next to the product—or a larger hanging sign—placed by the managers of the point of sale and indicating which of the 11 possible labels described that product; the position of the product on the shelf; and the location of the product within a section dedicated to more sustainable food products. As for the specific choice to focus on tags/hanging signs, position on shelves, and location in a dedicated section, we are aware that many other factors could have been taken into consideration, but these three emerged as particularly relevant in the interviews conducted as part of the research and were therefore given priority.

A total of 5841 products were registered according to this procedure in the supermarkets, while only 37 products were registered in the street markets (given the insignificant weight of the latter compared to the former, within the article, the analysis will focus on the data collected in the supermarkets). The research registered products marked by 1 of the 11 labels on the packaging or by signs and tags: it is possible that the markets (as well as the supermarkets) housed more products with a sustainability feature, but—since this trait was not explicitly indicated—they were “invisible” to potential buyers and, as such, fell outside the scope of the research.

The research presented in this article adopts a cultural sociological perspective, focusing primarily on the discourses and representations surrounding sustainable food consumption. The research employs a qualitative and interpretive lens to explore the meanings, perceptions, and symbolic dimensions that potential consumers associate with sustainable food, its availability, and its recognisability within the urban retail environment. A key feature of this study is the systematic effort to situate these subjective representations in direct dialogue with the observable characteristics of retail settings. Thus, insights from consumer narratives are triangulated with empirical data about product presence and in-store presentation in supermarkets and markets. This dual approach aims to illuminate the interplay between perceived and actual retail conditions, offering an understanding of how cultural representations and material environments mutually influence each other. The study’s analytical depth lies in the interpretation of these interconnections within their specific social and spatial context.

This research, qualitative in nature, has no goals of statistical representativeness. The sample of interviewees, although balanced with respect to relevant demographic variables, was constructed using non-probabilistic methods, with a focus on the richness and diversity of the information collected. Similarly, the selection of retail outlets was guided by criteria intended to capture the heterogeneity of shops and local contexts, rather than to achieve statistical representativeness of the city’s entire retail landscape. Throughout, the aim has been to explore the interconnections between supply, visibility, and perception, rather than to statistically generalise the findings to the city as a whole.

The subsequent sections will present the findings of the research. Section 4 will delve into the following: the qualitative insights from consumer interviews, exploring their perceptions of suitable purchasing locations for sustainable food (Section 4.1); the perceived distribution of these products across the city (Section 4.2); the stated reasons behind the store choices (Section 4.3); and, finally, how they believe sustainable products can be recognised within supermarkets (Section 4.4). Section 5 will shift to the objective data gathered from point-of-sale observations. It will begin with an overview of the distribution of retail outlets in Turin (Section 5.1), then detail the actual presence of products with sustainability labels in the surveyed supermarkets (Section 5.2), and conclude by examining the in-store presentation and visibility strategies employed for these items (Section 5.3).

4. Results: The Interviews

4.1. Possible Places of Purchase

The starting point in the presentation of the results will be the interviews, beginning with discussions on possible places to buy more sustainable food products. The analysis of the answers reveals a plurality of purchasing places perceived as suitable, but which can be summarised in four main macro-categories.

The first category—the most frequently mentioned—is the large-scale retail trade, the supermarkets. This is plausibly linked to the widespread diffusion of large-scale distribution throughout the territory and the familiarity that consumers have developed with this purchasing channel. Several chains are mentioned, with a certain prevalence of those perceived as being more attentive to quality; however, even supermarkets considered to be cheaper, such as some discount chains, are mentioned, in particular for the presence of their own brand organic products, which also seem to enjoy a certain trust in terms of compliance with certifications. Some interviewees point to the presence of specific departments dedicated to more sustainable products within supermarkets, while others emphasise the possibility of finding these products within conventional shelves, mixed with conventional products. This second situation is described both as an advantage—because it puts the option of encountering them by chance at the disposal of the customer not yet focused on this type of product, and as a disadvantage—because it requires careful research on the part of the already interested consumer. If the large-scale retail trade is seen by many as an accessible channel, the perception of the quality of the products on offer is instead variable: some express confidence, but others express a certain scepticism, suggesting that more marketing dynamics can be triggered in the large-scale retail trade than true attention to the sustainability characteristics of the products on offer.

A second category of shopping venues frequently referred to is open-air markets. These places are mainly associated with the possibility of finding fresh, seasonal, and local products. This perception derives mainly from the presence of farmers’ stalls offering products directly “from the field to the table”, reducing intermediate steps. Many interviewees also emphasise, as an added value, the possibility one has at markets to interact directly with producers, ask questions about the origin and cultivation methods of products, and establish a relationship of trust. Finally, markets are perceived as a more sustainable channel compared to large-scale distribution, both because of the reduction in intermediate steps in the supply chain and less use of packaging. Porta Palazzo, the largest open-air market in Turin, emerges as a key reference point thanks to the presence of an area dedicated to farmers, but other district markets are also mentioned, as well as Sunday markets organised by producers’ associations.

The third category mentioned is that of specialised shops. These shops, which are mainly dedicated to organic, fair trade, and bulk products, are often described as more ‘authentic’ and reliable than the large-scale retail trade. Both national chains and small independent shops are noted: chains offer a greater variety of products, while shops are appreciated for their atmosphere and more direct relationship with the staff, who can provide personalised advice. In addition to the sustainability of products, specialised shops are often associated with supporting local economies and promoting a more conscious lifestyle; a critical aspect emphasised, however, is the generally higher price of the products offered.

Finally, a fourth—less common—category concerns direct purchasing channels, described as more reliable in guaranteeing the quality, freshness, and sustainability of products. This conviction is linked to the possibility of knowing first-hand the origin of the products and the production methods, and of establishing a relationship of trust with the producer: interviewees refer to farmers’ stalls, farms with direct sales, solidarity purchasing groups (GAS), online platforms of local producers, and, in some cases, personal vegetable gardens. Some interviewees, however, emphasise that direct buying requires greater commitment in terms of time, organisation, and information gathering.

Now, organic jams can be found in a lot of supermarkets. I can also go to the supermarket behind my house, which is ***, which is also expensive, or to @@@. You can find it everywhere now.

(Interview 28—A-F-H-NS)

Mmm … yes, in my opinion, the market solves everything. […] In my opinion, it really does solve a lot of issues in the end. Yes, I would send you to the market anyway.

(Interview 10—Y-F-H-WCE)

I would go to a specialised shop, like the *** ones, because they are more specific and you know they can guarantee you a safe product.

(Interview 21—A-M-L-WCE)

You should go to the farmer, […] there are several who sell on their land. My mum goes to a farmer […] not far from where we live.

(House #39—A-M-M-NS)

In concluding this point, considering the profile of the respondents, it can be seen that the reference to supermarkets is more widespread among adult respondents, with lower educational qualifications and family cultural background, and who live in the northern and southern areas; specialised shops, direct purchasing channels from producers, and markets, on the other hand, are more often mentioned by respondents who are younger, with a higher cultural level, and who live in the west–centre–east area. No significant differences emerge concerning gender.

4.2. The Distribution of Purchasing Locations Across the City

Having identified the main purchasing locations mentioned by interviewees, the analysis now focuses on their perceptions regarding the territorial distribution of more sustainable food products within the city, and a complex picture emerges. On the one hand, many interviewees emphasise the increasing diffusion of organic certified products, also within the large-scale retail trade, and thus their substantial availability throughout the territory. On the other hand, a clear distinction emerges between organic products and the availability of sustainable products understood in a broader and more complete sense (in particular local and “zero miles” or fair-trade products), access to which is perceived as more linked to channels such as specialised shops, farmers’ markets, GAS, or to farmhouse purchases, and, therefore, as less evenly distributed.

With regard to the differences between the areas of the city, the vast majority of the interviewees express the conviction that there is a marked lack of homogeneity: the city centre and its neighbouring areas are almost unanimously indicated as the areas with the greatest offer of sustainable products. This perception is motivated by the higher concentration of specialised shops (organic, fair trade, shops selling loose products) and neighbourhood shops offering niche and high-quality products; the presence of markets that host local producers or highly sustainable products; and the greater supply of sustainable products in supermarkets in these areas, which are characterised by “a certain lifestyle” and greater economic availability that produce a greater demand.

At the other extreme, the suburbs are perceived by most respondents as the areas with the lowest offer of sustainable products. This perception is motivated, in the first place, by the prevalence of discount stores and low-end supermarkets, which, although sometimes offering some organic products, are perceived as generally less sustainability-conscious and having a more limited offer. The lower presence of organic, fair trade, and neighbourhood shops in the suburbs is another factor that would make access to sustainable products more difficult for residents in these areas. Finally, the lower supply is traced back to a lower average socio-economic level of the residents, who would therefore be less likely to buy these products because they are expensive.

Within this general picture of polarisation between the centre (better supplied) and the periphery (less well supplied), however, there are also different opinions. Some believe that a more sustainable food base is now available in all supermarkets in the city, regardless of where they are located, although the variety and quality of supply may vary depending on the chain and context. Others highlight the important role that GAS and urban vegetable gardens can play in making sustainable products accessible even in peripheral areas, demonstrating how alternative channels can, in part, compensate for the reduced presence of specialised shops. Still, others point to a slow but progressive spread of specialised shops even in some peripheral areas, with a progressive reduction in territorial differences therefore also from this point of view.

There are always the areas that are a bit more … I say ‘rich’, but I don’t mean ‘richer’ in terms of money, and the areas that are a bit more neglected, which are not necessarily always the centre and the suburbs. On the contrary. And in my opinion in Turin it’s a bit like that. […] Because [in the centre] there are more shops, more activities, more places where you can buy, and then also because there is a greater attention to the type of people who live in that area, and therefore to the type of availability to be found in that area. By ‘rich’ I mean … certainly money has something to do with it, but I don’t mean that so much, I mean just as rich in … let’s say attention or regard on the part of the municipality, the city, wealth of services, which has something to do with money but is more understood from the point of view of services.

