Navigating governance complexity in circular food supply chains in urban-peri-urban regions

Navigating governance complexity in circular food supply chains in urban-peri-urban regions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Navigating governance complexity in circular food supply chains in urban-peri-urban regions Alif Andika, Tomy Perdana, Diah Chaerani, Dhanan Sarwo Utomo, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9326753/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Food loss and waste (FLW) in urban food systems in a developing country is a complex governance challenge driven by institutional fragmentation, infrastructural constraints, and heterogeneous stakeholder practices. This study employs Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to analyze stakeholder dynamics and governance configurations within circular food supply chains (CFSC) in Greater Bandung, Indonesia. Departing from traditional technical framing, the study conceptualizes FLW as a systemic coordination failure involving actors across production, distribution, and waste management. Through problem structuring, rich picture analysis, and CATWOE-based root definitions, a conceptual model of CFSC governance was developed, centered on four interrelated domains: regulatory arrangements, physical infrastructure, stakeholder behavior, and information systems. Empirical comparison reveals persistent systemic gaps, particularly in cross-sectoral coordination and data integration. The findings suggest that advancing CFSCs requires strengthening institutional coherence, aligning stakeholder incentives, and enhancing information flows to support adaptive governance. By integrating stakeholder theory and systems thinking, this study contributes a transferable analytical framework for addressing FLW challenges in rapidly urbanizing regions. Urban food systems Circular food supply chain governance Stakeholder dynamics Circular economy Sustainability Developing countries Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction Food Loss and Waste (FLW) constitutes a critical systemic failure in modern food supply chains, with inefficiencies spanning every stage from production to consumption [ 1 ]. Beyond threatening biodiversity, FLW incurs staggering annual economic losses of USD 940 billion (Rp15.45 quadrillion) [ 2 ]. Current estimates indicate that 33%-40% of global food production is wasted, with losses at the production stage significantly exceeding previous projections [ 3 ]. These pervasive inefficiencies necessitate urgent, coordinated, and systemic interventions across the entire food supply chain. Developing countries face an acute FLW crisis driven by structural and institutional constraints, with economic losses exceeding USD 310 billion [ 4 ]. Unlike developed nations, where waste is concentrated at the consumption stage, developing regions suffer disproportionate losses during harvesting, storage, and production [ 5 , 6 ]. This is largely due to the technical, financial, and managerial deficiencies inherent in subsistence-dominated agriculture. These upstream inefficiencies generate massive organic waste volumes that overwhelm existing systems; consequently, management remains reliant on landfills and open dumping due to infrastructure gaps and poor regulatory enforcement, escalating environmental and public health hazards [ 7 , 8 ]. FLW persists as a systemic failure in developing urban food systems, exacerbated by rapid urbanization, informal markets, and fragmented governance. Beyond infrastructural deficits (such as inadequate storage and cold chains) FLW stems from institutional coordination failures and socioeconomic dynamics across production, distribution, and consumption [ 2 , 9 , 10 ] Consequently, scholars advocate for integrated, systems-based approaches to capture the interplay between actors, policies, and material flows, rejecting isolated, stage-specific interventions [ 11 , 12 ]. While grounded in specific cases, these methodological frameworks offer significant transferability to other developing regions facing analogous food system and governance challenges. The Greater Bandung Area provides as a relevant case for this study, being an urban-peri-urban region where food production, distribution, consumption, and waste management are intricately linked across rural and metropolitan boundaries [ 13 ]. The area connects peri-urban agricultural producing zones with urban wholesale and retail markets, homes, and municipal waste systems, resulting in intricate material flows and governance interdependencies [ 14 , 15 ]. The physical arrangement of Greater Bandung renders it highly suitable for investigating FLW as a systemic concern influenced by infrastructure, market conditions, cross-jurisdictional coordination, and institutional fragmentation. This study examines FLW as a complex, context-specific urban challenge to support CFSC pathways that integrate production, distribution, and waste management across urban-peri-urban gradients. In developing regions, FLW is fundamentally shaped by fragmented governance, sectoral silos, and uneven institutional capacity [ 2 ]. These challenges intensify in urban food systems where mandates are dispersed across diverse state and non-state actors. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is uniquely suited to this context, as it was designed to address "ill-structured" problems involving stakeholders with divergent worldviews [ 16 ]. Unlike linear technocratic models, SSM incorporates institutional perspectives, power dynamics, and negotiated meanings to analyze how actors coordinate or contest circular transitions [ 17 ]. Evidence suggests that fragmented governance and entrenched social practices in developing countries often render technical or single-actor solutions—including surplus food redistribution—ineffective [ 10 , 18 ]. Consequently, SSM provides a structured yet flexible framework to navigate "messy" urban governance realities, exposing tensions between policy objectives, mandates, and technical feasibility. Although case-specific, this participatory approach yields analytical insights transferable to other urbanizing regions facing analogous food and waste management crises. Consequently, this study explores stakeholder dynamics within urban CFSCs, specifically examining the governance arrangements and institutional interactions that dictate FLW outcomes. The article contributes to the limited body of research on FLW governance in developing countries, especially in urban food systems, by demonstrating how a systems-based and participatory approach can be used to examine stakeholder interactions and institutional complexities. It further offers an analytical framework that may be transferable to analogous contexts in developing countries. By addressing governance barriers to circularity and FLW reduction, the study also speaks to broader sustainable development agendas, particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) [ 19 ], highlighting the importance of integrated and context-sensitive governance in advancing more sustainable urban food systems. 2. Literature review FLW is a systemic issue embedded throughout the food supply chain, transcending its traditional framing as a downstream waste management problem. Cross-country analyses reveal that structural drivers (including population dynamics, consumption patterns, and institutional capacity) dictate economic and environmental outcomes across diverse development contexts [ 20 ]. At the urban scale, fragmented policy mandates and the high concentration of food flows often lead governance to prioritize reactive waste treatment over proactive upstream coordination [ 21 ]. Furthermore, circular transitions in developing-country cities hinge more on governance capacity and stakeholder engagement than on isolated technical measures [ 22 , 23 ]. Collectively, FLW emerges as a byproduct of the interplay between technical infrastructure, policy frameworks, and the multifaceted practices of actors operating across various stages and scales of the food system. Despite increasing attention, FLW interventions remain fragmented, targeting isolated supply chain stages or actors. Consequently, these piecemeal approaches fail to address systemic coordination failures, power asymmetries, and conflicting incentives [ 24 ]. In developing nations, weak producer cooperation and the absence of formal contractual arrangements correlate with elevated FLW during production and post-harvest stages [ 25 , 26 ]. Moreover, interventions targeting single actors (such as households or retailers) often merely displace waste temporally or spatially, leaving upstream practices, policy frameworks, and market structures unchanged [ 27 ]. Collectively, these findings indicate that FLW outcomes are dictated by the interplay of actors with divergent interests, highlighting the necessity of analyzing stakeholder dynamics and conflict rather than assuming systemic consensus. Stakeholder theory frames FLW reduction as a collective process driven by multi-actor interactions, rejecting the notion that it is the responsibility of any single organization or sector [ 28 – 30 ]. Within this framework, value in circular food systems emerges from synergies between public authorities, market actors, producers, consumers, and civil society, each leveraging unique resources and expertise [ 31 – 33 ]. This collaborative lens is vital in developing urban contexts, where circular initiatives necessitate rigorous cross-sectoral coordination and the integration of diverse capacities across the entire supply chain [ 25 ]. In circular systems, stakeholders act as co-creators of value rather than mere implementers, directly defining the design, legitimacy, and efficacy of interventions [ 31 ]. However, circular initiatives are often constrained by their narrow scope, volatile stakeholder priorities, and a lack of systemic mechanisms to monitor shifting stakeholder salience, regulatory pressures, and material flows [ 29 , 30 ]. Consequently, the viability of these frameworks depends on the capacity to continuously engage diverse actors, reconcile conflicting objectives, and adapt governance across the supply chain. This necessitates analytical tools capable of accommodating divergent perspectives and evolving problem definitions, providing a clear rationale for employing systems-based, participatory methodologies to examine FLW. Circular food system transitions are inherently non-linear, unfolding through dynamic, context-dependent interactions among actors, institutions, and material flows. Sustainability transitions research emphasizes that these transformations drive experimentation, negotiation, and contestation rather than the mere implementation of predefined solutions [ 34 , 35 ]. In food systems, divergent interests, power asymmetries, and fragmented governance further complicate these dynamics, dictating whether circular practices are adopted, adapted, or resisted [ 36 ]. Consequently, progress emerges through multiple locally embedded pathways, necessitating analytical frameworks that capture evolving stakeholder interactions and governance processes instead of assuming uniform or sequential transitions. SSM provides a diagnostic space to explore emerging FLW practices and governance arrangements without the risks of immediate, system-wide implementation. Research asserts that learning-oriented, participatory processes are indispensable for tackling contested sustainability challenges where problem definitions and mandates diverge across institutional contexts [ 37 , 38 ]. By catalyzing reflection and iterative dialogue, SSM enables diverse stakeholders to refine alternative policies and practices across the food supply chain [ 16 ]. This facilitates gradual adjustment, ensuring that circular interventions are synchronized with local governance structures, stakeholder expectations, and socio-institutional constraints prior to broader scaling. Building on these foundations, this paper presents a conceptual framework developed through the sequential application of SSM to address the following research questions: How can SSM structure the complex FLW problem within the CFSC of the Greater Bandung Area? How can SSM identify key stakeholder groups, their interrelationships, and the worldviews shaping FLW dynamics within the CFSC? How can SSM tools (specifically rich pictures and conceptual models) visualize coordination challenges across the supply chain to facilitate a more sustainable CFSC? This approach transcends technical and operational boundaries to capture the nuanced institutional, socio-cultural, and governance drivers shaping FLW within CFSCs. 3. Methodology 3.1. Research design and analytical approach This study employs a qualitative, interpretive research design grounded in SSM to analyze the "ill-structured" complexity of urban food governance. Rejecting generalized causal explanations, this interpretive approach prioritizes understanding how stakeholders perceive and make sense of their specific problem situations [ 39 ]. SSM is uniquely suited to contexts defined by multiple actors and divergent interests, where problem-structuring and learning take precedence over mere optimization [ 16 , 40 ]. Central to this methodology is the development of conceptual models that serve as catalysts for reflection, fostering "desirable and feasible" systemic change [ 41 ]. The study iteratively applied the seven-stage SSM procedure (Fig. 1 ). Stages 1 and 2 explored the problem situation through document reviews and semi-structured stakeholder interviews, generating "rich pictures" to visualize the actors, tensions, relationships, and external pressures defining the system. From these visuals, root definitions and conceptual models of purposeful activity systems were derived using the CATWOE framework. Finally, comparing these models against empirical realities exposed systemic mismatches and intervention points, facilitating the identification of changes that are both systemically desirable and culturally feasible. Source: [ 16 ] Semi-structured interviews served as the primary data collection tool, balancing the depth of stakeholder perspectives with rigorous adherence to research objectives [ 42 ]. Transcripts were processed in NVivo for qualitative coding. An initial round of open coding identified key actors, issues, and contextual drivers; these findings were subsequently synthesized to construct the "rich pictures" essential for the SSM analysis [ 43 , 44 ]. This study adhered to strict ethical standards and received approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Padjadjaran (No. [21/UN6.KEP/EC/2026]). All participants provided informed consent prior to engagement, following a briefing on the study’s objectives. Participation was entirely voluntary, with confidentiality strictly maintained through anonymization during both transcription and data analysis. 3.2. Study Area The research focuses on the Greater Bandung metropolitan area, specifically West Bandung Regency and Bandung City Fig. 2 . These locations were selected for their strategic, yet contrasting, roles: West Bandung Regency is a primary horticultural production hub for West Java and a critical supplier to the region [ 45 ], while Bandung City acts as a high-density consumption center struggling with severe FLW challenges. Data from the Bandung City Environmental Agency (2023), reveals that food and garden waste constitute 44.51% of the city’s total waste. Despite a high collection coverage of 97.97%, management remains heavily dependent on landfills, highlighting the systemic difficulty of managing organic waste within the urban food system. 