Introduction

Industrial food systems are a large feature of the twenty-first century and have significant influence upon the environment and society (Foster 1999; Holt-Giménez 2017; Holt-Giménez and Shattuck 2011; Pepin et al. 2021). While less than half of the world’s food is produced within these industrial food systems and their long supply chains, they significantly impact the resilience of ecological, economic, and social systems, largely in degrading ways (FAO 2018; FAO et al. 2017; Holt-Giménez 2017; Kreier 2022; Levidow et al. 2021; Li et al. 2022; Martens et al. 2022; Rover et al. 2020). In response to this degradation, food sovereignty and food justice movements strongly advocate for societal transitions to ecologically, socially, economically, and predominantly local, sustainable food systems (Desmarais and Nicholson 2013; Holt-Giménez 2017; La Via Campesina 2021; Rose 2013). Short food supply chains (SFSCs), as a “pillar of food sovereignty” (Paciarotti and Torregiani 2021, p. 428), are considered essential for societal transitions to sustainable food systems and improving the social-ecological resilience of communities (Folke et al. 2016; Levkoe et al. 2018). With the growth of SFSCs globally, local farmers, agricultural workers, and fisher peoples, hereby named local food producers or producers, are integral to these societal transitions, particularly their experiences, knowledges, and contributions (Mundler et al. 2020; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). Despite this, local food producers are often misunderstood and undervalued for their contributions to food systems and as stewards of the land, with their knowledges and experiences ignored or inaccurately reflected in food and agricultural research, decision-making, policy, regulation, and planning (Goulet 2013). Driven by the need to better understand and value these experiences, knowledges and contributions, this research systematically investigates peer-reviewed literature surrounding the values, motivations, and concerns of local food producers’ as key elements of their experiences within SFSCs. This is achieved by asking two research questions: 1) How can the values, motivations, and concerns of producers’ within SFSCs identified in research inform societal transitions to sustainable food systems? and 2) How do the values, motivations, and concerns of producers within SFSCs identified in research contribute to social-ecological resilience? This systematic review differs from related reviews, for example Bayir et al., (2022), Paciarotti and Torregiani, (2021), Vargas et al., (2021) and Petruzzelli et al., (2023), as each analyzes local food producers in the broader context as a node within SFSCs systems alongside processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers. Whilst these reviews have important contributions in describing SFSCs as interconnected systems and each nodes’ relationship along supply-chains, this review is significant for its focused and deep investigation into the experiences of local food producers, specifically their values, motivations, and concerns. Furthermore, this research privileges the voices of local food producers by interpreting societal transitions and social-ecological resilience through their lens (Given 2008; Schoolman et al. 2021). By doing this, the authors contribute to the just transitions movement by identifying key factors that can induce societal transitions that are fair and just for local food producers (Bui et al. 2021; Ciplet 2022; Isgren and Ness 2017).

Conceptual contexts

Short food supply chains (SFSCs) are theorized and demonstrated to have numerous ecological, social, and economic benefits (Jarzebowski et al. 2020; Paciarotti and Torregiani 2021; SKIN 2020). SFSCs are defined by the European Union, (2013) as “a supply chain involving a limited number of economic operators, committed to cooperation, local economic development, and maintaining close geographical and social relations between food producers, processors and consumers”. This definition is aligned with views demonstrated across a range of research (see for example, Benedek et al. 2018; Bertalan et al. 2019; DeMartini et al. 2017; Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021; Jarzebowski, et al. 2020; Paciarotti and Torregiani 2021). SFSCs challenge and operate within dominant economic, political, and power structures whilst often possessing alternative social and economic arrangements not based solely, or at all, on profit maximization (Brinkley 2017; Charatsari et al. 2020; Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021; Morel et al. 2018; Reina-Usuga et al. 2020; Zoll et al. 2020).

For local food producers, who form the focus of this review, these supply chains also provide improved opportunities and livelihoods. For example, direct relationships build important social connections, collective action, solidarity, shared goals, and mutual trust within communities (Reina-Usuga et al. 2020; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020; Vitterso et al. 2019). Furthermore, opportunities to improve incomes are generated through more decentralized and democratic food governance where producers are more valued for their work and hold greater decision-making power (Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021; Jarzebowski et al. 2020; Morel et al. 2017; 2018; Reina-Usuga et al. 2020). Distribution channels within SFSCs include in-person and online direct marketing, box schemes, farmer’s markets, food cooperatives, food hubs, Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA), and public procurement contracts, among others (Brinkley 2017; De Koning et al. 2016; Rosol and Barbosa 2021). For-profit enterprises are the most traditional and widely used business models (Fortier 2014; Orchard 2018). Additionally, not-for-profits and social enterprises are increasingly popular models as they as driven explicitly by environmental, social, and/or economic missions (Haugh and Talwar 2014; Social Traders 2021).

Another key element of SFSCs is more emphasis upon ecologically sustainable food production that strongly focused on conserving biodiversity and the health, regeneration, and diversity of soil ecology (Dupré et al. 2017; Morel et al. 2018; Zoll et al. 2020). Specific production methods include agroecology, organic agriculture, regenerative agriculture, holistic management, and permaculture (Gargano et al. 2021; Gordon et al. 2021; Morel et al. 2018). These methods, adopted fully or partially by producers, are underpinned by a more comprehensive and holistic approach to resilience. Furthermore, approaches such as agroecology incorporate or originated from Indigenous peoples and knowledges (Barrios et al. 2020; Levidow et al. 2014; Rosset and Martinez-Torres 2013; Suárez-Torres et al. 2017). It is, however, important to recognize that SFSCs are not synonymous with producers who practice more ecologically sustainable methods, with the use of more conventional and industrial methods contributing less to ecological resilience (Gonzalez-Azcarate et al. 2022; Hedberg and Zimmerer 2020; Smith et al. 2016). This diversity of methods highlights the nuances and complexities of local food production as a core part of SFSCs (Hedberg and Zimmerer 2020; Pepin et al. 2021; Schoolman et al. 2021).

