Conference paper, International European Forum, Innsbruck, Austria, February 5-9, 2018. Pages 271-283 in proceedings published in this journal., The increasing impact due to urban population’s food supply causes a series of negative externalities related to food production, transformation and transportation. FAO and other institutions are trying to integrate traditional models of food supply with alternative ones like Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA). Defining the drivers that motivate the participation in different types of UPA could be useful to plan more participated and effective UPA development policies. Barcelona (Spain) hosts a number of cases representing different declinations that UPA can assume. This work aims at describing the differences in terms of motivations to enter the various typologies of Urban Agriculture (UA) in Barcelona. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews to 4 groups of users representing 3 of the most widespread models of UA initiatives in Barcelona (Allotment Gardens, Community Gardens, Pla Buits.) The results showed that participation in UA is mainly motivated by relational aspects and knowledge exchange and differences exist among the various UA models. Political reasons are mostly influencing the Community Gardeners while Pla Buits users’ mains motivations are related to socialising and Allotment gardeners are mainly motivated by environmental aspects. Differences in the participants’ demographic characteristics also emerged. Better targeted public policies contents and communication strategies for UPA development can thus be derived by the results obtained; to this end, recommendations have been provided. Further research should broaden the range of case studies and the sample size, in order to provide a more effective and comprehensive tool for tailoring UPA developing strategies to different contexts.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08826
Notes:
Pages 1025-1044 in Rob Roggema (ed.), Agriculture in an urbanizing society volume two: proceedings of the sixth AESOP conference on sustainable food planning. United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pages 601-1274.
9 pages., Via online journal., Food labels legislated by the U.S. government have been designed to provide information to consumers. It has been asserted that the simple disclosures “produced using genetic engineering” on newly legislated U.S. food labels will send a signal that influences individual preferences rather than providing information. Vermont is the only US state to have experienced mandatory labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) via simple disclosures. Using a representative sample of adults who experienced Vermont’s mandatory GE labeling policy, we examined whether GE labels were seen by consumers and whether the labels provided information or influenced preferences. Nearly one-third of respondents reported seeing a label. Higher income, younger consumers who search for information about GE were more likely to report seeing a label. We also estimated whether labels served as information cues that helped reveal consumer preferences through purchases, or whether labels served as a signal that influenced preferences and purchases. For 50.5% of consumers who saw a label, the label served as an information cue that revealed their preferences. For 13% of those who saw the label, the label influenced preferences and behavior. Overall, for 4% of the total sample, simple GE disclosures influenced preferences. For a slight majority of consumers who used a GE label, simple disclosures were an information signal and not a preference signal. Searching for GE information, classifying as female, older age and opposing GE in food production significantly increased the probability that GE labels served as an information source. Providing such disclosures to consumers may be the least complex and most transparent option for mandatory GE labeling.
14pgs, The unjust distribution of poor health outcomes produced via current United States food systems indicates the need for inclusive and innovative policymaking at the local level. Public health and environmental organizers are seeking to improve food environments from the ground up with locally driven policy initiatives but since 2010 have increasingly met resistance via state-government preemption of local policymaking power. This analysis seeks to understand how political actors on both sides of preemption debates use rhetorical argumentation. In doing so, we offer insights to the meaning-making process specific to food systems. We argue that advocates for local food-system innovations are forwarding understandings of food and community that contradict the policy goals they seek. We offer suggestions for local food and environmental advocates for adjusting their arguments.
