Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Efryta Wulan Anggraeni
 + 1937 word(s) 1937 2022-03-11 04:52:18 |
2 format is correct
Yvaine Wei
Meta information modification 1937 2022-03-22 06:43:59 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Anggraeni, E.; Handayati, Y.; Novani, S. Improving Local Food Systems. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20801 (accessed on 08 July 2024).
Anggraeni E, Handayati Y, Novani S. Improving Local Food Systems. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20801. Accessed July 08, 2024.
Anggraeni, Efryta, Yuanita Handayati, Santi Novani. "Improving Local Food Systems" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20801 (accessed July 08, 2024).
Anggraeni, E., Handayati, Y., & Novani, S. (2022, March 21). Improving Local Food Systems. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/20801
Anggraeni, Efryta, et al. "Improving Local Food Systems." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 March, 2022.
Improving Local Food Systems
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14063281

A local food system is defined as a supply chain system that distributes food from local producers for consumption by local customers. It is an alternative food network that shortens and more effectively structures the supply chain system. An intermediary actor functioning as an aggregator is needed in the local food system. The food hub is one such intermediary actor with an essential role in strengthening the local food system and increasing the competence of small farmers to compete with large-scale food distribution. The results show that two transformations are needed to achieve a local food system: changing the supply chain system to one that is shorter and more structured and increasing quality consistency.

local food system food hub soft system methodology

1. Introduction

Agricultural commodities are highly perishable food commodities with a short lifetime [1], whose distribution requires proper handling. The handling of agricultural commodities in the supply chain is different from the management of other commodities with a longer lifetime due to continuous and significant quality changes, from producers to end consumers [2]. As delays in distribution to consumers can reduce quality, increase the risk of food loss, and reduce profits, the agricultural food supply chain should focus on minimizing the shipment time [1]. The shipment time can be reduced by shortening the supply chain. Therefore, a strategy to create an alternative network that aims to shorten the supply chain is needed.
A local food system is an alternative food network (AFN) that aims to shorten the supply chain of food commodities, including agricultural commodities. The local food system supplies food locally based on regional characteristics [3][4], and involves small farmers as producers [5][6]. It affects certain social or supply chain characteristics in producing food [7][8] and creates new economic opportunities [9].
The local food system has a mission for social, economic, and environmental sustainability [10][11]; it is expected to build relationships between farmers and customers, provide fair-trade opportunities for small–medium farmers to sell their products, and shorten the supply chain in the distribution process. To achieve these goals, the most effective marketing strategy for commodities in the local food system is direct sales from farmers to customers [5][12]. However, direct selling can only operate efficiently if the customers are individual, not institutional customers. The supply of several small farmers can meet the demands of customers of one institution. With a direct selling system, institutional customer demand is not efficiently met, and the environmental sustainability of the local food system cannot be secured. Therefore, an intermediary local food system that can perform aggregation is needed to meet institutional customer demand and achieve the missions of the local food system.
The fastest-growing intermediary local food system is the regional food hub (RFH) [13]. RFHs function as an intermediary [14] to shorten the food supply chain [15][16] and increase sustainability [17][18]. RFHs play crucial roles in the local food supply chain system: providing operational services, producer services, and community/environmental services [19][20]. The differences between a regional food hub and a food distributor lie in the RFH paying more attention to economic viability, social justice, and ecological sustainability [21][22][23]. Furthermore, RFHs have social and coordination activities [16][24].
Koch and Hamm [24] categorize food hubs into three stages: planning, development, and operation. The food hub is still in the planning stage if it does not have physical facilities, paid employees, or a legal entity to support its operational activities, but has already developed operational ideas. A food hub is in the development stage if the food hub has physical space, funding, business plans, and staff or volunteers. A food hub is classified as operational if it has been sourcing and distributing food.
Among studies of food hubs in the planning stage, Mejia and colleagues [25], Perdana and colleagues [26], and Ge and colleagues [27] constructed a mathematical model to determine the location of a food hub that maximizes farmers’ coverage and minimizes logistics and operational costs. Cleary and colleagues [28] sought to determine the optimal number of food hubs in a county by estimating breakeven market sizes and identifying factors that affect the profitability of food hubs. Their mathematical model found that the factors that need to be considered before building a food hub are the capacity of the food hub and the population to be covered. Martinez [29] explored the barriers to local food expansion and types of policies that can best encourage future growth, arguing that the obstacles that can hinder the development of a local food system through a food hub are inconsistent availability and quality, difficulty identifying reliable local suppliers, difficulty in making purchases due to farmers’ ordering procedures, and dealing with multiple suppliers.
In the planning stage, knowing the exact location and number of food hubs and the barriers that hinder the development of food hubs are not enough. The critical success factor in supply chain management in the local food system is coordination, which serves to increase profits and customer service performance [30]. As intermediaries of local food systems, many food hubs fail to fulfill their functions due to unsystematic coordination-related supply chain management [31]. The concept of a food hub as an intermediary for local food systems is complex because it involves many actors and has dense interactions [32]. A holistic problem-solving approach needs to be applied to achieve the objectives of each actor in the food hub. Building a food hub requires significant funding on the financial side because it requires adequate infrastructure and equipment [33]. The success of a food hub is measured not only in profitability but also in the achievement of food security, a stronger local food system, and increased regional economic activities. It is thus essential to design effective food hub coordination at the planning stage.
Soft system methodology (SSM) is an appropriate approach to finding solutions in the form of multi-objective system problems that are equally important and complex, and involve human activities [34][35][36]. A soft system approach is appropriate for coordinating the design of a local food system and food hub because SSM accommodates systems that involve complexity and different perceptions without reductionism. SSM is suitable for solving problems related to improvement and coordination. SSM articulates the learning process from the system situation under study and compares the real world and systems thinking [36].

