Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Moving beyond direct marketing with new mediated models: evolution of or departure from alternative food networks?

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For some time we have seen a shift away from direct marketing, a core feature and dominant exchange form in the alternative food world, towards a greater role for intermediation. Yet, we still need to better understand to what extent and in what ways new mediated Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) represent an evolution of or departure from core tenets of alternative food systems. This paper focuses on AFNs with new intermediaries that connect small-scale producers with urban end-consumers. Based on original research in Frankfurt, Berlin, and Calgary, we analyze three different types of mediated AFNs: one driven by consumers, one by an external intermediary, and one by producers. Our cases include non-capitalist, capitalist, and alternative capitalist economic practices as identified by Gibson-Graham. Conceptually, we base our analysis on the three-pillar-model of alternative agri-food systems, which we further refine. Besides comparing our cases with each other, for heuristic purposes we also compare them with an ideal-type model that adheres to core tenets of alterity in all three pillars. Our empirical analysis shows that intermediary organizations can bring important benefits and that mediated AFNs are in principle able to hold true to the core tenets of alternative agri-food systems. However, it is very important to develop models of democratic control and ownership as well as economic arrangements in which created value is fairly shared. Only then can the potentials of new mediated models be realized while the pitfalls of the conventional systems they seek to replace be avoided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Both trends are facilitated and supported by the ubiquity and availability of digital and internet tools. Space does not permit to further explore here, but see, for example, Carolan (2017, 2020) and Rotz et al. (2019).

  2. Generally speaking, AFNs seek to provide a spatial, economic, environmental, and social alternative to conventional food chains. They are usually based on Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs), which are food chains involving fewer actors, more direct connections between producers and consumers, and shorter geographical distance between locales of production and consumption. The shortest option for such food chains is direct marketing.

  3. Mount and Smither (2014, p. 117), for example, in their conclusions present the question of “whether the conventionalization seen in intermediary-led chains is an inevitable outcome in alternative markets (…), or if the cooperative (…) practices common to small-scale, direct marketing groups can be replicated” as the main further research need.

  4. The German sociologist Max Weber conceived the notion of ‘ideal-types’ as methodological tools to help understand and analyze social reality: “(…) we can make the characteristic features of [the relationship between empirical data and an abstract construct] pragmatically clear and understandable by reference to an ideal-type. This procedure can be indispensable for heuristic as well as expository purposes. The ideal typical concept (…) is not a description of reality (…) In its conceptual purity, this mental construct cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality. It is a utopia. (…) research faces the task of determining in each individual case, the extent to which this ideal-construction approximates to or diverges from reality (…)” (Weber 1949 [1905], p. 90).

  5. The source for this definition is a report prepared for ‘urgenci—The International Network for Community Supported Agriculture’ (a grassroots network of European CSAs) that analyzed the diverse forms of CSAs emerging across Europe in a collaborative, citizen-led, and self-managed manner.

  6. There are, however, solidarity models in which members pay according to their abilities (personal observation in Germany and e.g., Grasseni 2018 for Boston, MA).

  7. Those expectations can’t possibly be met from the supply side, i.e., the CSA farmer. Instead of following an unattainable supermarket ideal through even more customization of CSA shares for example, Galt et al. (2019) therefore suggest to ‘cultivate CSA people’ through communication and education in a collective effort of producers and consumers (see also DeLind 1999). A recent large quantitative study on perception by non-participants of CSA in Germany also emphasizes education on transformative benefits of the model, integration into everyday life, as well as connecting it to a pro-environmental and pro-social image (rather than just advertising fresh and regional food as this can be obtained elsewhere); and highlights the significance of social peer-group influence and a raised public profile (Diekmann and Theuvsen 2019).

  8. More internationally comparative empirical research would be needed to confirm this initial assessment which is based on information provided in European CSA Research Group (2016).