For local food producers who do adopt ecologically sustainable methods, such as agroecology, they cultivate intimate and nuanced relationships with the land, and possess specific knowledges of local soils and biodiversity, and climate (Dupré et al. 2017; Goulet 2013; Isgren and Ness 2017; Lioutas and Charatsari 2020). These producers have been reported to be drawn to farming for social and ecological motivations such as the need to “act concretely for a better world” and “reconnect with nature” (Morel et al. 2017, p. 40). Despite the value these motivations and actions offer, a broad body of literature confirms unfair and unjust conditions for producers and the exclusion or inaccurate reflection of their experiences in food and agricultural research, decision-making, policy and planning globally (Goulet 2013; Holt-Giménez 2017; Joassart-Marcelli 2022; Matzembacher and Meira 2019; Ochoa et al. 2020). In food systems today, the livelihoods and welfare of food producers are threatened by structural issues such as precarious employment and incomes for workers, insecure land tenure arrangements, and increasing uncertainty due to the volatility and commodification of global food markets (Ochoa et al. 2020; Widener and Karides 2014; Zoll et al. 2020). Furthermore, an unequal distribution of wealth across supply chains means the largest share of monetary benefits flows to retailers who set food prices and shape demand (Matzembacher and Meira 2019; Oxfam International 2021; Zoll et al. 2020). Women, children, migrants, and marginalized races and cultures in particular are most susceptible to these structural issues (Desmarais and Nicholson 2013; Oxfam International 2021), which are often outcomes of past food systems that relied upon slavery and forced migration (Joassart-Marcelli 2022; Patel and Moore 2017; Rose 2013; Widener and Karides 2014). Importantly, while SFSCs strive to challenge these unfair and unjust livelihoods and welfare, they are not themselves exempt from these exploitations (Brinkley 2017; Ross 2006).

To address the structural issues that preserve these unfair and unjust conditions, this research emphasizes how societal transitions to sustainable food systems need to better value local food producers’ experiences and contributions (Folke et al. 2016; Tittonell et al. 2021). Societal transitions can be viewed along a spectrum, with varying degrees of transformation and divergence from existing socio-technical regimes (Geels 2019; Hyland and Macken-Walsh 2022; Isgren and Ness 2017; Kanger and Schot 2019; Maye et al. 2022). Within this spectrum, more radical transitions may outwardly reject free market economics for alternative structures and arrangements, such as efforts to fully or partially de-commodify food systems (Holtz et al. 2015; Matacena and Corvo 2020). In contrast, more reformative transitions can be characterized by incremental changes in political, economic, and social practices that over time alter the core values, motivations, and concerns until they become formally legitimized and normalized (Geels 2019; Lara et al. 2019; Maye et al. 2022).

To enable societal transitions that provide fairer and more just conditions for local producers anywhere along this spectrum, social-ecological resilience may offer a more holistic interpretation (Folke et al. 2016; Hodbod and Eakin 2015; Smith et al. 2016). Social-ecological resilience is described by Folke et al., (2016, p. 42) as society’s “capacity to adapt or transform in the face of change in social-ecological systems, particularly unexpected change, in ways that continue to support human well-being”. Therefore, by approaching societal transitions that value the well-being of human communities, their food systems, and how these are deeply intertwined with the well-being of ecological systems, this emphasizes the critical roles of local food producers in a way that is not presently valued in society (Eriksen 2008; Folke et al. 2016; Hodbod and Eakin 2015; Shumsky et al. 2014).

Methods

This systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items and Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Literature was collected from 5 databases: Scopus, Web of Science, SAGE Journals, ABI/Inform, and Business Source Ultimate in April 2022 (Hong et al. 2018; Liberati et al. 2009). Databases were chosen in consultation with university Librarians. Web of Science focused upon scholarly journals published in the United States. Scopus and SAGE Journals provided interdisciplinary research in a global context. The use of ABI/Inform and Business Source Ultimate allowed for the potential inclusion of studies that fell outside the traditional academic publishing space, such as business and industry journals. The first three authors were involved in developing the chosen eligibility criteria (Table 1), keywords and search string, screening of abstracts, and full-text review. The lead author screened all abstracts against the eligibility criteria, and the second and third authors screened 50 percent of all abstracts each. The full-text review was completed in the same manner, and the lead author assessed the quality of studies using MMAT. Once all studies were assessed for eligibility and quality, the lead author collected data pertaining to the key characteristics of each study. All four authors contributed to thematic analysis, article writing and review.

Table 1 Eligibility criteria
Full size table

The three keywords used for database searches were short food supply chain, food production, and business. Table 4 in the appendix details search terms, synonyms, search strategy, and Boolean string. Major eligibility criteria focused upon engagement with local food producers, types of food production methods, and the research being empirical (Table 1). Searches were limited to research articles in English published between 1990 and 2023. Whilst investigating values, motivations, and concerns, the authors chose to omit these terms from the search strategy to allow for search results that were not biased towards the research questions (Harari et al. 2020; Koffel 2015; Liberati et al. 2009). In removing these terms from the initial enquiry, the findings were derived from a wide range of literature. Additionally, business-related terms were included as they targeted literature related to food producing businesses and helped to reduce the number of articles researching food production in unpaid and voluntary capacities, such as backyard and community gardening. Studies from all nations were included as investigating local food producers of different geographic and cultural contexts can offer diverse and equally valuable knowledges of food production and models of exchange (Chang & Morel 2018; Glazebrook et al. 2020). For example, studies exploring food production in peasant economies of the Global South could offer important and insightful contrasts to highly industrialized food systems of the Global North (Barrios et al. 2020; Pepin et al. 2021). Database searches resulted in 1,214 articles that were exported to the Covidence platform (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

(Adapted from Page et al. 2021)

PRISMA flow diagram for systematic reviews

Full size image

Initial screening removed 455 duplicates, leaving 759 titles and abstracts to be screened against the eligibility criteria. This criterion reduced articles to 239, although eight of these could not be retrieved. The full-text review involved searching keywords such as market garden, small-scale and sustainable food production, identifying food producers and farmers as key participants. This was followed by MMAT to assess the quality of the 231 research articles that could be retrieved (Hong et al. 2018). The MMAT process involved measuring the quality of the article’s research questions, if chosen methods, measurements, participant selection and data analysis were appropriate to address those questions, and if findings/outcomes adequately addressed these questions (Hong et al. 2018). The assessment was separated into 1) qualitative; 2) quantitative randomized controlled trials; 3) quantitative non-randomized; 4) quantitative descriptive; and 5) mixed methods. All quantitative studies in the dataset were descriptive. Questions regarding quantitative research focused upon the sampling strategy and representativeness to the target population, non-response bias, and statistical analysis. The mixed methods category included the rationale for the integration of different methods and how well they combined to address the research questions. Assessment of qualitative methods focused upon if and how research findings were interpreted and discussed in the study. Twenty-three articles were excluded based on poor quality, with many omitting important details regarding their methods, such as information about sampling strategies, measurements, and data analysis (Brain et al. 2015; Nandi et al. 2017; Ochoa et al. 2019; Tulla et al. 2017). Other excluded studies displayed incoherent writing flows (Shin 2007; Tsolakis and Srai 2017), as well as poor synthesis of findings from their mixed methods approaches (Zhang et al. 2019). The Q-rating of the journals that articles were published was also a useful indicator of their quality.