2. Local Food System

A local food system can resolve social problems such as instability in supply, unavailability of healthy food, and inequality in economic growth between rural and urban areas.

Strengthening regional or local food systems will increase food consumption from local producers and enhance access to healthy and fresh food [37][38][39][40]. A regional food system is an alternative food system that can reduce the environmental and social sustainability problems of a conventional food system [22]. However, there are obstacles to localizing the food system, such as a lack of economic, organizational, and physical structures of the appropriate scale for moving locally grown food to local eaters.
The local food system concept prioritizes direct sales from producers to customers [12], enabling communication and the establishment of bonds between the two parties [18][41]. From this communication, customers know the characteristics or features of the product. Product differentiation is the unique attribute contained in the product, consisting of farmer identity, the story of the product, and the planting process. This product differentiation causes customers to buy local products at higher prices.

3. The Conceptual Model

The ultimate goal of this structured and shortened agriculture supply chain system is to achieve a local food system. The parameters of success of the local food system are not based only on the economic aspects but also on the environmental and social aspects [17][18][19]. Intermediaries are still needed in designing a shorter and more structured supply chain because farmers in Bandung Regency are small and medium farmers. One high-demand customer must be supplied by several farmers through an intermediary that functions as an aggregator to make the transaction process more accessible. However, the developed intermediary must have a different principle from existing intermediaries and must support the achievement of a local food system. This new intermediary must also provide benefits for farmers and high-demand customers. An intermediary that fits this concept is a food hub [21], which not only prioritizes profit but also promotes social and coordination activities between farmers and customers [23].
Figure 1 subsystem 1 is carried out at the food hub. Farmer participation is the first thing that needs to be achieved in developing a new supply chain system because farmers are the primary producers who produce products sold to customers. Therefore, the first activity to be carried out is to build farmers’ cooperation for collaboration in selling commodities together to reach high-demand customers (1). Another actor no less important in achieving a local food system is the participation of high-demand customers. Marketing to high-demand customers (6) is carried out after operational activities at the food hub have been clearly defined.
Sustainability 14 03281 g005
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
Disclosure of information can build resilience in the supply chain [42]. With detailed information about the commodities being sold, trust will be formed between farmers and customers. Therefore, in the local food system, information is not only about basic information of commodity (e.g., variety, quantity, and quality) but also about commodity profiles, such as farmer identity and planting process. Commodity profiling allows customers to know the final quality of the commodity and the history of the product. Commodity profiling also makes customers more familiar with farmers to open broader collaboration between farmers and customers. Openness and ease of information about commodities will ease high-demand customers’ purchasing decisions. This information is also helpful in making contract decisions with farmers and customers.
To achieve a local food system, coordination activities are needed that not only help farmers produce commodities that meet the needs of high-demand customers but also provide science-based training tailored to the needs of farmers and the standard requirements of the high-demand customers, through collaboration with universities and living innovation laboratories. Such training, carried out in an integrated manner through a food hub, increases the ability and knowledge of farmers. The farmer competency improvement program does not stop at training; assistance in the field is also needed. The mentoring and training process will minimize crop failures and supply uncertainty regarding both quality and quantity.
The proposed alternative supply chain system has aims to increase economic, social, and environmental advantages. However, changing an agriculture supply chain is not easy. According to Mejia and colleagues [25], the middleman, small wholesaler, and big wholesaler will not give up on letting the supply chain system change. They argue that the strategy that can be implemented is to create intermediary memberships in the food hub. In the context of Bandung Regency, intermediary (i.e., middlemen, small wholesalers, and big wholesalers) membership can be applied. Middlemen and small wholesalers can act as coordinators in farmer groups that do not have the human resources to carry out aggregation, and the sorting and grading of operations. Small wholesalers and big wholesalers can still conduct their business but are limited to particular commodities. These wholesalers cannot do business in strategic commodities that are only sufficient to meet the needs of Bandung Regency. In this way, a local food system will be achieved without losing the livelihood of the intermediary.