(Interview 26—Y-F-H-NS)

In my opinion, in the centre anyway, where there are people who can spend that money, there are more of them. In the suburbs […] shops of this type, I mean … no … but because they go out of business, I mean … nobody can go shopping there, so there is no point in keeping them open. Downtown is easier. But even just sustainable clothes shops, made in a certain way, with certain materials … they’re in the centre, they’re not in the suburbs.

(Interview 11—Y-F-H-NS)

Looking overall at the profile of the respondents, it can be seen that the perception of territorial inhomogeneity of the offer is greater among younger individuals, with higher educational qualifications and cultural background, and residents in the west–centre–east area, while adults, with lower educational qualifications and cultural backgrounds, resident in the north or south area tend to evaluate the offer as more homogeneous among the different areas of the city. No significant differences seem to emerge concerning gender.

4.3. The Reasons for Choosing Purchasing Locations

After considering the perceived distribution of sustainable shopping options, the next step is to explore the factors that interviewees identify as influential in consumers’ decisions about where to make their purchases. As might be expected, it is clear from their discourses that there is no single explanatory factor, but rather a set of motivations that intertwine and balance each other in different ways according to the individual priorities, habits, lifestyle, and socio-economic conditions of each consumer.

Two of the criteria that emerge most strongly are convenience and proximity. Ease of access to the shop, its proximity to one’s place of residence or work, and the possibility of reaching it quickly and without excessive travel are indicated as central factors. This aspect is closely linked to the question of time: in a society characterised by an increasingly accelerated pace of life, the possibility of optimising time spent shopping becomes a priority for many consumers. Convenience, in this sense, can translate into the choice of the supermarket on the doorstep, open late and within walking distance, or the preference for the local market, whether this is located on the home–work route or is otherwise easily accessible.

Often competing with the question of convenience, however, is the criterion of price. The search for savings is a motivation cited by many interviewees, which may lead them to prefer supermarkets (perceived as more economical, especially discount shops) or local markets (because of the possibility of finding special offers and lower prices than in specialised shops, or the possibility, in some cases, of buying directly from producers at advantageous prices). The idea is that individual financial means play a decisive role in orienting purchasing choices, and can lead to the price factor being favoured over other criteria, such as the quality or origin of the products.

Another criterion mentioned by respondents, and, in particular, by those most sensitive to sustainability issues, is the perceived quality of the products and trust in the seller. This aspect manifests itself in different ways. For some, quality is synonymous with freshness and genuineness and translates into the idea of a preference for local markets, where it is possible to find seasonal products, perhaps coming directly from local producers. Direct contact with the seller, the possibility of asking about the origin and cultivation methods of the products, and the perception of a shorter and more transparent supply chain also contribute to creating a sense of trust and security that guides choice. For others, quality is signalled by certifications or guarantee brands, and this results in a preference for specialised shops.

Variety of choice is another criterion that could influence purchasing decisions. Supermarkets, with their wide range of products of all kinds and brands, could often be preferred by those seeking the convenience of finding everything in one place, and by those who wish to have a wide range of alternatives at their disposal in order to compare prices and characteristics. Specialised shops, on the other hand, could attract those looking for specific, niche products that are difficult to find elsewhere, and who are willing to spend more time and attention on shopping to find exactly what they want. Markets, on the other hand, are described as a sort of ‘middle ground’, offering a good variety of fresh and seasonal products, but with a more limited selection than supermarkets.

Finally, factors such as established habits, individual lifestyles, and ethical motivations should not be overlooked. Some interviewees believe there are those who prefer markets as a matter of family tradition, for the pleasure of a more authentic and less standardised shopping experience, or for the desire to support small local producers and the local economy. Others think people choose supermarkets because of personal familiarity with this purchasing channel or the perception of greater economy and speed.

Many people say: ‘I go shopping there because I know it’s cheaper, I know there are special offers’, i.e., it’s all about price in general.

(Interview 13—Y-M-H-WCE)

There are a lot of people who know farmers and go and buy at their stalls and … they really know the person and trust them.

(Interview 11—Y-M-H-NS)

At the supermarket. It is close and you have a greater choice.

(Interview 24—Y-F-H-NS)

In my opinion it is a general consumer choice, but not only for these types of products. It is really a question of lifestyle, when I decide not yto go and spend my money in the supermarket. I’d rather spend it in the market and help the small producer.

(Interview 36—A-F-H-NS)

It is important to emphasise, however, that in the interviews, the choice of purchasing location is often described as the outcome of careful consideration and compromise between different needs. Proximity and economic savings tend to favour supermarkets. Yet these factors frequently come into tension with the pursuit of higher quality, greater assurance regarding products, or a more authentic shopping experience, which are typically associated with markets or specialised shops. The latter, however, require a greater investment of time and money. What emerges is therefore a constant negotiation between optimising time and budget on the one hand, and seeking qualitative or ethical value on the other, a debate dynamically shaped by individual priorities, habits, and socio-economic circumstances, leading to diverse purchasing equilibria and choices.

