South Australian farmers’ markets: tools for enhancingthe multifunctionality of Australian agriculture

Simon J. Fielke • Douglas K. Bardsley

Published online: 13 September 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This paper critically examines the role of

farmers’ markets in Australian agriculture. A case

study is undertaken in South Australia, where all

stallholders at three farmers’ markets situated in

Adelaide, Willunga and Berri were surveyed regarding

their production and marketing techniques. Overall

responses supported literature highlighting the impor-

tance of farmers’ markets to the producers who chose to

exploit this marketing niche. A strong co-reliance on

‘wholesale sales’ was also recognised, suggesting an

important integration of productivist and post-produc-

tivist approaches to agricultural development. Of most

promise for long-term agricultural sustainability was

evidence that certain groups of farmers were found to

be realising the potential of these and other alternative

markets, in terms of their risk reducing capacity, and

diversifying to include various conservation values into

their agricultural enterprises. These groups were less

concerned about market fluctuations and more con-

cerned with issues of social equity, environmental

health and having fun, which meant they unwittingly

epitomised the goals of political ecology, by challeng-

ing the dominant agricultural methods of production

and marketing. It seems these groups also recognised

that the direct nature of their transactions would sow

beneficial social, environmental and economic ‘seeds’

for change. Finally, it is argued that policies to improve

access to farmers’ markets and reduce the cost of

participation would assist small scale Australian agri-

cultural producers to evolve smoothly into a multi-

functional era.

Keywords Agricultural policy � Farmers’ markets �Multifunctional land use � Political ecology �South Australia

Introduction: emerging challenges for South

Australian agriculture

Agriculture in Australia is struggling to plan for or

manage economic, social and ecological risk. There is a

significant governance challenge to develop policies

that assist farmers to manage their systems in a

sustainable manner, while ensuring that they maintain

viable businesses and can prepare for an uncertain

future. It is being argued by many commentators that

the challenge is exacerbated by the dominant neo-

liberal form of the productivist paradigm, which

marginalises state involvement in agricultural policy

making Australian farmers compete on a global scale,

forcing many into debt and a struggle to maintain their

livelihoods (Lawrence et al. 1992). There are alterna-

tive options, and it is our contention here that new

approaches to supporting multifunctionality offer

opportunities for governments and industry to assist

S. J. Fielke (&) � D. K. Bardsley

Geography, Environment and Population,

University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

e-mail: simon.fielke@adelaide.edu.au

123

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

DOI 10.1007/s10708-012-9464-8

some producers transition to more sustainable agri-

food systems. Given that context, this work critically

analyses the perceived values of farmers’ markets

according to the farmers themselves to support alter-

native futures in South Australia (see Fig. 1). By

surveying the stallholders at three farmers’ markets in

South Australia it was hoped that the implications of

these alternative food networks could be recognised.

Respondents were asked how important these markets

are to their agricultural enterprise; what they perceive

to be the biggest risks to their agri-business; what other

income they rely on; and, what they saw as the most

important aspects of farmers’ markets. The results

would also allow for comparison with existing litera-

ture on the importance of farmers’ markets in other

case study research concerned with Australia (Andree

et al. 2010), Europe (Asebo et al. 2007; Kirwan 2006)

and the United States of America (USA) (Feenstra et al.

2009). The results correlated with a political ecological

critique, as farmers recognised that farmers’ markets

were both a forum to enact their socio-ecological

criticisms of productivist Australian agriculture and a

tool to incorporate values of environmental sustain-

ability and equity into their agricultural practices and

marketing. The political ecology framework subse-

quently provided a conceptual contribution to this

paper, as many responses shared traits with this theory.

Agricultural policy in Australia has been dominated

by a productivist approach which involves maximising

the economic benefits of agriculture through an

Fig. 1 Map highlighting

South Australian farmers’

markets

760 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123

ongoing focus on productivity gains (Barr and Cary

1992; McMichael 1999; Voyce 2007). This focus on

productivity has led to significant food and fibre

production, which has had important positive out-

comes for national and regional economies, but as will

be discussed at length, has also had local social and

environmental drawbacks. Detrimental socio-environ-

mental outcomes in the agri-food sector can also be

directly opposed to public expectations of this system,

insofar as providing healthy produce to sustain

societal wellbeing into the future (Lawrence 1987).

In contrast, agricultural policy in most other Organi-

sation for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD) countries has moved away from a focus on

productivism since the 1990s (Robinson 2004). In

wealthy countries, the emerging post-productivist

paradigm strongly acknowledges alternative values

of agricultural systems and landscapes such as healthy

environments, ecosystem services, cultural heritage,

and farmers’ rights (Mather et al. 2006; Wilson 2004).

Table 1 has been adapted from a paper by Argent

(2002, p. 99) and summarises some of the important

elements of productivist and post-productivist

regimes. In response to various criticisms of the

conceptualisations of productivism and post-produc-

tivism, the notion of ‘multifunctional’ agriculture was

encouraged as a more appropriate term as it incorpo-

rated the positive economic elements of the produc-

tivist regime and the beneficial environmental and

social aspects of the post-productivist paradigm

(OECD 2001, 2003; Otte et al. 2007). Wilson (2001,

p. 96) notes that a multifunctional agricultural regime

‘better encapsulates the diversity, non-linearity and

spatial heterogeneity that can currently be observed in

modern [European] agriculture and rural society’.

Importantly for the arguments developed here, the

multifunctional model recognises the importance of

both the commodity and non-commodity values of

agricultural land use in different spatial, temporal,

cultural and systemic contexts (Bjorkhaug and Rich-

ards 2008; Holmes 2006; Klein and Wolf 2007;

McCarthy 2005; Potter and Tilzey 2007). At its core,

multifunctional agricultural practice should lead to

positive socio-ecological outcomes, recognising the

various values of an alternative human ecology

paradigm, at the same time as understanding the

varying socio-economic needs for ongoing productiv-

ity gains in different situations (Bardsley 2003).

While other wealthy countries have implemented

policies that are explicit in their support for multi-

functional agriculture, there is strong evidence that

Australian, and consequently South Australian, agri-

culture has continued to be dominated by the produc-

tivist ideals of farmers and key policy makers (Argent

2002). Dibden et al. (2009, p. 306) note that there has

been ‘continued commitment by the Australian Gov-

ernment and farm lobby groups to trade liberalisation

abroad and competition policy at home’. In fact, Potter

and Tilzey (2007, p. 1295) claim that a strong neo-

liberal stance forged by ‘successive federal govern-

ments discounting the public benefits’ to be gained

from more appropriate land use and a long history of

agro-export dependency, has bred a ‘hyper-productiv-

ist’ agricultural industry. The focus on production has

resulted in Australia using two-thirds of its land mass,

including the vast pastoral rangelands, for agriculture

to create enough food for 60 million people, or

approximately three times the Australian population

(Hamblin 2009, p. 1197). While it could be argued that

the agricultural surplus is exported to enhance global

Table 1 Key structural elements of productivist and post-productivist agricultural regimes

Productivist regime Post-productivist regime

Intensification: of production (via increased use of capital and external

inputs) to increase productivity per unit area of land

Extensification: reduced production (via decreased use

of land, capital and external inputs)

Concentration: majority of farmland owned by (declining) minority of

farmers

Dispersion: greater equality in distribution of farmland

among farmers

Specialisation: key regions developing specialisations in particular

industries

Diversification: increasing intra-regional heterogeneity

in agricultural land uses

Economical: production is the primary goal of land use Conservation: social and environmental

responsibilities of land use also recognised

Source: Adapted from Argent (2002, p. 99)

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776 761

123

food security and provide economic benefits to the

nation, the positive outcomes of such an extreme

productivist focus may in fact be outweighed by the

social and ecological costs (ABARE 2006; PMSEIC

2010).

As a result of the neo-liberal approach to agricul-

tural production in Australia, corporate and ‘large’

family farms ‘dominate the value of production with

the top 10 % of farms responsible for 90 % of

production value in most industries’ (Hamblin 2009,

p. 1200). The processing and retail aspects of the food

chain are also dominated by transnational or large

national corporations, with the capacity to manipulate

the market to maximise returns, often at the expense of

the producer and/or consumer (Neales 2012). The

Australian policy environment has meant farmers

need to significantly increase levels of productivity to

be economically viable, so much so that small-scale

producers are not always able to absorb the risks

associated with the high levels of agricultural inputs

required to maintain efficient systems, and can strug-

gle to cope with dramatic income fluctuations (CSIRO

2008; Lawrence 1987; Lawrence et al. 1992). The

particular risks to small-scale farms vary dramatically

depending on their location across the rural areas of

Australia.