  9. We refer to the German model only. Note that beyond media coverage and some entries in Wikipedia, academic publications on Marktschwärmer are sparse and, apart from brief mentions in other studies, limited to two student theses (Bajer 2017; Roth 2018) and a working paper (Scherf and Kampffmeyer 2020).

  10. In the UK, where the model was called Food Assembly, it only operated from 2014 to 2018.

  11. Its growth strategy has been relatively successful in Germany where numbers of Schwärmereien doubled from 2017 to 2018, and has in early 2020 reached 130 (see https://marktschwaermer.de/de, last accessed 2021/03/24).

  12. See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ruche_qui_dit_oui_!, last accessed 2021/03/24.

  13. See https://rue89bordeaux.com/2014/12/ruche-dit-oui-amap-paysans-circuit-court/, last accessed 2021/03/24.

  14. YYC refers to the Calgary airport acronym and is commonly used to replace the city’s name.

  15. See https://yycgrowers.com/movement/, last accessed 2021/03/24.

  16. Although CSAs and box-schemes are distinct, they are sometimes conflated in practice. Box schemes home deliver fresh produce and other products, source from different producers, potentially also internationally. Customers can usually order specific items. While box schemes also promote ‘good’ food, they do not share the economic principles of CSAs (see section “Integrating the three pillars: Community Supported Agriculture CSA”).

  17. More empirical research is needed to determine in what way those goals and motivations conflict with each other and if and how they can be reconciled (see Kirkwood and Walton 2014 for an example).

Abbreviations

AFN:

Alternative Food Networks

AOTM:

Agriculture of the Middle

CSA:

Community Supported Agriculture

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

SFSC:

Short Food Supply Chain

VBSC:

Value Based Supply Chain

References

  • Adam, K.L. 2006. Community Supported Agriculture. ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. https://ruralinnovationinstitute.yolasite.com/resources/CSA_ATTRA1.pdf. Retrieved 24 Mar 2021.

  • Akram-Lodhi, A.H. early view. 2020. Contemporary pathogens and the capitalist world food system. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1834361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argüelles, L., I. Anguelovski, and F. Sekulova. 2018. How to survive: Artificial quality food schemes and new forms of rule for farmers in direct marketing strategies. Journal of Rural Studies 62: 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auchard, E. 2015. France’s Food Assembly benefits from European tech funding rush. Reuters. 16 June. https://www.reuters.com/article/food-internet/frances-food-assembly-benefits-from-european-tech-funding-rush-idUSL5N0Z223J20150616.

  • Bajer, J. 2017. Food Glorious Food: An investigation into the processes of learning, network building and articulation of expectations at The Food Assembly in London, UK. MA Thesis, Lund University, Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science, Lund. https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8915006.

