Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:59:24.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains: examples from London, UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Ulrich Schmutz ,
Moya Kneafsey ,
Carla Sarrouy Kay ,
Alexandra Doernberg  and
Ingo Zasada
Ulrich Schmutz*
Affiliation:
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, UK
Moya Kneafsey
Affiliation:
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, UK
Carla Sarrouy Kay
Affiliation:
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, UK
Alexandra Doernberg
Affiliation:
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany
Ingo Zasada
Affiliation:
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greater London has a vibrant food scene comprising of many different types of urban and peri-urban ‘short food supply chains’ (SFSCs). This paper reports on exploratory research, which used examples of SFSCs from London to build a more detailed understanding of different types of urban SFSC and their relative performance compared to each other. To do this, we undertook a participatory sustainability impact assessment (SIA) in which local food system stakeholders were asked to rank the perceived impacts of five different urban and peri-urban SFSCs compared with the current ‘mainstream’ food supply system (defined as supermarkets retailing mass-produced, standardized food products). The SFSCs ranked were: (1) urban gardening (self-supply), (2) urban gardening (commercial), (3) community supported agriculture (CSA), (4) direct sale (on-farm) and (5) direct sale (off-farm). Results from the SIA showed that CSAs were regarded as delivering the highest overall social, economic and environmental benefits, followed by urban gardening (commercial), urban gardening (self-supply) and direct sales (off-farm). The lowest overall rating was for the supply chain direct sales (on-farm). All five SFSCs were ranked highest on the social aspects of sustainability. Following the participatory SIA of perceived sustainability, we next developed a questionnaire in order to test the feasibility of measuring the specific (rather than ‘perceived’) impacts of an urban SFSC. We applied the test at a community-led local food market in South London, where we conducted face-to-face interviews with all market stallholders (18 respondents) and a random sample of consumers (51 respondents). Results from the community-led market were similar to those acquired at the SIA workshop, with greater agreement about the social benefits of the market, compared with economic and environmental impacts. The results also suggest that producers underestimated consumers’ willingness to share the risks that the producers face and we identify this as an important aspect for future research. The paper concludes with reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the SIA methodology.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 33 , Special Issue 6: Themed Content: Critical Foodscapes , December 2018 , pp. 518 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aubry, C. and Kebir, L. 2013. Shortening food supply chains: a means for maintaining agriculture close to urban areas? The case of the French Metropolitan Area of Paris. Food Policy 41:85–93.Google Scholar
Brunori, G., Galli, F., Barjolle, D., van Broekhuizen, R., Colombo, L., Rougoor, C., Giampietro, M., Kirwan, J., Lang, T., Mathijs, E., Maye, D., De Roest, K., Schwarz, J., Schmitt, E., Smith, J., Stojanovic, Z., Tisenkopfs, T., and Touz, J-M 2016. Are local food chains more sustainable than global food chains? Considerations for assessment. Sustainability 8:449. doi: 10.3390/su8050449.Google Scholar
Chiffoleau, Y., Millet-Amrani, S., and Canard, A. 2016. From short food supply chains to sustainable agriculture in urban food systems: food democracy as a vector of transition. Agriculture 6(4):57. doi: 10.3390/agriculture6040057.Google Scholar
Coley, D., Winter, M., and Howard, M. 2014. National and international food distribution: Do food miles really matter? In B.K. Tiwari, T. Norton and N.M. Holden (eds). Sustainable Food Processing. Oxford, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 499–520.Google Scholar
Deakin, M., Diamantini, D., and Borrelli, N. 2015. The Governance of City Food Systems. Milan: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
Dimitri, C., Oberholtzer, L., and Pressman, A. 2016. Urban agriculture: connecting producers with consumers. British Food Journal 118:603–617.Google Scholar
Doernberg, A., Zasada, I., Bruszewska, K., Skoczowski, B., and Piorr, A. 2016. Potentials and limitations of regional organic food supply: a qualitative analysis of two food chain types in the Berlin metropolitan region. Sustainability 8:1125.Google Scholar
EIP-AGRI 2015. Innovative short food supply chain management. European Innovation Partnership. Final report, 80 pages, EC, Brussels. Belgium, https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/publications/eip-agri-focus-group-innovative-short-food-supply.Google Scholar
European Union 2016. Handbook for trade sustainability impact assessment 2nd edition, ISBN 978-92-79-52793-7. doi: 10.2781/999660.Google Scholar
FAO 2013. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems. Guidelines Version 3.0, Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization.Google Scholar
Fieldhouse, P. 1996. Community shared agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 13(3):43–47.Google Scholar
Florin, M. and Renting, H. 2015. Building sustainable food systems beyond the rural–urban divide. Urban Agriculture Magazine 30:6–8.Google Scholar
Galt, R.E. 2013. The moral economy is a double-edged sword: explaining farmers’ earnings and self-exploitation in community-supported agriculture. Economic Geography 89(4):341–365.Google Scholar