Upon completion of the full text review and MMAT, 85 articles met the criterion for further data analysis (Fig. 1). Descriptive data analysis collected information relating to an articles’ authors, year of publication, journal published, study location, research methods, sample population and size, food production and distribution models studied, and key demographic indicators of the study participants. Thematic analysis identified key themes and sub-themes relating to the research questions (Neuman 2014). Thematic analysis, undertaken in NVivo, revealed the importance of distinct values, motivations, and concerns as key elements of local food producers’ experiences, how these experiences are integral to societal transitions, and, where relevant, identified how local food producers’ work contributes to social-ecological resilience. Three of the key themes, emerging through unbiased research inquiry, were shown to align strongly with the three pillars of sustainability – environmental, social, and economic domains (Purvis et al. 2019). The fourth key theme related to concerns about the mentally and physically challenging nature of farming labor.

Results and discussion

The following section details the results and synthesis of information from the 85 articles reviewed, including an overview of articles through descriptive data analysis, and the thematic analysis that identified four key themes and associated sub-themes of the literature.

Overview of articles

Descriptive data analysis showed an increase of research that intersects SFSCs, local food producers and sustainable food production over the last seven years, with the most frequent publications being in 2021 and 2020 (Fig. 2). Eleven articles investigated how more globalized food supply chains and SFSCs were both impacted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, how SFSCs were seen to adapt better, and how the pandemic highlighted the need for more resilient food supply chains and farming (Benedek et al. 2021; 2022; Tittonell et al. 2021; Yoshida and Yagi 2021).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Number of articles by year

Full size image

Articles were published in 36 journals, most frequently Sustainability (13 articles), Journal of Rural Studies (8 articles), and Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (7 articles). The most common research locations were France, Italy, Spain, and United States (Fig. 3). Thirteen articles conducted research across multiple countries.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Frequency of studies by countries

Full size image

Qualitative methods were undertaken in 41 articles, 20 used quantitative descriptive, 18 used mixed methods, four narrative literature reviews, one solely theoretical, and one utilized natural science methods. Interviews were most common (55 articles), followed by surveys (35 articles), case studies (27 articles), and participant observations (8 articles). Food producers were the only population engaged in 64 articles, with food distributors also included as participants in 24 articles, customers in 15 articles, and other key stakeholders in 26 articles (i.e., governments, researchers, and agri-food organizers). Sample sizes of interviews ranged from 3 to 338 participants, surveys from 18 to 167,009 (Plakias et al. 2020), and case studies 1 to 25. Thirteen articles omitted or provided incomplete information about sample sizes, particularly ethnographies, focus groups and workshops, participant observations and action research.

All articles were published in Q1 or Q2 rating journals and had clear research questions. There was a lack of theoretical foundations as most articles were limited to exploratory empirical research (Benedek et al. 2022; Rover et al. 2020), with only 15 articles relating their observations to theories or frameworks (de Souza et al. 2021; Levidow et al. 2021; Matacena and Corvo 2020; Polita and Madureira 2021). One article, Rover et al., (2020, p. 11) admit that “it would be worthwhile to widen the theoretical approach considering the agroecological transition theory”, which their study did not.

Local food producer demographics

Most articles collected some demographic information, although 43 articles provided no information (Table 2). Race and cultural background could only be assumed to be from articles’ study location, and the sexualities of local food producers was not noted in any article.

Table 2 Demographics indicators by number of articles
Full size table

The demographics of local food producers was important to consider as these indicators can have major influences on their values, motivations, and concerns, their inclusion in community food spaces, and the development of SFSCs (Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021; Stanco et al. 2019). Local food producers across the 85 articles were observed as younger, with higher levels of education, and less experience in farming but more open-minded and collaborative than more conventional producers (Benedek et al. 2018; Bertalan et al. 2019; Dupré et al. 2017). Articles that discussed gender emphasized the greater presence of women in SFSCs, with more active roles, independence, and professional development as farmers (Azima and Mundler 2022; Levidow et al. 2021; Mundler and Laughrea 2016; Schoolman et al. 2021). Although, it is important to note how women can still be excluded or exploited in SFSCs through traditional masculine and feminine gender roles and limited access to farmland and financial resources (Azima and Mundler 2022; Rosol and Barbosa 2021). Despite this being discussed in articles such as Azima and Mundler, (2022) and Rosol and Barbosa, (2021), there was limited discussion of gender inequality, patriarchy, and dominance of cis-gendered men’s perspectives in farming across the articles reviewed (Glazebrook et al. 2020). Additionally, many articles (i.e. Bertalan et al. 2019; Schreiber et al. 2022; Stanco et al. 2019) were ambiguous and interchangeable in their use of sex, a biological attribute such as male and female, and gender, which represents “socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions and identities” of women, men, and gender-diverse peoples (Gahagan 2021).

SFSC distribution and foods produced

Distribution channels included in-person and online direct marketing, farmers markets, food hubs and cooperatives, consumer and wholesale purchasing groups, buyers’ clubs, box schemes, farm gates, Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA), institutional and public procurement, farm-to-farm, farm gleaning, and self-harvest gardens. Direct marketing, through either informal market stalls or more formal online arrangements, and farmer’s markets were the most common channels, particularly among small-scale producers (Plakias et al. 2020; Ross 2006; Schoolman et al. 2021; Stanco et al. 2019). Preferences in distribution channels were influenced by production scales, types of foods produced, logistics and reliability of channels, producers’ value of direct relationships, and their age (Plakias et al. 2020; Rover et al. 2020). Most local food producers distribute across multiple channels, in most cases three to five, to reduce risks of disruption and uncertainty in sales (Benedek et al. 2021; Brinkley 2017; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020). Furthermore, some producers possessed hybrid models that involved also distributing through longer, more conventional, supply chains (Azima and Mundler 2022; Gonzalez-Azcarate et al. 2022; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020). These hybrid models highlighted logistical constraints producers experience even when they produce sufficient volumes of food but there is a lack of demand in SFSCs or may themselves be unable to offer a diversity of food to offer customers (Azima and Mundler 2022; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020).

Regarding food production, forty-eight articles focused upon organic “biological-input-based” methods, 20 articles on agroecological “biodiversity-based farming systems”, and 26 articles included conventional “chemical-input-based” methods (Pepin et al. 2021, p. 2). 25 articles did not describe the production methods of the producers of their study. The inclusion more conventional methods highlight how the benefits of SFSCs are nuanced and complex, rather than inherent, and how SFSCs and sustainable food production not mutually exclusive (Dubois 2019; Goldstein et al. 2016; Pepin et al. 2021; Schoolman et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2016). Types of foods produced were diverse. Vegetable production was expectedly the most common, with market gardening the focus of 5 articles, followed by meats (i.e. cows and sheep), fruit, dairy, and poultry (i.e. chickens and eggs) (Fig. 4) (Aubry and Kebir 2013; Dupré et al. 2017; Morel et al. 2017; 2018; Pepin et al. 2021).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Types of foods by number of articles

Full size image

Articles that recorded land sizes ranged from less than 1 ha (Carlson and Bitsch 2019) to 2290 ha (Moulery et al. 2022). Smaller-sized farms growing a diversity of food were considered best suited to SFSCs and more ecologically sustainable production (Aubry and Kebir 2013; Dupré et al. 2017; Morel et al. 2018; Rover et al. 2020; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020). In contrast, larger farms tended to be “more homogenous” (Benedek et al. 2021, p. 10). Land tenure varied from full or partial land ownership through bank mortgage or personal loans from family and friends, to formal and informal rental arrangements (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Levidow et al. 2021; Parodi 2018).

Values, motivations, and concerns of local food producers within SFSCs

This section details the four key themes and corresponding sub-themes identifying the values, motivations, and concerns of local food producers within SFSCs, their contributions to social-ecological resilience, and how their experiences may influence prospects for fair and just societal transitions (Table 3). A table in the appendix provides a detailed list of articles coded to each theme and sub-theme.

Table 3 Key themes and sub-themes relating to the values, motivations and concerns of local food producers
Full size table

Concerns for exploitative operating contexts and hidden labor expectations within SFSCs

The work and labor involved in local food production is seen as a crucial determinant of its’ viability, with thirty-five articles discussing their concerns regarding operating contexts of exploitation and hidden labor expectations of local food producers within SFSCs (Benedek et al. 2021; Dupré et al. 2017; Morel et al. 2017; 2018; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020). Whilst SFSCs strive to challenge exploitations present in longer supply chains, it is evident that an operating context of chronic overwork, self-exploitation, and poor well-being for local food producers is still present but largely hidden within these shorter supply chains (Azima and Mundler 2022; Dupré et al. 2017; Medici et al. 2021; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). For example, small-scale farming in particular is highly physically and mentally demanding for local food producers, with difficult and high-risk working conditions, time-intensive “work rhythms” (Dupré et al. 2017, p. 404), long travel distances to markets, and a need to balance this with other occupations (Azima and Mundler 2022; Brinkley 2017; Bui et al. 2021; Hergesheimer and Wittman 2012; Morel et al. 2017; 2018). These challenging conditions cause major physical, psycho-social risks and mental health impacts to local food producers through “stress… and competition” (Azima and Mundler 2022, p. 791), “burn-out” (Schreiber et al. 2022, p. 131), “weariness caused by repetitive work”, fatigue and lack of sleep (Dupré et al. 2017, p. 406), “high rates of depression and suicide” (Azima and Mundler 2022, p. 793), and limited “capacity to take holidays and week-ends off” (Morel et al. 2017, p. 47). Beyond the external structures that de-value farming in society, these conditions can also be tied to producers’ strong ecological and social values, high quality standard, and how they can “undervalue their own work in the monetary terms and trade profit for the pleasure it procures them” (DeMartini et al. 2017, p. 205; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020; Mundler and Laughrea 2016).

As part of these operating contexts, there are also suggestions that traditional family farming models can perpetuate these work and labor exploitations (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Dupré et al. 2017). Whilst family farms are a key feature of SFSCs, particularly in the Global South, they can have their benefits and shortcomings (Azima and Mundler 2022; Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Medici et al. 2021). Benefits do include greater inclusion of all family members in farming (Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Levidow et al. 2021); embedding valued relationships of trust and proximity (Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021); transfer of inter-generational ecological knowledge (Tittonell et al. 2021); intra-family business succession or transfer of farms (Gargano et al. 2021); and access to loans from family and friends, and personal inheritance of land and equipment (Carlson and Bitsch 2019). Furthermore, they can be crucial for social-ecological resilience by contributing to rural jobs, preserving agrobiodiversity, ecosystems services and local natural resource governance (Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Kizos 2010; Levidow et al. 2021; Migliore et al. 2015; Parodi 2018; Tittonell et al. 2021). Despite these benefits, there are concerns that the expectations of family members, friends, and interns to contribute labor, finance, and other support perpetuates a reliance upon unpaid work (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; De Koning et al. 2016; Dupré et al. 2017; Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021). For example, these labor commitments are usually informal, limited, and highly variable (Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). Furthermore, it needs to be highlighted that not all aspiring producers have the privilege of personal loans from family and friends (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Medici et al. 2021). Ultimately, these dependencies and privileges can hide the economic unsustainability of these forms of labor and compromise societal transitions where all producers are fairly compensated (Azima and Mundler 2022; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020; Widener and Karides 2014).