In South Australia, 51 % of the total land area

supports some form of agriculture (Australian Bureau

of Statistics 2008), and the export earnings from

agricultural commodities in the 10 years prior to 2008

have varied from $0.6 billion to $2.5 billion per annum

(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008). The Australian

neo-liberal productivist agricultural regime has had

particular negative consequences for many farming

communities in South Australia. South Australia has a

large percentage of relatively poor rural communities,

meaning that they have been less able to exploit the

advantages of economic capital-intensive agricultural

development (Smailes and Hugo 2003). The increased

pressure on small-scale farmers to remain viable has

lead to the consolidation of agricultural holdings and a

drop in the total number of farms from 15,816 in

2006–2007 (when current farm measurement models

commenced) to 12,868 in 2008–2009 (Australian

Bureau of Statistics 2008; National Farmers’ Feder-

ation 2010).

Another serious implication of the ongoing focus

on productivism is a lack of ecologically sustainable

production across rural Australia. The intensive

application of European farming techniques in an

environment to which they are unsuited (Cocklin et al.

2007) has resulted in serious environmental degrada-

tion on which $3.6 billion per year, or roughly 10 % of

the gross domestic product (GDP) derived from

agriculture, is spent to attempt to rectify (OECD

2008). As well as the degradation of land there is also

ongoing loss of biodiversity, 80 % of which is

endemic (Hamblin 2009). Water management has

also been an issue of extreme importance, especially in

South Australia, due to its location at the end of the

River Murray (CSIRO 2008). For example, misman-

agement, over-allocation of the resource, and consec-

utive years of drought have resulted in many negative

outcomes for the whole system including the Coorong,

Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth, which are of

international conservation significance (Kingsford

et al. 2009).

Increasing urbanisation and development in the

Adelaide peri-urban region also affects small-scale

farmers. Peri-urban regions are areas with both rural

and urban traits (Thapa and Murayama 2008) and

‘rapid population growth is perhaps the most common

characteristic’ of these regions (Australian Govern-

ment 2008, p. 2). Although the reasons for this growth

vary (Ford 2001), in South Australia much of it is

caused by ‘urban sprawl’ or the continual develop-

ment of land on the urban fringe (Heimlich and

Anderson 2001). The increasing population and

housing demand in these areas puts further pressure

on vital agricultural production systems to remain

viable, despite the fact that the peri-urban regions are

home to some of the most productive agricultural land

in the state (Houston 2003, 2005). As the social and

environmental outcomes of the productivist approach

to agricultural development are becoming clearer, the

dominant regime is being challenged.

A multifunctional transition?

There is an increasing recognition that for many

Australian producers, the future lies more firmly

within a multifunctional paradigm, where various

alternative modes of agricultural production and

values of rural systems exist alongside the currently

dominant neo-liberal productivist pathway (Hogan

et al. 2011; PMSEIC 2010; Pritchard 1999). The

multifunctional paradigm provides niche opportuni-

ties for explicitly valuing sustainable or more resilient

762 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123

farming systems that can preference well-managed,

small-scale family farms over larger holdings. In fact,

many researchers imply that for various reasons, a

multifunctional shift is already being felt in Australian

agriculture (Argent et al. 2007; Dibden et al. 2009;

Higgins et al. 2008a, b; Holmes 2002, 2006).

In an important step, a national framework for

environmental management systems (EMS) was

introduced in 2002 as a way of ensuring Australian

exports were seen as ‘clean and green’, to compensate

for gaps in ‘societal provision due to neo-liberal

roll-back’, and to provide support ‘for on-farm improve-

ments’ (Higgins et al. 2008b, pp. 1782–1783). Simul-

taneously, natural resource management (NRM)

policy has strengthened the regulatory powers of State

Governments to manage their environments in varying

contexts so that particular regional issues can be

appropriately addressed through local NRM Boards

(Government of South Australia 2004, 2006). In 2011,

the South Australian Government implemented policy

to protect some of the peri-urban agricultural regions

in the state from further urban development, a plan

which also involved movement away from liberal

land-use planning (Bardsley and Pech 2012). While

agricultural policy is beginning to support market

mechanisms that lead to multifunctional outcomes,

some farmers are initiating changes to their systems

away from conventional productivist agriculture for a

number of economic, social, and environmental rea-

sons. A sixfold increase in farm debt from 1994 to

2009, along with adverse environmental outcomes

noticed by both producers and consumers, provide

strong motivation for an alternative development

direction (Dibden et al. 2009, p. 306). Other factors

such as the growing acceptance of the importance of

‘amenity’ of rural land (Argent et al. 2007), an

increasing feeling of environmental responsibility

within the farming community, and a coincidental

non-market related shift toward more sustainable on-

farm practices (Higgins et al. 2008a; Holmes 2002),

are also evidence that the ‘hyper-productivist’ regime

of the past is weakening, even without significant

state-led policy support.

A political ecological critique to support

transition?

The theoretical framework of political ecology pro-

vides a useful tool for dissecting some of the conflicts

resulting from the hegemonic Australian agricultural

model and potential solutions to those conflicts. The

aim of political ecology is to challenge the ‘structural

underpinnings of the modern industrial society’ by

examining how politics and ecology interact (Alario

1993, p. 287). A popular definition of the term is one

given by Blaikie and Brookfield (1987, p. 17) in which

political ecology ‘combines the concerns of ecology

and a broadly defined political economy’ (King 2010;

Mung’ong’o 2009; Nygren and Rikoon 2008). Table 2

shows the four main human-environment theses

pointed out by Robbins (2004, p. 14), which are also

recognised by others (Collins 2008; King 2010) as

being central to the political ecology paradigm. After

examining the particular relevance of the four theses

Table 2 Four theses of political ecology and what they attempt to explain

Thesis What is explained? Relevance

Degradation and

marginalization

Environmental change: why

and how?

Land degradation, long blamed on

marginal people, is put in its larger

political and economic context

Environmental conflict Environmental access: who

and why?

Environmental conflicts are shown to be

part of larger gendered, classed, and

raced struggles and vice verse

Conservation and control Conservation failures and

political/economic

exclusion: why and how?

Usually viewed as benign, efforts at

environmental conservation are shown

to have pernicious effects, and

sometimes fail as a result

Environmental identity and

social movement

Social upheaval: who,

where, and how?

Political and social struggles are shown to

be linked to basic issues of livelihood

and environmental protection

Source: Robbins (2004, p. 14)

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776 763

123

of political ecology in Table 2, it becomes clear that

this theoretical approach has an extremely large reach

in terms of its capacity to critically frame crises in

socio-ecological relationships. In terms of this project,

the degradation and marginalisation thesis can be used

to describe the producer-driven shift toward more

sustainable agriculture. An example of the environ-

mental conflict thesis can be found in the fact that

small-scale farmers bear much of the responsibility for

the social and environmental outcomes of agricultural

land use, whilst large corporations may dictate the

economic value of produce due to their access to

global markets. The conservation and control thesis

explains why certain farmers would, at times, be

excluded from conservation opportunities due to the

availability and politicisation of environmental man-

agement grants. Most importantly for the analysis of

an alternative marketing mechanism to follow, the

environmental identity and social movement thesis

describes why farmers are looking at alternative ways

of marketing their produce, in order to either survive

or rebel against the dominant productivist regime.

Aspects of each of these theses are highlighted further

in the data analysis section in the second half of this

paper.

Agriculture is a broad term that involves using land

in an attempt to produce food and other useful

materials (Robinson 2004). Political ecology is par-

ticularly relevant to agriculture because humans rely

heavily on agricultural production to survive, while

agriculture in turn is dependent on natural and human

resources, meaning humans and their environment

interact in complex, often symbiotic relationships.

Political economy structural analyses of agriculture

began to be undertaken in the USA in the late 1970s

and early 1980s (Buttel and Newby 1980; Rodefeld

et al. 1978). By the mid-1980s geographers were more

systematically analysing the political frameworks

behind agricultural production in many places, with

Blaikie (1985) being one of the first to point out the

link between the social relations of production and the

determination of land use. The concept of political

ecology follows on from this work and can be used to

critically analyse the global impacts of food produc-

tion at a local level, for example highlighting the

multiple benefits in terms of yield and diversity of

planting indigenous species, which has been espe-

cially important in terms of dissecting agricultural

practice in developing countries (Robbins 2004).