3.3. Informant selection strategy Informants were purposively selected based on their institutional mandates, operational roles, and decision-making relevance within the food supply chain and FLW governance. Aligning with SSM’s interpretive orientation, the selection prioritized capturing diverse perspectives across governance, market, civil society, and production actors over statistical representativeness [ 47 ]. To ensure systematic boundary delineation and transparency, the PESTEL framework (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal) was employed. PESTEL served to identify significant external drivers influencing FLW dynamics rather than acting as a rigid stakeholder classification tool [ 48 ]. Informants were assessed across PESTEL dimensions using a checklist approach (Table 1 ). The mapping distinguishes between primary representation (signifying an institution's core mandate or predominant influence) and secondary representation, denoting indirect or ancillary engagement. This checklist validated informant selection and focused the semi-structured interview questions, ensuring a comprehensive PESTEL-based inquiry during the initial stages of the SSM analysis. Table 1 Mapping of interview informants to PESTEL dimensions No Informant Political Economic Social Technological Environmental Legal 1 West Bandung Regency Food Security and Agriculture Office ✔ ○ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2 Bandung City Food Security and Agriculture Office ✔ ○ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 West Bandung Regency Environmental Agency ✔ ✔ ○ ✔ ✔ 4 Bandung City Environmental Agency ✔ ✔ ○ ✔ ✔ 5 Environmental NGO: YPBB, Bandung City ○ ✔ ○ ✔ 6 Bandung City Market Authority ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 7 Lembang Agri Farmers’ Group Association ✔ ✔ ○ ✔ 8 Cibodas Farmers’ Group Association ✔ ✔ ○ ✔ * Primary (✔) and secondary (○) representation of PESTEL dimensions by interview informants 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. Stage 1: Problem situation unstructured This study examines FLW management within Greater Bandung’s CFSC. Current data reveal that food waste accounts for over 40% of Bandung’s municipal waste, which is predominantly managed through landfill disposal [ 46 , 49 ]. In West Bandung, field investigations indicate that vegetable losses reach up to 35% between farm and market [ 25 ]. While local officials report plans for treatment facilities and supply chain improvements, execution remains stalled. Consequently, FLW management remains ineffective due to the absence of integrated systems linking production, distribution, recovery, and valorization [ 10 , 18 ]. This fragmentation highlights governance and coordination failures rather than mere technical deficits, framing FLW as an "ill-structured" and complex problem. Upstream, interviews reveal deep institutional and operational fragmentation in FLW management. The Department of Agriculture and Food Security of West Bandung Regency acknowledges the absence of a cross-sectoral leader to coordinate FLW governance, leading to dispersed mandates and disjointed policy execution. Furthermore, government-managed traditional markets generate substantial off-grade waste due to on-site grading; unsold or rejected items are promptly dumped, bypassing potential redistribution or valorization. The Environmental Agency notes that existing programs prioritize awareness and socialization over the technical and infrastructural support necessary for circular recovery. Consequently, waste management remains entrenched in a "collect-and-dispose" model, reflecting a linear governance paradigm [ 50 , 51 ]. This systemic failure is compounded by poor community adherence to source separation, which further constrains cyclical processing and recovery opportunities. At the producer level, circular practices remain largely uninstitutionalized. Farmers perceive high FLW rates as intrinsic risks driven by price volatility, stringent quality standards, and deficient post-harvest infrastructure [ 52 , 53 ]. Despite their readiness to adopt circular models, farmers emphasize a void in governmental assistance or structured programs for farm-level waste valorization. As one farmer noted, “Until now, there has been very limited support from the government to manage waste, although we hope that more structured assistance will be provided in the future”. These accounts highlight that upstream FLW dynamics are dictated by technical constraints, institutional fragmentation, and systemic coordination failures [ 25 ]. Downstream, interviews reveal critical operational and governance failures in food waste management within the CFSC. Representatives from the Bandung City Department of Food and Agriculture emphasized ambiguities over food waste quantities, the amalgamation of organic and inorganic trash, the accumulation of market refuse, and heightened demands for public adherence to waste standards. These conditions exemplify the systemic barriers to urban circular waste systems where source separation and material recovery remain inadequate [ 2 , 54 ]. Ultimately, these persistent constraints stall the transition toward systematic waste recovery and circular processing. The Environmental Agency (DLH) highlights critical structural barriers: regulatory gaps, budget constraints, infrastructure deficits, and an entrenched reliance on the Sarimukti landfill. Beyond these formal hurdles, institutional fragmentation stifles coordinated action. A DLH official identified "sectoral ego" as a primary obstacle: “ The main challenge is sectoral ego. In practice, issues are often passed between agencies—sometimes considered the responsibility of DLH, at other times DKPP—when in reality they are interconnected. Instead of reinforcing each other, responsibilities become fragmented ”. This persistent landfill dependency exemplifies a linear paradigm prioritizing collection and disposal over recovery and valorization. Furthermore, low public awareness and inter-agency friction impede food waste governance, mirroring research on the systemic failures of fragmented urban food and waste systems. Market authorities observe that waste segregation among traders remains low, while the management burden is inequitably distributed and poorly supported. Markets remain heavily dependent on landfills, a challenge exacerbated by waste influxes from external boundaries. Highlighting chronic capacity constraints, a representative noted: “ when the volume exceeds what can be received, it simply cannot be accepted, and sometimes the waste ends up being piled at the back .” This statement highlights critical operational bottlenecks and the absence of adaptive governance within current market arrangements. Such structural inadequacies and poor coordination mirror trends in developing nations, where institutional fragmentation and capacity limits habitually stall circular transitions [ 54 ]. Civil society representatives from YPBB exposed deep-seated failures, namely institutional fragmentation, deficient source-level collection, operational bottlenecks, weak regulatory enforcement, and chronic financial gaps. The persistent reliance on the Sarimukti landfill embodies a systemic failure to transition toward circularity, validating critiques of landfill-centric waste regimes in developing urban centers [ 51 ]. Collectively, these accounts characterize downstream FLW control within the CFSC as a fragmented, low-capacity system structurally entrenched in a linear disposal trap. 4.2. Stage 2: Problem situation expressed Figure 3 illustrates the current food supply chain and waste flows in Greater Bandung, synthesized from interviews with local government agencies and sectoral stakeholders. The chain originates at the farm level, with agricultural products moving through distributors and wholesalers before being channeled to modern retail, the HORECA sector (hotels, restaurants, and catering), traditional market traders, MSME industries, and ultimately households as final consumers. FLW is generated at every stage, entering the municipal system to be channeled toward integrated facilities, processing centers, waste-free zones, or landfills. However, while the diagram illustrates existing processing and recovery infrastructure, interviews revealed that, in practice, the waste management chain remains predominantly linear and heavily reliant on landfill disposal. While a waste supply chain structure formally exists, its field implementation is severely limited. Local governments are hampered by technological constraints, inadequate infrastructure, and budget deficits that stall the scaling of waste treatment and circular recovery. Consequently, the potential integration between the food supply chain and circular waste processing systems remains largely unrealized. Figure 4 depicts the "messy" problem within Greater Bandung’s CFSC, exposing interconnected challenges across rural and urban divides. In rural areas, circular systems remain uninstitutionalized; farmers endure high food loss risks driven by perishability, price volatility, and deficient post-harvest capacity. These vulnerabilities are exacerbated by technological deficits, a lack of modernized processing, and inconsistent, fleeting government support. Furthermore, significant barriers (such as financial constraints, limited technical assistance, and a lack of incentives) stall the transition from conventional to sustainable practices. Consequently, unmanaged FLW at the production stage reinforces deep-seated upstream inefficiencies. Urban challenges intensify across distribution and market stages. Traditional markets are hindered by sparse local processing facilities and fragile waste governance. Negligible segregation among vendors causes substantial food waste to be commingled with other streams, forcing its direct transport to landfills due to inadequate on-site processing and fractured coordination. This highlight a profound disconnect between market-level waste generation and circular recovery systems. The rich picture indicates that the main factor contributing to FLW in Greater Bandung is a supply chain governance framework characterized by spot market relations, which are short-term, price-driven, and poorly coordinated. This study aligns with Perdana et al. (2023), who demonstrate that enhanced cooperation in production planning, sales systems, pricing mechanisms, packing, and the management of inferior-quality products is crucial for mitigating food waste. The continued reliance on spot market governance leads to inefficient supply chain architecture, resulting in increased levels of FLW. At the household level, the crisis is compounded by commingled waste streams, poor public compliance with segregation, and systemic regulatory and enforcement failures. The lack of strict, consistently enforced mandates ensures that household waste is disposed of in a combined form. Once mixed, organic-inorganic separation becomes nearly impossible for collectors, inevitably funneling the majority of household waste into landfills. Across all levels, these issues stem from fragmented authority and the lack of a cross-sectoral lead to coordinate the system holistically. Government efforts prioritize awareness over structural support, leaving waste management with critically limited technical capacity. Consequently, the entire supply chain remains trapped in a "collect-and-dispose" model, driving the relentless accumulation of landfill waste. Left unaddressed, these systemic failures pose severe environmental, economic, and governance risks to the future sustainability of Greater Bandung’s food system. 4.3. Stage 3: Root definition The root definition frames the system as a governance coordination mechanism, transcending purely technical waste interventions. This conceptualization addresses earlier findings that FLW in Greater Bandung is driven by fragmented mandates, institutional silos, and divergent interests as much as infrastructural deficits. As summarised in Table 2 , the CATWOE analysis delineates the system’s core architecture—its actors, intended transformations, and environmental constraints. The transformation component specifically targets a shift from linear governance and landfill dependency toward a circular model that integrates regulatory instruments, stakeholder behavior, and cross-sectoral coordination. Table 2 CATWOE analysis for CFSC Governance in Greater Bandung Element Description Customers (C) All actors within the urban food supply chain, including communities and environmental systems affected by current FLW practices. Actors (A) Local government agencies (environmental and food authorities), non-governmental organisations, market authorities, traders, and community groups involved in food supply and waste management. Transformation (T) Transforming fragmented and predominantly linear governance arrangements into coordinated CFSC governance that integrates regulatory mechanisms and stakeholder behaviour to reduce FLW. Worldview (W) Effective coordination among diverse stakeholders is essential for enabling CFSCs and achieving sustainable FLW reduction in urban systems. Owner (O) Municipal and regional government authorities with regulatory and budgetary control over food and waste management systems. Environmental Constraints (E) Regulatory fragmentation; budget limitations; institutional silos; existing waste management infrastructure; and prevailing social norms influencing food and waste practices. The underpinning worldview posits that sustainable FLW reduction necessitates cross-actor alignment and negotiation, rejecting isolated technological fixes. Environmental constraints (specifically regulatory fragmentation, financial deficits, institutional inertia, and prevailing social norms) define the structural boundaries of this transformation. These constraints delineate the feasible scope of change and directly inform the development of the conceptual model. 4.4. Stage 4: Conceptual model Figure 5 depicts the CFSC governance conceptual model established through SSM. Adapted from Herrera-Franco et al., (2025), governance matrix and tailored to the Greater Bandung context, the model centers governance as the primary orchestrator of four interrelated domains: (1) regulatory and institutional arrangements, (2) physical infrastructure capacity, (3) stakeholder practices and behavior, and (4) information and coordination systems. This architecture aligns with scholarship sviewing urban food systems as complex governance arenas defined by institutional fragmentation and cross-sectoral interdependencies [ 25 , 56 ]. Rather than functioning in isolation, these domains interact dynamically to dictate the viability of circular food system transitions. Regulatory and institutional arrangements constitute the enabling foundation of the CFSC governance model. Circular transitions necessitate coherent policy frameworks, cross-sector coordination, and clearly defined institutional mandates. Food systems, typically characterized by multi-level actors and dispersed authority across agriculture, environment, trade, and local governance, require structured inter-agency cooperation [ 57 , 58 ]. This approach mandates regulatory consistency regarding FLW, the integration of the food-waste nexus into policy frameworks, and collaboration beyond metropolitan borders. Without institutional coherence and a recognized cross-sector leader, circular interventions are destined to remain fragmented and uncoordinated [ 56 ]. Source: Developed by the authors Building on the governance foundation, the second domain (infrastructure and technological capacity) translates regulatory intent into operational reality. Circular food systems necessitate adequate organic waste processing, cold chain infrastructure to minimize post-harvest losses, effective segregation systems, and technical monitoring tools. Infrastructure ultimately dictates whether surplus food is redistributed and organic waste valorized, or merely discarded in landfills. Technical and logistical capacities remain critical preconditions for reducing FLW and enabling circular resource flows [ 59 – 61 ]. The third domain namely, stakeholder practices and behavior, addresses the system’s social and behavioral dimensions. Household waste practices, market-level surplus management, contract mechanism among supply chain actors, community initiatives, and NGO engagement determine how regulations and infrastructure are enacted in practice. In particular, the presence or absence of contractual arrangements influences the degree of coordination across actors, affecting production planning, price stability, and the handling of surplus and lower-quality products. Unlike spot market-based exchanges, more coordinated contract arrangements can enhance predictability and diminish inefficiencies throughout the supply chain [ 25 ]. Behavioral factors, such as shopping routines, food provisioning habits, and waste awareness, are central to shaping household food waste volumes [ 62 ]. Sustainability transitions demand structural reforms alongside behavioral shifts and collective learning [ 63 , 64 ]. Ultimately, without modifying daily routines and incentive frameworks, circular policies and infrastructure investments will fail to achieve systemic impact. The fourth domain (information and data systems) serves as the integrative mechanism linking governance, infrastructure, and behavior. Effective circularity necessitates robust food waste monitoring, inter-agency data sharing, reporting frameworks, digital coordination platforms, and surplus food traceability. Information transparency bolsters accountability and adaptive governance, dismantling sectoral silos while enabling evidence-based decision-making. In this context, integrating spatial mapping and digital software into redistribution interventions is critical, it enables stakeholders to pinpoint surplus hotspots, optimize logistics, and coordinate across administrative boundaries [ 59 ]. Furthermore, platform-oriented methodologies in circular agriculture require tailoring digital strategies to user behavior and system dynamics, ensuring tools align with local practices and stakeholder motivations [ 65 ]. This is consistent with broader evidence from smart waste management research showing that digital tools can significantly strengthen waste classification, forecasting, and real-time monitoring, while their effectiveness still depends on data quality, interoperability, and enabling institutional conditions [ 66 ]. Consequently, information and data systems act not merely as technical tools, but as strategic facilitators of collaboration, transparency, and systemic circular transformation. Collectively, these four categories define CFSC governance as an integrated, multifaceted system. Regulatory alignment drives coordinated action, infrastructure provides the necessary operational capacity, stakeholder behaviors dictate implementation outcomes, and information systems enable system-wide integration and learning. 