In conclusion, when considering the different choice criteria together, it can be seen that younger, more culturally endowed individuals living in the west–centre–east area tend to give greater weight to perceived quality as a factor in their choice of type of outlet, while also mentioning the issue of variety on offer. On the other hand, convenience and price are more often mentioned as relevant factors by adult respondents with lower cultural endowments and who live in the north and south. No clear differences seem to emerge with respect to gender.

4.4. Product Recognisability at the Point of Sale

Having explored the motivations behind consumers’ choices of purchasing locations, the analysis now turns to another critical aspect of the shopping experience: how interviewees believe consumers identify sustainable products once inside a supermarket. According to many interviewees, consumers rely on a combination of different tools, a plurality of clues interpreted more or less consciously and critically depending on the case, to identify sustainable products within a supermarket.

The most frequently mentioned, and considered of primary importance, are labels and certifications. The presence of specific labelling such as ‘organic’ or ‘fair trade’, accompanied by the relevant certification symbols (such as the EU green leaf for organic, or the green and blue circle for fair trade), is considered the main, and often most reliable, tool for recognising sustainable products.

However, signs of mistrust also emerge on the subject. Some interviewees, while recognising the importance of certifications, express doubts about their complete reliability, on the real sustainability of all products displaying the label, and suggesting the existence of cases of ‘greenwashing’, whereby some companies could use labels more as a marketing tool than as a guarantee of a real ethical and environmental commitment.

Another aspect that emerges strongly, and which is intertwined with the role of labels, is the importance of packaging. Products that are presented as sustainable are frequently associated with packaging that has distinctive features, so the consumer could also refer to these. The materials used for packaging are helpful in this regard: the presence of recycled or recyclable paper, biodegradable or compostable materials, or in any case packaging perceived as ‘less impactful’ on the environment, often characterise a product as more sustainable. In the eyes of some interviewees, the colours themselves play a significant role: natural shades such as green, brown, and beige, reminiscent of the earth, plants, and nature, are perceived as indicators of sustainability, in contrast to the brighter and more artificial colours often used for conventional products. In general, packaging that conveys an idea of simplicity, essentiality, and authenticity, as opposed to an image of excessive elaboration or ‘industrialisation’ that often characterises conventional products, could be used as an indicator.

The positioning of products within the supermarket is also a factor that, according to many respondents, influences the recognisability of sustainable products. Placement in dedicated areas or on specific shelves, separate from those housing conventional products, is described as a distribution strategy widely used by shops, which makes it much easier for interested consumers to identify products. In the words of some, this ‘ghettoisation’ of sustainable products, however, while it may simplify the search, may also contribute to reinforcing the idea that it is a product category aimed at a niche of consumers, rather than an accessible and desirable option for all.

Although it is not, in itself, a direct indicator of sustainability, price is also mentioned by several interviewees as an element that, indirectly, can guide the choice: sustainable products are, in fact, generally more expensive than conventional ones, and this price difference can, in some cases, be used as a clue, albeit not always reliable, to distinguish the two product categories.

Finally, two further factors emerge from the interviews, although more rarely, as follows: some mention the possibility of relying on specific brands offering more sustainable product lines; others mention the possibility of reading the ingredient list to check for more sustainable raw materials.

There should be a mark saying ‘organic’, or ‘product of organic farming’.

(Interview 23—A-M-H-NS)

Technically, I think by law they should specify it, … I hope, … so … then precisely you understand why it costs three times as much [laughs].

(Interview 31—Y-F-H-NS)

They are placed at specific points on the shelf; some supermarkets also have separate shelves.

(Interview 47—A-M-H-NS)

So … perhaps the packaging, for example, I don’t know … has brighter, more lively colours and things, while the organic ones are very simple, even in the packaging, they have very simple packaging, normal writings, while the others are an explosion of colours, of liveliness, that’s it.

(Interview 37—A-F-H-WCE)

Compared to the previous points, it is more difficult to draw overall profiles of typical respondents on these issues. Respondents with a higher education and family cultural background, and residing in the west–centre–east area, tend, however, to give more weight to labels and certifications, and to the careful reading of information on packaging, signalling the widespread risk of “greenwashing” and therefore the importance of going beyond the purely aesthetic aspect of packaging, while respondents with a lower cultural endowment and residing in the north or south area tend to focus more on the generic presence of sustainability warnings on products, the colour of the packaging, or the positioning of the product on the shelf. However, young people give more weight to packaging and aesthetic aspects, or to specific labels, while adults mention shelf positioning more often. Again, no systematic gender differences emerge.

5. Results: Points of Sale

5.1. Distribution of Sales Outlets Across the Territory

To complement the insights gained from consumer interviews regarding their perceptions of sustainable food shopping, this research now turns to an examination of the actual retail environment, beginning with the distribution of sales outlets. But before initiating this analysis, it may be useful to have some background knowledge about the research area, that of the city of Turin, concerning the presence of food retail outlets.