Many others have also highlighted the usefulness of

political ecology in reducing risks, particularly for

producers in the South, because the process of critical

analysis addresses the challenges of sustainable

development and provides a framework for improving

livelihoods (Bassett 1988; Moore 1993; Pelling 1999;

Robinson 2004; Simsik 2002; Uvin 1996). Despite an

initial focus on developing countries, there are also

many ways the political ecology framework can be

applied to agriculture in the developed world (Hurley

and Halfacre 2011; Natter and Zierhofer 2002).

In the remainder of this paper, we examine one of

the most developed alternatives that farmers have

organised in South Australia to reflect and value the

multifunctionality of their agro-ecosystems: the farm-

ers’ market. A comprehensive survey of participating

farmers was undertaken at three farmers’ markets

located at Adelaide, Willunga and Berri in South

Australia (Fig. 1), in an effort to determine whether

such alternative food networks provide mechanisms to

support multifunctionality and to ameliorate the risks

of productivist agriculture.

Alternative food networks and farmers’ markets

Alternative food networks are approaches to market-

ing and selling produce that are outside of ‘conven-

tional supply chains’ such as the mainstream

wholesale of goods (Higgins et al. 2008a, p. 15). The

benefits of alternative food networks, in terms of

social, cultural, environmental and economic sustain-

ability have been articulated previously (DuPuis and

Goodman 2005; Hinrichs 2000; Jarosz 2008; Kirwan

2006; Smithers et al. 2008). Within alternative food

networks, socially and environmentally responsible

produce can be labelled, for example as ‘organic’,

‘biodynamic’, ‘local’, ‘homemade’ or ‘free range’

goods, to attract premium prices (Stringer and

Umberger 2008).

What are farmers’ markets?

The Australian Farmers’ Market Association (2010d)

define a farmers’ market as a ‘predominantly fresh

food market that operates regularly within a commu-

nity, at a focal public location that provides a suitable

environment for farmers and food producers to sell

farm-origin and associated value-added processed

764 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123

food products directly to customers’. Use of the term

‘value-added’ implies that producers process goods in

some way to increase the amount they can charge for

them, for example making chutney, jam, pastries,

bread, or jerky (Babcock and Clemens 2004). The

notion of farmers selling their produce directly to

consumers to add value is hardly new and examples of

this occurring in the developing world and Old World

developed countries are now common. In wealthy

New World countries such as Australia and the USA,

however, it seems that a move back to this method of

sale is occurring in accordance with the third food

regime which involves a stronger recognition of the

social and environmental responsibilities embedded in

food and its production and marketing (Robinson

2004). In Australia, there are now 150 farmers’

markets that are officially recognised by the Australian

Farmers’ Market Association (2010c), including eight

in South Australia (Fig. 1). It could be argued that the

renewed popularity of farmers’ markets in Australia

has grown out of their success in the USA where the

number of official farmers’ markets has increased

dramatically from 1,755 in 1994 to 6,132 in 2010

(USDA 2010). The six charter aims of the Australian

Farmers’ Market Association (2010b) are:

(1) To facilitate the formation of a network of

authentic Farmers’ Markets across Australia.

(2) To support the viable and self-sufficient opera-

tion of existing and future farmers’ markets.

(3) To define clearly the concept of an authentic

farmers’ market and facilitate the development

of this model in the cities and regions of

Australia.

(4) To provide a basic framework including bench-

marks for the viable operation of designated

farmers’ markets.

(5) To clearly distinguish the concept of a farmers’

market from other markets, both retail and

wholesale.

(6) To provide a simple resource to community

groups and individuals seeking to establish

authentic, successful farmers’ markets.

The way these charter aims are presented highlights

the authenticity of what the Australian Farmers’

Market Association are trying to create by moving

away from dominant mechanisms of marketing to

develop alternative, potentially more economically,

socially and environmentally sustainable markets.

Currently the majority of Australian produce ends up

in wholesale1 markets and 60 % of the total volume of

agricultural production is exported (National Farmers’

Federation 2010). In contrast, the four primary goals

of the Australian Farmers’ Market Association

(2010b) are directly framed by the tenets of sustain-

able development, namely:

(1) To preserve farmland and sustainable agriculture.

(2) To support and stimulate the profitable trading,

viability and business growth of independent

primary producers, hobby farmers, community

and home gardeners, and associated artisan

produce value-adders.

(3) To provide customers with regular supplies of

fresh food and access to improved nutrition.

(4) To contribute to the economic, social and health

capital of the host community.

Some economic research has been undertaken previ-

ously on the Adelaide Showground Farmers’ Market

in South Australia in regard to consumer values and

attitudes, however, stallholders’ perceptions have not

been analysed (Stringer and Umberger 2008; Umber-

ger et al. 2008). Critical opinion from research into the

economic, social and environmental outcomes of

farmers’ markets elsewhere is generally very positive

(Abel et al. 1999; Feagan 2008; Feenstra and Lewis

1999; Hunt 2007; Kirwan 2006; Lyson et al. 2009;

Smithers et al. 2008). It is argued that these alternative

outlets create a context for ‘closer ties between

farmers and consumers’, increasing the local social

and economic benefits of agriculture (Hinrichs 2000,

p. 295). Smithers et al. (2008, p. 337) note that the

notion of ‘local’ produce is valued highly within

farmers’ markets, and Kirwan (2006, p. 301) explains

that non-economic benefits are evident and it is

possible to detect a sense of ‘mutual endeavour’.

Robinson and Hartenfeld (2007) argue that modern

farmers’ markets improve social ties and link rural and

urban populations through a mutually rewarding

exchange. In this way, farmers’ markets are directly

related to the creation of a perception of local

uniqueness and difference. Localism is also linked to

1 The term ‘wholesale’ in this paper is used to imply the bulk

sale of goods to a third party, rather than direct sale to the

consumer.

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776 765

123

conceptualisations of greater food security, reduced

energy use and emissions in transport, and more

sustainable community development (Clark and Brake

2009; Davies and Holcombe 2009; DuPuis and

Goodman 2005). Farmers’ markets are seen to bridge

the formal and informal sectors of the economy

(Lyson et al. 2009) subsequently boosting local

economic sustainability (Govindasamy et al. 2002),

and contributing to producer diversification through

consumer feedback (Feenstra et al. 2009; Hinrichs

et al. 2004; Hunt 2007). DuPuis and Goodman (2005,

p. 359) argue that the ‘global’ has become associated

with the ‘universal logic of capitalism’ while the

‘local’ provides a point of resistance to this logic and a

place where ‘embeddedness can and does happen’. In

summary, different studies suggest that farmers’

markets are beneficial to: the producer economically

by removing the middleman; the consumer in terms of

providing healthier food; and the environment with

local produce exchange reducing environmental pol-

lution (Abel et al. 1999; Feenstra and Lewis 1999; La

Trobe 2001).

Although it seems farmers’ markets can be bene-

ficial socially, environmentally and economically,

there can be opposition to the concept. The idea of

sourcing food locally may be thought to reduce

potential regional economic benefits in terms of

efficiency, economies of scale, and specialisation

(Albo 2009). Work by Asebo et al. (2007) suggests

that ‘where’ the food comes from is not seen to be as

socially relevant as ‘how’ it is produced, and therefore,

local marketing may not be as important as labels

linked to sustainable production systems. The spread

of disease at farmers’ markets can also be cause for

concern with many being infected with Q fever from a

sheep lambing at a German market for example

(Porten et al. 2006).

Before the project methodology and results are

presented it is important that the key points to take

from the literature, most relevant to the project, are

made clear. Firstly, there are many environmental,

social and economic concerns for small-scale produc-

ers in the productivist agricultural setting of South

Australia. Secondly, political ecology is an important

theoretical tool for analysing alternative food net-

works, because participants can reduce their exposure

to the economic, social and environmental risks of

the dominant productivist agricultural regime by

pursuing alternative, socio-ecological pathways of

development. The remainder of this paper aims to

address the gap in knowledge concerning the per-

ceived importance and benefits of farmers’ markets to

participants in South Australia in terms of their risk

reducing capacity, as well as explain why producers

use farmers’ markets as opposed to pursuing other

options.

Method

Farmers’ markets are a relatively new phenomenon in

their formal manifestation in Australia, and they allow

producers to gather and market produce directly to

consumers. Each of the three South Australian farm-

ers’ markets chosen to be studied: the Willunga

Farmers’ Market; the Riverland Farmers’ Market; and,

the Adelaide Showground Farmers’ Market (Fig. 1),

are regular weekend markets (Australian Farmers’

Markets Association 2010a). The Willunga Farmers’

Market is comparatively well established, being

almost 10 years old and the first of its kind in the

state, and is situated in a peri-urban region (Australian

Government 2008; Bunker and Houston 1992; City of

Onkaparinga 2008; Ford 2001). The two other farm-

ers’ markets recognised by the Australian Farmers’

Market Association (2010c) chosen to be examined

were the Adelaide Showground Farmers’ Markets

(adjacent to the Adelaide Central Business District)

and the Riverland Farmers’ Market (Berri), which are

located in urban and rural regions respectively. This

choice of markets allowed for urban, peri-urban and

rural responses to be gathered.