4.5. Stage 5: Comparison of the conceptual model to the real world Stage 5 confronts the CFSC governance model with Greater Bandung’s empirical realities. Rather than a normative performance assessment, this comparison examines the alignment between the envisioned configuration and existing institutional, infrastructural, behavioral, and informational conditions. Constrasting the model with real-world dynamics exposes critical areas of coherence, tension, and structural misalignment. The conceptual model assumes that CFSC governance is anchored in coordinated regulatory and institutional arrangements. In practice, while national and local regulatory foundations exist and responsibilities are formally distributed, coordination between food and waste authorities remains limited. Mandates are organized sectorally, causing environmental and food governance to operate in parallel silos rather than through an integrated framework. While collaborative initiatives occur, they are merely situational and ad hoc, failing to manifest as sustained cross-sectoral mechanisms. This highlights that despite a formal regulatory presence, institutional integration remains partial and fragmented. Empirically, physical infrastructure presents a mixed reality. While extensive collection systems indicate a functioning municipal structure, material flows remain entrenched in linear pathways and heavily reliant on landfills. Existing organic processing and recovery initiatives are too small-scale and unevenly distributed to achieve systemic impact. Consequently, the operational capacity required to divert food waste into circular loops is stifled. Infrastructure, therefore, transcends mere technical capacity, it dictates the practical boundaries within which circular governance can be realized. Stakeholder practices actively complicate the circular transition. While the CFSC model hinges on behavioral alignment and active engagement, empirical reality reveals stark heterogeneity in awareness, incentives, and practices across government agencies, market authorities, traders, and households. Commitment to waste reduction and sorting remains selective, many actors remain entrenched in routines dictated by convenience, cost, and lax enforcement. Critically, food waste is still erroneously framed as a downstream disposal issue rather than a systemic supply chain failure. These clashing worldviews and priorities ultimately drive erratic implementation and a profound lack of synchronization across the chain. The comparison also highlights weaknesses in information and coordination systems. The conceptual model positions information flows and monitoring mechanisms as a governance backbone capable of linking regulations, infrastructure, and behaviour. In reality, data on FLW remains fragmented across agencies, with limited integration or disaggregation specific to food-related streams. Monitoring systems focus primarily on aggregate waste volumes rather than tracing food flows across stages of the supply chain. Information exchange between institutions is constrained, reducing transparency and limiting feedback loops that could support adaptive governance. Without integrated data systems, policy enforcement, infrastructure planning, and behavioural interventions remain reactive rather than strategic. Viewed holistically, these observations reveal reinforcing failures across institutional, material, behavioral, and informational dimensions. Institutional fragmentation undermines the effectiveness of infrastructure investment, while sparse data integration cripples regulatory enforcement and masks behavioral patterns. Consequently, infrastructure constraints constrict stakeholder choices by eliminating viable circular alternatives. Ultimately, the CFSC transition is throttled not by a solitary bottleneck, but by a dense web of interconnected gaps across all governance domains. Overall, this comparison confirms that while elements of circular governance exist in Greater Bandung (through established regulatory structures, operational waste services, and localized actor engagement) systemic integration remains stagnant. The persistence of sectoral silos, chronic landfill dependency, behavioral heterogeneity, and fragmented information systems collectively reveal that CFSC governance has yet to be institutionalized as a coordinated, adaptive system. These fundamental misalignments provide the critical analytical foundation for identifying feasible and desirable interventions in the subsequent stage. 4.6. Stage 6: Feasibility and desired changes Translating the comparison between the conceptual model and Greater Bandung’s empirical realities, this stage identifies changes that are both contextually feasible and socially desirable. Adhering to SSM principles, the focus rejects idealized transformation in favor of incremental, realistic adjustments designed to bolster CFSC governance within existing institutional and infrastructural constraints. Strengthening institutional coordination is a primary, feasible area for change. Rather than inventing new governance bodies, fortifying existing cross-agency mechanisms offers a more realistic pathway. Formalizing routine coordination forums between environmental and food authorities, resolving overlapping mandates, and explicitly embedding FLW reduction into local policy instruments will bolster institutional coherence without the need for structural overhaul. This necessity is evident in stakeholder opinions, as one government representative remarked that “ the main issue is sectoral ego… in practice, responsibilities are often passed between agencies rather than managed collaboratively. ” Such actions are advantageous as they rectify the fragmentation observed in Stage 5 while aligning with existing administrative frameworks. Incremental infrastructure upgrades offer a pragmatic pathway. Expanding the operational capacity of existing organic waste processing, optimizing segregation logistics, and maximizing current facility utilization are more feasible than capital-intensive, large-scale investments. Transforming selected markets or districts into "pilot circular hubs" enables gradual scaling while minimizing financial risk. These steps directly advance the objective of reducing landfill dependency while navigating budgetary and spatial constraints. Stakeholder behavioral alignment is a critical lever for change. Rather than assuming uniform transformation, tailored engagement strategies are more effective. Integrating market-based incentives, fortifying community-based initiatives, and ensuring consistent enforcement can progressively reshape supply chain practices. This challenge is evident in practice, as one stakeholder highlighted that “ waste separation is still difficult, so in the end everything gets mixed together. ” Because awareness campaigns alone are insufficient, aligning incentives and institutional expectations with circular objectives is essential. These measures are desirable as they address behavioral heterogeneity while respecting existing actor roles and capacities. Strengthening information and coordination systems is a pivotal strategic intervention. Developing integrated data-sharing mechanisms, establishing precise monitoring indicators for food waste, and introducing transparent reporting frameworks would substantially bolster adaptive governance. Even incremental digitalization of waste tracking (at the market or district level) effectively bridges the gap between policy design and operational implementation. This is reinforced by stakeholder concerns that “ data between agencies is still not well integrated. ” These changes are highly feasible; they leverage existing administrative data systems rather than requiring a total technological overhaul. Crucially, these proposed changes are inherently interdependent. Improved data integration anchors regulatory enforcement. Clearer institutional mandates unlock infrastructure optimization. And, behavioral shifts gain traction only when backed by transparent monitoring and coordinated communication. Consequently, feasible and desirable changes must be treated not as isolated fixes, but as mutually reinforcing adjustments across governance domains. This pathway is defined not by radical redesign, but by a systemic strengthening of coordination, capacity, and information flows within the existing landscape. By incrementally aligning regulatory frameworks, infrastructural capabilities, stakeholder practices, and data systems, Greater Bandung can progressively evolve toward an integrated and adaptive CFSC governance configuration. 4.7. Stage 7: Actions Synthesizing SSM insights and the model-reality comparison in Greater Bandung, this study translates analysis into practical implications. Eschewing idealized reforms, the focus shifts to context-sensitive, incremental interventions that target the institutional, infrastructural, behavioral, and informational gaps exposed in previous stages. Consequently, the study defines the following strategic actions to fortify CFSC governance: 1. Institutionalising Cross-Sectoral Coordination Mechanisms: Analysis confirms that fragmented mandates remain a central barrier to circular governance. A critical action involves formalizing cross-agency coordination platforms to bridge the divide between food and waste governance domains. Rather than creating redundant new institutions, strengthening existing interdepartmental forums and embedding FLW reduction within routine planning processes will bolster institutional coherence. These structured mechanisms are essential to clarify responsibilities, eliminate duplication, and align strategic objectives across all relevant agencies. 2. Developing Pilot Circular Hubs within Existing Infrastructure: Given financial and spatial constraints, incremental infrastructure reform is far more feasible than large-scale transformation. Establishing pilot circular hubs (such as selected traditional markets or districts equipped with enhanced segregation, organic processing, and redistribution mechanisms) provides vital practical demonstration sites. These pilots empower stakeholders to test integrated approaches under real-world conditions, generating the critical learning effects required to inform and drive gradual scaling. 3. Aligning Stakeholder Incentives and Practices: Behavioral change must transcend mere awareness campaigns; it demands the alignment of incentives, responsibilities, and enforcement with circular objectives. Critical actions include strengthening market-level waste mandates, fostering surplus redistribution partnerships, and formalizing community-based initiatives within governance structures. Multi-stakeholder dialogue forums are essential to facilitate negotiation among actors with divergent priorities and worldviews, ensuring a unified approach across the supply chain. 4. Strengthening Data Integration and Monitoring Systems: The lack of integrated food waste data cripples adaptive governance. Standardizing reporting frameworks, harmonizing indicators across agencies, and implementing precise monitoring for food-specific waste streams are essential to bolster transparency and accountability. Even incremental coordination (via inter-agency data-sharing protocols or district-level tracking pilots) will drastically sharpen feedback loops and enable rigorous, evidence-based decision-making. 5. Embedding Adaptive Governance Practices: CFSC governance demands flexibility and iterative learning. Mechanisms for periodic review, stakeholder feedback, and cross-sector evaluation are essential to foster adaptive governance. Instead of rigid long-term blueprints, authorities must prioritize iterative policy refinement driven by rigorous monitoring and active stakeholder engagement. 5. Conclusion This study uses SSM to dissect stakeholder dynamics and governance configurations within Greater Bandung’s CFSCs. By reframing FLW as a systemic governance crisis rather than a mere technical waste issue, the research exposes how institutional fragmentation, infrastructural constraints, behavioral heterogeneity, and data silos collectively dictate the feasibility of circular transitions. The SSM-derived model positions governance as the coordinating nexus across four pillars: regulatory arrangements, infrastructure capacity, stakeholder behavior, and information systems. Comparing this model against empirical reality uncovers partial alignment plagued by persistent systemic gaps, specifically in cross-sectoral coordination and data integration. Ultimately, advancing CFSCs demands fortified institutional coherence, aligned incentives, and adaptive governance—rejecting reliance on isolated technological fixes. This study delivers two principal contributions. Conceptually, it synthesizes stakeholder theory, governance perspectives, and systems thinking to analyze FLW within urban food systems. Methodologically, it validates SSM’s efficacy in structuring complex, multi-actor sustainability challenges within developing metropolitan contexts. Ultimately, this governance-oriented framework provides a robust analytical lens applicable to other urban regions grappling with comparable institutional and infrastructural constraints. Despite its contributions, this study acknowledges several limitations. As a qualitative case study of Greater Bandung, the empirical findings are context-specific, governance, stakeholders, and infrastructure vary significantly across regions. While triangulated through stakeholder perspectives and document analysis, the findings reflect interpretive accounts rather than longitudinal institutional trajectories. Additionally, the conceptual model prioritizes governance and coordination, excluding quantitative assessments of the environmental or economic performance outcomes associated with circular interventions. Future research should extend this framework through comparative case studies across diverse metropolitan areas to validate its adaptability under varying institutional conditions. Longitudinal studies are vital to track the evolution of coordination mechanisms and adaptive governance over time. Furthermore, integrating quantitative modelling (specifically Material Flow Analysis or Agent-Based Modeling) will complement SSM’s systemic insights by evaluating the environmental and economic impacts of governance adjustments. Finally, investigating digital governance tools and integrated data platforms is crucial to understanding how information systems bridge the food and waste domains, particularly in rapidly urbanizing contexts. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Padjadjaran (No. [21/UN6.KEP/EC/2026]). All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This research was funded by Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi, Sains, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia under the PMDSU Scholarship Grant for the year 2025 (Contract No. 1690/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2025). The authors also acknowledge support from the Program Peningkatan Kualitas Publikasi Ilmiah Internasional (PKPI). Authors’ contributions AA conducted the investigation, performed the formal analysis, and drafted the manuscript. TP contributed to conceptualization, supervision, and manuscript review and editing. DC, DSU, and HNU contributed to supervision and manuscript review and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements Not applicable. References Singh J, Sowdhanya D, Rasane P, Kumar M, Assouguem A. Food losses and waste: establishing a sustainable food supply chain to lower greenhouse gas emissions [Internet]. Agriculture Toward Net Zero Emissions. INC; 2025. 35–60 p. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-13985-7.00005-1 UNEP. Think Eat Save: Tracking progress to halve global food waste [Internet]. UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme. 2024. Available from: https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/food-waste-index-report-2024 WWF-UK. Driven To Waste: The Global Impact of Food Loss and Waste on Farms [Internet]. WWF-UK. 2021. Available from: https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_uk__driven_to_waste___the_global_impact_of_food_loss_and_waste_on_farms.pdf Awe OW, Zhao Y, Nzihou A, Pham Minh D, Lyczko N. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and FOG with sewage sludge–realising its potential in Ireland. Int J Environ Stud [Internet]. 2018;75(3):496–517. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2017.1380335 Chia D, Yap CC, Wu SL, Berezina E, Aroua MK, Gew LT. A systematic review of country-specific drivers and barriers to household food waste reduction and prevention. Waste Manag Res. 2024;42(6):459–75. Nicastro R, Carillo P. Food loss and waste prevention strategies from farm to fork. Sustain. 2021;13(10). Rahman T, Alam Z. Heliyon Navigating the contemporary landscape of food waste management in developing countries: A comprehensive overview and prospective analysis. Heliyon [Internet]. 2024;10(12):e33218. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33218 Sahoo A, Dwivedi A, Madheshiya P, Kumar U, Kumar R. Insights into the management of food waste in developing countries: with special reference to India. Environ Sci Pollut Res [Internet]. 2024;31(12):17887–913. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27901-6 FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture. 2022: Leveraging automation in agriculture for transforming agrifood systems [Internet]. Rome; 2022. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/98a4c80a-b4d3-403c-8557-d8536c8316ee Putri IP, Dwiartama A, Rosmiati M. Exploring grassroots initiatives in food waste reduction - a case study of two Indonesian food banks. Food Secur [Internet]. 2025;17(5):1175–89. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-025-01568-y Kibler KM, Reinhart D, Hawkins C, Mohaghegh A, Wright J. Food waste and the food-energy-water nexus: A review of food waste management alternatives. Waste Manag [Internet]. 2018;74:52–62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.014 Seyam A, Barachi MEI, Zhang C, Du B, Shen J. Enhancing resilience and reducing waste in food supply chains: a systematic review and future directions leveraging emerging technologies. Int J Logist Res Appl [Internet]. 2024;0(0):1–35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2024.2406555 BPS. Jawa Barat Province in Figures. 2025. Ericksen PJ. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Glob Environ Chang. 2008;18(1):234–45. Tacoli C. Rural-urban interactions: a guide to the literature. Environ Urban [Internet]. 1998;10(1):147–66. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/095624789801000105 Checkland P, Poulter J. Soft Systems Methodology. In: Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. 2010. pp. 1–309. Reynolds M, Blackmore C, Ison R, Shah R, Wedlock E. The Role of Systems Thinking in the Practice of Implementing Sustainable Development Goals BT - Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. In: Leal Filho W, editor. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 677–98. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_42 Handayati Y, Widyanata C. Effective food waste management model for the sustainable agricultural food supply chain. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2024;(0123456789):1–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59482-w Walsh PP, Banerjee A, Murphy E. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In: Sustainable Development Goals Series [Internet]. 2022. pp. 1–12. Available from: https://link.springer.com/ 10.1007/978-3-031-07461-5_1 Tutar H, Streimikiene D, Mutlu HT, Kloudova J, Bilan Y. Global food waste as an anti-sustainability trend: analysis of economic and environmental impacts across countries. Br Food J [Internet]. 2025;127(13):674–92. Available from: https://www.emerald.com/bfj/article/127/13/674/1276961/Global-food-waste-as-an-anti-sustainability-trend Polman D. Policymaking for circular urban food systems: A systematic literature review of policy instruments and governance arrangements. Reg Sci Policy Pract [Internet]. 