First of all, observing Figure 1, one can see how the territory presents a greater concentration of outlets in the central and western areas and a greater rarefaction in the north–east–south area. However, observing Figure 2, one can also note that this distribution largely follows that of the resident population, and that, therefore, it is not possible to speak of the existence of “food deserts” in this territory.

However, this does not mean that the inhabitants of different areas have the same opportunities on this level, for at least two reasons. The first is that, in areas with a lower density of outlets, it is true that there is also a lower density of inhabitants, but the spatial distribution of inhabitants and outlets does not always correspond, with the result that a portion of the population lacks conveniently located food outlets. The second point is that, in the northern and southern areas, certain types of food outlets—such as large hypermarkets that are difficult to reach, discount supermarkets, and mini-markets with few fresh products—are more widespread, whereas others—such as farmers’ markets offering direct sales and standard supermarkets with a good selection of fresh products—are less common.

It is, therefore, against this general background that one must place the results of the surveys in the 56 supermarkets analysed.

5.2. The Presence of Products in the Points of Sale

The first datum to start from is the presence of products with 1 of the 11 labels considered in the research (fair trade, official organic label, the word “organic” on the product, no GMO, sustainable farming/fishing, no pesticides, no treatments, respect for the environment, respect for bees, sustainable packaging, and integrated agriculture). As can be seen from Figure 3, the surveys conducted on the 56 supermarkets reveal a widespread but hierarchically differentiated presence of the different labels.

The pervasiveness of products labelled as organic emerges strongly: both those with the official EU label and those with the simple wording were found in all the shops observed (56 out of 56). Close behind are products with packaging declared to be sustainable, in that it is recycled, recyclable, free of pollutants, etc., which were found in almost all of the locations analysed (55 out of 56), and products labelled as coming from sustainable livestock or fishing also show a very high frequency (53 out of 56).

A second group of labels, although not having this coverage, nevertheless shows extensive presence. Products labelled as environmentally friendly (50 shops), ‘no GMO’ (48 shops), and ‘fair trade’ (47 shops) fall into this group.

Finally, there is a group of labels whose presence is more limited but still relevant. Products from ‘Integrated agriculture’ were found in 42 outlets; products with specific indications on the absence of chemical treatments, such as ‘no treatments’ and ‘no pesticides’ were found in more than 30 supermarkets; and products with the indication ‘respect for bees’, based on honey, were instead observed in slightly less than half of the outlets (24 out of 56).

With regard to the spread of types of products with at least one sustainability claim, a strong differentiation emerges. Ten types show an almost universal presence of at least one option labelled as sustainable, having been found in 53 or more of the 56 shops observed. These highly popular categories include non-fresh pasta, canned pulses, fresh vegetables, coffee, breakfast cereals, honey, chocolate, fruit juices, ready-made pasta, and seed oil.

Following this top group, but still with a high presence (between 47 and 52 outlets), are eggs, breadsticks, butter, fish (preserved or frozen raw/cooked), jams, fresh fruit, olives, biscuits, tinned tuna, dried pulses, beer, bacon, cheese, tea, crackers, and frozen raw vegetables.

Rarer but still fairly widespread (between 35 and 46 supermarkets) are soups, ready-made main courses, packaged cooked vegetables, fresh fish, soft drinks, olive oil, wine, hams and sausages, flour, milk, dried fruit, frozen ready meals (especially vegetable or soup/pasta/rice), and packaged raw salads/vegetables.

Overall, therefore, while for pantry staples and breakfast products the sustainable option is almost always present, for others, and, in particular, meat products and some complex processed products, it still remains the exception rather than the rule.

Finally, by cross-referencing product type and label, first of all, the preponderance of products labelled as ‘organic’ emerges, either through the use of the official logo (‘organic label’) or through the simple textual wording (‘organic’). In particular, for numerous widely consumed larder products, such as sauces, rice, non-fresh pasta, canned pulses, and seed oil, and products related to breakfast or snacks, such as rusks, honey, coffee, and breakfast cereals, the presence of at least one option declared as organic (with official label or textual wording) can be found in almost all the supermarkets visited. And, also for other commonly used products, such as fruit juices, eggs, and butter, the organic option (label or word) is present in the vast majority of shops (around 47–49 shops).

Moving slightly down the frequency scale, but remaining at a very high level of distribution (generally between 40 and 48 shops), on the one hand, there are processed or frozen fish products labelled as coming from sustainable fisheries, and, on the other hand, bakery products—such as bread rolls, biscuits, crackers, and breadsticks—and fresh vegetables and fruit with the ‘organic’ label or wording.

Instead, only when going below 40 outlets do other configurations emerge more clearly. Sustainable packaging begins to appear more consistently, associated with categories such as ready meals, cheese, breakfast cereals, breadsticks, snacks, olive oil, rusks, canned pulses, fresh vegetables, and soft drinks, albeit generally less frequently than ‘organic’ claims for the same categories, often between 28 and 40 shops. Also appearing are ‘fair trade’ for ingredients in ready meals (around 28–32 shops), ‘sustainable farming’ for milk (31 shops), and ‘no GMO’ for chocolate (30 shops). Beverages such as soft drinks, beer, and wine labelled as organic also show a still limited presence (around 30–32 shops) compared to pantry products. Finally, organic dried pulses and organic frozen vegetables are found in about one-third of the shops.