Value and need for social networks, direct relationships, and social embeddedness

Forty-two articles emphasized local food producers’ value and need for social networks, direct relationships, and social embeddedness within SFSCs. The first sub-theme describes how social connections are highly valued and motivating for producers, are often a crucial indicator of their experiences as producers, and the viability of their farms (Charatsari et al. 2018; 2020; Hyland and Macken-Walsh 2022; Kurtsal et al. 2020; Schoolman et al. 2021; Tittonell et al. 2021). Broadly speaking, social networks highlight the interdependencies within SFSCs, with connections providing local food producers with greater social cohesion, solidarity, sharing of knowledges, resources, and responsibility, and “mutual support to combat isolation and stress” (Ochoa et al. 2020, p. 15; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020; Smith et al. 2016; Tittonell et al. 2021; Vitterso et al. 2019). Social support can strongly influence the satisfaction of local food producers as they create “feedback loops contribut[ing] significantly to the sense of holding a socially rewarding position” (Dupré et al. 2017, p. 409). Social embeddedness is also strongly associated with food producers’ sense of belonging and “feelings of connection to, dependence on, and responsibility for, larger human and ecological communities” (Schoolman et al. 2021, p. 241; Dubois 2019; Oñederra-Aramendi et al. 2018; Stanco et al. 2019). These networks and the collective action that they foster are important for mobilizing societal transitions that consider local food producers as change agents within sustainable food systems, rather than price takers along the supply chain (Parodi 2018; Quinn et al. 2014; Zoll et al. 2020). The decentralized nature of these networks and direct relationships are also deemed vitally important to the social resilience and self-sufficiency of communities (Benedek et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2016; Tittonell et al. 2021; Yoshida and Yagi 2021).

Whilst the importance of social connection is clear, the second sub-theme observes how local food producers can still be at high risk of social vulnerability, social isolation, and lack of social support in SFSCs (Dubois 2019; Dupré et al. 2017; Levidow and Psarikidou 2011). Major reasons local food producers face social isolation and vulnerability include “work degradation, discouragement, stress,… and exhaustion” from their work, and the competition, rivalry and lack of trust that may exist between producers (Dupré et al. 2017, p. 410; Dubois 2019; Oñederra-Aramendi et al. 2018; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020). As part of this, social relations that do exist can often be informal and “highly destabilizing”, which can be a source of “social insecurity” rather than support (Dupré et al. 2017, p. 409). Furthermore, Mundler and Laughrea, (2016) suggest that local food producers can underestimate their value within communities, leading to them feeling that relationships with customers are solely business and instrumental, and that their contributions are vague or unnoticeable.

The last sub-theme observed how technology may be useful for networking, communication, and distribution, but not modernizing farming practices. Digital technology was perceived as a contentious topic, with the need to provide a critical lens to its’ incorporation within SFSCs (Benedek et al. 2021; Lioutas and Charatsari 2020; Pato 2020). In strong support, many articles emphasized the value of digital technology and information and communication technologies (ICTs) as mediums to enhance social networks, direct relationships, and social embeddedness for local food producers (Benedek et al. 2021; Lioutas and Charatsari 2020; Michel-Villarreal et al. 2021; Ochoa et al. 2020; Pato 2020). Examples extend from online platforms, social media, cloud computing (Paciarotti and Torregiani 2018), data analytics or Big Data (Michel-Villarreal et al. 2021), to “automation systems, farmbots and drones” (Lioutas and Charatsari 2020, p. 2; Ochoa et al. 2020; Schreiber et al. 2022). Online social networks were strongly endorsed to increase the number and diversity of audiences that local food producers could reach, share their stories, and sell their produce (Paciarotti and Torregiani 2018; Rosol and Barbosa 2021). Despite these positive claims, many local food producers were hesitant, indifferent, or skeptical about digital technology in farming (Benedek et al. 2022; Guzmán et al. 2013; Hardman et al. 2022; Lankauskiene et al. 2022; Lioutas and Charatsari 2020). Primary reasons include:

  1. 1.

    preference for in-person direct relationships rather than the internet as an intermediary (Lankauskiene et al. 2022);

  2. 2.

    belief that smart technology will not reduce long working hours and the physical labor required to produce a diversity of food (Lioutas and Charatsari 2020);

  3. 3.

    skepticism about the benefits of “technological efficiency” (Benedek et al. 2021, p. 4), optimization, automatization, and specialization for the resilience of smaller-scale farming (Benedek et al. 2022; Bertalan et al. 2019; Lioutas and Charatsari 2020);

  4. 4.

    belief that using digital technology strongly diverges or is incompatible with their ideological beliefs, values, and motivations (Lioutas and Charatsari 2020); and

  5. 5.

    how it interrupts natural growing cycles and humans’ connection to nature (Hardman et al. 2022; Levidow et al. 2021; Parodi 2018).

These contrasting attitudes highlight the need for more nuanced discussions surrounding the application of digital technology in SFSCs and local food production, particularly who has ownership, how it is distributed and managed, and implications for social resilience and the autonomy of producers and communities (Lioutas and Charatsari 2020; Rosol and Barbosa 2021; Smith et al. 2016). Importantly, this also alludes to critiques of transition narratives that narrowly focus upon technological solutions to “agrarian unsustainability” (Guzmán et al. 2013, p. 127; Cilia 2019; Lankauskiene et al. 2022). Rather, there is a need for more holistic and systemic approaches, agroecology as an example, that can better understand the “broader socioecological forces”, considers the values, motivations, and concerns of local food producers, such as those described throughout this review, and their role and agency (Cilia 2019, p. 2; Rosol and Barbosa 2021).

Values, connections, and concerns for the environment

This key theme, observed across forty-six articles, identifies the values, connections and concerns for the environment held by local food producers. The first of two sub-theme demonstrates how local food producers’ ecological values and concerns enable ecologically sustainable practices that mitigate and adapt to climate change and increase biodiversity. This was more pronounced in younger first-generation and smaller-scale producers who have long-standing environmental values, but also included older generational producers transitioning away from more conventional practices as a response to individual paradigm shifts (Dupré et al. 2017; Morel et al. 2017; 2018; Pepin et al. 2021). These values involve an “ethic of care” (Dowler et al. 2009 cited in Schoolman et al. 2021, p. 242), a desire for deep connections, cooperation, and protection of ecosystems (Kurtsal et al. 2020; Matacena and Corvo 2020; Pepin et al. 2021; Schoolman et al. 2021), and a strong inclination to do manual labor, and “get their hands in the dirt” (Morel et al. 2018, p. 99; Giacomarra et al. 2019; Hoang 2021; Michel-Villarreal et al. 2020; Pepin et al. 2021). Key concerns held by producers were dominant food systems’ concentration of power, capitalism and commodification, unfair remuneration for producers, environmental degradation, and contributions to climate change, as well as climate change’s impacts to their local food production (Kapala 2022a; Rover et al. 2020; Schreiber et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2016; Widener and Karides 2014; Zoll et al. 2020). The contributions that local food producers have to social-ecological resilience in holding these environmental values, motivations, and concerns were best expressed through multifunctionality (Brinkley 2017; Gargano et al. 2021). Multifunctionality highlights, beyond the primary role of food production, how their work benefits natural ecosystems, socio-economic development, and food security of communities (Mundler and Laughrea 2016; Yoshida and Yagi 2021).

Of all ecologically sustainable production, the use of agroecology principles and practices in particular was most strongly seen to conserve ecological diversity, facilitate food sovereignty and thereby support social-ecological resilience (Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Guzmán et al. 2013; Levidow et al. 2021; Pepin et al. 2021). Agroecology featured in 20 articles that were predominantly in Latin America, with traditional agroecological knowledge and associated cultural practices and beliefs used by local food producers in farming and land management (Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Lara et al. 2019; Parodi 2018). Agroecological is described as a holistic and “alternative farming paradigm” incorporating the ecological, social, cultural, economic, and political elements of farming (Rover et al. 2020, p. 2; Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Lara et al. 2019; Levidow et al. 2021; Parodi 2018). For local food producers, this represented a different relationship to food and land, as well as the amount of time and work involved in farming (Dupré et al. 2017; Gargano et al. 2021; Levidow et al. 2021; Pepin et al. 2021). Another key feature included achieving high levels of agrobiodiversity, in foods produced and broader ecosystems (Benedek et al. 2021; Dupré et al. 2017; Lara et al. 2019; Rover et al. 2020). This diversification in food and the ecosystem also increases the social sustainability of farms (Benedek et al. 2021; Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Rover et al. 2020). For societal transitions, Dubois et al., (2019, p. 763) explains how it is “now well-understood that the transition towards a postcarbon food and farming systems… will necessitate a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to more diversified agro-ecological systems”. As it reconsiders the neoliberal-driven commodification of food and the emphasis on technological solutions, “agroecological transition” (Parodi 2018, p. 2) focuses instead upon social justice and food sovereignty, and thereby, improvements to farmers’ livelihoods, knowledge, empowerment, and autonomy (Levidow et al. 2014; 2021; Lara et al. 2019). The contributions to social-ecological resilience from these ways of thinking include more diverse and dynamic farming systems, improving ecosystem services, farmland conservation, and wildlife habitats, better mental health for producers, and providing more nutritionally dense foods (Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Gargano et al. 2021; Pepin et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2016; Tittonell et al. 2021; Yoshida and Yagi 2021).

The second sub-theme explores how trust can be created through direct relationships and Participatory Guarantee Systems, rather than organic certification schemes. Whilst organic certification is perceived as useful by some producers for its’ potential economic advantages (de Souza et al. 2021; Dubois 2019; Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021; Levidow et al. 2021), many who meet certification standards or even exceeded them opt to use these formalized systems (DeMartini et al. 2017; Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021; Gonzalez-Azcarate et al. 2022; Medici et al. 2021). This rejection is based upon perceptions that certification is unnecessary, “somehow useless” (Medici et al. 2021, p. 6), time consuming, costly, and an “administration burden” (Dubois 2019, p. 770) that fail to address more complex “wicked problems” (Carlson and Bitsch 2019, p. 1; DeMartini et al. 2017; Gonzalez-Azcarate et al. 2022; Rover et al. 2020). Producers expressed concerns in how certification schemes have weakened and neglected the original principles of organic agriculture and agroecology, they do little to address the inequalities that affect them and offer few alternatives to commodified food systems (Rogers and Fraszczak 2014; Rover et al. 2020). Instead, certification simply reproduces industrial agriculture models just with a little less negative environmental impacts (Pepin et al. 2021; Rogers and Fraszczak 2014; Rover et al. 2020).

In contrast, most producers place greater value in the trust and transparency of direct relationships with customers who come to markets, get to know them, and how their food is produced (DeMartini et al. 2017; Escobar-Lopez et al. 2021; Gonzalez-Azcarate et al. 2022; Ochoa et al. 2020). Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGSs), for example, are suggested better empower local food producers and address these needs and concerns (Gonzalez-Azcarate et al. 2022; Levidow et al. 2021; Medici et al. 2021; Reina-Usuga et al. 2020). Specifically, these systems are adapted to local contexts, give producers greater control in verification standards, improve exchange of agroecological knowledge, and increase political consciousness communities (Gonzalez-Azcarate et al. 2022; Levidow et al. 2021; Reina-Usuga et al. 2020).

Motivation and value for alternative models and concerns for economic viability of farming in SFSCs

The economic opportunities that SFSCs provide to local food producers was identified as a key motivator, with the strength of this motivation based upon the value and relative importance they placed upon money, and how it impacts their quality of life (Charatsari et al. 2020; Matacena and Corvo 2020; Morel et al. 2017; Schoolman et al. 2021). These sentiments were strongest amongst producers who had experienced difficulties in longer food supply chains and subsequently transitioned into SFSCs (Migliore et al. 2015; Rover et al. 2020). The economic benefits for producers in SFSCs included increased incomes and more equal shares of profit (Vitterso et al. 2019), employment opportunities (Hoang 2021; Lankauskiene et al. 2022; Oñederra-Aramendi et al. 2018), ability to set prices independently or in collaboration with other SFSC actors (Vitterso et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2018), and greater agency in production and distribution (Rogers and Fraszczak 2014; Stanco et al. 2019). By engaging in more direct and on-going relationships, these producers also benefited from more consistent and secure income streams and, importantly, greater economic viability and resilience of their farms (Lankauskiene et al. 2022; Morel et al. 2017; 2018; Paciarotti and Torregiani 2018).