To enquire about the roles of farmers’ markets, the

ideas and opinions of people selling at the markets

needed to be collated and critically examined. Numer-

ous authors suggest that a good way to gather primary

data is to directly survey producers at farmers’ markets

(Bryman 2007a; Cobanoglu et al. 2001; Hines 1993;

Schwarz et al. 1998; Sieber 1973). Both qualitative

and quantitative questions were included in the survey

because it is powerful to combine the two forms of

primary research to answer different questions and to

support the conclusions with diverse data. The primary

data was then compared to the results from similar

studies in a mixed-method approach (Bryman 2007b;

Bryman et al. 2008; Hines 1993; Leahey 2007). The

questions included in the survey focussed on two key

research questions:

766 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123

(1) How important were the farmers’ markets to

those choosing to sell their produce in this

manner?

(2) Did the farmers’ market reduce the risks of

modern Australian agriculture for the producers

involved?

The survey was initially tested with the coordinators of

the three farmers’ markets. After minor revision, all

stallholders at the three markets were presented with a

questionnaire with a stamped, return-address envelope

during the period January–May 2010 (Willunga on the

9th of January as a pre-test, Riverland on the 8th of

May, and Adelaide on the 16th of May). Two weeks

after the initial distribution of the survey at each

market, early respondents and market committees

were asked to remind other stallholders to send back

the surveys resulting in an increased response rate

(Bell 1997; Bell and Valentine 1995). The final

number of surveys returned, 19 out of 45 handed out

(42.2 %) at Willunga, six of the 20 surveys handed out

(30 %) at Berri, and 16 of the 65 (24.6 %) at Adelaide,

were comparable to average mail-out survey results

(Cobanoglu et al. 2001; Kaplowitz et al. 2004).

Therefore, of the 130 surveys, 41 were returned

completed (32 %), and the data were analysed using

the PASW Statistics 18.0.2 statistical software pack-

age (IBM 2010), although due to the low number of

Riverland responses, comparisons between this rural

region and the other peri-urban and urban markets

were not valid. Targeting a sub-group of farmers

selling at three farmers’ markets in South Australia did

make the initial sampling frame relatively small. Other

studies have successfully analysed small data sets

developed from targeted surveys of small sub-groups

in the sociological agri-food realm (Bowen 2011;

Smailes and Newman 1993; Smailes and Hugo 2003).

In this case, because the surveys yielded both

nominal (categorical) and ordinal (rank order) data,

two nonparametric techniques were utilised to test for

statistical difference in the responses so that as well as

displaying interesting findings, significant trends

could be acknowledged (Table 3). Findings of signif-

icance are noted in the text, with the test that was

performed highlighted (either Pearson v2 or Mann–

Whitney U test), N representing the number of

respondents that were tested and p representing the

asymptotic significance value. A p value of under 0.05

is considered significant. Qualitative data was also

collated from the surveys and important responses are

used to highlight certain issues in the results, accord-

ing to the respondent’s particular market. After

analysis of the data across all fields some consistent

themes emerged and framed the results and final

discussion/conclusion. In particular, the results focus

on the two main research questions: are South

Australian farmers’ markets of value to the producers

involved; and, do South Australian farmers’ markets

reduce the risks of modern agriculture.

Land use characteristics and the value of South

Australian farmers’ markets

The location of respondents’ properties was most

commonly the Fleurieu Peninsula (53.7 %), a region

immediately south of the city of Adelaide, and 82.9 %

of respondents’ properties were under 51 ha in area

suggesting that peri-urban, small-scale producers are

most likely to frequent the farmers’ markets. This

result is not surprising in the Australian context

because of both the relative remoteness of much

agricultural production, which makes direct marketing

difficult for many, and the increased intensity of

production adjacent to major urban centres (Powell

1988). The fact that the majority of respondents were

small-scale, peri-urban producers (51.5 %) also

reflects spatial heterogeneity which coincides with a

multifunctional land use transition, in contrast to the

location and size of more production-orientated South

Australian agricultural enterprises (Holmes 2006).

Most of the produce sold was either ‘fresh produce’

(46.3 %) and/or ‘value added produce’ (36.6 %), a

Table 3 Nonparametric tests used in the survey analysis

Level of measurement Purpose of test Nonparametric statistic

Nominal (i.e. responses in categories with

no implied order)

Test for differences among two independent groups Pearson v2 test

Ordinal (i.e. responses were ranked in order) Test for differences among two independent groups Mann–Whitney U test

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776 767

123

finding which supports the very definition given to

farmers’ markets by the Australian Farmers’ Market

Association (2010d).

A total of 97.5 % of respondents recognised the

farmers’ markets were of some importance, with

values varying between ‘slightly important’ (12.2 %),

‘quite important’ (14.6 %), ‘important’ (24.4 %) and

‘extremely important’ (46.3 %), and 43.9 % had sold

produce continuously at the markets since they

opened. These findings indicate that farmers’ markets

are of significant value to producers choosing to sell

their produce in these direct markets. When asked if

any aspect of the markets had not lived up to

expectations 75.6 % responded ‘no’ and 65.9 % of

respondents found the farmers’ markets had led to

other opportunities, with many noting the specific

opportunities the markets have led to. Typical

responses included:

[We] got into other outlets after people tried the

product at the market. (Willunga)

Customers [are] purchasing for their own shops/

businesses/restaurants. (Willunga)

[The markets] help to experiment and value-

add—by chatting to customers to find out what

will sell. (Willunga)

[We have] been approached by others to pur-

chase direct. (Adelaide)

Many shop and Cafe owners come to market—

we now sell to them. Also people go into

Foodland (a supermarket chain) and ask for our

product—this has helped our product get into

many stores. (Adelaide)

Results from South Australia support conclusions

from previous studies suggesting farmers’ markets are

beneficial to producers economically (Brown 2009;

Feenstra and Lewis 1999; Feenstra et al. 2009;

Govindasamy et al. 2002) and socially (Hinrichs

et al. 2004; Hunt 2007; Kirwan 2006; Lyson et al.

2009; Robinson and Hartenfeld 2007; Smithers et al.

2008). The markets are highly valued and have led to

other opportunities for many respondents. The reasons

for selling at farmers’ markets that recorded the

highest ‘most important’ responses were: ‘direct

consumer feedback’ (58.5 %); ‘supporting the com-

munity’ (51.2 %); ‘selling locally’ (51.2 %); and it

‘being fun’ (46.3 %). These findings suggest that

benefits of farmers’ markets to producers are primarily

social, which contrasts with productivist goals for

agriculture where economic outcomes are of utmost

importance, suggesting that the markets support

alternative values for farming and marketing produce.

Again, these findings support previous research which

suggests that consumer feedback, community values

and the fun involved, are the most important reasons

for selling at farmers’ markets (Feenstra et al. 2009;

Govindasamy et al. 2002; Hinrichs et al. 2004; Hunt

2007; Lyson et al. 2009).

Respondents also depended simultaneously on

other means of income, with 43.9 % of respondents

rating ‘wholesale sales’ as ‘most important’. This

finding highlights the diversification of marketing by

producers who exploit both dominant and alternative

approaches simultaneously. This reliance on whole-

sale sales, along with the highest ranked risks to

agricultural businesses being: an ‘oversupply of

produce’ (22 %); a ‘lack of governmental support’

(19.5 %); and, the ‘market domination of supermarket

chains’ (17.1 %), implies that issues created by

productivist agricultural policy are vital concerns,

even for producers utilising these innovative direct

marketing mechanisms.

Do farmers’ markets reduce the risks of modern

South Australian agriculture?

Of the 41 respondents, 48.8 % answered ‘yes’ to the

question of does the farmers’ market help to reduce the

risks to your farm. There were, however, varying

perceptions about the roles and capacities of farmers’

markets to act as mechanisms of resilience and

innovation. Those who did recognise that farmers’

markets reduce the risks to their business valued the

alternative forms of income: tourism; recreation; and

carbon farming, higher than those who did not and

relied significantly less on wholesale sales (Fig. 2)

(Mann–Whitney U test, N = 33, p = 0.027). This

supports the argument that farmers are diversifying

into different ‘modes’ of production and those

recognising the risk reducing capacity of farmers’

markets are also looking at diversifying their sources

of income to remain viable (Holmes 2006). The risk of

‘climate change’ was also seen to be significantly

greater for those who realised that farmers’ markets in

some way help reduce risk (Mann–Whitney U test,

768 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123

N = 36, p = 0.03). This result suggests that those

producers recognising that farmers’ markets reduce

risk were also more aware of future, external risk

involved with environmental change, which again

shows they may be part of an alternative paradigm

which incorporates varying multifunctional agricul-

tural outcomes (Bardsley 2003).