  • Barnett, C., P. Cloke, N. Clarke, and A. Malpass. 2010. Globalizing responsibility: The political rationalities of ethical consumption. Oxford: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beckie, M., and E. Bacon. 2019. Catalyzing change in local food system governance in Calgary, Alberta: The role of YYC growers and distributors cooperative. In Civil Society and Social Movements in Food System Governance, ed. P. Andrée, J.K. Clark, C. Levkoe, and K. Lowitt, 81–100. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bernzen, A. 2014. Reassessing supplier reputation in international trade coordination: A German and Australian perspective of global organic food networks. Die Erde 145 (3): 162–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blay-Palmer, A., R. Carey, E. Valette, and M.R. Sanderson. 2020. Post COVID 19 and food pathways to sustainable transformation. Agriculture and Human Values 35: 517–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blay-Palmer, A., K. Landman, I. Knezevic, and R. Hayhurst. 2013. Constructing resilient, transformative communities through sustainable “food hubs”. Local Environment 18 (5): 521–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, J.D., and C.C. Hinrichs. 2011a. Moving local food through conventional food system infrastructure: Value chain framework comparisons and insights. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 26 (1): 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, J.D., and C.C. Hinrichs. 2011b. Informal and formal mechanisms of coordination in hybrid food value chains. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 1 (4): 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddenberg, M., M.H. Frauenlob, L. Gunkel, S. Schmitz, F. Vaessen, and B. Blättel-Mink. 2017. Solidarische Landwirtschaft als innovative Praxis—Potenziale für einen sozial-ökologischen Wandel. In Soziale Innovationen für nachhaltigen Konsum: Wissenschaftliche Perspektiven, Strategien der Förderung und gelebte Praxis, ed. M. Jaeger-Erben, J. Rückert-John, and M. Schäfer, 125–148. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, J., E. Power, M. Szabo, and J. Gingras. 2017. Still hungry for a feminist food studies. In Critical Perspectives in Food Studies, ed. M. Koç, J. Sumner, and A. Winson, 81–94. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekken, C.A., C. Dickson, H.H. Peterson, G. Feenstra, M. Ostrom, K. Tanaka, and G. Engelskirchen. 2019. Economic impact of Values-Based Supply Chain participation on small and midsize produce farms. Journal of Food Distribution Research 50 (2): 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brislen, L. 2018. Meeting in the middle: Scaling-up and scaling-over in alternative food networks. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 40 (2): 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A.B., and R.L. Som Castellano. 2017. Labor and alternative food networks: Challenges for farmers and consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 32 (5): 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, D., C. Getz, and J. Guthman. 1997. From farm to table: The organic vegetable commodity chain of Northern California. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2017. Agro-digital governance and life Itself: Food politics at the intersection of code and affect. Sociologia Ruralis 57 (S1): 816–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2020. Automated agrifood futures: Robotics, labor and the distributive politics of digital agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies 47 (1): 184–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cembalo, L., G. Migliore, and G. Schifani. 2011. Sustainability and new models of consumption: The Solidarity Purchasing Groups in Sicily. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (1): 281–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiffoleau, Y., S. Millet-Amrani, A. Rossi, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, and P.L. Merino. 2019. The participatory construction of new economic models in short food supply chains. Journal of Rural Studies 68 (May): 182–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, J., and W.G. Moseley. 2020. This food crisis is different: COVID-19 and the fragility of the neoliberal food security order. The Journal of Peasant Studies 47 (7): 1393–1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, J., and G. Scrinis. 2017. Big food, nutritionism, and corporate power. Globalizations 14 (4): 578–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J.K., K. Lowitt, C.Z. Levkoe, and P. Andrée. 2021. The power to convene: Making sense of the power of food movement organizations in governance processes in the Global North. Agriculture and Human Values 38: 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, N. 2008. From ethical consumerism to political consumption. Geography Compass 2 (6): 1870–1884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cone, C.A., and A. Kakaliouras. 1995. Community supported agriculture: Building moral community or an alternative consumer choice. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 15 (51–52): 28–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, D.S., A. Nowak, J. Berkenkamp, G.W. Feenstra, J. Van Soelen Kim, T. Liquori, and M.W. Hamm. 2011. Value chains for sustainable procurement in large school districts: Fostering partnerships. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 1 (4): 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLind, L.B. 1999. Close encounters with a CSA: The reflections of a bruised and somewhat wiser anthropologist. Agriculture and Human Values 16 (1): 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, M., and L. Theuvsen. 2019. Non-participants interest in CSA: Insights from Germany. Journal of Rural Studies 69: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitri, C., and K. Gardner. 2019. Farmer use of intermediated market channels: A review. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 34 (3): 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J., and S. Pascucci. 2017. Mapping the organisational forms of networks of Alternative Food Networks: Implications for transition. Sociologia Ruralis 57 (3): 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European CSA Research Group. 2016. Overview of Community Supported Agriculture in Europe. http://urgenci.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Overview-of-Community-Supported-Agriculture-in-Europe-F.pdf. Retrieved 30 November 2018.