4. Conclusions

Activities and coordination are recommended to achieve a local food system. Two transformations are needed: the shortening and structuring of supply chains and increasing the competence of farmers to produce crops with consistent quality to meet demand. An intermediary is needed in the recommended supply chain system in the form of a food hub, whose activities agree with the economic, social, and environmental aspects of the system. The recommendations provided do not eliminate intermediaries, such as wholesalers, who are recommended to form partnerships with actors in the new supply chain system to not disrupt the intermediary’s livelihood.

References

  1. Musavi, M.M.; Bozorgi-Amiri, A. A multi-objective sustainable hub location-scheduling problem for perishable food supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 113, 766–778.
  2. Yu, M.; Nagurney, A. Competitive food supply chain networks with application to fresh produce. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 224, 273–282.
  3. Lyson, T.A.; Guptill, A. Commodity agriculture, civic agriculture and the future of U.S. farming. Rural Sociol. 2004, 69, 370–385.
  4. Thilmany McFadden, D.; Conner, D.; Deller, S.; Hughes, D.; Meter, K.; Morales, A.; Schmit, T.; Swenson, D.; Bauman, A.; Phillips Goldenberg, M.; et al. The Economics of Local Food Systems: A Toolkit to Guide Community Discussions, Assessments and Choices; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; p. 118.
  5. Deller, S.C.; Lamie, D.; Stickel, M. Local foods systems and community economic development. Community Dev. 2017, 48, 612–638.
  6. Bauman, A.; Thilmany, D.; Jablonski, B.B.R. Evaluating scale and technical efficiency among farms and ranches with a local market orientation. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 34, 198–206.
  7. Johnson, R.; Aussenberg, R.A.; Cowan, T. The role of local food systems in U.S. farm policy. In Local and Regional Food Systems: Trends, Resources and Federal Initiatives; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–86. ISBN1 9781634827768. ISBN2 9781634827751.
  8. Franklin, A.; Newton, J.; Mcentee, J.C. Moving beyond the alternative: Sustainable communities, rural resilience and the mainstreaming of local food. Local Environ. 2011, 16, 771–788.
  9. Beckie, M.A.; Kennedy, E.H.; Wittman, H. Scaling up alternative food networks: Farmers’ markets and the role of clustering in western Canada. Agric. Hum. Values 2012, 29, 333–345.
  10. Ammirato, S.; Felicetti, A.M.; Ferrara, M.; Raso, C.; Violi, A. Collaborative organization models for sustainable development in the agri-food sector. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2301.
  11. Chiffoleau, Y.; Dourian, T. Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Is Shortening the Answer? A Literature Review for a Research and Innovation Agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9831.
  12. Plakias, Z.T.; Demko, I.; Katchova, A.L. Direct marketing channel choices among US farmers: Evidence from the Local Food Marketing Practices Survey. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 475–489.
  13. Winarno, H.; Perdana, T.; Handayati, Y.; Purnomo, D. Food hubs and short food supply chain, efforts to realize regional food distribution center (Case study on the establishment of a food distribution center in Banten province, Indonesia). Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 9, 338–350.
  14. Berti, G.; Mulligan, C. Competitiveness of small farms and innovative food supply chains: The role of food hubs in creating sustainable regional and local food systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, 616.
  15. Ioannis, M.; George, M.; Socrates, M. A community-based Agro-Food Hub model for sustainable farming. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1017.
  16. Fischer, M.; Pirog, R.; Hamm, M.W. Food Hubs: Definitions, Expectations, and Realities. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2015, 10, 92–99.
  17. Avetisyan, T.; Brent Ross, R. The intersection of social and economic value creation in social entrepreneurship: A comparative case study of food hubs. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2019, 50, 97–104.
  18. Blay-Palmer, A.; Landman, K.; Knezevic, I.; Hayhurst, R. Constructing resilient, transformative communities through sustainable “food hubs”. Local Environ. 2013, 18, 521–528.
  19. Conner, D.S.; Harrington, H.; Heiss, S.; Berlin, L. How Can Food Hubs Best Serve Their Buyers? Perspectives from Vermont. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2020, 15, 613–627.