In closing this point, it is important to consider the differences in product availability with reference to the area in which the point of sale is located. According to what was suggested in the interviews, one would have expected the west–centre–east areas, characterised by a higher socio-economic level, to have a wider offer, and the northern and southern areas, characterised by a lower socio-economic level, a more limited offer. The data collected confirmed these expectations, but without particularly remarkable differences (the comparison was made by considering the same number of sales points for the two zones for the different size scales, but equivalent results were obtained when analysing the complete sample): considering the 100 most popular product-label combinations recorded overall, the west–centre–east sales points recorded an average of 71, the north–south sales points 61.

Even when considering the spread of the 11 labels in the shops of the different areas, no clear-cut polarisation between north–south and west–centre–east emerges: while labels such as ‘no pesticides’ and ‘respect for the environment’ were indeed more widespread in the second area, the spread of all others is equivalent.

Finally, looking at the individual product–label pairs detected, it can be seen that in the west–centre–east zone, there is a characteristic spread of bakery products, breakfast and dairy products, ready meals, fresh fruit and vegetables, and beverages, with organic labels, but also a greater presence of confectionery and snacks with sustainable packaging, frozen foods from sustainable fishing/farming or pesticide-free, and fair trade beverages. Characterising, on the other hand, the northern and southern zones are consumer products and staples—such as pasta and rice, bakery products, canned food, processed vegetables, and beverages—with environmentally friendly and pesticide-free labels, and ready meals and canned food with organic labels are particularly widespread, as well as sustainable packaging among tea and coffee, pantry products, biscuits, and sweet preserves. But, further analyses would be necessary to effectively interpret these differences.

5.3. The Description of Products at the Point of Sale

As indicated above, in addition to surveying the presence of the products in the outlets, the research also investigated their mode of presentation, considering, for each product identified (e.g., fair trade coffee of brand X): the brand of that product; the total number of brands for that type of product (hence the number of coffee brands); the possible presence of a tag placed next to the product indicating which of the 11 labels described that product (in the example, fair trade); the possible presence of a larger hanging sign indicating the product and label or only the label (hence fair trade or fair trade coffee); the position of the product on the shelf, if the shelf had several levels, to assess its greater or lesser visibility; and whether the product was placed inside a portion of the shelf, or a display, dedicated to highly sustainable food products (i.e., which, in most cases, bore one of the 11 labels considered). A total of 5841 products were filed according to this procedure. A summary description of these results is given below.

Starting with brands, there are three most interesting facts: the picture is very fragmented, considering that a total of 604 different brands were surveyed, but the 30 most popular brands cover 43.7% of the products surveyed, and 10 of these 30 are brands that coincide with the brand of a supermarket chain, i.e., they are brands managed by the chain itself.

As far as product labelling is concerned, only in 27.7% of the cases was the presence of a tag indicating one of the 11 labels considered observed (the labels for which it is most frequently used are the following: no treatments (36.8%), the word ‘organic’ (36.3%), organic official label (29.0%), and no GMO (28%)). And, only in 9% of the cases was there a large sign hanging that provided this information (used mainly in the case of products with the labels no treatments and no GMO).

When reading these data, however, certain aspects must be borne in mind: the number of products varies greatly among the different profiles; the products with different profiles partially overlap, as a product may have more than one label; and the adoption of labels and signs varies greatly not only between different chains (in some, they are completely absent) but also within the same shop (where, for example, a certain product with the word ‘organic’ is indicated by a label, while an equivalent product of a different brand or a different product with the word ‘organic’ is not indicated).

With regard to the placement of more sustainable products on dedicated shelves, this situation was observed for only 9.2% of the products considered. Shelf management varied considerably, but it is possible to identify four main patterns:

-

A dedicated shelf with dry and long-life products, housing mainly cereals, pasta, pulses, flours, biscuits, crackers, fruit and vegetable juices, coffee, tea, and condiments; sometimes, the shelf is next to the one with slimming products or dedicated to food intolerances;

-

A dedicated area with fresh fruit and vegetables, both with islands and refrigerated counters;

-

A refrigerated counter with fresh meat or fish;

-

A shelf dedicated to wine or vegetable and fruit juices.

The type of prevailing labels obviously varies depending on the products hosted.

A final aspect considered in the research was the placement of products on the different shelf levels. This is a complex aspect to analyse, because it ranges from situations—such as those for fresh fruit and vegetables—where there is only one level, to situations where the shelf has several levels but houses different products on each, to situations where the whole shelf is dedicated to the same type of product. The most interesting finding is that, where shelves had multiple levels, the most sustainable products were often placed either on middle-to-upper levels or across most levels at once. This suggests a possible tendency to use shelf positioning as a strategy to enhance the visibility of these products; however, this point would require further investigation.

Again, in closing, it is important to consider some differences in the visibility of products according to the area in which the outlet is located (west–centre–east compared to north–south; in this case, too, the comparison was made by considering the same number of outlets in the two areas for different size scales, but equivalent results were obtained when analysing the complete sample). And the differences are sharper than in the previous point.

There is a clear difference in the signalling of more sustainable products: in the sales outlets in the west–centre–east area, characterised by a higher socio-economic level, 42.2% of the products are signalled with a tag placed close to the product itself, while in the north and south areas, characterised by a lower socio-economic level, and this occurs in only 15.9% of cases. In parallel, large hanging signs are present in 12.2% of cases in the first area and 8.9% of cases in the second. Finally, in the west–centre–east area, products tend to be placed higher on average, and occupy a greater portion of the shelf levels, as if to make them more visible than in the north and south areas, where greater heterogeneity of position is observed (although the placement of these products on dedicated shelves is substantially identical in the different areas).

6. Discussion

The data presented in the previous sections clearly show the complexity of the interconnections between the availability of sustainable food products at the point of sale, signalling strategies, and consumers’ representations of this availability, as well as illustrating how this complexity plays a major role in the socio-spatial disparities in access to these products.

On the consumer side, there emerged a widespread awareness of different purchasing locations—from supermarkets to markets and from specialised shops to direct purchasing—but with heterogeneous perceptions. In particular, it was noted that the more adult respondents, with a lower level of education and residing in the north and south areas, most often indicated supermarkets as a potential place to buy, due to convenience and price, and would mainly rely on more general signs such as the appearance of the packaging or the location of the product to identify its sustainability. On the other hand, younger people, with a higher level of education and living in the west–centre–east area, are more focused on alternative channels to large-scale distribution, giving more importance to the search for quality and sustainability and to specific labels, while pointing out the risks of greenwashing. Not surprisingly, among the latter, there is also a greater perception of territorial inhomogeneity of supply.

On the supply side, the analysis of the shops revealed that the availability of products with sustainability labels, or at least of certain categories, is more widespread and less geographically differentiated than commonly perceived. Although supermarkets in the west–centre–east area have a wider range on average, the difference with respect to the north and south areas does not appear as clear-cut as interviews would suggest. Greater differences can be seen instead in the visibility strategies adopted: in the first area, the signalling of sustainable products using specific labels is clearly more frequent and their positioning on the shelves tends to make them more conspicuous; in the other two areas, these same products are signalled much less and often placed in less visible positions, even though they are present.

Although, therefore, the actual availability of products labelled as sustainable shows less marked differences between areas of different socio-economic status than commonly perceived by respondents, it is the marked divergence in visibility strategies adopted by retailers—the significantly more limited use of clear signage (tags) and less conspicuous placements in north–south areas—that builds a significant perceptual barrier. And this relative ‘invisibility’ could reduce perceived findability, undermining shopping opportunities precisely for those consumer segments (residing in the north–south areas, and more oriented to supermarkets and fast and efficient shopping) that rely less on active and targeted research, and more on immediate environmental signals to guide their impulse or habitual choices.

This divergence in visibility strategies across areas with differing socio-economic status may not be incidental but could instead reflect, perhaps even unintentionally, specific marketing logics and customer profiling practices adopted by retailers. One might hypothesise that, in areas perceived as having lower purchasing power or a presumed lesser sensitivity to sustainability issues, products labelled as sustainable are given less promotional emphasis and are relegated to a role of “assortment completion”, rather than being positioned as strategic elements.

The rationale behind such choices may stem from a combination of factors: from the perception (accurate or otherwise) of lower demand elasticity for these products among certain consumer segments—leading to a concentration of promotional resources on product categories deemed to have higher turnover or profit margins—to the standardisation of category management strategies at the chain level, which may insufficiently account for the latent potential of such products in less affluent areas if appropriately promoted. Furthermore, one cannot exclude that the higher logistical complexity or costs associated with managing “niche” items or certified products may prompt store managers with tighter budgets or limited decision-making autonomy to curtail their active promotion, instead prioritising an offer perceived as more “secure” and easier to manage.

If confirmed, such an approach risks perpetuating a vicious cycle: low visibility reduces the likelihood of purchase by less motivated or less informed consumers, thereby reinforcing the retailer’s perception of weak demand and disincentivising further investment in visibility. In this sense, in-store marketing practices could operate as a mechanism that, while not denying physical access to the product, restricts its cognitive and perceptual accessibility—thus contributing to the reinforcement, rather than the mitigation, of existing socio-economic inequalities in the adoption of more sustainable diets.

Even beyond this possible explanation, the finding itself can be meaningfully brought into dialogue with what is discussed in the literature and summarised in the opening parts of the article, where it was emphasised that sustainable consumption choices are hindered not only by economic (perceived cost) or informational (lack of knowledge and awareness) barriers, but also by contextual and situational factors. The research confirms and enriches this picture, showing how convenience, a key driver for many consumers, is not only about the physical proximity of the shop, but also about the cognitive ease of finding the desired product within it. Poor visibility increases search effort and cognitive load, transforming an objectively available product into one that is subjectively ‘unavailable’ or otherwise overlooked, especially for those who have not developed specific purchasing strategies or give lower priority to sustainability over price and time.