  • Feagan, R. 2008. Direct marketing: Towards sustainable local food systems? (guest editorial). Local Environment 13 (3): 161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feagan, R., and A. Henderson. 2009. Devon Acres CSA: Local struggles in a global food system. Agriculture and Human Values 26 (3): 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra, G., P. Allen, S. Hardesty, J. Ohmart, and J. Perez. 2011. Using a supply chain analysis to assess the sustainability of farm-to-institution programs. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 1 (4): 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flora, C.B., and C. Bregendahl. 2012. Collaborative community-supported agriculture: Balancing community capitals for producers and consumers. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food 19 (3): 329–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follett, J. 2009. Choosing a food future: Differentiating among alternative food options. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 22 (1): 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonte, M. 2013. Food consumption as social practice: Solidarity purchasing groups in Rome, Italy. Journal of Rural Studies 32: 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forcum, M. 2014. From silicon valley to the kitchen table: Innovative online agriculture & food start-ups and the Law. Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law 7: 327–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H. 2007. Scaling up: Bringing public institutions and food service corporations into the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario. Agriculture and Human Values 24 (3): 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galt, R.E., K. Bradley, L.O. Christensen, and K. Munden-Dixon. 2019. The (un)making of “CSA people”: Member retention and the customization paradox in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in California. Journal of Rural Studies 65: 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2006a. The end of capitalism as we knew it: A feminist critique of political economy. (Repr. with a new introd.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2006b. A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2008. Diverse economies: Performative practices for ‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography 32 (5): 613–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J.K., J. Cameron, and S. Healy. 2013. Take back the economy: An ethical guide for transforming our communities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D. 2003. The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: Reflections and agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., and M. Goodman. 2007. Localism, livelihoods and the ‘Post-Organic’: Changing perspectives on alternative food networks in the United States. In Alternative food geographies: Representation and practice, ed. D. Maye, L. Holloway, and M. Kneafsey, 23–28. Linacre, JH: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., and M. Goodman. 2009. Food networks, alternative. In International encyclopedia of human geography, ed. R. Kitchin and N. Thrift, 208–220. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grasseni, C. 2018. Grassroots responsible innovation initiatives in short food supply chains. In Localizing global food: Short food supply chains as responses to agri-food system challenges, ed. S. Skordili and A. Kalfagianni, 41–54. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. 2009. Capitalism and its discontents: Back-to-the-Lander and freegan foodways in rural Oregon. Food and Foodways 17 (2): 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2004a. Agrarian dreams. The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2004b. The trouble with ‘Organic Lite’ in California: A rejoinder to the ‘Conventionalisation’ debate. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (3): 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, K.L., J. Garner, L.M. Connor, S.B. Jilcott Pitts, J. McGuirt, R. Harris, J. Kolodinsky, et al. 2019. Fruit and vegetable preferences and practices may hinder participation in Community-Supported Agriculture among low-income rural families. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 51 (1): 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, S., G. Feenstra, D. Visher, T. Lerman, D. Thilmany-McFadden, A. Bauman, T. Gillpatrick, and G.N. Rainbolt. 2014. Values-Based Supply Chains: Supporting regional food and farms. Economic Development Quarterly 28 (1): 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, J., and D. Buck. 2012. Doing community supported agriculture: Tactile space, affect and effects of membership. Geoforum 43 (2): 332–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, E., and R. Van En. 2007. Sharing the harvest: A citizen’s guide to Community Supported Agriculture. Hartford: Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, C.C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16 (3): 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks, T., O. McCarthy, C. Power, and Á. Macken-Walsh. 2017. A co-operative business approach in a values-based supply chain: A case study of a beef co-operative. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 5 (2): 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilbery, B., and D. Maye. 2005. Alternative (Shorter) Food Supply Chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish-English borders. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 37 (5): 823–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarosz, L. 2008. The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (3): 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalfagianni, A., and S. Skordili. 2018. Localizing global food: Short Food Supply Chains as responses to agri-food system challenges. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kato, Y. 2013. Not just the price of food: Challenges of an urban agriculture organization in engaging local residents. Sociological Inquiry 83 (3): 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, J., and S. Walton. 2014. How green is green? Ecopreneurs balancing environmental concerns and business goals. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 21 (1): 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. 2015. Values-based food procurement in hospitals: The role of health care group purchasing organizations. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (4): 635–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneafsey, M., R. Cox, L. Holloway, E. Dowler, L. Venn, and H. Tuomainen. 2008. Reconnecting consumers, producers, and food: Exploring alternatives. Oxford: Berg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kondoh, K. 2015. The alternative food movement in Japan: Challenges, limits, and resilience of the teikei system. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (1): 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, K.B. 2010. The changing face of Community Supported Agriculture. Culture & Agriculture 32 (1): 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. 2000. Shelter from the storm? Geographies of regard in the worlds of horticultural consumption and production. Geoforum 31 (2): 137–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macias, T. 2008. Working toward a just, equitable, and local food system: The social impact of community-based agriculture. Social Science Quarterly 89 (5): 1086–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makdeche, K. 2015. La Ruche qui dit oui: Le business lucratif du “consommer local”. France Télévisions. 2015/07/26. https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/emploi/metiers/agriculture/crise-des-eleveurs/la-ruche-qui-dit-oui-le-business-lucratif-du-consommer-local_1013153.html.