Garden Organic 2014. Growing for health and happiness. The health, social and environmental impacts of Master Gardeners. Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry, United Kingdom. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4761.8326.Google Scholar
Kneafsey, M., Cox, R., Holloway, L., Dowler, E., Venn, L., and Tuomainen, H. 2008. Reconnecting Consumers, Producers and Food: Exploring Alternatives. Oxford, UK: Berg.Google Scholar
Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Schmutz, U., Balázs, B., Trenchard, L., Eyden-Wood, T., Bos, E., Sutton, G., and Blackett, M. 2013. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU: A State of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Krikser, T., Piorr, A., Berges, R., and Opitz, I. 2016. Urban agriculture oriented towards self-supply, social and commercial purpose: a typology. Land 5:28.Google Scholar
Lambeth Food Partnership 2013. ‘Who Feeds Lambeth? Lambeth Food Strategy Launch Event Document. London, UK. http://www.lambethfoodpartnership.org.uk.Google Scholar
Lamine, C. 2005. Settling shared uncertainties: local partnerships between producers and consumers. Sociologia Ruralis 45(4):324–345.Google Scholar
Marsden, T., Banks, J., and Bristow, G. 2000. Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40(4):424–438.Google Scholar
Martinez, S.W. 2016. Policies supporting local food in the United States. Agriculture 6(3):43. doi: 10.3390/agriculture6030043.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, M.P.M., Hardaker, J.B., Huirne, R.B.M., and Dijkhuizen, A.A. 2001. Sharing risks in agriculture; principles and empirical results. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 49(4):343–356.Google Scholar
Morgan, K. 2014. The politics of the public plate: school food and sustainability. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 21:253–260.Google Scholar
Mundler, P. and Rumpus, L. 2012. The energy efficiency of local food systems: a comparison between different modes of distribution. Food Policy 37:609–615.Google Scholar
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., and Olsson, L. 2007. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60(3):498–508.Google Scholar
OECD 2010. Guidance on sustainability impact assessment. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth.Google Scholar
Opitz, I., Berges, R., Piorr, A., and Krikser, T. 2016. Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. Agriculture and Human Values 33:341–358.Google Scholar
Renting, H., Shermer, M., and Rossi, A. 2012. Civic food networks. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 19(3):289–307.Google Scholar
Schmutz, U., Courtney, P., and Bos, E. 2014. The Social Return on Investment (SROI) of the Master Gardener Programme. Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry, United Kingdom, https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/8e9ad7d9-9a62-4eb0-93bb-f4e3ab52d271/1/bos4comb.pdf. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2926.8244.Google Scholar
Soil Association 2017. The Organic Market Report 2017. Annual Report. Bristol, UK: Soil Association. http://www.soilassociation.org.Google Scholar
Sonnino, R. 2016. The new geography of food security: exploring the potential of urban food strategies. The Geographical Journal 182:190–200.Google Scholar
SROI Network—Social Value UK 2012. A guide to Social Return on Investment. Written by Jeremy Nicholls, Eilis Lawlor, Eva Neitzert and Tim Goodspeed, and edited by Sally Cupitt, SROI Network, Liverpool, UK. http://socialvalueuk.org,Google Scholar
Tornaghi, C. 2014. The urban metabolism of public space and the creation of food commons. COST Action ‘Urban Agriculture Europe’. STSM—End of mission report. University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wascher, D., Kneafsey, M., Pintar, M., and Piorr, A. 2015. Food Planning and Innovation for Sustainable Metropolitan Regions. Synthesis Report, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wibbelmann, M., Schmutz, U., Wright, J., Udall, D., Rayns, F., Kneafsey, M., Trenchard, L., Bennett, J., and Lennartsson, M. 2013. Mainstreaming Agroecology: Implications for Global Food and Farming Systems. Centre for Agroecology and Food Security Discussion Paper. Coventry: Centre for Agroecology and Food Security. ISBN: 978-1-84600-0454.Google Scholar
Wiskerke, J. 2009. On places lost and places regained: reflections on the alternative food geography and sustainable regional development. International Planning Studies 14:369–387.Google Scholar
Yakovleva, N., Sarkis, J., and Sloan, T.W. 2010. Sustainability indicators for the food supply chain. In Sonesson, U., Berlin, J. and Ziegler, F. (eds). Environmental Assessment and Management in the Food Industry: Life Cycle Assessment and Related Approaches. London, UK: Woodhead Publishing, pp. 297–329.Google Scholar
Zasada, I. 2011. Multifunctional peri-urban areas—a review of societal demands and agricultural provision of goods and services. Land Use Policy 28:639–648.Google Scholar
Zasada, I., Doernberg, A., Piorr, A., Pintar, M., Glavan, M., Schmutz, U., Kneafsey, M., Bos, E., Venn, L., Mbatia, T., Simiyu, R., Owour, S., Asselt, E.V., Wascher, D., and Sali, G. 2014. Metropolitan Footprint Analysis and Sustainability Impacts Assessment of SFC Scenarios. FOODMETRES Report 5.1. http://www.foodmetres.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/D5.1-Report_SIA_update_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Zasada, I., Schmutz, U., Wascher, D., Kneafsey, M., Corsi, S., Mazzocchi, C., Monaco, F., Boyce, P., Doernberg, A., Sali, G., and Piorr, A. 2017. Food beyond the city—Analysing foodsheds and self-sufficiency for different food system scenarios in European metropolitan regions. City, Culture and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.06.002Google Scholar