  20. LeBlanc, J.; Conner, D.; McRae, G.; Darby, H. Building Resilience in Nonprofit Food Hubs. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2014, 4, 121–135.
  21. Barham, J.; Tropp, D.; Enterline, K.; Farbman, J.; Fisk, J.; Kiraly, S. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; p. 92.
  22. Cleveland, D.A.; Müller, N.M.; Tranovich, A.C.; Mazaroli, D.N.; Hinson, K. Local food hubs for alternative food systems: A case study from Santa Barbara County, California. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 35, 26–36.
  23. Quaranta, G.; Dalia, C.; Salvati, L.; Salvia, R. Building resilience: An art-food hub to connect local communities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7169.
  24. Koch, K.; Hamm, M.W. The Role of Values in Food Hub Sourcing and Distributing Practices. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2015, 10, 483–495.
  25. Mejía, G.; Granados-Rivera, D.; Jarrín, J.A.; Castellanos, A.; Mayorquín, N.; Molano, E. Strategic supply chain planning for food hubs in central colombia: An approach for sustainable food supply and distribution. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1792.
  26. Perdana, T.; Chaerani, D.; Achmad, A.L.H.; Hermiatin, F.R. Scenarios for handling the impact of COVID-19 based on food supply network through regional food hubs under uncertainty. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05128.
  27. Ge, H.; Canning, P.; Goetz, S.; Perez, A. Effects of scale economies and production seasonality on optimal hub locations: The case of regional fresh produce aggregation. Agric. Econ. 2018, 49, 157–169.
  28. Cleary, R.; Goetz, S.J.; McFadden, D.T.; Ge, H. Excess competition among food hubs. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2019, 44, 141–163.
  29. Martinez, S.W. Policies supporting local food in the United States. Agriculture 2016, 6, 43.
  30. Handayati, Y.; Simatupang, T.M.; Perdana, T. Agri-food supply chain coordination: The state-of-the-art and recent developments. Logist. Res. 2015, 8, 5.
  31. Mittal, A.; Krejci, C.C. A hybrid simulation modeling framework for regional food hubs. J. Simul. 2019, 13, 28–43.
  32. Stroink, M.L.; Nelson, C.H. Complexity and food hubs: Five case studies from Northern Ontario. Local Environ. 2013, 18, 620–635.
  33. Matson, J.; Thayer, J.; Shaw, J. Running a Food Hub: Lessons Learned from the Field; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; p. 51.
  34. Checkland, P.; Poulter, J. Soft systems methodology. In Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 201–253.
  35. Checkland, P. Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2000, 17, S11–S58.
  36. Rodriguez-Ulloa, R.; Paucar-Caceres, A. Soft system dynamics methodology (SSDM): Combining soft systems methodology (SSM) and system dynamics (SD). Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2005, 18, 303–334.
  37. Enthoven, L.; Van den Broeck, G. Local food systems: Reviewing two decades of research. Agric. Syst. 2021, 193, 103226.
  38. Bimbo, F.; Bonanno, A.; Nardone, G.; Viscecchia, R. The hidden benefits of short food supply chains: Farmers’ markets density and body mass index in Italy. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2015, 18, 1–16.
  39. Cerrada-Serra, P.; Moragues-Faus, A.; Zwart, T.A.; Adlerova, B.; Ortiz-Miranda, D.; Avermaete, T. Exploring the contribution of alternative food networks to food security. A comparative analysis. Food Secur. 2018, 10, 1371–1388.
  40. Aprile, M.C.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M. Consumers’ Preferences and Attitudes toward Local Food Products. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2016, 22, 19–42.
  41. Silver, M.; Bediako, A.; Capers, T.; Kirac, A.; Freudenberg, N. Creating Integrated Strategies for Increasing Access to Healthy Affordable Food in Urban Communities: A Case Study of Intersecting Food Initiatives. J. Urban Health 2017, 94, 482–493.
  42. Mishra, R.; Singh, R.K.; Subramanian, N. Impact of disruptions in agri-food supply chain due to COVID-19 pandemic: Contextualised resilience framework to achieve operational excellence. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agricultural Economics & Policy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Efryta Anggraeni
,
yuanita Handayati
,
Santi Novani
View Times: 547
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Mar 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback