Environmental, social and economic perceptions of local food production: a case study of Aberdeenshire farmers' markets.

Jennifer Wardle, Aslam Sorathia, Pete Smith, Diana Feliciano
Author Information
  1. Jennifer Wardle: School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. ORCID
  2. Aslam Sorathia: School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. ORCID
  3. Pete Smith: School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. ORCID
  4. Diana Feliciano: International Business School, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK. ORCID

Abstract

Sustainable food systems are an important aspect of curbing the impacts of climate change and meeting targets of global food security. It is increasingly recognised that a wider suite of indicators is required to assess sustainability beyond the traditional environmental factors. This study focuses on Aberdeenshire, an atypical area of the UK where soils, climate and topography are not conducive to diverse or large-scale fruit and vegetable production, which in other areas, are a dominant feature of farmers' markets. Nevertheless, Aberdeenshire needs economic diversification to offset some of the impacts of the decline in the oil and gas industry. Face-to-face questionnaires were conducted across Aberdeenshire farmers' markets in summer 2022 to assess buyer and seller perceptions of the environmental, social and economic benefits of local food products. There was a positive attitude to local products with the majority of buyers perceiving the quality, nutrition, organic status and use of sustainable farming practices to be high. Conversely, the main products bought, baked goods and meat, are associated with negative impacts on the environment and/or human health. We discuss why, despite these shortfalls, farmers' markets provide a valuable opportunity to distribute and promote high quality wares to support the local economy.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2018 Feb 28;13(2):e0192649 [PMID: 29489830]
  2. Nat Food. 2020 Nov;1:705-712 [PMID: 33225313]
  3. J Agric Food Chem. 2015 Jan 28;63(3):957-62 [PMID: 25526594]
  4. Nature. 2014 Nov 27;515(7528):518-22 [PMID: 25383533]
  5. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud. 2022;103(1):77-89 [PMID: 38624674]
  6. Antioxidants (Basel). 2019 Sep 25;8(10): [PMID: 31557858]
  7. Public Health Nutr. 2013 Jan;16(1):171-8 [PMID: 22433912]
  8. Science. 2018 Jun 1;360(6392):987-992 [PMID: 29853680]
  9. Public Health Nutr. 2022 Mar;25(3):600-606 [PMID: 34789356]
  10. Public Health Nutr. 2022 Feb;25(2):410-421 [PMID: 33843563]
  11. J Nutr. 2015 Jul;145(7):1380-5 [PMID: 26041676]
  12. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Aug 16;119(33):e2120584119 [PMID: 35939701]

Grants

  1. /Wellcome Trust
  2. 205200/Wellcome Trust

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0foodAberdeenshiremarketslocalfarmers'impactseconomicperceptionsproductsclimateassessenvironmentalstudysocialqualitysustainablehighSustainablesystemsimportantaspectcurbingchangemeetingtargetsglobalsecurityincreasinglyrecognisedwidersuiteindicatorsrequiredsustainabilitybeyondtraditionalfactorsfocusesatypicalareaUKsoilstopographyconducivediverselarge-scalefruitvegetableproductionareasdominantfeatureNeverthelessneedsdiversificationoffsetdeclineoilgasindustryFace-to-facequestionnairesconductedacrosssummer2022buyersellerbenefitspositiveattitudemajoritybuyersperceivingnutritionorganicstatususefarmingpracticesConverselymainboughtbakedgoodsmeatassociatednegativeenvironmentand/orhumanhealthdiscussdespiteshortfallsprovidevaluableopportunitydistributepromotewaressupporteconomyEnvironmentalproduction:caseFarmers���agriculture

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.