Political ecology was found to relate to the results

in terms of the application of alternative values to

respondents’ agricultural practices. Respondents

noted that farmers’ markets help to reduce economic

risk implicitly through improved and direct contact

with consumers, and addressed the political ecology

theses concerning: environmental conflict between

‘classes’ of agricultural producers and businesses;

and, the environmental identity of those participating

in these ‘social movements’ (Robbins 2004). Key

points that were raised included:

They (farmers’ markets) provide an outlet for

fresh produce which requires timely sale to

increase the benefits (economic and nutritional).

(Willunga)

It (the farmers’ market) does provide direct

access to the public and simply by being

authentic people support it and we can sell more

produce. (Willunga)

It (the farmers’ market) is a reliable mechanism

to reach a loyal group of consumers and to put

large or even very small quantities of goods on

sale. It enables us to explain new products. Every

customer is a buyer rather than having a small

number of wholesalers or retailers whose sup-

port could evaporate. (Adelaide)

It (the farmers’ market) gives the customers a

chance to buy good quality, fresh produce.

(Willunga)

We will continue with the high-grade organic

produce the customers at the market have come

to expect. (Willunga)

Direct marketing was used as an empowering mech-

anism to actively respond to the increasing domination

of large companies and supermarkets in the food

chain. Again this supports the two previously men-

tioned theses of political ecology, and the degradation

and marginalisation thesis which states that the

marginalised recognise the economic and political

context of their struggle. For example, respondents

stated:

I can sell all my fruit at a fair price set by me and

not some greedy supermarket chain. (Willunga)

[Agriculture is] becoming too dominated by

large companies, many from overseas, reducing

our independence and importing too much

produce that we already have. (Adelaide)

Woolworths and Coles (supermarket chains) are

happily stuffing up all Australian food produc-

tion. Federal government must stop this ridicu-

lous duopoly, forget climate change, sort them

out! (Adelaide)

Farmers’ markets were also seen to help reduce

environmental and social risk, by providing a

market-based approach for supporting alternative

production methods. The following statements are

also relevant to the degradation and marginalisation

thesis of political ecology (see Table 2), in terms of

recognising that the environmental and social con-

sequences of agriculture have political and eco-

nomic roots:

Chemical conventional farming is unsustainable

in the long term, organic and biodynamic [path-

ways] offer a friendly alternative. (Willunga)

Fig. 2 Reliance on other income opportunities against whether

farmers’ markets reduce risks. Scale was 1–5 (5 = most

important), *p \ 0.05

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776 769

123

We need to grow more organic fruit and

vegetables. Produce shouldn’t be transported

from one state to the next if that product is

available in the state. (Adelaide)

I see no visionaries in politics—the fact that the

world will need to produce more food in the next

30 years seems to escape them. All governments

are closing agricultural facilities instead of

massively increasing them. (Willunga)

The respondents’ concerns align with a political

ecological critique, which argues that alternative

production and marketing mechanisms are required to

increase diversity and reduce overall risk. Neverthe-

less, while diversification is explicitly utilised as a

means to reduce economic and environmental risk, the

risks to community were not fully articulated. Two

respondents did, however, make key points in regards

to social risk. One respondent sold the majority of their

produce at farmers’ markets and saw the markets as a

hobby, stating that ‘having transferred from the

Barossa Farmers’ Market this has become a retirement

hobby turning over perhaps $30,000 per annum’

(Adelaide). This respondent could represent a wider

group of stallholders that fit into a ‘hobby’ mode of

production, which may also have political ecological

roots in terms of environmental and social identity,

where land use values prioritise cultural and environ-

mental heritage and there is not as greater focus on

production. A second respondent supported this argu-

ment with the ominous statement that ‘small farms with

the use of farmers’ markets can survive, large farms

with economies of scale can survive, [but] middle sized

farms are doomed’ (Willunga). On the other hand,

these producers may constitute a group of ‘part-time

farmers’ which could further complicate the analysis

(Buttel 1982; Schwarzwellar 1982). Researchers such

as Holmes (2006) are arguing that policy which

responds to the different capacities of producers will

be essential for the future of Australian agriculture.

Yet, the dominant liberalism that pervades Australian

agriculture may maintain the perception that producers

can and should adapt to risk as independent units. In

that case, any government intervention to more broadly

support multifunctionality could be seen to hinder the

freedom and flexibility of the agricultural sector.

The flexible, market-led approach to reflecting

difference was supported by labelling techniques that

highlight production differences. Over 80 % of

respondents who labelled their produce according to

‘how it is produced’ also labelled their produce

according to ‘where it is produced’ (Pearson v2,

N = 41, p = 0.012). This supports the theory that

producers looking to capture a niche market are

exploiting values linked to both ‘how’ and ‘where’

they produce their goods to avoid the conventional-

isation of their products in the marketplace over time

(Kremen et al. 2007; Lockie et al. 2002; Loureiro and

McCluskey 2000; Macias 2008; Maher 2001; Skuras

and Vakrou 2002). Respondents who labelled their

produce according to ‘where it is produced’ also

perceive: a ‘reduction in demand for their produce’

(Mann–Whitney U test, N = 38, p = 0.01); an ‘over-

supply of their produce’ (Mann–Whitney U test,

N = 39, p = 0.007); and ‘urban development pres-

sure’ to be less important risks to their businesses

(Fig. 3). Those same producers recognised: ‘super-

market chains’; ‘the impact of large businesses’;

‘environmental degradation’; ‘climate change’; and a

‘lack of governmental support’ to be particularly

important risks (Fig. 3). From these results, it could be

argued that there are a group of actors within the

markets who understand how they can market their

Fig. 3 Perceived risks to their business against whether

respondents label produce according to where produced. Scale

was 1–8 (1 = biggest risk), **p \ 0.01, *p \ 0.05

770 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123

produce in a way that minimises immediate, interna-

lised risks to their farm but they continue to struggle to

manage vital external environmental and political

risks (Higgins et al. 2008b; Holmes 2002, 2006).

These producers fit into a special group that may be

challenging the dominant productivist regime with

alternative agricultural markets, but who also under-

stand that such market mechanisms are by themselves

insufficient to mitigate or adapt to current and future

challenges. This group directly relates to the ‘degra-

dation and marginalisation’ political ecology thesis

because they understand that environmental change

(‘environmental degradation’ and ‘climate change’) is

occurring and are aware of the political (‘lack of

government support’) and economic (‘impact of large

businesses’ and ‘supermarket chains’) actors that are

involved.

Those respondents who saw the farmers’ markets as

valuable in terms of providing a ‘niche market’ were

found to be more willing to support a ‘combined

marketing budget’ (Mann–Whitney U test, N = 36,

p = 0.018). In turn, those that contributed to a

‘combined marketing budget’ saw ‘urban develop-

ment pressure’ as less of a risk than those who did not

(Mann–Whitney U test, N = 37, p = 0.028). This

may be due to the fact they are confident with the

power of their farmers’ markets in promoting local

agriculture and are realising their role in supporting

peri-urban agricultural land use despite multiple

competing values. As one respondent summarised, in

relation to what they would like to see in the future:

‘Greater control of urban sprawl, reduced domination

of monopolistic supermarkets, small business assis-

tance, [and] campaigns for living locally’ (Willunga).

The overall results indicate that tenets of political

ecology, in the respondents’ criticisms of the dominant

agricultural regime and subsequent application of

various alternative agricultural production and mar-

keting practices, are in some ways supporting multi-

functional outcomes (Wilson 2001).

Discussion and conclusions

Robbins (2004) generalises that political ecology can

be used in two distinct ways, as a ‘hatchet’ and a ‘seed’:

as a hatchet to critique dominant approaches to the

environment, essentially ‘cutting down’ these ideolo-

gies, particularly from the point of view of marginal

groups; and, as a seed to explain how individuals or

groups cope with economic or political forces to

change, which can lead to the ‘growth’ of alternative

social movements. The fact that producers participat-

ing in farmers’ markets would even choose to explore

alternative options for marketing their produce, away

from the methods of production and exchange con-

trolled by powerful interests, is in itself a subconscious

marker of political ecology. By attempting to ‘cut

down’ the dominant productivist regime with the ‘fresh

ideas’ that constitute these alternative marketing

schemes, both the ‘hatchet’ and ‘seed’ elements of

political ecology can be found in farmers’ markets, and

more broadly in the concept of alternative food

networks. Robbins (2004) fourth thesis of political

ecology, that of ‘environmental identity and social

movement’ summarised in Table 2, also correlates

with the goals of alternative food networks because

they are often formed due to political, economic, social

and ecological struggles which are linked to basic

issues of farmers’ wellbeing, worldviews and the

environmental protection of their farms (Moore 1993).

Analyses of both the political and ecological

elements of individual farms can be seen as integral

preparatory mechanisms to manage risk, or at least the

perception of risk, for producers and consumers, and

to guide changes in behaviour, practice and production

systems (Collins 2008). From a producers’ point of

view, the retention or development of local agricul-

tural diversity, more sustainable practices, and local

niche markets could reduce risks to their enterprise

and help to maximise social, environmental and

economic benefits (Niven and Bardsley 2012). From

a consumers’ point of view the purchasing of local

organic produce from farmers’ markets may improve

nutrition, be environmentally friendly, support local

growers, and be of moral value reducing the overall

risks to themselves and their families (Bryant and

Goodman 2004). In fact, Bryant and Goodman (2004,

p. 344) argue that ‘as consumption becomes the new

activism political ecology narratives are increasingly

shaping how alternative consumption is understood in

the developed world’. These alternative food networks

also fit into what Robbins (2004, p. 213) describes as a

‘new’ political ecology hybridity thesis which

involves understanding that:

Powerful modern institutions and individuals

have gained undue and disproportionate power

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776 771

123

by explicitly attempting to divide and police the

boundaries between human and non-human

nature … leading to unintended consequences

and pernicious results. In the process resistance

emerges from traditional, alternative, and pro-

gressive human/non-human alliances margina-

lised by such efforts.

A transition toward a multifunctional agricultural

regime with little recognition of the reasons that the

movement was necessary in the first place could

undermine the entire paradigm shift. On the other hand,

if alternatives to dominant agri-food systems, such as

farmers’ markets, provide stakeholders with the oppor-

tunity to build upon their criticisms, whilst allowing

them to survive or even flourish, they may be able to

more thoroughly enact change for positive socio-

ecological outcomes. The results from this work

highlight that there are real social, environmental and

risk management outcomes from diversification. Polit-

ical ecological thinking and farmers’ markets are

important tools for agricultural stakeholders to transi-

tion to some form of multifunctional land use, which

would ultimately improve overall sustainability. Farm-

ers’ markets not only provide a direct pathway from

producer to consumer but also allow certain values,

such as the method or location of production, typified in

this research as environmentally beneficial, high qual-

ity, peri-urban produce, to be represented in the price of

marketed goods. Here the simultaneous use of direct

and wholesale markets suggests that producers are

using the farmers’ markets as a way of diversifying to

reduce risk, and that such a strategy is important to

those involved. Multifunctional outcomes from agri-

culture were in some ways recognised by producers

who: realised the farmers’ markets reduced the risks of

agriculture in threatened regions; labelled their produce

according to ‘where’ it was produced; were less

concerned about the risks of economic fluctuations;

were more concerned with issues of social equity and

environmental health; sold most of their produce at the

farmers’ markets; were having fun selling at the

farmers’ markets; were not as afraid of urban devel-

opment pressure threatening their livelihoods; and, saw

the farmers’ markets as valuable niche markets. This

group of producers could be seen to be challenging the

dominant agricultural methods of production and

marketing and by pursuing positive socio-ecological

futures are becoming agents of change (Robbins 2004).

While Australian producers act within a strongly

neo-liberal regime with minimal governmental sup-

port, the evolution of alternative paths for Australian

agriculture will be constrained. Other jurisdictions,

such as the European Union by reforming the Common

Agricultural Policy, are explicitly supporting alterna-

tive agricultural development directions associated

with better social and environmental outcomes, and, as

Australian farmers search for opportunities to exploit

the multifunctionality of their systems, policy may

need to reflect a similar transition. Global systems such

as the agriculture and food system, are increasingly

shaped by the imagination of participants (Appadurai

1996). The challenge of a broadening of Australian

agricultural policy to reflect multifunctional outcomes

could be particularly confronting to producers if

implemented at a rapid pace. Convincing Australian

farmers that environmental stewardship must form

their primary societal role may be hard because of the

lagging conceptual dominance of the productivist

paradigm. For example, research by Burton and Wilson

(2006, p. 95) shows that despite much ‘talk of an

increasing conservationist component to farming,

farmers’ self-concepts are still dominated by produc-

tion-orientated identities’. It could also be argued that

both productivist and post-productivist agriculture

present risks to farmers, consumers and societies, even

though those risks may differ. Given the hegemony of

the productivist paradigm, sudden or radical change

will be difficult, but policy could work to subtly and

explicitly recognise that alternative multifunctional

paths, based on the premise of the human ecology

paradigm, are possible even within a dominant neo-

liberal framework.

Farmers are already imagining and implementing

different, multifunctional paths in order to achieve

positive socio-ecological outcomes with only limited

assistance. South Australian farmers’ markets are one

tool that can be used to: facilitate the development of

multifunctionality; assist small-scale farmers to chal-

lenge the productivist paradigm; and to allow farmers

who are unable or perhaps unwilling to compete

within the neo-liberal productivist system to imagine

and implement alternative futures. It seems the

farmers that have been marginalised by a focus on

productivity are joining together to resist the dominant

primary production institutions. The social capital

created by more direct contact between producers and

consumers adds to the overall benefits of alternative,

772 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123

cooperative food networks, and the positive experi-

ences of those involved seem to spread via word of

mouth like a seed spreading its roots. Farmers’

markets provide an important example of an approach

governments could utilise to support diversity in

agriculture because, as shown in this work, they can

co-exist with the productivist wholesale markets,

whilst working to develop a greater sense of the

multiple values of local, environmentally sensitive and

high quality production. As a result, policies to more

fully support farmers’ markets in the Australian

context would support multifunctionality without

hindering the opportunities for efficiencies and flex-

ibility that a broader neo-liberal framework provides.

Rather than enforcing post-productivism, policy to

assist farmers’ markets to become more widespread,

frequent and cheaper to attend could support a trend

towards more sustainable agricultural practices, and

speed up the transition to a multifunctional agricul-

tural era for better social and environmental outcomes.

Acknowledgments The Authors would like to acknowledge

financial support from the discipline of Geography,

Environment and Population at the University of Adelaide,

SA Water, and the CSIRO through the Sustainable Agriculture

flagship. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers

for their comments which helped improve the paper. Finally

many thanks must go to the respondents who took the time to

complete the questionnaire, without them the research project

would not have been possible.

References

ABARE. (2006). Agriculture in Australia: Past, present, future.

Canberra: Australian Government.

Abel, J., Thomson, J., & Maretzki, A. (1999). Extension’s role

with farmers’ markets: Working with farmers, consumers,

and communities. Journal of Extension, 37(5), 150–165.

Alario, M. (1993). Environmental risks, social asymmetry, and

late modernity: Toward a political ecology. Social Theory

and Practice, 19(3), 275–288.

Albo, G. (2009). The limits of eco-localism: Scale, strategy,

socialism. Socialist Register, 43(43), 1–27.

Andree, P., Dibden, J., Higgins, V., & Cocklin, C. (2010).

Competitive productivism and Australia’s emerging

‘alternative’ agri-food networks: Producing for farmers’

markets in Victoria and beyond. Australian Geographer,

41(3), 307–322.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Social dimensions of

globalization. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Argent, N. (2002). From pillar to post? In search of the post-

productivist countryside in Australia. Australian Geogra-

pher, 33(1), 97–114.

Argent, N., Smailes, P., & Griffin, T. (2007). The amenity

complex: Towards a framework for analysing and pre-

dicting the emergence of a multifunctional countryside in

Australia. Geographical Research, 45(3), 217–232.

Asebo, K., Jervell, A. M., Lieblein, G., Svennerud, M., &

Francis, C. (2007). Farmer and consumer attitudes at

farmers markets in Norway. Journal of Sustainable Agri-

culture, 30(4), 67–93.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Agricultural state pro-

file, South Australia, 2006–2007. Australian Bureau of

Statistics. Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs

@.nsf/Latestproducts/FF8D03E1A74D8D6ACA2574D40

01DA912?opendocument [June 15, 2011].

Australian Farmers’ Markets Association. (2010a). Australian

farmers’ market directory. Available: http://www.farmers

markets.org.au/markets/willunga-farmers-market [October

27, 2011].

Australian Farmers’ Markets Association. (2010b). Charter.

Available: http://www.farmersmarkets.org.au/about/charter

[September 6, 2010].

Australian Farmers’ Markets Association. (2010c). Markets

directory. Available: http://www.farmersmarkets.org.au/

markets#sa [September 6, 2010].

Australian Farmers’ Markets Association. (2010d). What is a

farmers’ market? Available: http://www.farmersmarkets.

org.au/about/definition [September 6, 2010].

Australian Government. (2008). Change and continuity in peri-

urban Australia. Canberra: Australian Government.

Bardsley, D. (2003). Risk alleviation via in situ agrobiodiversity

conservation: Drawing from experiences in Switzerland,

Turkey and Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-

ment, 99(1–3), 149–157.

Bardsley, D., & Pech, P. (2012). Defining spaces of resilience

within the neoliberal paradigm: Could French land use

classifications guide support for risk management within an

Australian regional context? Human Ecology, 40(1),

129–143.

Babcock, B., & Clemens, R. (2004). Geographical indications

and property rights: Protecting value-added agricultural

products. Iowa: Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Research

Information Center.

Barr, N. F., & Cary, J. W. (1992). Greening a brown land: The

Australian search for sustainable land use. South Mel-

bourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

Bassett, T. (1988). The political ecology of peasant-herder

conflicts in the northern Ivory Coast. Annals of the Asso-

ciation of American Geographers, 78(3), 453–472.

Bell, D. (1997). Sex lives and audiotape: Geography, sexuality

and undergraduate dissertations. Journal of Geography in

Higher Education, 21(3), 411–417.

Bell, D., & Valentine, G. (1995). Queer country: Rural lesbian

and gay lives. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(2), 113–122.

Bjorkhaug, H., & Richards, C. (2008). Multifunctional agri-

culture in policy and practice? A comparitive analysis of

Norway and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(1),

98–111.

Blaikie, P. (1985). The political economy of soil erosion in

developing countries. London: Longman.

Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and

society. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776 773

123

Bowen, S. (2011). The importance of place: Re-territorialising

embeddedness. Sociologia Ruralis, 51(4), 325–348.

Brown, A. (2009). Farmers’ market research 1940–2000: An

inventory and review. American Journal of Alternative

Agriculture, 17(04), 167–176.

Bryant, R., & Goodman, M. (2004). Consuming narratives: The

political ecology of ‘alternative’ consumption. Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(3), 344–366.

Bryman, A. (2007a). Social research methods (pp. 99–145).

Oxford: OUP.

Bryman, A. (2007b). The research question in social research:

What is its role? International Journal of Social Research

Methodology, 10(1), 5–20.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for

quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A

view from social policy. International Journal of Social

Research Methodology, 11(4), 261–276.

Bunker, R., & Houston, P. (1992). At and beyond the fringe:

Planning around the Australian city with particular refer-

ence to Adelaide. Urban Policy and Research, 10(3),

23–32.

Burton, R., & Wilson, G. (2006). Injecting social psychology

theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency:

Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal

of Rural Studies, 22(1), 95–115.

Buttel, F. (1982). The political economy of part-time farming.

GeoJournal, 6(4), 293–300.

Buttel, F., & Newby, H. (Eds.). (1980). The rural sociology of

the advanced societies: Critical perspectives. Montclair,

NJ: Allanheld, Osmun.

City of Onkaparinga. (2008). Climate change strategy: A com-

munity plan 2028 initiative—2008–2013, [on-line]. City of

Onkaparinga. Available: http://www.onkaparingacity.com/

web/page?pg=2379 [November 23, 2009].

Clark, I., & Brake, L. (2009). Using local knowledge to improve

understanding of groundwater supplies in parts of arid

South Australia. GeoJournal, 74(5), 441–450.

Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. (2001). A comparison of

mail, fax and web-based survey methods. International

Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 441–452.

Cocklin, C., Mautner, N., & Dibden, J. (2007). Public policy,

private landholders: Perspectives on policy mechanisms

for sustainable land management. Journal of Environ-

mental Management, 85(4), 986–998.

Collins, T. (2008). The political ecology of hazard vulnerability:

Marginalization, facilitation and the production of differ-

ential risk to urban wildfires in Arizona’s White Moun-

tains. Journal of Political Ecology, 15(1), 21–43.

CSIRO. (2008). Water availability in the Murray-Darling

Basin. A report from CSIRO to the Australian Government

Australia. CSIRO.

Davies, J., & Holcombe, S. (2009). Desert knowledge: Inte-

grating knowledge and development in arid and semi-arid

drylands. GeoJournal, 74, 363–375.

Dibden, J., Potter, C., & Cocklin, C. (2009). Contesting the

neoliberal project for agriculture: Productivist and multi-

funcitonal trajectories in the European Union and Austra-

lia. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(3), 299–308.

DuPuis, E., & Goodman, D. (2005). Should we go ‘‘home’’ to

eat? Toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of

Rural Studies, 21(3), 359–371.

Feagan, R. (2008). Direct marketing: Towards sustainable local

food systems? Local Environment, 13(3), 161–167.

Feenstra, G., & Lewis, C. (1999). Farmers’ markets offer new

business opportunities for farmers. California Agriculture,

53(6), 25–29.

Feenstra, G., Lewis, C., Hinrichs, C., Gillespie, G., & Hilchey,

D. (2009). Entrepreneurial outcomes and enterprise size in

US retail farmers’ markets. American Journal of Alterna-

tive Agriculture, 18(01), 46–55.

Ford, T. (2001). The social effect of population growth in the

periurban region: The case of Adelaide. Journal of Popu-

lation Research, 18(1), 40–51.

Government of South Australia. (2004). Natural resources

management act 2004. Adelaide: Attorney General’s

Department.

Government of South Australia. (2006). South Australia’s state

NRM plan, [on-line]. Government of South Australia.

Available: http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/nrm/state_nrm_plan/

index.html [November 23, 2009].

Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., & Adelaja, A. (2002). Farmers’

markets: Consumer trends, preferences, and characteris-

tics. Journal of Extension, 40(1), 1–7.

Hamblin, A. (2009). Policy directions for agricultural land use in

Australia and other post-industrial economies. Land Use

Policy, 26(4), 1195–1204.

Heimlich, R., & Anderson, D. (2001). Development at the urban

fringe and beyond: Impacts on agriculture and rural land.

Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

Higgins, V., Dibden, J., & Cocklin, C. (2008a). Building alter-

native agri-food networks: Certification, embeddedness

and agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural

Studies, 24(1), 15–27.

Higgins, V., Dibden, J., & Cocklin, C. (2008b). Neoliberalism

and natural resource management: Agri-environmental

standards and the governing of farming practises. Geofo-

rum, 39(5), 1776–1785.

Hines, A. (1993). Linking qualitative and quantitative methods

in cross-cultural survey research: Techniques from cogni-

tive science. American Journal of Community Psychology,

21(6), 729–746.

Hinrichs, C. (2000). Embeddedness and the local food systems:

Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of

Rural Studies, 16(3), 295–303.

Hinrichs, C., Gillespie, G. W., & Feenstra, G. W. (2004). Social

learning and innovation at retail farmers’ markets. Rural

Sociology, 69(1), 31–58.

Hogan, A., Berry, H., Ng, S., & Bode, A. (2011). Decisions

made by farmers that relate to climate change (Vol.

10/208). Canberra: Australian Goverment.

Holmes, J. (2002). Diversity and change in Australia’s range-

lands: A post-productivist transition with a difference?

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(3),

362–384.

Holmes, J. (2006). Impulses towards a multifunctional transition

in rural Australia: Gaps in the research agenda. Journal of

Rural Studies, 22(2), 142–160.

Houston, P. (2003). The national audit of peri-urban argiculture.

Australian Planner, 40(3), 43–45.

Houston, P. (2005). Re-valuing the fringe: Some findings on the

value of agricultural production in Australia’s peri-urban

regions. Geographical Research, 43(2), 209–223.

774 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123

Hunt, A. (2007). Consumer interactions and influences on

farmers’ market vendors. Renewable Agriculture and Food

Systems, 22(1), 54–66.

Hurley, P., & Halfacre, A. (2011). Dodging alligators, rattle-

snakes, and backyard docks: A political ecology of

sweetgrass basket-making and conservation in the South

Carolina Lowcountry, USA. GeoJournal, 76(4), 383–399.

