Biodiversity in the Cupboard

The facilitator needs to organise the group and have the capacity to research the food items submitted by the individual participant in advance of bringing them together for the workshop. While the method is relatively straightforward, facilitators should be prepared to guide discussions, provide detailed information on the ingredients, and manage group dynamics.

Creating a Supportive and Empathetic Environment

Sharing details about personal food choices can make people feel exposed. It is essential to create a safe and non-judgemental space where people feel comfortable sharing. Facilitators can also participate in the method, sharing items in their cupboards to create a more open collective discussion.

The method may bring up deeply personal reflections, consequently it is important that facilitators maintain a respectful and sensitive approach. In the PLANET4B UK case study, the method was used with participants from ethnic minority backgrounds, which meant that respect for cultural food traditions was vital. Other sensitive topics it would be useful to be aware of include:

• Food Insecurity and Poverty: Some participants may rely on food donations and have lack control over their food choices. Be mindful of this and avoid assumptions about agency over food consumption.
• Eating Disorders and Anxieties: Photographing and analysing ingredient lists may be uncomfortable. The method could also introduce a reason for restricting food intake.
• Health and Dietary Judgement: Participants may feel self-conscious about the healthiness of their food choices. The discussion should focus on the impact of biodiversity rather than moral judgments about diets.
  

If you are concerned the method might put individuals in a vulnerable position, adapt the method by providing an option for anonymous contributions (e.g. Dropbox), or consider creating a ‘hypothetical’ cupboard where participants suggest commonly found foods.

Biodiversity and Climate Anxiety

Discussions around biodiversity loss, food security, and environmental change can evoke anxiety or strong emotions, particularly when participants realise the biodiversity impact of their own habits.

• Facilitators should ensure that while individuals may have agency over their food choices, they are not blamed for a lack of knowledge about biodiversity impacts. This should be framed within the context of a globalised and industrialised food system, which often disconnects people from the origins and ecological consequences of what they eat.
• The method provides space to acknowledge ecological anxiety while shifting the focus towards action-based reflection and practical solutions.
• The session can empower participants by offering clear, achievable steps to make more biodiversity-conscious food choices in their daily lives.

Additional advice can be found at Education Reboot, Natural Resources Defence Council, and Force of Nature

In this video Barbara Smith shares guidance on planning and facilitating a Biodiversity in the Cupboard session:

When using Biodiversity in the Cupboard attention should be paid to methodological rigour and ethical sensitivity, some key points to consider include:

• Data generation: The method produces multiple forms of data, including photographs, maps, recorded discussions, and reflective narratives. These can be coded thematically (e.g. using grounded theory approaches) or analysed through discourse or narrative analysis to explore how biodiversity is framed and valued in everyday life.
• Positionality: Because the method draws on personal food choices, it is important for the researcher to acknowledge power relations and positionality. Facilitator participation (sharing their own cupboard items) can help reduce hierarchies and foster reciprocity.
• Theoretical framing: The method connects to debates in social science research on everyday practices, food systems and sustainability transitions, and the politics of knowledge in biodiversity governance. It also intersects with scholarship on more-than-human geographies and relational understandings of biodiversity.
• Ethics: Issues such as food insecurity, dietary preferences, and cultural identity can emerge during discussions. Researchers should provide clear consent processes, and be prepared to anonymise contributions or adapt the activity (e.g. using a hypothetical cupboard) where sensitivities arise.
• Analysis: Data can be analysed inductively (grounded theory), deductively (policy frame analysis), or through multimodal methods that integrate visual, spatial, and textual materials. Reflexivity should be built into analysis, recognising the co-produced nature of the data.