local food economies: driving forces, challenges, and future prospects

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 30 September 2014, At: 01:46Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Hunger &Environmental NutritionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/when20

Local Food Economies: DrivingForces, Challenges, and FutureProspectsGetachew Abate PhD aa Department of Agricultural, Food, and ResourceEconomics and Product Center for Agriculture andNatural Resources , Michigan State University , EastLansing, MI, 48824Published online: 18 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Getachew Abate PhD (2008) Local Food Economies: DrivingForces, Challenges, and Future Prospects, Journal of Hunger & EnvironmentalNutrition, 3:4, 384-399, DOI: 10.1080/19320240802528914

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19320240802528914

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/when20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19320240802528914

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19320240802528914

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, Vol. 3(4) 2008Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.

384 doi:10.1080/19320240802528914

WHEN1932-02481932-0256Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 2008: pp. 1–23Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition

PERSPECTIVE

Local Food Economies: Driving Forces, Challenges, and Future Prospects

Getachew AbateJOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION Getachew Abate, PhD

ABSTRACT. Key driving forces for the development of local food econ-omies include environmental concerns, farmland preservation, health andnutritional issues, community and economic development, and the creationof green and leisure spaces. A case study in southeast Michigan demon-strated local food economic development challenges that include limitedaccess to farm land, an aging agricultural population, lack of productiondiversity and year-round supply, and tensions between the conventionaland the alternative food supply chains. Development of a sustainable localfood economy in such regions requires new generation of farmers, moreproduction diversity and season extension, regional-level cooperation, andeffective zoning laws for preserving agricultural land.

Getachew Abate, PhD, is Visiting Assistant Professor and Product MarketAnalyst, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics and ProductCenter for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, EastLansing, MI 48824 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Address correspondence to: Getachew Abate, MSU Product Center forAgriculture and Natural Resources, 86 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824(E-mail: [email protected]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Getachew Abate 385

KEYWORDS. Local food economies, local food driving forces, localfood supply chain

INTRODUCTION

The industrialized global food system is characterized by large-scaleconcentration and centralization of products and markets.1 This has led toan increased dependency on imported foods and to the disappearance oftraditional and diverse local agricultural activities. The local food conceptemerged as a way to address and alleviate the social, economic, and envi-ronmental concerns related to the global food system. The concept isbroadly characterized by the creation of viable and sustainable local foodsystems in smaller geographical areas based on close producer-consumerrelationships.2 One primary assumption underlying a sustainable localfood system is a self-reliant, integrated, and sustainable production, pro-cessing, distribution, and consumption of food to enhance the economic,social, and environmental health of a particular place.3 In the past fewyears, interest in local food economies has shown a significant increase,and a variety of local food communities and systems have been created,increasing interactions among local food producers and consumers.

The objective of the present article is to review and discuss concepts,elements, driving forces, and practices of local food economies. This willcontribute toward broadening the theoretical and empirical discussionsand understandings of the challenges and opportunities in creatingsustainable local food systems. The first part of the article highlights con-ceptual approaches and driving forces, and the later sections use empiricaldata and information to discuss and analyze the elements, challenges, andfuture prospects of developing a sustainable local food economy. Thearticle uses the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP)4 in SoutheastMichigan as a case study to illustrate current practices, elements, anddevelopments in local food economies.

FSEP is an urban-rural collaboration devoted to enhancing communityviability and sustainability and to catalyzing changes that create a healthylocal food system in southeast Michigan. Collaboration of urban and ruralcommunity leaders, farm business organizations, and resource providersin five counties (Jackson, Lenawee, Monroe, Washtenaw, and Wayne) ledto the formation of FSEP. The partnership was officially incorporated in2005. The article incorporates findings from recent local food studies5,6

and educational and outreach programs that have been conducted by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

386 JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION

FSEP. In addition, results from a recent study completed by the author inthree counties of southeast Michigan (Lenawee, Jackson, and Monroe)will be used to describe local food supply chains. Specific objectives ofthe study were to develop a comprehensive overview of the supply chainfor local food products in the region. A mail survey has been conducted tolearn about experiences of local food producers in selling their products.Results from the study (hereafter referred to as the grower survey) used inthis article reflect survey responses from 100 randomly selected localfarmers focusing on the production and marketing of fruits and vegeta-bles. The author also served for the past 3 years as a member of FSEP’sleadership team and research committee. Thus, the article will also reflectthe author’s experience and knowledge gained in food system economicdevelopment.