The research thus confirms the crucial interaction between the properties of the supply system (availability and presentation) and consumers’ representations, but also highlights how presentation (in-store visibility) can relevantly impact the perception of availability itself, acting—when ineffective—as a barrier in shaping perceived opportunities in contexts with less socio-economic capital. The different representations and priorities expressed by consumers in the two areas (more oriented to quality/short supply chain/active research in the west–centre–east area; more to convenience/price/non-specialised channels in the north–south area) thus find a counterpart—and perhaps a reinforcement—in the different strategies of presentation of sustainable products adopted by retailers in the respective areas.

The practical implications of these results are significant. For retailers, there emerges a strategic need to rethink sustainable food merchandising, going beyond the mere assortment: simple interventions on shelf signage (clear, informative, and standardised tags), more strategic positioning (at eye level, at passing points), and the creation, where possible, of highly visible but not ghettoising thematic areas, could significantly increase recognisability and, consequently, incidental or planned purchase of these products. Such measures could facilitate the adoption of more sustainable choices without requiring additional cognitive effort or time from consumers, aligning with their convenience priorities. For urban policy makers and agencies involved in promoting sustainable diets, this study suggests that consumer awareness campaigns may be less effective if not accompanied by interventions that act on the purchasing environment. Incentive measures for retailers adopting better visibility practices, or the inclusion of recognition standards for products with environmental/social certifications within urban food policies, could be considered.

However, the results of the research call for further investigative steps. First, it becomes crucial to investigate the logic underlying retailers’ strategies: why do visibility practices differ so markedly between areas, or even among different products at the same point of sale and with the same type of label? Targeted interviews with shop and chain managers could reveal the decision-making frames (perceptions of target customers, marginality targets per product category, logistical constraints, and brand policies) that drive presentation choices.

Secondly, in order to capture the actual behavioural impact of (in)visibility, direct observation of consumers’ in-store paths and purchasing choices (in-store tracking or shop-along interviews) would be valuable in order to analyse how they navigate the space and how signage (or its absence) influences their attention and selection of sustainable products.

In parallel, it would be crucial to explicitly address the price dimension—deliberately left out here, given the complexity of collecting relevant data—to focus on its intersection with availability and recognition. A systematic mapping of the actual price differentials between conventional and sustainable products (and between different sustainability labels), and their variation between different types of outlets and urban areas, would make it possible to assess the relative weight of this economic barrier with respect to the recognisability barrier highlighted here, and to identify possible interactions (e.g., private label sustainable products in discount shops).

Moreover, the use of a snowball sampling strategy for the consumer interviews, while effective for accessing diverse perspectives and achieving balance across key socio-demographic variables, carries a potential risk of selection bias, as participants might share similar networks or outlooks. While the stratification by age, gender, education, and area of residence aimed to mitigate this by ensuring a breadth of experiences, the findings from these interviews should be interpreted as indicative of potential trends and representations within the sampled groups rather than being statistically generalisable to the entire urban population. To address this and to further assess the robustness of the qualitative insights presented here, a subsequent quantitative research phase would be highly beneficial. Such a phase could involve a survey administered to a statistically representative sample of the city’s population, stratified by geographical area and other relevant socio-demographic factors. This would allow for a more precise measurement of the prevalence of the identified perceptions, barriers, and purchasing patterns, thereby complementing and potentially validating the qualitative understanding developed in the current study.

Finally, the extension of the analysis to other urban contexts with different socio-economic and commercial geographies would make it possible to test the generalisability of the “visibility-as-mediator” mechanism identified here and to obtain a more complete picture of the ecosystem that facilitates or hinders the purchase of sustainable food. Turin, characterised by pronounced socio-economic stratification, represents a particularly fertile context for examining disparities in access to food. The city exhibits a notable emphasis on food quality and a strong sensitivity to sustainability, fostered by political, academic, and market actors actively engaged with these issues. Nevertheless, the lack of a comprehensive municipal food policy may constrain the development of a systematic approach to the promotion of sustainable consumption. A further distinguishing feature is the widespread presence of daily open-air markets, which are deeply embedded in local shopping practices. Despite their popularity, these markets often fail to explicitly offer more sustainable food products or, when such products are available, they are inadequately signposted, contributing to their relative invisibility within these traditional retail settings. This situation, coupled with the well-established presence of alternative food networks—typically perceived as more authentic, yet also more expensive and less accessible—may have reinforced the divide between such channels and large-scale retail. The specific interplay between Turin’s dense supermarket infrastructure and these local characteristics may have distinctly influenced both the visibility strategies employed by large-scale retailers and consumers’ perceptions of the actual availability of sustainable food products. Further comparative research is needed to assess whether the visibility-as-mediator mechanism observed here is unique to this particular urban context or more broadly applicable across different settings.