  • Maye, D., L. Holloway, and M. Kneafsey, eds. 2007. Alternative food geographies: Representation and practice. Emerald: Bingley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mincyte, D., and K. Dobernig. 2016. Urban farming in the North American metropolis: Rethinking work and distance in alternative food networks. Environment and Planning A 48 (9): 1767–1786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moragues-Faus, A. 2020. Distributive food systems to build just and liveable futures. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 583–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morice, H. 2014. La ruche qui dit oui … à qui? Une start up qui menace la petite paysannerie bio et les circuits courts! Cyberacteurs. Retrived 24 March 2021 from https://www.cyberacteurs.org/blog/?p=1550.

  • Mount, P. 2012. Growing local food: Scale and local food systems governance. Agriculture and Human Values 29 (1): 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mount, P., and J. Smither. 2014. The conventionalization of Local Food: Farm reflections on local, alternative beef marketing groups. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 4 (3): 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nost, E. 2014. Scaling-up local foods: Commodity practice in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). Journal of Rural Studies 34: 152–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Österberg, P., and J. Nilsson. 2009. Members’ perception of their participation in the governance of cooperatives: The key to trust and commitment in agricultural cooperatives. Agribusiness 25 (2): 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrott, N., N. Wilson, and J. Murdoch. 2002. Spatializing quality: Regional protection and the alternative geography of food. European Urban and Regional Studies 9 (3): 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascucci, S., D. Dentoni, A. Lombardi, and L. Cembalo. 2016. Sharing values or sharing costs? Understanding consumer participation in alternative food networks. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 78: 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillipov, M., and K. Kirkwood, eds. 2019. Alternative food politics. From the margins to the mainstream. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renting, H., T.K. Marsden, and J. Banks. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35 (3): 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosol, M. 2018a. Alternative Ernährungsnetzwerke als Alternative Ökonomien. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 62 (3–4): 174–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosol, M. 2018b. Politics of urban gardening. In The Routledge handbook on spaces of urban politics, ed. K. Ward, A.E.G. Jonas, B. Miller, and D. Wilson, 134–145. New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosol, M. 2020. On the significance of alternative economic practices: Reconceptualizing alterity in alternative food networks. Economic Geography 96 (1): 52–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosol, M., and P. Schweizer. 2012. Ortoloco Zurich: Urban agriculture as an economy of solidarity. City 16 (6): 713–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, E. 2018. Die Usability und das Sortiment deutscher Marktschwärmereien im Vergleich mit E-Malls für regionale Direktvermarktungsprodukte. BA Thesis, Universität Halle, Fachbereich Landwirtschaft, Ökotrophologie und Landschaftsentwicklung. https://doi.org/10.25673/5549.

