The recent claims on food security have arisen reflections on the potential contribution of Periurban Farming System (PuFS) in feeding cities, considering its “geographical proximity” with urban dwellers. Besides, the weakness of global food system have led policy-makers and researchers to support studies on the “relocalization” of food production, as a way to support local economy and territorial development. Thus, a link has been made between PuFSs and Local Food System (LFS). Nevertheless, in literature what exactly identifies a food as a “local food” is a matter of debate. Moreover, there are few contributions on the PuFS’ functioning, considering the peculiar territorial production’s conditions, due to urbanisation. In this way PuFS’ contribution may be underestimated. The objective of this study is to analyze the potential contribution of PuFS to LFS, considering the existing approaches on LFS. To do so, the analysis focuses on how the territory of “local” is defined by such approaches with respect to food production, to understand how the particular conditions of PuFSs’ production can be or have already been included. Four approaches were selected dealing with the contribution of local agriculture to LFS: the Local AgroFood System (SYAL), the Foodshed, the Urban Food System, and the Alternative Food Network (AFN). The results show that each approach associates to the term “local” different definitions of “territory”, affecting the inclusion of different aspects of the farming system put in place in a specific territory. SYAL considers the local farming system as a tool for territorial development; studies are focused on the selection of quality’s production, and the territory seems to be more a symbolic area, where the specific conditions of PuFS’ production results of less relevance. In Foodshed and Urban food system approach the starting point is a food demand which seeks a specific production in a geographically well delineated territory, which changes depending on the requests. While foodsheds’s studies are mainly focused on specific users, studying the cropping system of “useful” productions, Urban Food ones takes the institutions’ perspective, dealing with variegated diets’ requests from the city. Finally AFN focuses on the relationships between consumers and farmers, and Short Food Supply Chains consider the relationships between periurban farmers and close urban dwellers, which define the territory. The comparison of LFS’s approaches helps the assessment of the link between PuFS and LFS. In this way it supports policy-makers and researchers dealing with local food security.

How to analyse the contribution of periurban farming system to local food system? Comparison from different approaches on local food system.

Marraccini E;
2016

Abstract

The recent claims on food security have arisen reflections on the potential contribution of Periurban Farming System (PuFS) in feeding cities, considering its “geographical proximity” with urban dwellers. Besides, the weakness of global food system have led policy-makers and researchers to support studies on the “relocalization” of food production, as a way to support local economy and territorial development. Thus, a link has been made between PuFSs and Local Food System (LFS). Nevertheless, in literature what exactly identifies a food as a “local food” is a matter of debate. Moreover, there are few contributions on the PuFS’ functioning, considering the peculiar territorial production’s conditions, due to urbanisation. In this way PuFS’ contribution may be underestimated. The objective of this study is to analyze the potential contribution of PuFS to LFS, considering the existing approaches on LFS. To do so, the analysis focuses on how the territory of “local” is defined by such approaches with respect to food production, to understand how the particular conditions of PuFSs’ production can be or have already been included. Four approaches were selected dealing with the contribution of local agriculture to LFS: the Local AgroFood System (SYAL), the Foodshed, the Urban Food System, and the Alternative Food Network (AFN). The results show that each approach associates to the term “local” different definitions of “territory”, affecting the inclusion of different aspects of the farming system put in place in a specific territory. SYAL considers the local farming system as a tool for territorial development; studies are focused on the selection of quality’s production, and the territory seems to be more a symbolic area, where the specific conditions of PuFS’ production results of less relevance. In Foodshed and Urban food system approach the starting point is a food demand which seeks a specific production in a geographically well delineated territory, which changes depending on the requests. While foodsheds’s studies are mainly focused on specific users, studying the cropping system of “useful” productions, Urban Food ones takes the institutions’ perspective, dealing with variegated diets’ requests from the city. Finally AFN focuses on the relationships between consumers and farmers, and Short Food Supply Chains consider the relationships between periurban farmers and close urban dwellers, which define the territory. The comparison of LFS’s approaches helps the assessment of the link between PuFS and LFS. In this way it supports policy-makers and researchers dealing with local food security.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11390/1216246
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact