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

Ulrich Schmutz, Moya Kneafsey, Carla Sarrouy Kay, Alexandra Doernberg, Ingo Zasada

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)
83 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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


Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)518-529
Number of pages11
JournalRenewable Agriculture and Food Systems
Volume33
Issue number6
Early online date10 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

Food Chain
Food Supply
food supply chain
Gardening
gardening
sales
markets
farms
Food
community supported agriculture
local food systems
Economics
social benefit
willingness to pay
supermarkets
supply chain
economic impact
ecosystem services
stakeholders
Agriculture

Bibliographical note

This article has been published in a revised form in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000564. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works.

Keywords

  • Sustainability Impact Assessment
  • Short Food Supply Chains
  • Risk Assessment
  • Organic Consumption
  • Organic farming
  • Community Supported Agriculture
  • Metropolitan Food Planning
  • Peri-urban agriculture
  • Urban Agriculture
  • Food Culture
  • London

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Food Science
  • Agronomy and Crop Science

Cite this

Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains : Examples from London, UK. / Schmutz, Ulrich; Kneafsey, Moya; Sarrouy Kay, Carla; Doernberg, Alexandra; Zasada, Ingo.

In: Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 33, No. 6, 11.11.2017, p. 518-529.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6333aefa60444c25b47a30a528381c4d,
title = "Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains: Examples from London, UK",
abstract = "Greater London has a vibrant food scene comprising of many different types of urban and peri-urban ‘short food supply chains’ (SFSCs). This paper reports on exploratory research, which used examples of SFSCs from London to build a more detailed understanding of different types of urban SFSC and their relative performance compared to each other. To do this, we undertook a participatory sustainability impact assessment (SIA) in which local food system stakeholders were asked to rank the perceived impacts of five different urban and peri-urban SFSCs compared with the current ‘mainstream’ food supply system (defined as supermarkets retailing mass-produced, standardized food products). The SFSCs ranked were: (1) urban gardening (self-supply), (2) urban gardening (commercial), (3) community supported agriculture (CSA), (4) direct sale (on-farm) and (5) direct sale (off-farm). Results from the SIA showed that CSAs were regarded as delivering the highest overall social, economic and environmental benefits, followed by urban gardening (commercial), urban gardening (self-supply) and direct sales (off-farm). The lowest overall rating was for the supply chain direct sales (on-farm). All five SFSCs were ranked highest on the social aspects of sustainability. Following the participatory SIA of perceived sustainability, we next developed a questionnaire in order to test the feasibility of measuring the specific (rather than ‘perceived’) impacts of an urban SFSC. We applied the test at a community-led local food market in South London, where we conducted face-to-face interviews with all market stallholders (18 respondents) and a random sample of consumers (51 respondents). Results from the community-led market were similar to those acquired at the SIA workshop, with greater agreement about the social benefits of the market, compared with economic and environmental impacts. The results also suggest that producers underestimated consumers’ willingness to share the risks that the producers face and we identify this as an important aspect for future research. The paper concludes with reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the SIA methodology.",
keywords = "Sustainability Impact Assessment, Short Food Supply Chains, Risk Assessment, Organic Consumption, Organic farming, Community Supported Agriculture, Metropolitan Food Planning, Peri-urban agriculture, Urban Agriculture, Food Culture, London",
author = "Ulrich Schmutz and Moya Kneafsey and {Sarrouy Kay}, Carla and Alexandra Doernberg and Ingo Zasada",
note = "This article has been published in a revised form in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000564. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works.",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1017/S1742170517000564",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "518--529",
journal = "Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems",
issn = "1742-1705",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains

T2 - Examples from London, UK

AU - Schmutz, Ulrich

AU - Kneafsey, Moya

AU - Sarrouy Kay, Carla

AU - Doernberg, Alexandra

AU - Zasada, Ingo

N1 - This article has been published in a revised form in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000564. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works.

PY - 2017/11/11

Y1 - 2017/11/11

N2 - Greater London has a vibrant food scene comprising of many different types of urban and peri-urban ‘short food supply chains’ (SFSCs). This paper reports on exploratory research, which used examples of SFSCs from London to build a more detailed understanding of different types of urban SFSC and their relative performance compared to each other. To do this, we undertook a participatory sustainability impact assessment (SIA) in which local food system stakeholders were asked to rank the perceived impacts of five different urban and peri-urban SFSCs compared with the current ‘mainstream’ food supply system (defined as supermarkets retailing mass-produced, standardized food products). The SFSCs ranked were: (1) urban gardening (self-supply), (2) urban gardening (commercial), (3) community supported agriculture (CSA), (4) direct sale (on-farm) and (5) direct sale (off-farm). Results from the SIA showed that CSAs were regarded as delivering the highest overall social, economic and environmental benefits, followed by urban gardening (commercial), urban gardening (self-supply) and direct sales (off-farm). The lowest overall rating was for the supply chain direct sales (on-farm). All five SFSCs were ranked highest on the social aspects of sustainability. Following the participatory SIA of perceived sustainability, we next developed a questionnaire in order to test the feasibility of measuring the specific (rather than ‘perceived’) impacts of an urban SFSC. We applied the test at a community-led local food market in South London, where we conducted face-to-face interviews with all market stallholders (18 respondents) and a random sample of consumers (51 respondents). Results from the community-led market were similar to those acquired at the SIA workshop, with greater agreement about the social benefits of the market, compared with economic and environmental impacts. The results also suggest that producers underestimated consumers’ willingness to share the risks that the producers face and we identify this as an important aspect for future research. The paper concludes with reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the SIA methodology.

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

KW - Sustainability Impact Assessment

KW - Short Food Supply Chains

KW - Risk Assessment

KW - Organic Consumption

KW - Organic farming

KW - Community Supported Agriculture

KW - Metropolitan Food Planning

KW - Peri-urban agriculture

KW - Urban Agriculture

KW - Food Culture

KW - London

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034616516&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S1742170517000564

DO - 10.1017/S1742170517000564

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 518

EP - 529

JO - Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems

JF - Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems

SN - 1742-1705

IS - 6

ER -