The first sub-theme highlights how producers’ business models strive for decommodification of food systems (Lankauskiene et al. 2022; Morel et al. 2017; Rogers and Fraszczak 2014). Attempting to address structural issues created by industrial and capitalist models of exchange, local food producers strive for models that de-commodify food distribution (Matacena and Corvo 2020; Rogers and Fraszczak 2014; Rosol and Barbosa 2021). This involves transforming social, economic, and marketing arrangements into those that are “guided by social economy and co-operative values and principles based on participation and democracy” (Rosol and Barbosa 2021, p. 1036; Matacena and Corvo 2020). Under these arrangements, producer’s intentions can be to act as ‘profit sufficers’, rather than profit maximizers, and who make enough to be viable and resilient (Giacomarra et al. 2019; Morel et al. 2017; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). Despite the benefits that SFSCs offer, economic viability was an ongoing concern (Jarzebowski et al. 2020; Morel et al. 2017; 2018; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020; Ochoa et al. 2020). For example, challenges still lie in land rights and insecure tenure (Parodi 2018), the scale of farms (Morel et al. 2018; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020), growing a diversity of food for markets (Mundler and Laughrea 2016; Vitterso et al. 2019), and lack of government support (Levidow et al. 2014). Furthermore, producers can still “remain price takers who are forced to follow market prices” that inaccurately compensates them for their work (Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020, p. 707; Lankauskiene et al. 2022; Mundler and Laughrea 2016).

Tying into these challenges is the second sub-theme that highlights the time, economic and administrative trade-offs for producers. Key trade-offs can revolve around time and energy needed to develop direct and stable relationships, completing administrative and marketing tasks, attending markets for lengthy periods (Kurtsal et al. 2020), and appeasing customers’ expectations to provide “all kind of products all year around” (Gonzalez-Azcarate et al. 2022, p. 5; Azima and Mundler 2022; Dupré et al. 2017; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). Producers also faced uncertainty when selling through local markets that are “not sufficient to guarantee their livelihood” (Kurtsal et al. 2020, p. 211; Givens and Dunning 2019; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020; Pato 2020). To address these trade-offs, Hyland and Macken-Walsh, (2022), Paciarotti and Torregiani, (2018), and Rosol and Barbosa, (2021) emphasized the benefits of cooperation and collaboration amongst producers, such as through farming cooperatives and food hubs to improve the logistics of distribution, diversity and quantity available to customers, minimize costs, and share administrative tasks.

To improve their economic viability and multifunctionality of their farms, a common strategy for local food producers was the diversification of on-farm and off-farm income sources (Gargano et al. 2021; Kizos 2010; Kurtsal et al. 2020). Producers often engaged in, and can be reliant upon (Benedek et al. 2022; Schoolman et al. 2021), a diversity of income generating strategies either through on-farm activities, such as agritourism (i.e., farm tours, gastronomy) (Kurtsal et al. 2020), natural resource management (Benedek et al. 2021), educational training and internship programs (Hardman et al. 2022; Polita and Madureira 2021; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020 and unrelated off-farm employment (Benedek et al. 2021; Kizos 2010; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). Agri-tourism was the most common income source to address the financial deficiencies of farming businesses (Brinkley 2017; Kizos 2010; Mundler and Laughrea 2016; Ross 2006; Yang et al. 2018). Off-farm employment can be the primary income source in many farming households and is oftentimes necessary for the economic viability and success of the farm (Benedek et al. 2021; Gargano et al. 2021; Kizos 2010; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). This diversification can have benefits for education, social cohesion, job creation, human health, and community development, improved ecosystem services and natural resource management, and offer producers’ greater autonomy, flexibility, and resilience in their work (Gargano et al. 2021; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla 2020; Schoolman et al. 2021; Yoshida and Yagi 2021).

Seeking more systemic ways to address economic viability, the next sub-theme revealed how Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) offers alternative economic and social arrangements (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Medici et al. 2021; Ross 2006; Schreiber et al. 2022). CSAs and Solidarity-Based Food systems (SFSs) in Germany (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Rosol and Barbosa 2021), the Teikei movement in Japan (Medici et al. 2021), and Associations pour le maintien d’une agriculture paysanne (AMAPs) in France (Kapala 2022a) are perceived to have the best economic and social outcomes for local food producers (Charatsari et al. 2018; Morel et al. 2017; Schmutz et al. 2017; Zoll et al. 2020). CSA models represent new “social and economic governance structures” that have more cooperative conditions and arrangements empowering local food producers (Carlson and Bitsch 2019, p. 2; Matzembacher and Meira 2019; Medici et al. 2021; Zoll et al. 2020). Focused upon customers’ long-term commitment to consistently purchase a produce box before planting, local food producers are guaranteed more secure income that illustrates the benefits of sharing costs, responsibility, risks, and rewards (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; European CSA Research Group 2016; Matzembacher and Meira 2019; Rosol and Barbosa 2021; Zoll et al. 2020). This embeddedness, reciprocity and wealth redistribution considers the well-being of both the producers and the community (Martens et al. 2022; Schoolman et al. 2021). Local food producers and CSA members agree upon membership prices, including arrangements that allow “higher-income people [to voluntarily pay] more than lower-income people” for memberships (Medici et al. 2021, p. 3; Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Kapala 2022a; Rosol and Barbosa 2021; Vitterso et al. 2019). To increase the diversity and volume of food, producers also band together under “organizational umbrella[s]”, such as farm cooperatives (Rosol and Barbosa 2021, p.1029). Lastly, CSA models may serve as the best demonstrated arrangement for societal transitions that provide the fairest and most just conditions for producers (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Medici et al. 2021; Zoll et al. 2020).

Lastly, the final sub-theme observed how ‘scaling up’ the business is not always desirable for producers (Fleiß and Aggestam 2017; Hardman et al. 2022; Lara et al. 2019). Differing from efforts to scale up local food as a social and environment movement (Connelly and Beckie 2016), this sub-theme is concerned with the external pressures that small-scale producers in particular face to scale up and increase the production capacity, farm size, and profits of their individual farms (Nost 2016). Whilst some articles reported producers’ willingness and motivation to ‘scale up’ in this context (Fleiβ and Aggestam 2017; Michel-Villarreal et al. 2020; Ochoa et al. 2020; Rogers and Fraszczak 2014; Yoshida and Yagi 2021), not all have this desire (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Levidow and Psarikidou 2011). The desire not to scale up was more prevalent in peasant economies and subsistence farming, such as in Latin America (Chaparro Africano & Calle Collado 2017; Pepin et al. 2021). The rejections of these pressures were rooted in ways can that scaling up can limit the autonomy, direct relationships, and social cohesion that SFSCs offer producers, and which they perceive are they very characteristics that make them so valuable and resilient (Carlson and Bitsch 2019; Rogers and Fraszczak 2014; Smith et al. 2016). Furthermore, Morel et al., (2017, p. 47) importantly links these scaling up narratives with the “dominant agricultural model [that] encourages an increase in size” and often moves away from the principles and practices of agroecology (Pepin et al. 2021).

Fulfilment, empowerment, autonomy, and enjoyment in farming

Whilst undertaking thematic analysis, a prevailing trend relating to the overall values, motivations and concerns of local food producers was observed across thirty-one articles. This trend elucidates how farming can be a deeply physically and mentally demanding lifestyle that comes with economic hardships, numerous risks, and uncertainties, but is also associated with high levels of fulfilment, empowerment, autonomy, and enjoyment for the producer (Azima and Mundler 2022; Dupré et al. 2017; Matacena and Corvo 2020; Morel et al. 2017; 2018; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020; Mundler and Laughrea 2016). Whilst appearing to be a contradiction, this represents a very important farmers’ paradox (Dupré et al. 2017) whereby producers who live and work in harmony with their values and passions can also see the physical and mental demands involved in these lifestyles as worthwhile (Dupré et al. 2017; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020; Ross 2006; Zoll et al. 2020). Dupré et al., (2017) describe this as the deep merging, converging and mutually reinforcing of social and professional identity and their life’s project. Matacena and Corvo, (2020, p. 423) also observes how farming in these contexts can be viewed as an “expression of life”.

Azima and Mundler, (2022) and Dupré et al., (2017) link this phenomena to the concept of active work. For producers, active work involves feelings of empowerment, independence and personal development that comes with running a business, an intellectual comfort from implementing their own knowledge, the enjoyment in having a diversity of stimulating, complex and less routine-based tasks, and an autonomy in how they produce and distribute their food (Azima and Mundler 2022; Dupré et al. 2017; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). This very importantly fosters better mental health, “self-esteem and a feeling of accomplishment at work” (Dupré et al. 2017, p. 407; Morel et al. 2018; Mundler and Laughrea 2016).

In the context of contributions to social-ecological resilience, this phenomena is also linked to the social recognition producers feel in their community, which Matacena and Corvo, (2020, p. 423) explains “legitimates their [local food producers’] work and socially-validates their lifestyle”. These producers and their communities recognize them for the role they have in contributing to food security, providing incomes for their households, and as change agents that challenge industrial food systems (Charatsari et al. 2018; Kurtsal et al. 2020; Matacena and Corvo 2020; Zoll et al. 2020). This paradox also relates strongly to the political principles of agroecology and the food sovereignty movement and have major implications for how societal transitions can be designed in fairer and more just ways that better understand the complexity of their experiences (Azima and Mundler 2022; Chaparro Africano and Calle Collado 2017; Dupré et al. 2017; Levidow et al. 2014; Matacena and Corvo 2020).

Conclusion

With the growth of SFSCs globally, the experiences, knowledges, and contributions of local food producers within SFSCs are integral to societal transitions to sustainable food systems (Mundler et al. 2020; Mundler and Jean-Gagnon 2020). In systematically reviewing 85 articles, this article synthesized the key values, motivations, and concerns of local food producers within SFSCs as key elements of their experiences, their contributions to social-ecological resilience, and discusses how these experiences and contributions can influence societal transitions. Thematic analysis revealed four key themes that demonstrated: 1) concerns for the exploitative operating contexts and hidden labor expectations of local food producers within SFSCs; 2) producers’ value and need for social networks, direct relationships, and social embeddedness; 3) their environmental values, connections, and concerns; and 4) how they can be motivated by and value alternative models but are concerned by economic viability. The associated sub-themes detailed the specifics of these key themes, such as a desire for direct relationships over organic certification schemes, how ecological values enable more ecologically sustainable practices such as agroecology, and producers’ perceptions of digital technology. These sub-themes also highlighted the high risk of social vulnerability, social isolation, and lack of social support for many producers, the need to diversify their income sources, and how models such as community supported agriculture (CSA) offer alternative social and economic arrangements. Importantly, this review of literature observed a paradox within producers’ experiences showing that whilst farming is a demanding profession and lifestyle, they can feel a deep fulfilment when they live and work in harmony with their values and motivations. This often outweighs any economic motivations to maximize profits (Azima and Mundler 2022; Dupré et al. 2017; Morel et al. 2017; 2018).

Whilst this review was conducted in a systematic manner following PRISMA’s checklist (Page et al. 2021), there were still limitations. Firstly, 85 articles were a considerable, but not exhaustive, amount of literature to review, and the authors acknowledge that the dataset cannot represent all the values, motivations, and concerns of producers. Furthermore, the use of different keywords, terminology, and synonyms, as well as databases searched could always be expanded to included terms such as alternative food network, alternative food initiatives, and alternative food movement. Secondly, whilst thematic data analysis proved to be a valuable qualitative method to identify meaningful themes and insights regarding the values, motivations, concerns, the use of quantitative approaches such as content analysis may have revealed different patterns and trends in the literature (Neuman 2014; Seuring and Gold 2012). Lastly, given the popularity of small-scale farming throughout France and Latin American countries, expanding the scope of articles to languages other than English may have been beneficial.

To conclude, this systematic review of the literature is significant for how it values and synthesizes the experiences of local food producers, the diverse personal, social, ecological, and economic contributions they have for the resilience of communities and re-considers the possible roles they have in societal transition processes. Phenomena such as the ‘farmers’ paradox’ (Azima and Mundler 2022; Dupré et al. 2017) have major implications for how societal transitions can be designed in fairer and more just ways that better understand and value these experiences. For future research, this review points to new avenues that could investigate the nature producers’ values, motivations, and concerns through more theoretical lenses, as well as how they differ or align with other food system actors. Furthermore, by better communicating these experiences and contributions in research, decision-makers, policy makers and planners can more confidently attend to the experiences, needs, and concerns of local food producers within SFSCs.