CONCEPTS AND DRIVING FORCES OF LOCAL FOOD ECONOMIES

In the literature, local food economies are conceptualized, described,and analyzed within the framework of agri-food systems and alternativefood systems or networks.1,7–9 There are also a variety of terms, practices,and concepts that are applied to or associated with the elements of localfood economies (e.g., civic and demographic agriculture,10–12 communityfood systems,13 alternative and shortened food chains,14 foodsheds,15 foodcircles,16 and community/urban/school gardens17).

At least two streams of interrelated disciplinary orientations have madesignificant contributions to the concept of local food economies. One setof contributors consists of sustainable food and agriculture supporters andscholars, whose primary focus is on more socially, economically, andenvironmentally sound food production and marketing practices. Fromthe sustainability perspective, local foods create relationships and link-ages between producers and local, direct agricultural markets18,19 andrebuild agro-ecological systems that integrate space and nature into theproduction process.20,21 The second set of contributors consists ofsupporters and scholars of community food security (CFS), whose focusis on creating a production and marketing mechanism that provides foodsecurity for low-income and underserved people.22 CFS was first evolvedas a variation on food security that guided international development forthe last half century. In recent years, however, it emphasized the develop-ment of local and regional food systems,22 setting a spatial boundary for a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Getachew Abate 387

community.23 From the perspective of community food security, localfood economies build local capacity to produce and market food, controlsupply and delivery structures, and keep decision-making ability andpower within a community.24

The growing recognition of the significance of local food economieshas captured the interest of a number of academic disciplines. Therefore,in different disciplinary orientations (agri-food systems, economic geog-raphy, economic sociology, cultural economy, and ethnography),25 the“local” has played a significant role in framing and conceptualizing localfood economies. The local is understood as expressions of proximity,15,26

emphasizing linkages between production and consumption aroundparticular sites and a commitment to these places, communities, and theenvironment.18 It is assumed to be a space, context, or sociocultural processwhere ethical norms and values can flourish and citizens’ engagementscan be fostered, creating trust, networks, and relationships within acommunity.23,27 It is considered to be small, desirable, and preferred tolarger scales.28

In recent years, two schools of thought dominated conceptual develop-ments in local food economies (the European and North Americanschools). In Europe, local (mostly expressed as “alternative”) is viewed inthe context of the development of small rural businesses and it is mostlyassociated with niche, specialty, or differentiated agri-food products andmarkets attached to specific geographical territories and terrains.18,27 InNorth America it is associated with a range of economic, social, and envi-ronmental issues at the local and regional level.9,29

Some of the fundamental problems, challenges, and criticisms in con-ceptualizing local food economies include (1) vagueness and confusion inthe meanings of “community” and “local”29,30; (2) the challenge to mapspatial relations onto specific social or environmental relations18; (3)heterogeneity of the sustainable food and agriculture systems that poseconceptual and analytical problems for local food systems18; (4) theperception that the local may overstate the value in proximity, leading tosocial and environmental outcomes that allow varied interpretations18; (5)assumed weaknesses of some elements of local food economies (e.g.,labeling schemes) because of their integration with the conventional foodsystems8; and (6) the challenge to incorporate the growing “virtual” or“online” direct marketing initiatives and activities into the spatial focusedlocal food concept.11 In general, these conceptual variations reflect thetheoretical and methodological challenges in understanding and analyzinglocal food economies and their potential dissimilarities among regions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14


and localities caused by a combination of socio-economic and environ-mental factors. Despite these conceptual complexities and lack of clarity,however, the literature seems to emphasize four meanings associated withlocal food economies: (1) soico-economic networks, linkages, andrelationships; (2) spatial and ecological boundaries and territories; (3)differentiated or niche products, markets, and services; and (4) a ruraldevelopment focusing on smaller farms and businesses. Based on theseconceptual approaches and FSEP’s experience in southeast Michigan, keydriving forces that lead to the development of local food economies canbe summarized as follows.

Environmental Concerns

Increased local food production and marketing is assumed to benefitthe environment by (1) lowering food miles that eventually reduce pollutionand transport costs,25 (2) encouraging farmers to adopt more environmental-friendly production systems (e.g., organic farming), and (3) developingmore informed purchasing decisions and consumer interest about theenvironment.31 These economies are also expected to integrate ecologicalparameters32 and help restore the natural conditions of food production asinherent spatial elements within the system.21

Farmland Preservation

Some local food economies are viewed as a means to curb the rapidgrowth and expansion of urban areas, protecting rural communities andensuring continued food production.33 This is also inherently linked withenvironmental ethics in the context of preserving biodiversity andconserving undeveloped open space.34 FSEP’s priority in this area is towork with local governments, education institutions, and other nonprofitorganizations to develop land use policies that support farm preservationefforts in the region. There are some local initiatives (e.g., the Ann ArborGreenbelt initiative) that focus on securing funds to purchase land anddevelopment rights in an attempt to preserve farmland and curb urbansprawl.35

Health, Nutrition, and Food Security

Local food economies are perceived as economies that can help tomeet the health and nutritional requirements of the local consumer byproviding better access to a variety of fresh and quality food items.FSEP’s activities in this area include efforts to increase access to healthy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Getachew Abate 389

local foods targeting school children (through farm-to-school programs)and the development of community/urban gardens to supply healthyfoods in inner cities (e.g., Detroit).

Local Community and Economic Development

Local food economies are believed to have the potential to bind andstabilize local communities, help revitalize small local businesses, anddevelop a greater sense of local identity and place.31 In particular, localfood producers and related businesses are assumed to be importantvehicles to economic development in a given locality or region. Perceivedeconomic advantages include new or retained jobs, increased sales, and amore diversified local economy that could make businesses more secureand stable. FSEP, in collaboration with other partners, currently providesmarket research and business planning services to entrepreneurs in theregion. FSEP’s primary goal is to support both small and large foodproducers and marketers.

Niche and Specialty Products

Local food economies in this regard are viewed as sites and sources ofnew opportunities (e.g., high-value, niche, organic, or natural products)that are not apparently available in the industrialized global foodsystem.36 Local food producers are in this regard expected to engageconsumers with a different set of qualities that evoke transparency, locality,specialty, and nature.37

Maintaining Local Food Tradition

The local food economies are viewed as economies that addresscommunity concerns related to losses of specific types of food products,recipes, varieties, or species that have been produced for many genera-tions. Therefore, the main focus is recovery of local traditions that arebased on food.9 In southeast Michigan, there are now some efforts that arefocused on promoting local recipes in different localities partly usingfarmers’ markets as demonstration venues.

Creation of Green and Leisure Spaces

While most local food economies are established within the traditionsof farming, community/urban/school gardens use new or temporary sitesincluding spaces in school grounds, brownfield sites, rented fields, or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14


allotments in urban areas.9 These gardens are established with a substantiallevel of community/student participation and provide a variety of social,economic, and environmental benefits for individuals and communities.Research suggests that health/wellness and food security are key drivingforces for the development of most community/urban/school gardens.17

However, one key additional driving force in particular for the develop-ment of these gardens is the creation of green spaces in urban areas andthe enjoyment of nature in these open spaces.

ELEMENTS OF THE LOCAL FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN

The food chain provides an important linkage in a local food economy.Both the conventional supply chain and the alternative supply chain playa significant role in marketing local foods. The conventional supply chainis complex, global oriented, and characterized by long distances andseveral levels of actors. The alternative supply chain, on the other hand,strictly focuses on the production and marketing of local foods, and tendsto reflect short distances with few actors until the product reaches the endconsumer. Some of the key conceptual differences between these twochains rely on their representation of different forms of qualities (e.g., pro-ductive quality, ecological quality, brand quality, and consumer-perceivedquality)21 and on their environmental, physical, social, and culturaleffects. The globalized conventional supply chain tends to overuse envi-ronmental and natural resources, destabilize local social linkages, andundermine values of trust.20 On the other hand, the alternative supplychain is viewed as a chain that improves the economic, environmental,and social viability of a locality or region,20,23 leading to the creation of asustainable supply chain for local food products.