Jarosz, L. (2008). The city in the country: Growing alternative

food networks in metropolitan areas. Journal of Rural

Studies, 24(3), 231–255.

Kaplowitz, M., Hadlock, T., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison

of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101.

King, B. (2010). Political ecologies of health. Progress in

Human Geography, 34(1), 38–55.

Kingsford, R., Fairweather, P., Geddes, M., Lester, R., Sammut,

J., & Walker, K. (2009). Engineering a crisis in a Ramsar

wetland: The Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth,

Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

Kirwan, J. (2006). The interpersonal world of direct marketing:

Examining conventions of quality at UK farmers’ mar-

kets’. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), 301–312.

Klein, J., & Wolf, S. (2007). Toward multifunctional land-

scapes: Cross-sectional analysis of management priorities

in New York’s Northern Forest. Rural Sociology, 72(3),

391–417.

Kremen, A., Greene, C., & Hanson, J. (2007). Organic produce,

price premiums, and eco-labeling in US farmers’ markets.

Organic Agriculture in the US. Washington, DC: USDA.

La Trobe, H. (2001). Farmers’ markets: Consuming local rural

produce. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(3),

181–192.

Lawrence, G. (1987). Capitalism and the countryside: The rural

crisis in Australia. Sydney: Pluto Press.

Lawrence, G., Furze, B., & Vanclay, F. M. (Eds.). (1992).

Agriculture, environment and society: Contemporary

issues for Australia. South Melbourne: Macmillan.

Leahey, E. (2007). Convergence and confidentiality? Limits to

the implementation of mixed methodology. Social Science

Research, 36(1), 149–158.

Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., & Mummery, K. (2002).

Eating ‘green’: Motivations behind organic food con-

sumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(1), 23–40.

Loureiro, M., & McCluskey, J. (2000). Assessing consumer

response to protected geographical identification labeling.

Agribusiness, 16(3), 309–320.

Lyson, T., Gillespie, G., & Hilchey, D. (2009). Farmers’ mar-

kets and the local community: Bridging the formal and

informal economy. American Journal of Alternative

Agriculture, 10(03), 108–113.

Macias, T. (2008). Working toward a just, equitable, and local

food system: The social impact of community-based agri-

culture. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1086–1101.

Maher, M. (2001). On vino veritas? Clarifying the use of goe-

graphic references on American wine labels. California

Law Review, 89(6), 1881–1925.

Mather, A., Hill, G., & Nijink, M. (2006). Post-productivism

and rural land use: Cul de sac or challenge for theorization?

Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 441–455.

McCarthy, J. (2005). Rural geography: Multifunctional rural

geographies—Reactionary or radical? Progress in Human

Geography, 29(6), 773–782.

McMichael, P. (1999). Virtual capitalism and agri-food

restructuring. In D. Burch, J. Goss, & G. Lawrence (Eds.),

Restructuring global and regional agricultures (pp. 3–22).

Sydney: Ashgate.

Moore, D. (1993). Contesting terrain in Zimbabwe’s eastern

highlands: political ecology, ethnography, and peasant

resource struggles. Economic Geography, 69(4), 380–401.

Mung’ong’o, C. G. (2009). Political ecology: A synthesis and

search for relevance to today’s ecosystems conservation

and development. African Journal of Ecology, 47(s1),

192–197.

National Farmers’ Federation. (2010). Farm facts. Available:

http://www.nff.org.au/farm-facts.html [October 16, 2010].

Natter, W., & Zierhofer, W. (2002). Political ecology, territo-

riality and scale. GeoJournal, 58(4), 225–231.

Neales, S. (2012, 24–25 March). End of the familyfarm. The

Weekend Australian, pp. 15–16.

Niven, R., & Bardsley, D. (2012). Planned retreat as a man-

agement response to coastal risk: A case study from the

Fleurieu Peninsula, South Australia.Regional Environ-

mental Change, 6(1–2). doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0315-4.

Nygren, A., & Rikoon, S. (2008). Political ecology revisited:

Integration of politics and ecology does matter. Society and

Natural Resources, 21(9), 767–782.

OECD. (2001). Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical

framework. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2003). Multifunctionality: The policy implications.

Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2008). OECD country trends of environmental condi-

tions related to agriculture since 1990: Australia. Paris:

OECD.

Otte, A., Simmering, D., & Wolters, V. (2007). Biodiversity at

the landscape level: Recent concepts and perspectives for

multifunctional land use. Landscape Ecology, 22(5),

639–642.

Pelling, M. (1999). The political ecology of flood hazard in

urban Guyana. Geoforum, 30(3), 249–261.

PMSEIC. (2010). Australia and food security in a changing

world. Canberra: Australian Government.

Porten, K., Rissland, J., Tigges, A., Broll, S., Hopp, W., Lune-

mann, M., et al. (2006). A super-spreading ewe infects

hundreds with Q fever at a farmers’ market in Germany.

BMC Infectious Diseases, 6(1), 147.

Potter, C., & Tilzey, M. (2007). Agricultural multifunctionality,

environmental sustainability and the WTO: Resistance or

accommodation to the neoliberal project for agriculture?

Geoforum, 38(6), 1290–1303.

Powell, J. M. (1988). An historical geography of modern Aus-

tralia: The restive fringe. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Pritchard, B. (1999). Australia as the supermarket to Asia?

Governments, territory, and political economy in the

Australian agri-food system. Rural Sociology, 64(2),

284–301.

Robbins, P. (2004). Political ecology: A critical introduction.

Cornwall: Blackwell.

GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776 775

123

Robinson, G. (2004). Geographies of agriculture: Globalisa-

tion, restructuring and sustainability. Harlow: Pearson

Education Limited.

Robinson, J. M., & Hartenfeld, J. A. (2007). The farmers’

market book: Growing food, cultivating community.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Rodefeld, R., Flora, J., Voth, D., Fujimoto, I., & Converse, J.

(Eds.). (1978). Change in rural America: Causes, conse-

quences, and alternatives. Saint Louis: C.V. Mosby Co.

Schwarz, N., Groves, R., & Shuman, H. (1998). Survey meth-

ods. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The

handbook of social psychology (pp. 143–179). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Schwarzwellar, H. (1982). Part-time farming in Australia:

Research in progress. GeoJournal, 6(4), 381–382.

Sieber, S. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey

methods. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),

1335–1359.

Simsik, M. (2002). The political ecology of biodiversity con-

servation on the Malagasy Highlands. GeoJournal, 58(4),

233–242.

Skuras, D., & Vakrou, A. (2002). Consumers’ willingness to pay

for origin labelled wine: A Greek case study. British Food

Journal, 104(11), 898–912.

Smailes, P. J., & Hugo, G. J. (2003). The Gilbert Valley, South

Australia. In C. Cocklin & M. Alston (Eds.), Community

sustainability in rural Australia: A question of capital? (pp.

65–106). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research.

Smailes, P., & Newman, L. (Eds.). (1993). Longer-term pros-

pects for agriculture in the Central Adelaide Hills. Ade-

laide: Department of Geography, University of Adelaide.

Smithers, J., Lamarche, J., & Joseph, A. (2008). Unpacking the

terms of engagement with local food at the farmers’

market: Insights from Ontario. Journal of Rural Studies,

24(3), 337–350.

Stringer, R., & Umberger, W. (2008). Food miles, food chains

and food producers: Consumer choices in local markets.

Adelaide: University of Adelaide.

Thapa, R., & Murayama, Y. (2008). Land evaluation for peri-

urban agriculture using analytical hierarchical process and

geographic information system techniques: A case study of

Hanoi. Land Use Policy, 25(2), 225–239.

Umberger, W., Scott, E., & Stringer, R. (2008). Australian

consumers’ concerns and preferences for food policy

alternatives. Paper presented at the American Agricultural

Economics Association Annual Meeting, Orlando.

USDA. (2010). Farmers markets and local food marketing.

Available: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetch

TemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&navID=Wholesa

leandFarmersMarkets&leftNav=WholesaleandFarmersMa

rkets&page=WFMFarmersMarketGrowth&description=

Farmers%20Market%20Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt [Sep-

tember 7, 2010].

Uvin, P. (1996). Tragedy in Rwanda: The political ecology of

conflict. Environment, 38(3), 6–15.

Voyce, M. (2007). Property and the governance of the family

farm in rural Australia. Journal of Sociology, 43(2),

131–150.

Wilson, G. (2001). From productivism to post-productivism …and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and

mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(1), 77–102.

Wilson, G. (2004). The Australian landcare movement:

Towards post-productivist rural governance? Journal of

Rural Studies, 20(4), 461–484.

776 GeoJournal (2013) 78:759–776

123