2025;17(11):100250. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rspp.2025.100250 Mandasari P. Towards a Circular Economy: Analyzing Food Waste Convergence in Indonesia’s Municipalities. Res World Agric Econ. 2025;6(3):891–909. Porpino G, Lourenço CE, Tangari JM, Araújo CL. Transition To Circular Food Systems: a Study of Stakeholders in Five Brazilian Municipalities. RAE - Rev Adm Empres. 2025;65(4):1–22. Mourad M. Recycling, recovering and preventing food waste: competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2016;126:461–77. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.084 Perdana T, Kusnandar K, Perdana HH, Hermiatin FR. Circular supply chain governance for sustainable fresh agricultural products: Minimizing food loss and utilizing agricultural waste. Sustain Prod Consum [Internet]. 2023;41(September):391–403. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.09.001 Taufiqi H, Bagastyo AY, Titah HS, Radita DR. A study of potential food loss and food waste of agricultural commodities in Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2025;1556(1). Cobo S, Dominguez-Ramos A, Irabien A. From linear to circular integrated waste management systems: a review of methodological approaches. Resour Conserv Recycl [Internet]. 2018;135(January 2017):279–95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.003 Freeman REE, McVea J. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2001;77(6):671–7. Available from: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=263511 Moggi S, Dameri RP. Circular business model evolution: Stakeholder matters for a self-sufficient ecosystem. Bus Strateg Environ [Internet]. 2021;30(6):2830–42. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/bse.2716 Bernard S, Singal M, Dias A, Ho JA, Zizka L. Sustainable Horizons: Navigating ESG Reporting Challenges in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry. J Hosp Tour Res. 2025;49(6):1141–58. Freudenreich B, Lüdeke-Freund F, Schaltegger S. A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability. J Bus Ethics. 2020;166(1):3–18. Sijtsema SJ, Fogliano V, Hageman M. Tool to Support Citizen Participation and Multidisciplinarity in Food Innovation: Circular Food Design. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4(November). Phan TXD, Zuo A. Towards Sustainable Food Consumption: A Household-Level Analysis of Home Cooking Behaviours in Urban Vietnam. Sustain Dev [Internet]. 2026;34(S2):996–1014. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/sd.70383 Geels FW. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Transitions [Internet]. 2011;1(1):24–40. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ Innov Soc Transitions [Internet]. 2019;31(December 2018):1–32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 El Bilali H. Research on agro-food sustainability transitions: A systematic review of research themes and an analysis of research gaps. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2019;221:353–64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.232 Pixová M, Plank C. Urban food governance without local food: missing links between Czech post-socialist cities and urban food alternatives. Agric Hum Values. 2024;41(4):1523–39. Fassio F, Borda IEP, Talpo E, Savina A, Rovera F, Pieretto O et al. Assessing Circular Economy Opportunities at the Food Supply Chain Level: The Case of Five Piedmont Product Chains. Sustain [Internet]. 2022;14(17). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85137943580&doi=10.3390%2Fsu141710778&partnerID=40&md5=148a854f17691d577a1ed5ed8fa92796 Schwartz-Shea P, Yanow D. Interpretive Research Design [Internet]. Routledge; 2013. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136993831 Checkland P. Soft Systems Methodology. Encycl Oper Res Manag Sci. 2000;58:1430–6. Reynolds M, Holwell S. Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide. In: Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. 2010. pp. 1–309. Kallio H, Pietilä AM, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(12):2954–65. Saldaña J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications. 2013. 172–87 p. Octavian A, Trismadi, Lestari P. The Importance of Establishing Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas in Lombok Strait: Maritime Security Perspective. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2020;557(1). BPS. Kabupaten Bandung Barat Dalam Angka 2023 [Internet]. Vol. 21, Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Bandung Barat. Bandung Barat. 2024. Available from: http://journal.um-surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203 DLH Kota Bandung. Laporan Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah. Vol. 44, Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Kota Bandung. 2023. i–Vi. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications. 2002;3:60–1. Johnson G, Whittington R, Scholes K, Angwin D, Regner P. Exploring Strategy, Text and Cases. Pearson. 2013. KLHK. Komposisi Sampah [Internet]. Sistem Informasi Pengelolaan Sampah Nasional. 2023. Available from: https://sipsn.menlhk.go.id/sipsn/public/data/komposisi Frigo G, Zurbrügg C, Giuliani G, Hansmann R, Binder CR. The geography of waste: Explaining the spatial variation of litter and dumpsites in Indonesia. Environ Challenges [Internet]. 2025;21(September):101345. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2025.101345 Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2017;127(April):221–32. Ghaziani S, Dehbozorgi G, Bakhshoodeh M, Doluschitz R. Unraveling On-Farm Wheat Loss in Fars Province, Iran: A Qualitative Analysis and Exploration of Potential Solutions with Emphasis on Agricultural Cooperatives. Sustain. 2023;15(16). Liu C, Jiang H, Badulescu D, Bac DP. Achieving Zero Hunger Goal through Minimizing Waste in Food Supply Chain: Evidence from Asian Emerging Region. Sustainability [Internet]. 2022;14(10):5930. Available from: https://shareok.org/handle/11244/316754 FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019 [Internet]. FAO. 2019. Available from: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca6030en Herrera-Franco G, Fornés JM, Bravo-Montero L, Montalván FJ, Carrión-Mero P. Water governance PESTEL/SWOT-TOWS analysis in the Andean Community of Nations (ACN). Environ Challenges. 2025;20(May). Candel JJL. Food security governance: A systematic literature review. Food Secur. 2014;6(4):585–601. López Cifuentes M, Raj G, Sonnino R, Edwards F. Enacting justice in food systems transitions: A critical lens on governance, power and participation. Environ Innov Soc Transitions. 2026;59. López-García D, Zerbian T, Cuevas S, Moragues-Faus AM. Blurred powers, multiple agencies, and discontinuous temporalities. A multi-level perspective on bottom-up innovation in agri-food policies. Environ Innov Soc Transitions. 2025;57(January). den Broeder C, Lazer L, Gisasola-Maiztegi N, Ruggiero B, Coopmans I. Challenges, coping mechanisms, and solutions in surplus food redistribution efforts at the city level. Discov Sustain. 2026;7(1). Ndhlovu E. Towards urban food system transformation in South Africa. Discov Sustain. 2025;6(1). Nattassha R, Handayati Y, Simatupang TM, Siallagan M. Understanding circular economy implementation in the agri-food supply chain: the case of an Indonesian organic fertiliser producer. Agric Food Secur [Internet]. 2020;9(1):1–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8 Janssens K, Lambrechts W, van Osch A, Semeijn J. How Consumer Behavior in Daily Food Provisioning Affects Food Waste at Household Level in The Netherlands. Foods [Internet]. 2019;8(10):428. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/10/428 Petrescu-Mag RM, Selaru LR, Ivan A, Malutan D, Petrescu DC. Food waste behavior and circular economy strategies using an empathy map and COM-B analysis of Romanian consumers. Discov Sustain. 2025;6(1). Soma T, Li B, Maclaren V. Food waste reduction: A test of three consumer awareness interventions. Sustain. 2020;12(3):1–19. Pienwisetkaew T, Wongsaichia S, Pinyosap B, Prasertsil S, Poonsakpaisarn K, Ketkaew C. The Behavioral Intention to Adopt Circular Economy-Based Digital Technology for Agricultural Waste Valorization. Foods. 2023;12(12):1–30. Ibitoye SE, Ball AK, Rodriguez RV, Olayemi OA, Esteva P, Omoniyi PO et al. Smart Waste, Smarter World: Exploring Waste Types, Trends, and Tech-Driven Valorization Through Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, and Blockchain. Sustain Dev [Internet]. 2026;34(S2):132–53. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/sd.70345 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9326753","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":621710652,"identity":"a2fe3be3-4ca0-45e1-a4d8-e34820b594cf","order_by":0,"name":"Alif Andika","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Padjadjaran","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alif","middleName":"","lastName":"Andika","suffix":""},{"id":621710653,"identity":"cf0540dd-c498-4d8d-8a88-f5d848bb2bc6","order_by":1,"name":"Tomy Perdana","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Padjadjaran","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tomy","middleName":"","lastName":"Perdana","suffix":""},{"id":621710654,"identity":"c88325f6-2fbc-4995-a471-5ec417382934","order_by":2,"name":"Diah Chaerani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Padjadjaran","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Diah","middleName":"","lastName":"Chaerani","suffix":""},{"id":621710656,"identity":"ba63c08a-680e-4783-b708-31afb933031d","order_by":3,"name":"Dhanan Sarwo Utomo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Edinburgh Business School, Heriot-Watt University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dhanan","middleName":"Sarwo","lastName":"Utomo","suffix":""},{"id":621710658,"identity":"52d71ea4-20c5-4d4c-a868-006ee7870f6b","order_by":4,"name":"Hesty Nurul Utami","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Padjadjaran","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hesty","middleName":"Nurul","lastName":"Utami","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-05 14:08:48","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9326753/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9326753/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106813559,"identity":"957155ec-7611-40d8-982b-e05196d5dabc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-13 16:49:28","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":21362,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSSM Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: [16]\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9326753/v1/85ecba5f855cf1d901fa1f19.png"},{"id":106960212,"identity":"e61f6678-b306-4540-b821-7c92cc1b58ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 09:19:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":948619,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAdministrative map of West Bandung Regency and Bandung City, West Java Province, Indonesia\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9326753/v1/efa15fdad8f9254b371180dd.png"},{"id":106994084,"identity":"62ff30c7-0440-48ef-9f8a-3cd49439cd00","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 15:03:56","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29765,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExisting food supply chain and waste flow system in the Greater Bandung Area\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9326753/v1/2941bda6a03f18b26cd5df72.png"},{"id":106813562,"identity":"c35c5411-d453-4afb-a056-e1a16d14b516","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-13 16:49:28","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":90470,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRich picture illustrating systemic challenges in the circular food supply chain in Greater BandungArea\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9326753/v1/32cbc3c8678546b7977ef59c.png"},{"id":106960518,"identity":"542f1e84-e9cc-4774-926b-726584cd10a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 09:21:35","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":65819,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual model of circular food supply chain governance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Developed by the authors\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9326753/v1/9f1ac281c698f888129060bf.png"},{"id":106994865,"identity":"88accf0b-0d39-4322-ba3b-143364eeb2a6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 15:19:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2236137,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9326753/v1/5a66428c-065b-4b4f-8c00-7fddc0a775bd.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Navigating governance complexity in circular food supply chains in urban-peri-urban regions","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFood Loss and Waste (FLW) constitutes a critical systemic failure in modern food supply chains, with inefficiencies spanning every stage from production to consumption [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Beyond threatening biodiversity, FLW incurs staggering annual economic losses of USD 940\u0026nbsp;billion (Rp15.45 quadrillion) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Current estimates indicate that 33%-40% of global food production is wasted, with losses at the production stage significantly exceeding previous projections [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. These pervasive inefficiencies necessitate urgent, coordinated, and systemic interventions across the entire food supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloping countries face an acute FLW crisis driven by structural and institutional constraints, with economic losses exceeding USD 310\u0026nbsp;billion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike developed nations, where waste is concentrated at the consumption stage, developing regions suffer disproportionate losses during harvesting, storage, and production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. This is largely due to the technical, financial, and managerial deficiencies inherent in subsistence-dominated agriculture. These upstream inefficiencies generate massive organic waste volumes that overwhelm existing systems; consequently, management remains reliant on landfills and open dumping due to infrastructure gaps and poor regulatory enforcement, escalating environmental and public health hazards [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFLW persists as a systemic failure in developing urban food systems, exacerbated by rapid urbanization, informal markets, and fragmented governance. Beyond infrastructural deficits (such as inadequate storage and cold chains) FLW stems from institutional coordination failures and socioeconomic dynamics across production, distribution, and consumption [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] Consequently, scholars advocate for integrated, systems-based approaches to capture the interplay between actors, policies, and material flows, rejecting isolated, stage-specific interventions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. While grounded in specific cases, these methodological frameworks offer significant transferability to other developing regions facing analogous food system and governance challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Greater Bandung Area provides as a relevant case for this study, being an urban-peri-urban region where food production, distribution, consumption, and waste management are intricately linked across rural and metropolitan boundaries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. The area connects peri-urban agricultural producing zones with urban wholesale and retail markets, homes, and municipal waste systems, resulting in intricate material flows and governance interdependencies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. The physical arrangement of Greater Bandung renders it highly suitable for investigating FLW as a systemic concern influenced by infrastructure, market conditions, cross-jurisdictional coordination, and institutional fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study examines FLW as a complex, context-specific urban challenge to support CFSC pathways that integrate production, distribution, and waste management across urban-peri-urban gradients. In developing regions, FLW is fundamentally shaped by fragmented governance, sectoral silos, and uneven institutional capacity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. These challenges intensify in urban food systems where mandates are dispersed across diverse state and non-state actors. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is uniquely suited to this context, as it was designed to address \"ill-structured\" problems involving stakeholders with divergent worldviews [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike linear technocratic models, SSM incorporates institutional perspectives, power dynamics, and negotiated meanings to analyze how actors coordinate or contest circular transitions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Evidence suggests that fragmented governance and entrenched social practices in developing countries often render technical or single-actor solutions\u0026mdash;including surplus food redistribution\u0026mdash;ineffective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, SSM provides a structured yet flexible framework to navigate \"messy\" urban governance realities, exposing tensions between policy objectives, mandates, and technical feasibility. Although case-specific, this participatory approach yields analytical insights transferable to other urbanizing regions facing analogous food and waste management crises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, this study explores stakeholder dynamics within urban CFSCs, specifically examining the governance arrangements and institutional interactions that dictate FLW outcomes. The article contributes to the limited body of research on FLW governance in developing countries, especially in urban food systems, by demonstrating how a systems-based and participatory approach can be used to examine stakeholder interactions and institutional complexities. It further offers an analytical framework that may be transferable to analogous contexts in developing countries. By addressing governance barriers to circularity and FLW reduction, the study also speaks to broader sustainable development agendas, particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], highlighting the importance of integrated and context-sensitive governance in advancing more sustainable urban food systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFLW is a systemic issue embedded throughout the food supply chain, transcending its traditional framing as a downstream waste management problem. Cross-country analyses reveal that structural drivers (including population dynamics, consumption patterns, and institutional capacity) dictate economic and environmental outcomes across diverse development contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. At the urban scale, fragmented policy mandates and the high concentration of food flows often lead governance to prioritize reactive waste treatment over proactive upstream coordination [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, circular transitions in developing-country cities hinge more on governance capacity and stakeholder engagement than on isolated technical measures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Collectively, FLW emerges as a byproduct of the interplay between technical infrastructure, policy frameworks, and the multifaceted practices of actors operating across various stages and scales of the food system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite increasing attention, FLW interventions remain fragmented, targeting isolated supply chain stages or actors. Consequently, these piecemeal approaches fail to address systemic coordination failures, power asymmetries, and conflicting incentives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. In developing nations, weak producer cooperation and the absence of formal contractual arrangements correlate with elevated FLW during production and post-harvest stages [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, interventions targeting single actors (such as households or retailers) often merely displace waste temporally or spatially, leaving upstream practices, policy frameworks, and market structures unchanged [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Collectively, these findings indicate that FLW outcomes are dictated by the interplay of actors with divergent interests, highlighting the necessity of analyzing stakeholder dynamics and conflict rather than assuming systemic consensus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder theory frames FLW reduction as a collective process driven by multi-actor interactions, rejecting the notion that it is the responsibility of any single organization or sector [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR29\" citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Within this framework, value in circular food systems emerges from synergies between public authorities, market actors, producers, consumers, and civil society, each leveraging unique resources and expertise [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR32\" citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. This collaborative lens is vital in developing urban contexts, where circular initiatives necessitate rigorous cross-sectoral coordination and the integration of diverse capacities across the entire supply chain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn circular systems, stakeholders act as co-creators of value rather than mere implementers, directly defining the design, legitimacy, and efficacy of interventions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. However, circular initiatives are often constrained by their narrow scope, volatile stakeholder priorities, and a lack of systemic mechanisms to monitor shifting stakeholder salience, regulatory pressures, and material flows [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, the viability of these frameworks depends on the capacity to continuously engage diverse actors, reconcile conflicting objectives, and adapt governance across the supply chain. This necessitates analytical tools capable of accommodating divergent perspectives and evolving problem definitions, providing a clear rationale for employing systems-based, participatory methodologies to examine FLW.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCircular food system transitions are inherently non-linear, unfolding through dynamic, context-dependent interactions among actors, institutions, and material flows. Sustainability transitions research emphasizes that these transformations drive experimentation, negotiation, and contestation rather than the mere implementation of predefined solutions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. In food systems, divergent interests, power asymmetries, and fragmented governance further complicate these dynamics, dictating whether circular practices are adopted, adapted, or resisted [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, progress emerges through multiple locally embedded pathways, necessitating analytical frameworks that capture evolving stakeholder interactions and governance processes instead of assuming uniform or sequential transitions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSSM provides a diagnostic space to explore emerging FLW practices and governance arrangements without the risks of immediate, system-wide implementation. Research asserts that learning-oriented, participatory processes are indispensable for tackling contested sustainability challenges where problem definitions and mandates diverge across institutional contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. By catalyzing reflection and iterative dialogue, SSM enables diverse stakeholders to refine alternative policies and practices across the food supply chain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. This facilitates gradual adjustment, ensuring that circular interventions are synchronized with local governance structures, stakeholder expectations, and socio-institutional constraints prior to broader scaling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on these foundations, this paper presents a conceptual framework developed through the sequential application of SSM to address the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow can SSM structure the complex FLW problem within the CFSC of the Greater Bandung Area?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow can SSM identify key stakeholder groups, their interrelationships, and the worldviews shaping FLW dynamics within the CFSC?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow can SSM tools (specifically rich pictures and conceptual models) visualize coordination challenges across the supply chain to facilitate a more sustainable CFSC?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis approach transcends technical and operational boundaries to capture the nuanced institutional, socio-cultural, and governance drivers shaping FLW within CFSCs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Research design and analytical approach\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative, interpretive research design grounded in SSM to analyze the \"ill-structured\" complexity of urban food governance. Rejecting generalized causal explanations, this interpretive approach prioritizes understanding how stakeholders perceive and make sense of their specific problem situations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. SSM is uniquely suited to contexts defined by multiple actors and divergent interests, where problem-structuring and learning take precedence over mere optimization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Central to this methodology is the development of conceptual models that serve as catalysts for reflection, fostering \"desirable and feasible\" systemic change [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study iteratively applied the seven-stage SSM procedure (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Stages 1 and 2 explored the problem situation through document reviews and semi-structured stakeholder interviews, generating \"rich pictures\" to visualize the actors, tensions, relationships, and external pressures defining the system. From these visuals, root definitions and conceptual models of purposeful activity systems were derived using the CATWOE framework. Finally, comparing these models against empirical realities exposed systemic mismatches and intervention points, facilitating the identification of changes that are both systemically desirable and culturally feasible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews served as the primary data collection tool, balancing the depth of stakeholder perspectives with rigorous adherence to research objectives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. Transcripts were processed in NVivo for qualitative coding. An initial round of open coding identified key actors, issues, and contextual drivers; these findings were subsequently synthesized to construct the \"rich pictures\" essential for the SSM analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adhered to strict ethical standards and received approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Padjadjaran (No. [21/UN6.KEP/EC/2026]). All participants provided informed consent prior to engagement, following a briefing on the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives. Participation was entirely voluntary, with confidentiality strictly maintained through anonymization during both transcription and data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Study Area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research focuses on the Greater Bandung metropolitan area, specifically West Bandung Regency and Bandung City Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. These locations were selected for their strategic, yet contrasting, roles: West Bandung Regency is a primary horticultural production hub for West Java and a critical supplier to the region [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e], while Bandung City acts as a high-density consumption center struggling with severe FLW challenges. Data from the Bandung City Environmental Agency (2023), reveals that food and garden waste constitute 44.51% of the city\u0026rsquo;s total waste. Despite a high collection coverage of 97.97%, management remains heavily dependent on landfills, highlighting the systemic difficulty of managing organic waste within the urban food system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Informant selection strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformants were purposively selected based on their institutional mandates, operational roles, and decision-making relevance within the food supply chain and FLW governance. Aligning with SSM\u0026rsquo;s interpretive orientation, the selection prioritized capturing diverse perspectives across governance, market, civil society, and production actors over statistical representativeness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. To ensure systematic boundary delineation and transparency, the PESTEL framework (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal) was employed. PESTEL served to identify significant external drivers influencing FLW dynamics rather than acting as a rigid stakeholder classification tool [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformants were assessed across PESTEL dimensions using a checklist approach (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The mapping distinguishes between primary representation (signifying an institution's core mandate or predominant influence) and secondary representation, denoting indirect or ancillary engagement. This checklist validated informant selection and focused the semi-structured interview questions, ensuring a comprehensive PESTEL-based inquiry during the initial stages of the SSM analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMapping of interview informants to PESTEL dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnological\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWest Bandung Regency Food Security and Agriculture Office\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e○\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBandung City Food Security and Agriculture Office\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e○\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWest Bandung Regency Environmental Agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e○\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBandung City Environmental Agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e○\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental NGO: YPBB, Bandung City\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e○\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e○\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBandung City Market Authority\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLembang Agri Farmers\u0026rsquo; Group Association\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e○\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCibodas Farmers\u0026rsquo; Group Association\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e○\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e✔\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e* Primary (✔) and secondary (○) representation of PESTEL dimensions by interview informants\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Stage 1: Problem situation unstructured\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study examines FLW management within Greater Bandung\u0026rsquo;s CFSC. Current data reveal that food waste accounts for over 40% of Bandung\u0026rsquo;s municipal waste, which is predominantly managed through landfill disposal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. In West Bandung, field investigations indicate that vegetable losses reach up to 35% between farm and market [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. While local officials report plans for treatment facilities and supply chain improvements, execution remains stalled. Consequently, FLW management remains ineffective due to the absence of integrated systems linking production, distribution, recovery, and valorization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. This fragmentation highlights governance and coordination failures rather than mere technical deficits, framing FLW as an \"ill-structured\" and complex problem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUpstream, interviews reveal deep institutional and operational fragmentation in FLW management. The Department of Agriculture and Food Security of West Bandung Regency acknowledges the absence of a cross-sectoral leader to coordinate FLW governance, leading to dispersed mandates and disjointed policy execution. Furthermore, government-managed traditional markets generate substantial off-grade waste due to on-site grading; unsold or rejected items are promptly dumped, bypassing potential redistribution or valorization. The Environmental Agency notes that existing programs prioritize awareness and socialization over the technical and infrastructural support necessary for circular recovery. Consequently, waste management remains entrenched in a \"collect-and-dispose\" model, reflecting a linear governance paradigm [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. This systemic failure is compounded by poor community adherence to source separation, which further constrains cyclical processing and recovery opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the producer level, circular practices remain largely uninstitutionalized. Farmers perceive high FLW rates as intrinsic risks driven by price volatility, stringent quality standards, and deficient post-harvest infrastructure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite their readiness to adopt circular models, farmers emphasize a void in governmental assistance or structured programs for farm-level waste valorization. As one farmer noted, \u0026ldquo;Until now, there has been very limited support from the government to manage waste, although we hope that more structured assistance will be provided in the future\u0026rdquo;. These accounts highlight that upstream FLW dynamics are dictated by technical constraints, institutional fragmentation, and systemic coordination failures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDownstream, interviews reveal critical operational and governance failures in food waste management within the CFSC. Representatives from the Bandung City Department of Food and Agriculture emphasized ambiguities over food waste quantities, the amalgamation of organic and inorganic trash, the accumulation of market refuse, and heightened demands for public adherence to waste standards. These conditions exemplify the systemic barriers to urban circular waste systems where source separation and material recovery remain inadequate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Ultimately, these persistent constraints stall the transition toward systematic waste recovery and circular processing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Environmental Agency (DLH) highlights critical structural barriers: regulatory gaps, budget constraints, infrastructure deficits, and an entrenched reliance on the Sarimukti landfill. Beyond these formal hurdles, institutional fragmentation stifles coordinated action. A DLH official identified \"sectoral ego\" as a primary obstacle: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe main challenge is sectoral ego. In practice, issues are often passed between agencies\u0026mdash;sometimes considered the responsibility of DLH, at other times DKPP\u0026mdash;when in reality they are interconnected. Instead of reinforcing each other, responsibilities become fragmented\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. This persistent landfill dependency exemplifies a linear paradigm prioritizing collection and disposal over recovery and valorization. Furthermore, low public awareness and inter-agency friction impede food waste governance, mirroring research on the systemic failures of fragmented urban food and waste systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarket authorities observe that waste segregation among traders remains low, while the management burden is inequitably distributed and poorly supported. Markets remain heavily dependent on landfills, a challenge exacerbated by waste influxes from external boundaries. Highlighting chronic capacity constraints, a representative noted: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ewhen the volume exceeds what can be received, it simply cannot be accepted, and sometimes the waste ends up being piled at the back\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; This statement highlights critical operational bottlenecks and the absence of adaptive governance within current market arrangements. Such structural inadequacies and poor coordination mirror trends in developing nations, where institutional fragmentation and capacity limits habitually stall circular transitions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCivil society representatives from YPBB exposed deep-seated failures, namely institutional fragmentation, deficient source-level collection, operational bottlenecks, weak regulatory enforcement, and chronic financial gaps. The persistent reliance on the Sarimukti landfill embodies a systemic failure to transition toward circularity, validating critiques of landfill-centric waste regimes in developing urban centers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. Collectively, these accounts characterize downstream FLW control within the CFSC as a fragmented, low-capacity system structurally entrenched in a linear disposal trap.