Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains: examples from London, UK
Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains: examples from London, UK
复制标题
不同城市短食品供应链的可持续性影响评估：来自英国伦敦的例子
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
I. Zasada
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
U. Schmutz;M. Kneafsey;Carla Sarrouy Kay;A. Doernberg;I. Zasada
摘要大伦敦拥有一个充满活力的食品场景，包括许多不同类型的城市和城市周边的“短食品供应链”（SFSC）。本文报告了探索性研究，其中使用的例子，从伦敦的SFSC建立一个更详细的了解不同类型的城市SFSC和他们的相对性能相互比较。为此，我们进行了一项参与式可持续性影响评估（SIA），其中要求当地食品系统利益相关者将五种不同的城市和城市周边SFSC与当前“主流”食品供应系统（定义为零售大规模生产的标准化食品的超市）相比的感知影响进行排名。排名如下：（1）城市园艺（自我供应），（2）城市园艺（商业），（3）社区支持农业（CSA），（4）直接销售（农场内）和（5）直接销售（农场外）。SIA的结果显示，CSA被认为提供了最高的整体社会，经济和环境效益，其次是城市园艺（商业），城市园艺（自我供应）和直接销售（农场外）。整体评分最低的是供应链直销（农场）。所有五个SFSC在可持续发展的社会方面排名最高。在感知可持续性的参与性SIA之后，我们接下来开发了一份问卷，以测试测量城市SFSC的具体（而不是“感知”）影响的可行性。我们在伦敦南部的一个社区主导的当地食品市场进行了测试，在那里我们与所有市场摊贩（18名受访者）和随机抽样的消费者（51名受访者）进行了面对面的采访。社区主导市场的结果与SIA研讨会上获得的结果相似，与经济和环境影响相比，市场的社会效益更一致。研究结果还表明，生产者低估了消费者的意愿，以分担生产者面临的风险，我们确定这是未来研究的一个重要方面。本文最后反思了SIA方法的优点和缺点。
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.