Currently, efforts to support a local food economy in southeast Michiganinclude the use of both the conventional and the alternative supply chains.In the grower survey, among fruit and vegetable growers, 18% sold theirproducts through small supermarket chains (chains with less than 10stores) and specialty retail stores, whereas 16% used large distributionchannels. Also, a previous study in the region5 showed that about 80% ofdistributors surveyed in the region carry at least some local foods. Nofruit and vegetable grower used large supermarket chains to sell products.This is consistent with findings in the previous study and indicates lesswillingness of these chains to buy local foods. Perceived barriers include

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Getachew Abate 391

inconsistency of supply, low demand for local food products, and lack ofrequired variety within the local food system.

The alternative supply chain in southeast Michigan includes farmers’markets, community-supported agriculture (CSA) initiatives, institutionalmarkets (mainly farm-to-school and farm-to-college programs), andrestaurants. There are about 10 farmers’ markets5 operating in the five-county region. In the grower survey, local farmers’ markets have beenimportant outlets for 27% of the surveyed growers. These farmers’markets are also becoming community gathering places, and some whole-salers are using them as a source to establish networks and recruit localfarmers or suppliers of specific products. There are also at least 15 CSAsthat are operating in southeast Michigan.35 These CSAs are establishedmainly in urban areas and neighborhoods where there is high-incomepopulation. In terms of institutional markets, FSEP is currently workingto create three pilot farm-to-school programs in southeast Michigan.35

Each school district in the pilot program possesses different social, ethnic,income, and demographic compositions. FSEP was also instrumental increating a farm-to-college program at the University of Michigan.

A restaurant survey and a focus group study6 conducted in the regionshowed that some restaurants purchase local foods. Among those whobuy local, most of them buy through large distributors. Only a few restau-rants purchased at local farmers’ markets or directly from the farmer. Thelocal products most frequently purchased include vegetables and fruits.The major concerns for these restaurants are price and availability ofproduce that meets their needs. Local foods are perceived to be moreexpensive. Farm retail and roadside stands also play a significant role inselling local food products in southeast Michigan. In the grower survey,47% of the fruit and vegetable producers sold their products at farm retailand roadside stands directly to the consumer. Similar results were foundin a previous study.5 Farmers interested in local food sales tend to besmall or medium-size farms. Community/urban gardens have also startedto evolve in southeast Michigan. There are now more than 12 gardens inthe region.35 Most of these are school gardens concentrated around theDetroit and Ann Arbor area.

One emerging trend within the local food supply chain is the “distributionchannel for local food products.”38 One good example in this regard isCherry Capital Food, LLC39 in northwest Michigan. This new local fooddistribution company in the Traverse City area was established in May2007. It buys local foods and markets them directly to local food estab-lishments, schools, and other entities. Product lists on the company’s Web

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14


site are updated each week and the list includes prices and names of localfarmers producing the crop. FSEP is currently exploring the potentials forestablishing a local food distribution company in southeast Michigan.

Development of a strong consumer base is one of the most importantfactors that affect the market for local foods. A survey conducted with247 consumers in the five counties5 showed that currently most of theconsumers in the region are using both the conventional and the alterna-tive supply chain to buy local products. The study revealed that more than56% of the respondents purchase their food at supermarkets. They alsoused farmers’ markets (80%) and farm stands (62%) at least once to buylocal foods. About 43% of the respondents grow their own foods orparticipate in community/urban gardens, and 37% obtain foods from CSAinitiatives. A large majority of the survey respondents (85%) indicatedthat it is very or somewhat important for them to buy local foods.However, they were less optimistic about the availability of local foods inthe region. Only 38% reported local food availability as above average orexcellent. Consumers are most interested in local produce. They alsodemonstrated some interest in local dairy, meat, and grain products. Thetwo top driving forces for consumer participation in local food economiesare support to local businesses (57%) and support to local communities(51%).5 Others were motivated by better food quality and greater knowl-edge of local food products. Some also referred to environmental motivesfor buying local food. Very few (8%) mentioned financial reasons.

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS IN BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE LOCAL FOOD ECONOMY

Based on FSEP’s experience in southeast Michigan, this section brieflydiscusses and summarizes the major challenges and future prospects ofdeveloping sustainable local food economies.

The Local Food Concept and Resource Base

Currently, to many producers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers insoutheast Michigan, local food refers to fresh produce. A preliminaryfresh vegetable supply analysis indicated that current vegetable produc-tion in the region meets just between 5% and 10% of the vegetablesconsumed in the region. This suggests the potential to expand production,if there is more access to land to produce a wide range of vegetables.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Getachew Abate 393

However, in the region, in addition to variations in biophysical andecological conditions, high population growth in some of the counties(e.g., Monroe, Washtenaw, and Lenawee) and the Detroit metropolitanarea has had a significant impact on the availability of farmland. The five-county region has lost 39 000 acres of agricultural land in 15 years.40

Also, current occupation of land by other agricultural commodities willmake it difficult to increase the production and supply of a diverse rangeof vegetables. That means that the current land use system provides fewopportunities for the establishment of new small and medium-size vegetablefarms that could support a diversified and sustainable local food economyin the region.

An aging agricultural population threatens the creation of a sustainablelocal food economy. The 2002 USDA census40 shows the average age ofUS farmers to be 55. The grower survey confirms this trend. About 74%of the surveyed farmers were age 50 and above. Among this group, 35%were 65 years old and above. Only 26% of the surveyed farmers wereunder 49 years old. These data suggest that farming in the study area ischaracterized by a large share of older operators who continue to farmeven after they reach their retirement age. In addition, most of thesurveyed farmers (88%) have been farming for more than 15 years. Out ofthese, about 42% have been farming for more than 30 years. This trendindicates that agriculture in the study area was not able to attract youngeror new producers for the past many years.

The Local Food Supply Chain and the Consumer

The alternative supply chain in southeast Michigan focuses on freshproduce, which is subject to seasonal variations. This lack of year-roundsupply limits the capacity of the chain to meet local food demands. There-fore, it is conceivable that, bowing to an increasing consumer demand foryear-round supply, some segments of the alternative supply chain couldcarry both local and non-local foods. This approach will challenge thecredibility and integrity of local foods and create pressure on the alternativesupply chain regarding its underlying values, which arise from theperception on its potential reincorporation within the conventional supplychain.

In the conventional supply chain, local and relatively small supermarketchains provide better market opportunities for local food products.However, currently, these supermarket stores are virtually nonexistent insome localities and neighborhoods, particularly in areas where per capita

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14


income is very low.41 In the long term, a combination of factors, includingdevelopments in key driving forces and the level of involvement of thelocal communities, will determine the evolvement and growth of asustainable supply chain for local foods. In addition, operation andgrowth of new generation distribution networks that solely focus on localfoods will determine the role of the alternative and the conventionalsupply chains in marketing local foods. If these distributors add non-localfoods and sell products to large distributors or retailers, they will becomepart of the conventional supply chain. On the other hand, they can help instrengthening the alternative supply chain if their activity supports thegrowth and expansion of institutional markets, food service outlets, andfarmers’ markets.

As mentioned in the previous section, the local food consumer insoutheast Michigan is not a unified consumer segment. It has a widerange of socio-economic and demographic characteristics with differentinterests, understandings, and interpretations of local food. The growingneighborhoods in some of the five counties and the Detroit metropolitanarea would continue to increase markets for local foods, expanding thecustomer base that is willing to pay premium prices for these products.This would also provide an opportunity to create additional alternativemarket outlets (e.g., farmers’ markets). However, more population growthand urbanization in the region could also mean less food production dueto the competition for land leading to rising land prices and sale of agri-cultural land.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite some variations among disciplines, there are similarities andoverlaps in defining and conceptualizing local food economies. Concep-tual approaches to these economies are centered around communitynetworks, linkages, and relationships and spatial and ecological bound-aries and territories. There is still lack of clarity and consensus in the liter-ature on the appropriate theoretical and conceptual models to describe,interpret, and understand local food economies and to fully capture theirimpacts and benefits. The example from southeast Michigan and a reviewof literature demonstrated a variety of elements and social, economic, andenvironmental driving forces that contribute toward the development oflocal food economies. Driven by a combination of social, cultural, physical,environmental, and economic factors,42 local food economies will remain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Getachew Abate 395

polycentric and multidimensional without clear boundaries. This calls fora new paradigm and appropriate theoretical foundations, modalities, andapproaches to study, analyze, assess, and understand the impacts andbenefits of local food economies.43

It can be hypothesized that sustainable local food economies could bedeveloped in regions where there is a high-income and diverse populationthat can provide a growing market for locally produced food products. Itcan also be hypothesized that, in the short term, tensions will continuebetween the local and global food economies. In the long term, a viableand sustainable local food economy would support the global food systemby making food markets less vulnerable and providing some degree offood security to localities and regions. Similarly, the food globalizationprocess may not eradicate, but rather stimulate, the development andestablishment of a sustainable local food economy.25,43 This will mainlybe achieved through the creation of new and additional market structuresand by making shifts in roles that fill market and service gaps in bothsupply chains. In addition, a viable and sustainable local food economicdevelopment will depend on regions’ abilities to attract new small tomedium-size local food producers focusing on the diversification of foodproduction and meeting demands at a broader range of processing,marketing, and consumption levels.

Following are specific recommendations to increase the sustainabilityof local food economies in regions that have natural conditions, resourcebases, and local food supply chain structures similar to those in southeastMichigan. (1) The agro-ecological conditions in these regions allow theproduction of a wide range of crop and livestock products. These regionscould thus create a sustainable local food economy if they support theproduction and marketing of a variety of food and non-food agriculturalproducts. Fruits and vegetables are not the only food items that are neededto meet dietary and nutritional requirements. A wide range of grains,legumes, and livestock products are part of a balanced diet and nutritionprogram. (2) In regions with lack of year-round product supply, there is abetter prospect for developing a sustainable local food economy, if localfood producers and supply chain actors develop appropriate mechanismsand approaches to extend their production and supply season (e.g., use ofhoop houses and greenhouses and food storage technology). (3) Inregions dominated with an aging agricultural population and a continuousdecline in the number of farms, a sustainable local food economy requiresthe creation of a “new generation of farmers” who can diversify foodproduction and continue farming the land. (4) These regions could benefit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14


more from their agro-ecological diversity if the different localities of thefood system come together and cooperate to regionalize food productioninstead of working largely in isolation and overlooking opportunities foreffective collaboration. (5) In regions with urban sprawl and decliningfarmland, a sustainable local food economy would benefit from zoninglaws and other incentives for preserving agricultural land that supports localfood production. (6) Local food economies also need to develop an appro-priate mix of local food distribution options that fit their region’s socio-economic conditions and help them succeed in developing a sustainablelocal food supply chain. Options could include the establishment of collab-orative producer clusters, cooperatives, or networks to secure product rangeand continuity of supply including compliance with the standards and pro-cedures to supply foods through the local food supply chain.44 An effectivelocal and regional food network and cooperation will help local foods tobecome more competitive with non-local foods in the marketplace.

REFERENCES

1. Campbell MS. Building a common table: the role of planning in community foodsystems. J Plann Educ Res [serial online]. 2004; 23:341–355. Available at: http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/23/4/341. Accessed March 3, 2008.

2. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University ofCalifornia. Regional agricultural marketing: a review of programs in California. Availableat: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/cdpp/foodsystems/MarketingReportFinal_5_10.pdf.Accessed October 3, 2007.

3. Feenstra G. Creating space for sustainable food systems: lessons from the field. AgricHum Values [serial online]. 2002; 19:99–106. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/g7887731x0263j18/fulltext.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2008.

4. Food System Economic Partnership. What Is Food System Economic Partner-ship? Available at: http://www.fsepmichigan.org/. Accessed October 1, 2007.

5. Buck K, Kaminski L, Stockmann D, Vail A. Investigating opportunities to strengthenthe local food system in southeastern Michigan. Available at: http://fsepmichigan.org/reports/investigating_opportunities/investigating_opportunities.html/title.pdf. Accessed February 20,2008.

6. Rehmann M. Marketing potential for local producer to restaurants in Jackson,Lenawee, Monroe, Washtenaw and Wayne counties. Available at: http://fsepmichigan.org/reports/Restaurant_Final_Report.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2008.

7. Amilien V, Bergaud-Blackler F, Crenn C, Tregear A. local food in Europe, scien-tific report, European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop. Available at: http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/be_user/ew_docs/05-301_Report.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2006.

8. Watts DCH, Illbery B, Maye D. Making reconnections in agro-food geography:alternative systems of food provision. Prog Hum Geogr. 2005; 29:22–40.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Getachew Abate 397

9. Holloway L, Kneafsey M, Venn L, Cox R, Dowler E, Tuomainen H. Possible foodeconomies: a methodological framework for exploring food production-consumptionrelationships. Sociologia Ruralis. 2007; 47:1–19.

10. Bellows A, Hamm M. Local autonomy and sustainable development: testingimport substitution in localizing food systems. Agric Hum Values [serial online]. 2001;18:271–284. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p5720r2p61480742/fulltext.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2008.

11. DeLind LB. Place, work, and civic agriculture: common fields for cultivation.Agric Hum Values [serial online]. 2002; 19:217–224. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q20595h2h88r24j1/fulltext.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2008.

12. Hassanien N. Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation. JRural Stud [serial online]. 2003; 19:77–86. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167. Accessed February 28, 2008.

13. Peters J. Community food systems working toward a sustainable future. J Am DietAssoc [serial online]. 1997; 97(9):955–956. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00028223. Accessed March 10, 2008.

14. Renting H, Marsden TK, Banks J. Understanding alternative food networks:exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ Plann [serialonline]. 2003; 35:393–411.

15. Kloppenburg J Jr, Hendrickson J, Stevenson GW. Coming to the foodshed. AgricHum Values [serial online]. 1996; 13:33–42. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/ulpn44q884603t70/. Accessed February 24, 2008.

16. Hendrickson M, Heffernan WD. Opening spaces through relocalization: locatingpotential resistance in the weaknesses of the global food system. Sociologia Ruralis. 2002;42:347–369.

17. Armstrong D. A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: implicationsfor health promotion and community development. Health Place [serial online]. 2000;6(4):319–327. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13538292. AccessedMarch 6, 2008.

18. Hinrichs CC. The practice and politics of food system localization. J Rural Stud[serial online]. 2003; 19:33–45. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167. Accessed February 28, 2008.

19. DeLind LB. Of bodies, place and culture: re-situating local food. J Agric EnvironEthics [serial online]. 2006; 19:121–146. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/5n6n486g3244r726/. Accessed March 4, 2008.

20. O’Hara SU, Stagl S. Global food markets and their local alternatives: a socio-ecological economic perspective. Popul Environ [serial online]. 2001; 22:533–554.Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m7h5675165233472/. AccessedMarch 4, 2008.

21. Murdoch J. Networks—a new paradigm of rural development? J Rural Stud [serialonline]. 2000; 16:407–419. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167. Accessed March 3, 2008.

22. Allen P. Reweaving the food security safety net: mediating entitlement and entre-preneurship. Agric Hum Values [serial online]. 1999; 16(2):117–129. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p03ug46667u82471/. Accessed February 22, 2008.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14


23. Feagan R. The place of food: mapping out the “local” in local food systems. ProgHum Geogr. 2007; 31:23–42.

24. Anderson MD, Cook J. Does food security requires local food systems? In HarrisJM, ed. Rethinking Sustainability: Power, Knowledge and Institutions. Ann Arbor, Mich:University of Michigan Press; 2000:228–248.

25. Holt G, Amilien V. Introduction: from local food to localized food. Available at:http://aof.revues.org/document405.html. Accessed September 30, 2007.

26. Kneen B. From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System. Toronto: NCPress Ltd; 1993.

27. DuPuis EM, Goodman D. Should we go “home” to eat? Toward a reflexivepolitics of localism. J Rural Stud [serial online]. 2005; 21:359–371. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167. Accessed February 28, 2008.

28. Born B, Purcell M. Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in planningresearch. J Plann Educ Res [serial online]. 2006; 26:195–207. Available at: http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/195. Accessed March 3, 2008.

29. Allen P, FitzSimmons M, Goodman M, Warner K. Shifting plates in the agrifoodlandscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. J Rural Stud[serial online]. 2003; 19:61–75. Available at:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167. Accessed February 28, 2008.

30. Anderson MD, Cook J. Community food security: practice in need of theory? AgricHum Values [serial online]. 1999; 16:141–150. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/u730824qx7666511/fulltext.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2008.

31. Stopes C, Couzens C, Watson S. Local food: the case for re-localizing NorthernIreland’s food economy. Available at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/localising_food_economy_ni.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2007.

32. Marsden TK. The quest for ecological modernization: re-spacing rural develop-ment and agri-food studies. Sociologia Ruralis. 2004; 44:129–146.

33. Hedges A. Local Food: Report on Qualitative Research. Available at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/localqualitative.pdf. Accessed October 20,2007.

34. Mariola MJ. Losing ground: farmland preservation, economic utilitarianism, andthe erosion of the agrarian ideal. Agric Hum Values [serial online]. 2005; 22:209–223.Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x4v41782pn21123u/fulltext.pdf. AccessedFebruary 22, 2008.

35. Buck K, Kaminski L, Stockmann D, Vail A. Southeastern Michigan Communityfood profile. Available at: http://fsepmichigan.org/reports/Southeastern%20Michigan%20Community%20Food%20Profile.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2008.

36. Ilbery B, Kneafsey M. Producer constructions of quality in regional specialty foodproduction: a case study from Southwest England. J Rural Stud [serial online]. 2000;16:217–230. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167. AccessedFebruary 28, 2008.

37. Marsden TJ, Banks J, Bristow G. The social management of rural nature:understanding agrarian-based rural development. Environ Plann A 2002; 34(5):809–826. Available at: http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=a3427. Accessed March 1,2008.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Getachew Abate 399

38. Pirog R. Institutional buying models and local food markets: the Iowa experienceprepared for “Farm to Cafeteria.” Available at: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/speech/files/100502_cafeteria.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2007.

39. Cherry Capital Foods, LLC. Everything Michigan Shipped Anywhere. Availableat: http://www.cherrycapitalfoods.com/index.html. Accessed February 15, 2008.

40. USDA 2002 Census Publications. The Census of Agriculture: National Agricul-tural Statistics Service. Available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/index.asp. Accessed May 15, 2007.

41. Cozad S, King S, Krusekopf H, Prout S, Feenstra G. Alameda County Foodshedreport. Available at: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/CDPP/Report/alamedareport.pdf.Accessed October 1, 2007.

42. Hinrichs CC. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of directagricultural market. J Rural Stud [serial online]. 2000; 16:295–303. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167. Accessed February 28, 2008.

43. Conner D, Levine R. Circles of association: the connections of community-basedfood systems. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2006; 1:5–24.

44. Vergunst P. The embededness of local food systems. In Magid J, Granstedt A,Dyrmundsson O, Kahiluoto H, Ruissen, T. eds. Urban Areas—Rural Areas and Recy-cling—The Organic Way Forward? Available at: http://www.darcof.dk/publication/rapport/dar_3.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2007.

45. Collier G. A flexible and sustainable supply chain model to provide local food intoschools. Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/procurement/pdf/supchainmod2.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2007.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

1:46

30

Sept

embe

r 20

14

local food economies: driving forces, challenges, and future prospects

Documents