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Stage 2: Problem situation expressed\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the current food supply chain and waste flows in Greater Bandung, synthesized from interviews with local government agencies and sectoral stakeholders. The chain originates at the farm level, with agricultural products moving through distributors and wholesalers before being channeled to modern retail, the HORECA sector (hotels, restaurants, and catering), traditional market traders, MSME industries, and ultimately households as final consumers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFLW is generated at every stage, entering the municipal system to be channeled toward integrated facilities, processing centers, waste-free zones, or landfills. However, while the diagram illustrates existing processing and recovery infrastructure, interviews revealed that, in practice, the waste management chain remains predominantly linear and heavily reliant on landfill disposal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile a waste supply chain structure formally exists, its field implementation is severely limited. Local governments are hampered by technological constraints, inadequate infrastructure, and budget deficits that stall the scaling of waste treatment and circular recovery. Consequently, the potential integration between the food supply chain and circular waste processing systems remains largely unrealized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e depicts the \"messy\" problem within Greater Bandung\u0026rsquo;s CFSC, exposing interconnected challenges across rural and urban divides. In rural areas, circular systems remain uninstitutionalized; farmers endure high food loss risks driven by perishability, price volatility, and deficient post-harvest capacity. These vulnerabilities are exacerbated by technological deficits, a lack of modernized processing, and inconsistent, fleeting government support. Furthermore, significant barriers (such as financial constraints, limited technical assistance, and a lack of incentives) stall the transition from conventional to sustainable practices. Consequently, unmanaged FLW at the production stage reinforces deep-seated upstream inefficiencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban challenges intensify across distribution and market stages. Traditional markets are hindered by sparse local processing facilities and fragile waste governance. Negligible segregation among vendors causes substantial food waste to be commingled with other streams, forcing its direct transport to landfills due to inadequate on-site processing and fractured coordination. This highlight a profound disconnect between market-level waste generation and circular recovery systems. The rich picture indicates that the main factor contributing to FLW in Greater Bandung is a supply chain governance framework characterized by spot market relations, which are short-term, price-driven, and poorly coordinated. This study aligns with Perdana et al. (2023), who demonstrate that enhanced cooperation in production planning, sales systems, pricing mechanisms, packing, and the management of inferior-quality products is crucial for mitigating food waste. The continued reliance on spot market governance leads to inefficient supply chain architecture, resulting in increased levels of FLW.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the household level, the crisis is compounded by commingled waste streams, poor public compliance with segregation, and systemic regulatory and enforcement failures. The lack of strict, consistently enforced mandates ensures that household waste is disposed of in a combined form. Once mixed, organic-inorganic separation becomes nearly impossible for collectors, inevitably funneling the majority of household waste into landfills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross all levels, these issues stem from fragmented authority and the lack of a cross-sectoral lead to coordinate the system holistically. Government efforts prioritize awareness over structural support, leaving waste management with critically limited technical capacity. Consequently, the entire supply chain remains trapped in a \"collect-and-dispose\" model, driving the relentless accumulation of landfill waste. Left unaddressed, these systemic failures pose severe environmental, economic, and governance risks to the future sustainability of Greater Bandung\u0026rsquo;s food system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Stage 3: Root definition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe root definition frames the system as a governance coordination mechanism, transcending purely technical waste interventions. This conceptualization addresses earlier findings that FLW in Greater Bandung is driven by fragmented mandates, institutional silos, and divergent interests as much as infrastructural deficits. As summarised in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, the CATWOE analysis delineates the system\u0026rsquo;s core architecture\u0026mdash;its actors, intended transformations, and environmental constraints. The transformation component specifically targets a shift from linear governance and landfill dependency toward a circular model that integrates regulatory instruments, stakeholder behavior, and cross-sectoral coordination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCATWOE analysis for CFSC Governance in Greater Bandung\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCustomers (C)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll actors within the urban food supply chain, including communities and environmental systems affected by current FLW practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eActors (A)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal government agencies (environmental and food authorities), non-governmental organisations, market authorities, traders, and community groups involved in food supply and waste management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransformation (T)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransforming fragmented and predominantly linear governance arrangements into coordinated CFSC governance that integrates regulatory mechanisms and stakeholder behaviour to reduce FLW.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorldview (W)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective coordination among diverse stakeholders is essential for enabling CFSCs and achieving sustainable FLW reduction in urban systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOwner (O)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMunicipal and regional government authorities with regulatory and budgetary control over food and waste management systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Constraints (E)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory fragmentation; budget limitations; institutional silos; existing waste management infrastructure; and prevailing social norms influencing food and waste practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe underpinning worldview posits that sustainable FLW reduction necessitates cross-actor alignment and negotiation, rejecting isolated technological fixes. Environmental constraints (specifically regulatory fragmentation, financial deficits, institutional inertia, and prevailing social norms) define the structural boundaries of this transformation. These constraints delineate the feasible scope of change and directly inform the development of the conceptual model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Stage 4: Conceptual model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e depicts the CFSC governance conceptual model established through SSM. Adapted from Herrera-Franco et al., (2025), governance matrix and tailored to the Greater Bandung context, the model centers governance as the primary orchestrator of four interrelated domains: (1) regulatory and institutional arrangements, (2) physical infrastructure capacity, (3) stakeholder practices and behavior, and (4) information and coordination systems. This architecture aligns with scholarship sviewing urban food systems as complex governance arenas defined by institutional fragmentation and cross-sectoral interdependencies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. Rather than functioning in isolation, these domains interact dynamically to dictate the viability of circular food system transitions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory and institutional arrangements constitute the enabling foundation of the CFSC governance model. Circular transitions necessitate coherent policy frameworks, cross-sector coordination, and clearly defined institutional mandates. Food systems, typically characterized by multi-level actors and dispersed authority across agriculture, environment, trade, and local governance, require structured inter-agency cooperation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. This approach mandates regulatory consistency regarding FLW, the integration of the food-waste nexus into policy frameworks, and collaboration beyond metropolitan borders. Without institutional coherence and a recognized cross-sector leader, circular interventions are destined to remain fragmented and uncoordinated [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Developed by the authors\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on the governance foundation, the second domain (infrastructure and technological capacity) translates regulatory intent into operational reality. Circular food systems necessitate adequate organic waste processing, cold chain infrastructure to minimize post-harvest losses, effective segregation systems, and technical monitoring tools. Infrastructure ultimately dictates whether surplus food is redistributed and organic waste valorized, or merely discarded in landfills. Technical and logistical capacities remain critical preconditions for reducing FLW and enabling circular resource flows [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR60\" citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third domain namely, stakeholder practices and behavior, addresses the system\u0026rsquo;s social and behavioral dimensions. Household waste practices, market-level surplus management, contract mechanism among supply chain actors, community initiatives, and NGO engagement determine how regulations and infrastructure are enacted in practice. In particular, the presence or absence of contractual arrangements influences the degree of coordination across actors, affecting production planning, price stability, and the handling of surplus and lower-quality products. Unlike spot market-based exchanges, more coordinated contract arrangements can enhance predictability and diminish inefficiencies throughout the supply chain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Behavioral factors, such as shopping routines, food provisioning habits, and waste awareness, are central to shaping household food waste volumes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Sustainability transitions demand structural reforms alongside behavioral shifts and collective learning [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]. Ultimately, without modifying daily routines and incentive frameworks, circular policies and infrastructure investments will fail to achieve systemic impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fourth domain (information and data systems) serves as the integrative mechanism linking governance, infrastructure, and behavior. Effective circularity necessitates robust food waste monitoring, inter-agency data sharing, reporting frameworks, digital coordination platforms, and surplus food traceability. Information transparency bolsters accountability and adaptive governance, dismantling sectoral silos while enabling evidence-based decision-making. In this context, integrating spatial mapping and digital software into redistribution interventions is critical, it enables stakeholders to pinpoint surplus hotspots, optimize logistics, and coordinate across administrative boundaries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, platform-oriented methodologies in circular agriculture require tailoring digital strategies to user behavior and system dynamics, ensuring tools align with local practices and stakeholder motivations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e]. This is consistent with broader evidence from smart waste management research showing that digital tools can significantly strengthen waste classification, forecasting, and real-time monitoring, while their effectiveness still depends on data quality, interoperability, and enabling institutional conditions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, information and data systems act not merely as technical tools, but as strategic facilitators of collaboration, transparency, and systemic circular transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these four categories define CFSC governance as an integrated, multifaceted system. Regulatory alignment drives coordinated action, infrastructure provides the necessary operational capacity, stakeholder behaviors dictate implementation outcomes, and information systems enable system-wide integration and learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5. Stage 5: Comparison of the conceptual model to the real world\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStage 5 confronts the CFSC governance model with Greater Bandung\u0026rsquo;s empirical realities. Rather than a normative performance assessment, this comparison examines the alignment between the envisioned configuration and existing institutional, infrastructural, behavioral, and informational conditions. Constrasting the model with real-world dynamics exposes critical areas of coherence, tension, and structural misalignment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conceptual model assumes that CFSC governance is anchored in coordinated regulatory and institutional arrangements. In practice, while national and local regulatory foundations exist and responsibilities are formally distributed, coordination between food and waste authorities remains limited. Mandates are organized sectorally, causing environmental and food governance to operate in parallel silos rather than through an integrated framework. While collaborative initiatives occur, they are merely situational and ad hoc, failing to manifest as sustained cross-sectoral mechanisms. This highlights that despite a formal regulatory presence, institutional integration remains partial and fragmented.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirically, physical infrastructure presents a mixed reality. While extensive collection systems indicate a functioning municipal structure, material flows remain entrenched in linear pathways and heavily reliant on landfills. Existing organic processing and recovery initiatives are too small-scale and unevenly distributed to achieve systemic impact. Consequently, the operational capacity required to divert food waste into circular loops is stifled. Infrastructure, therefore, transcends mere technical capacity, it dictates the practical boundaries within which circular governance can be realized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder practices actively complicate the circular transition. While the CFSC model hinges on behavioral alignment and active engagement, empirical reality reveals stark heterogeneity in awareness, incentives, and practices across government agencies, market authorities, traders, and households. Commitment to waste reduction and sorting remains selective, many actors remain entrenched in routines dictated by convenience, cost, and lax enforcement. Critically, food waste is still erroneously framed as a downstream disposal issue rather than a systemic supply chain failure. These clashing worldviews and priorities ultimately drive erratic implementation and a profound lack of synchronization across the chain.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparison also highlights weaknesses in information and coordination systems. The conceptual model positions information flows and monitoring mechanisms as a governance backbone capable of linking regulations, infrastructure, and behaviour. In reality, data on FLW remains fragmented across agencies, with limited integration or disaggregation specific to food-related streams. Monitoring systems focus primarily on aggregate waste volumes rather than tracing food flows across stages of the supply chain. Information exchange between institutions is constrained, reducing transparency and limiting feedback loops that could support adaptive governance. Without integrated data systems, policy enforcement, infrastructure planning, and behavioural interventions remain reactive rather than strategic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eViewed holistically, these observations reveal reinforcing failures across institutional, material, behavioral, and informational dimensions. Institutional fragmentation undermines the effectiveness of infrastructure investment, while sparse data integration cripples regulatory enforcement and masks behavioral patterns. Consequently, infrastructure constraints constrict stakeholder choices by eliminating viable circular alternatives. Ultimately, the CFSC transition is throttled not by a solitary bottleneck, but by a dense web of interconnected gaps across all governance domains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, this comparison confirms that while elements of circular governance exist in Greater Bandung (through established regulatory structures, operational waste services, and localized actor engagement) systemic integration remains stagnant. The persistence of sectoral silos, chronic landfill dependency, behavioral heterogeneity, and fragmented information systems collectively reveal that CFSC governance has yet to be institutionalized as a coordinated, adaptive system. These fundamental misalignments provide the critical analytical foundation for identifying feasible and desirable interventions in the subsequent stage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.6. Stage 6: Feasibility and desired changes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranslating the comparison between the conceptual model and Greater Bandung\u0026rsquo;s empirical realities, this stage identifies changes that are both contextually feasible and socially desirable. Adhering to SSM principles, the focus rejects idealized transformation in favor of incremental, realistic adjustments designed to bolster CFSC governance within existing institutional and infrastructural constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengthening institutional coordination is a primary, feasible area for change. Rather than inventing new governance bodies, fortifying existing cross-agency mechanisms offers a more realistic pathway. Formalizing routine coordination forums between environmental and food authorities, resolving overlapping mandates, and explicitly embedding FLW reduction into local policy instruments will bolster institutional coherence without the need for structural overhaul. This necessity is evident in stakeholder opinions, as one government representative remarked that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethe main issue is sectoral ego\u0026hellip; in practice, responsibilities are often passed between agencies rather than managed collaboratively.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; Such actions are advantageous as they rectify the fragmentation observed in Stage 5 while aligning with existing administrative frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncremental infrastructure upgrades offer a pragmatic pathway. Expanding the operational capacity of existing organic waste processing, optimizing segregation logistics, and maximizing current facility utilization are more feasible than capital-intensive, large-scale investments. Transforming selected markets or districts into \"pilot circular hubs\" enables gradual scaling while minimizing financial risk. These steps directly advance the objective of reducing landfill dependency while navigating budgetary and spatial constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder behavioral alignment is a critical lever for change. Rather than assuming uniform transformation, tailored engagement strategies are more effective. Integrating market-based incentives, fortifying community-based initiatives, and ensuring consistent enforcement can progressively reshape supply chain practices. This challenge is evident in practice, as one stakeholder highlighted that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ewaste separation is still difficult, so in the end everything gets mixed together.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; Because awareness campaigns alone are insufficient, aligning incentives and institutional expectations with circular objectives is essential. These measures are desirable as they address behavioral heterogeneity while respecting existing actor roles and capacities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengthening information and coordination systems is a pivotal strategic intervention. Developing integrated data-sharing mechanisms, establishing precise monitoring indicators for food waste, and introducing transparent reporting frameworks would substantially bolster adaptive governance. Even incremental digitalization of waste tracking (at the market or district level) effectively bridges the gap between policy design and operational implementation. This is reinforced by stakeholder concerns that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003edata between agencies is still not well integrated.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; These changes are highly feasible; they leverage existing administrative data systems rather than requiring a total technological overhaul.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrucially, these proposed changes are inherently interdependent. Improved data integration anchors regulatory enforcement. Clearer institutional mandates unlock infrastructure optimization. And, behavioral shifts gain traction only when backed by transparent monitoring and coordinated communication. Consequently, feasible and desirable changes must be treated not as isolated fixes, but as mutually reinforcing adjustments across governance domains. This pathway is defined not by radical redesign, but by a systemic strengthening of coordination, capacity, and information flows within the existing landscape. By incrementally aligning regulatory frameworks, infrastructural capabilities, stakeholder practices, and data systems, Greater Bandung can progressively evolve toward an integrated and adaptive CFSC governance configuration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.7. Stage 7: Actions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSynthesizing SSM insights and the model-reality comparison in Greater Bandung, this study translates analysis into practical implications. Eschewing idealized reforms, the focus shifts to context-sensitive, incremental interventions that target the institutional, infrastructural, behavioral, and informational gaps exposed in previous stages. Consequently, the study defines the following strategic actions to fortify CFSC governance:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Institutionalising Cross-Sectoral Coordination Mechanisms:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAnalysis confirms that fragmented mandates remain a central barrier to circular governance. A critical action involves formalizing cross-agency coordination platforms to bridge the divide between food and waste governance domains. Rather than creating redundant new institutions, strengthening existing interdepartmental forums and embedding FLW reduction within routine planning processes will bolster institutional coherence. These structured mechanisms are essential to clarify responsibilities, eliminate duplication, and align strategic objectives across all relevant agencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Developing Pilot Circular Hubs within Existing Infrastructure:\u003c/strong\u003e Given financial and spatial constraints, incremental infrastructure reform is far more feasible than large-scale transformation. Establishing pilot circular hubs (such as selected traditional markets or districts equipped with enhanced segregation, organic processing, and redistribution mechanisms) provides vital practical demonstration sites. These pilots empower stakeholders to test integrated approaches under real-world conditions, generating the critical learning effects required to inform and drive gradual scaling.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Aligning Stakeholder Incentives and Practices:\u003c/strong\u003e Behavioral change must transcend mere awareness campaigns; it demands the alignment of incentives, responsibilities, and enforcement with circular objectives. Critical actions include strengthening market-level waste mandates, fostering surplus redistribution partnerships, and formalizing community-based initiatives within governance structures. Multi-stakeholder dialogue forums are essential to facilitate negotiation among actors with divergent priorities and worldviews, ensuring a unified approach across the supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. Strengthening Data Integration and Monitoring Systems:\u003c/strong\u003e The lack of integrated food waste data cripples adaptive governance. Standardizing reporting frameworks, harmonizing indicators across agencies, and implementing precise monitoring for food-specific waste streams are essential to bolster transparency and accountability. Even incremental coordination (via inter-agency data-sharing protocols or district-level tracking pilots) will drastically sharpen feedback loops and enable rigorous, evidence-based decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5. Embedding Adaptive Governance Practices:\u003c/strong\u003e CFSC governance demands flexibility and iterative learning. Mechanisms for periodic review, stakeholder feedback, and cross-sector evaluation are essential to foster adaptive governance. Instead of rigid long-term blueprints, authorities must prioritize iterative policy refinement driven by rigorous monitoring and active stakeholder engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study uses SSM to dissect stakeholder dynamics and governance configurations within Greater Bandung\u0026rsquo;s CFSCs. By reframing FLW as a systemic governance crisis rather than a mere technical waste issue, the research exposes how institutional fragmentation, infrastructural constraints, behavioral heterogeneity, and data silos collectively dictate the feasibility of circular transitions. The SSM-derived model positions governance as the coordinating nexus across four pillars: regulatory arrangements, infrastructure capacity, stakeholder behavior, and information systems. Comparing this model against empirical reality uncovers partial alignment plagued by persistent systemic gaps, specifically in cross-sectoral coordination and data integration. Ultimately, advancing CFSCs demands fortified institutional coherence, aligned incentives, and adaptive governance\u0026mdash;rejecting reliance on isolated technological fixes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study delivers two principal contributions. Conceptually, it synthesizes stakeholder theory, governance perspectives, and systems thinking to analyze FLW within urban food systems. Methodologically, it validates SSM\u0026rsquo;s efficacy in structuring complex, multi-actor sustainability challenges within developing metropolitan contexts. Ultimately, this governance-oriented framework provides a robust analytical lens applicable to other urban regions grappling with comparable institutional and infrastructural constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its contributions, this study acknowledges several limitations. As a qualitative case study of Greater Bandung, the empirical findings are context-specific, governance, stakeholders, and infrastructure vary significantly across regions. While triangulated through stakeholder perspectives and document analysis, the findings reflect interpretive accounts rather than longitudinal institutional trajectories. Additionally, the conceptual model prioritizes governance and coordination, excluding quantitative assessments of the environmental or economic performance outcomes associated with circular interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should extend this framework through comparative case studies across diverse metropolitan areas to validate its adaptability under varying institutional conditions. Longitudinal studies are vital to track the evolution of coordination mechanisms and adaptive governance over time. Furthermore, integrating quantitative modelling (specifically Material Flow Analysis or Agent-Based Modeling) will complement SSM\u0026rsquo;s systemic insights by evaluating the environmental and economic impacts of governance adjustments. Finally, investigating digital governance tools and integrated data platforms is crucial to understanding how information systems bridge the food and waste domains, particularly in rapidly urbanizing contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universitas Padjadjaran (No. [21/UN6.KEP/EC/2026]). All participants provided informed consent prior to participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi, Sains, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia under the PMDSU Scholarship Grant for the year 2025 (Contract No. 1690/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2025). The authors also acknowledge support from the Program Peningkatan Kualitas Publikasi Ilmiah Internasional (PKPI).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAA conducted the investigation, performed the formal analysis, and drafted the manuscript. TP contributed to conceptualization, supervision, and manuscript review and editing. DC, DSU, and HNU contributed to supervision and manuscript review and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh J, Sowdhanya D, Rasane P, Kumar M, Assouguem A. Food losses and waste: establishing a sustainable food supply chain to lower greenhouse gas emissions [Internet]. Agriculture Toward Net Zero Emissions. INC; 2025. 35\u0026ndash;60 p. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-13985-7.00005-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/B978-0-443-13985-7.00005-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP. Think Eat Save: Tracking progress to halve global food waste [Internet]. UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme. 2024. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unep.org/resources/publication/food-waste-index-report-2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/food-waste-index-report-2024\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWWF-UK. Driven To Waste: The Global Impact of Food Loss and Waste on Farms [Internet]. WWF-UK. 2021. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_uk__driven_to_waste___the_global_impact_of_food_loss_and_waste_on_farms.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_uk__driven_to_waste___the_global_impact_of_food_loss_and_waste_on_farms.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAwe OW, Zhao Y, Nzihou A, Pham Minh D, Lyczko N. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and FOG with sewage sludge\u0026ndash;realising its potential in Ireland. Int J Environ Stud [Internet]. 2018;75(3):496\u0026ndash;517. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2017.1380335\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00207233.2017.1380335\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChia D, Yap CC, Wu SL, Berezina E, Aroua MK, Gew LT. A systematic review of country-specific drivers and barriers to household food waste reduction and prevention. Waste Manag Res. 2024;42(6):459\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicastro R, Carillo P. Food loss and waste prevention strategies from farm to fork. Sustain. 2021;13(10).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRahman T, Alam Z. Heliyon Navigating the contemporary landscape of food waste management in developing countries: A comprehensive overview and prospective analysis. Heliyon [Internet]. 2024;10(12):e33218. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33218\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33218\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSahoo A, Dwivedi A, Madheshiya P, Kumar U, Kumar R. Insights into the management of food waste in developing countries: with special reference to India. Environ Sci Pollut Res [Internet]. 2024;31(12):17887\u0026ndash;913. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27901-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11356-023-27901-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO. The State of Food and Agriculture. 2022: Leveraging automation in agriculture for transforming agrifood systems [Internet]. Rome; 2022. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://openknowledge.fao.org/items/98a4c80a-b4d3-403c-8557-d8536c8316ee\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/98a4c80a-b4d3-403c-8557-d8536c8316ee\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutri IP, Dwiartama A, Rosmiati M. Exploring grassroots initiatives in food waste reduction - a case study of two Indonesian food banks. Food Secur [Internet]. 2025;17(5):1175\u0026ndash;89. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-025-01568-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12571-025-01568-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKibler KM, Reinhart D, Hawkins C, Mohaghegh A, Wright J. Food waste and the food-energy-water nexus: A review of food waste management alternatives. Waste Manag [Internet]. 2018;74:52\u0026ndash;62. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeyam A, Barachi MEI, Zhang C, Du B, Shen J. Enhancing resilience and reducing waste in food supply chains: a systematic review and future directions leveraging emerging technologies. Int J Logist Res Appl [Internet]. 2024;0(0):1\u0026ndash;35. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2024.2406555\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13675567.2024.2406555\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBPS. Jawa Barat Province in Figures. 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEricksen PJ. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Glob Environ Chang. 2008;18(1):234\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTacoli C. Rural-urban interactions: a guide to the literature. Environ Urban [Internet]. 1998;10(1):147\u0026ndash;66. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/095624789801000105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/095624789801000105\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheckland P, Poulter J. Soft Systems Methodology. In: Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. 2010. pp. 1\u0026ndash;309.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReynolds M, Blackmore C, Ison R, Shah R, Wedlock E. The Role of Systems Thinking in the Practice of Implementing Sustainable Development Goals BT - Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. In: Leal Filho W, editor. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 677\u0026ndash;98. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_42\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_42\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHandayati Y, Widyanata C. Effective food waste management model for the sustainable agricultural food supply chain. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2024;(0123456789):1\u0026ndash;9. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59482-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-024-59482-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalsh PP, Banerjee A, Murphy E. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In: Sustainable Development Goals Series [Internet]. 2022. pp. 1\u0026ndash;12. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://link.springer.com/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://link.springer.com/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-3-031-07461-5_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-031-07461-5_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTutar H, Streimikiene D, Mutlu HT, Kloudova J, Bilan Y. Global food waste as an anti-sustainability trend: analysis of economic and environmental impacts across countries. Br Food J [Internet]. 2025;127(13):674\u0026ndash;92. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.emerald.com/bfj/article/127/13/674/1276961/Global-food-waste-as-an-anti-sustainability-trend\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.emerald.com/bfj/article/127/13/674/1276961/Global-food-waste-as-an-anti-sustainability-trend\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePolman D. Policymaking for circular urban food systems: A systematic literature review of policy instruments and governance arrangements. Reg Sci Policy Pract [Internet]. 2025;17(11):100250. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rspp.2025.100250\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.rspp.2025.100250\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMandasari P. Towards a Circular Economy: Analyzing Food Waste Convergence in Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s Municipalities. Res World Agric Econ. 2025;6(3):891\u0026ndash;909.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePorpino G, Louren\u0026ccedil;o CE, Tangari JM, Ara\u0026uacute;jo CL. Transition To Circular Food Systems: a Study of Stakeholders in Five Brazilian Municipalities. RAE - Rev Adm Empres. 2025;65(4):1\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMourad M. Recycling, recovering and preventing food waste: competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2016;126:461\u0026ndash;77. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.084\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.084\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerdana T, Kusnandar K, Perdana HH, Hermiatin FR. Circular supply chain governance for sustainable fresh agricultural products: Minimizing food loss and utilizing agricultural waste. Sustain Prod Consum [Internet]. 2023;41(September):391\u0026ndash;403. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.09.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.spc.2023.09.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaufiqi H, Bagastyo AY, Titah HS, Radita DR. A study of potential food loss and food waste of agricultural commodities in Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2025;1556(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCobo S, Dominguez-Ramos A, Irabien A. From linear to circular integrated waste management systems: a review of methodological approaches. Resour Conserv Recycl [Internet]. 2018;135(January 2017):279\u0026ndash;95. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreeman REE, McVea J. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2001;77(6):671\u0026ndash;7. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.ssrn.com/abstract=263511\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=263511\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoggi S, Dameri RP. Circular business model evolution: Stakeholder matters for a self-sufficient ecosystem. Bus Strateg Environ [Internet]. 2021;30(6):2830\u0026ndash;42. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/bse.2716\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/bse.2716\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernard S, Singal M, Dias A, Ho JA, Zizka L. Sustainable Horizons: Navigating ESG Reporting Challenges in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry. J Hosp Tour Res. 2025;49(6):1141\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreudenreich B, L\u0026uuml;deke-Freund F, Schaltegger S. A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability. J Bus Ethics. 2020;166(1):3\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSijtsema SJ, Fogliano V, Hageman M. Tool to Support Citizen Participation and Multidisciplinarity in Food Innovation: Circular Food Design. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4(November).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhan TXD, Zuo A. Towards Sustainable Food Consumption: A Household-Level Analysis of Home Cooking Behaviours in Urban Vietnam. Sustain Dev [Internet]. 2026;34(S2):996\u0026ndash;1014. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/sd.70383\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sd.70383\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeels FW. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc Transitions [Internet]. 2011;1(1):24\u0026ndash;40. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eK\u0026ouml;hler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ Innov Soc Transitions [Internet]. 2019;31(December 2018):1\u0026ndash;32. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl Bilali H. Research on agro-food sustainability transitions: A systematic review of research themes and an analysis of research gaps. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2019;221:353\u0026ndash;64. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.232\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.232\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePixov\u0026aacute; M, Plank C. Urban food governance without local food: missing links between Czech post-socialist cities and urban food alternatives. Agric Hum Values. 2024;41(4):1523\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFassio F, Borda IEP, Talpo E, Savina A, Rovera F, Pieretto O et al. Assessing Circular Economy Opportunities at the Food Supply Chain Level: The Case of Five Piedmont Product Chains. Sustain [Internet]. 2022;14(17). Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85137943580\u0026amp;doi=10.3390%2Fsu141710778\u0026amp;partnerID=40\u0026amp;md5=148a854f17691d577a1ed5ed8fa92796\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85137943580\u0026amp;doi=10.3390%2Fsu141710778\u0026amp;partnerID=40\u0026amp;md5=148a854f17691d577a1ed5ed8fa92796\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchwartz-Shea P, Yanow D. Interpretive Research Design [Internet]. Routledge; 2013. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136993831\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136993831\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheckland P. Soft Systems Methodology. Encycl Oper Res Manag Sci. 2000;58:1430\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReynolds M, Holwell S. Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide. In: Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. 2010. pp. 1\u0026ndash;309.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKallio H, Pietil\u0026auml; AM, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(12):2954\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalda\u0026ntilde;a J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications. 2013. 172\u0026ndash;87 p.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOctavian A, Trismadi, Lestari P. The Importance of Establishing Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas in Lombok Strait: Maritime Security Perspective. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2020;557(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBPS. Kabupaten Bandung Barat Dalam Angka 2023 [Internet]. Vol. 21, Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Bandung Barat. Bandung Barat. 2024. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://journal.um-surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://journal.um-surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDLH Kota Bandung. Laporan Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah. Vol. 44, Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Kota Bandung. 2023. i\u0026ndash;Vi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications. 2002;3:60\u0026ndash;1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson G, Whittington R, Scholes K, Angwin D, Regner P. Exploring Strategy, Text and Cases. Pearson. 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKLHK. Komposisi Sampah [Internet]. Sistem Informasi Pengelolaan Sampah Nasional. 2023. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sipsn.menlhk.go.id/sipsn/public/data/komposisi\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sipsn.menlhk.go.id/sipsn/public/data/komposisi\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrigo G, Zurbr\u0026uuml;gg C, Giuliani G, Hansmann R, Binder CR. The geography of waste: Explaining the spatial variation of litter and dumpsites in Indonesia. Environ Challenges [Internet]. 2025;21(September):101345. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2025.101345\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envc.2025.101345\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2017;127(April):221\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhaziani S, Dehbozorgi G, Bakhshoodeh M, Doluschitz R. Unraveling On-Farm Wheat Loss in Fars Province, Iran: A Qualitative Analysis and Exploration of Potential Solutions with Emphasis on Agricultural Cooperatives. Sustain. 2023;15(16).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu C, Jiang H, Badulescu D, Bac DP. Achieving Zero Hunger Goal through Minimizing Waste in Food Supply Chain: Evidence from Asian Emerging Region. Sustainability [Internet]. 2022;14(10):5930. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://shareok.org/handle/11244/316754\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://shareok.org/handle/11244/316754\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019 [Internet]. FAO. 2019. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca6030en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca6030en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerrera-Franco G, Forn\u0026eacute;s JM, Bravo-Montero L, Montalv\u0026aacute;n FJ, Carri\u0026oacute;n-Mero P. Water governance PESTEL/SWOT-TOWS analysis in the Andean Community of Nations (ACN). Environ Challenges. 2025;20(May).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCandel JJL. Food security governance: A systematic literature review. Food Secur. 2014;6(4):585\u0026ndash;601.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez Cifuentes M, Raj G, Sonnino R, Edwards F. Enacting justice in food systems transitions: A critical lens on governance, power and participation. Environ Innov Soc Transitions. 2026;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez-Garc\u0026iacute;a D, Zerbian T, Cuevas S, Moragues-Faus AM. Blurred powers, multiple agencies, and discontinuous temporalities. A multi-level perspective on bottom-up innovation in agri-food policies. Environ Innov Soc Transitions. 2025;57(January).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eden Broeder C, Lazer L, Gisasola-Maiztegi N, Ruggiero B, Coopmans I. Challenges, coping mechanisms, and solutions in surplus food redistribution efforts at the city level. Discov Sustain. 2026;7(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNdhlovu E. Towards urban food system transformation in South Africa. Discov Sustain. 2025;6(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNattassha R, Handayati Y, Simatupang TM, Siallagan M. Understanding circular economy implementation in the agri-food supply chain: the case of an Indonesian organic fertiliser producer. Agric Food Secur [Internet]. 2020;9(1):1\u0026ndash;16. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJanssens K, Lambrechts W, van Osch A, Semeijn J. How Consumer Behavior in Daily Food Provisioning Affects Food Waste at Household Level in The Netherlands. Foods [Internet]. 2019;8(10):428. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/10/428\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/10/428\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrescu-Mag RM, Selaru LR, Ivan A, Malutan D, Petrescu DC. Food waste behavior and circular economy strategies using an empathy map and COM-B analysis of Romanian consumers. Discov Sustain. 2025;6(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoma T, Li B, Maclaren V. Food waste reduction: A test of three consumer awareness interventions. Sustain. 2020;12(3):1\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePienwisetkaew T, Wongsaichia S, Pinyosap B, Prasertsil S, Poonsakpaisarn K, Ketkaew C. The Behavioral Intention to Adopt Circular Economy-Based Digital Technology for Agricultural Waste Valorization. Foods. 2023;12(12):1\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIbitoye SE, Ball AK, Rodriguez RV, Olayemi OA, Esteva P, Omoniyi PO et al. Smart Waste, Smarter World: Exploring Waste Types, Trends, and Tech-Driven Valorization Through Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, and Blockchain. Sustain Dev [Internet]. 2026;34(S2):132\u0026ndash;53. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/sd.70345\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sd.70345\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Urban food systems, Circular food supply chain governance, Stakeholder dynamics, Circular economy, Sustainability, Developing countries","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9326753/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9326753/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eFood loss and waste (FLW) in urban food systems in a developing country is a complex governance challenge driven by institutional fragmentation, infrastructural constraints, and heterogeneous stakeholder practices. This study employs Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to analyze stakeholder dynamics and governance configurations within circular food supply chains (CFSC) in Greater Bandung, Indonesia. Departing from traditional technical framing, the study conceptualizes FLW as a systemic coordination failure involving actors across production, distribution, and waste management. Through problem structuring, rich picture analysis, and CATWOE-based root definitions, a conceptual model of CFSC governance was developed, centered on four interrelated domains: regulatory arrangements, physical infrastructure, stakeholder behavior, and information systems. Empirical comparison reveals persistent systemic gaps, particularly in cross-sectoral coordination and data integration. The findings suggest that advancing CFSCs requires strengthening institutional coherence, aligning stakeholder incentives, and enhancing information flows to support adaptive governance. By integrating stakeholder theory and systems thinking, this study contributes a transferable analytical framework for addressing FLW challenges in rapidly urbanizing regions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Navigating governance complexity in circular food supply chains in urban-peri-urban regions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-13 16:49:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9326753/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b526bea0-3ea5-4b5a-bdb7-1addc848d397","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"171355603906780989150213842055915870644","date":"2026-05-11T08:54:26+00:00","index":95,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-09T10:33:54+00:00","index":93,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"228094892440169476116919222395178475559","date":"2026-05-06T11:49:33+00:00","index":90,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"227040961076427559354016696255314105265","date":"2026-05-06T11:48:28+00:00","index":89,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"76651790955571937982955776970474814107","date":"2026-05-06T10:32:38+00:00","index":87,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"249035974680223351429752636907269648683","date":"2026-05-06T07:21:44+00:00","index":86,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"153658136755783228147263249400874671854","date":"2026-05-04T11:36:58+00:00","index":79,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-13T16:49:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-13 16:49:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9326753","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9326753","identity":"rs-9326753","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}