  • Rotz, S., E. Duncan, M. Small, J. Botschner, R. Dara, I. Mosby, M. Reed, and E.D.G. Fraser. 2019. The politics of digital agricultural technologies: A preliminary review. Sociologia Ruralis 59 (2): 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherf, C.-S., and N. Kampffmeyer. 2020. Ernährung 4.0: Wie nachhaltig sind digitale Plattformen zum Erwerb von Lebensmitteln?. Öko-Institut e.V. Freiburg. Retreived 24 March 2021 from https://www.oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/regGEMdigital-AP2-Kurzpapier-Ernaehrung.pdf.

  • Schmutz, U., M. Kneafsey, C. Sarrouy Kay, A. Doernberg, and I. Zasada. 2018. Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains: Examples from London, UK. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 33 (6): 518–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, A.E., T. Garnett, and J. Lorimer. 2019. Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteins. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 2 (1): 47–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Som Castellano, R.L. 2016. Alternative Food Networks and the labor of food provisioning: A third shift? Rural Sociology 81 (3): 445–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, G.W., and R. Pirog. 2008. Values-based supply chains: Strategies for agrifood enterprises of the middle. In Food and the mid-level farm: Renewing an agriculture of the middle, ed. S.S. Batie, E. Brady, F.H. Buttel, P. Carstensen, K.A. Dahlberg, M. Duffy, T.W. Gray, S. Grow, A. Guptill, and W. Heffernan, 119–143. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suryanata, K., M. Mostafanezhad, and N. Milne early view. 2020. Becoming a new farmer: Agrarianism and the contradictions of diverse economies. Rural Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewari, M., S. Kelmenson, A. Guinn, G. Cumming, and R. Colloredo-Mansfeld. 2018. Mission-driven intermediaries as anchors of the middle ground in the American food system: Evidence from Warrenton, NC. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 40 (2): 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilzey, M. 2018. Political ecology, food regimes, and food sovereignty. Crisis, resistance, and resilience. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tregear, A. 2011. Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: Critical reflections and a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 27 (4): 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivero-Pol, J.L. 2017. The idea of food as commons or commodity in academia. A systematic review of English scholarly texts. Journal of Rural Studies 53: 182–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivero-Pol, J.L., T. Ferrando, O. De Schutter, and U. Mattei, eds. 2019. Routledge handbook of food as a commons. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D.C.H., B. Ilbery, and D. Maye. 2005. Making reconnections in agro-food geography: Alternative systems of food provision. Progress in Human Geography 29 (1): 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1949 [1905]. “Objectivity” in social science and social policy. In Max Weber on the methodology of the social sciences, eds. E. Shils, and H.A. Finch, 49–112. Clencoe, IL: The Free Press.

  • Woods, T., M. Ernst, and D. Tropp. 2017. Community Supported Agriculture. New models for changing markets. Unitied States Department of Agriculture USDA. Agricultural Marketing Service. Retrieved 24 March 2021 from https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/CSANewModelsforChangingMarketsb.pdf.

  • Zerbe, N. 2019. Food as commodity. In Routledge handbook of food as a commons, ed. J.L. Vivero-Pol, T. Ferrando, O. De Schutter, and U. Mattei, 155–170. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We are indebted to our interviewees who shared their ideas and experiences with us. We are grateful to Kye Kocher, Lauren Kepkiewicz, Charlie Spring, Abby Landon, and the Calgary Institute for the Humanities Food Studies Interdisciplinary Working Group members for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Finally, we thank the five anonymous reviewers; their thoughtful comments greatly strengthened the paper. This research was supported through the Canada Research Chair program of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) as well as through the Mitacs Globalink Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Marit Rosol & Ricardo Barbosa Jr.

Authors
  1. Marit Rosol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricardo Barbosa Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marit Rosol.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosol, M., Barbosa, R. Moving beyond direct marketing with new mediated models: evolution of or departure from alternative food networks?. Agric Hum Values 38, 1021–1039 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10210-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10210-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation