Where is “Local?” - Geographic Imagination and ...elikadura21.eus/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/63-Hagolani.pdf · farming tradition in a sustainable way. In light of a dwindling

www.elikadura21.eus

ELFUTURODELAALIMENTACIÓNYRETOSDELAAGRICULTURAPARAELSIGLOXXI:Debatessobrequién,cómoyconquéimplicacionessociales,económicasyecológicasalimentaráelmundo.

THEFUTUREOFFOODANDCHALLENGESFOR

AGRICULTUREINTHE21stCENTURY:Debatesaboutwho,howandwithwhatsocial,economicandecological

implicationswewillfeedtheworld.ELIKADURARENETORKIZUNAETANEKAZARITZARENERRONKAKXXI.MENDERAKO:Munduanork,nolaetazer-nolakoinplikaziosozial,ekonomikoetaekologikorekinelikatukoduenizangodaeztabaidagaia

Whereis“Local?”-GeographicImaginationandAgroecologicalSymbiosis

SophiaHagolani-AlbovPaper#63

Apirila–Abril–April24,25,262017

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación

ylaAgriculturaenelSigloXXI.

1

Whereis“Local?”-GeographicImaginationandAgroecologicalSymbiosis

SophiaHagolani-Albov

This is a draft paper. Please do not cite without the author’s permission.

Abstract

The“localness”ofaparticularproductisafluidconceptthatcontinuestodefyobjectiveclassification.Thisliesinthepoweroftheconsumers’geographicimaginationandtheroleofplaceasitrelatesto“own”and“other.”Participatorymappingmethodsaidinaccessinglocalknowledgewhichisessentialtothedevelopmentoftheboundariesofthegeographicimagination.ThisresearchstudiesapilotcaseforrestructuringproductionandconsumptioninPalopurovillage,Finland,premisedonnutrientrecyclingand(re)localizedproductionandconsumption.Themodelforthisredesignedsocial/ecologicalfoodshediscalled‘agroecologicalsymbiosis’(AES).TheAESmodeltakesinspirationfromecologicalmutualismtocreatesynergiesbetweenproducersandintegratesthesurroundingconsumersinanefforttofostercreationoffoodcommunitiesandeasetheecologicalstrainofagriculturalactivities.TheAESmodel,startedthroughagrassrootsinitiativeinPalopurovillage,isastrategytomaintaintheuniquecharacteroftheirvillageandtopreservetheirfarmingtraditioninasustainableway.Inlightofadwindlingpopulation,thisvillagehaslostitstrainstationandthelocalschool.Thesefundamentalchangestothefabricofthecommunitybroughttotheforefrontthepotentialdangeroflosingsomeoftheiruniqueculturalheritage.Palopurovillageisadjacenttoagrowingurbanareaandthecitizenryisadamanttomaintaintheircultureandresistabsorptionintotheencroachingcity.Deliberatecooperationbothwithandamonglocalfarmshasservedtowardcreationofa(re)localizedfoodandculturalcommunity.Thispaperexploresthecultural,social,political,ecological,andspatialchangestotheagriculturallandscapeandPalopurovillageasaresultofimplementationoftheAESmodel.Inaddition,itservesasabasisforevaluatingthestrengthsandweaknessesofAESandthepotentialfortransferabilityandscalabilityoftheAESmodel.

Keywords

Local, alternative food chains, agroecology, geographic imagination,participatorymapping

Introduction

“Local” is a term which is used a lot in modern discourses about food andconsumption.Thisisaconceptthatseemssofamiliarthatthetruecomplexityofthe term is often overlooked. What constitutes local is not just an objectivedefinition,butisalsorelatedtoanindividual’ssenseofplaceandtheirperceptionoftheworldaroundthem.Inadditiontodifferencesinthemeaningoflocalonanindividualbasis, there isalsodiscrepancy in themeaningof local ingovernment

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


2

and policy documents, and the base biophysical limits of a natural ecosystem.Localisablankettermwhichisusedtorelayinformationaboutdistinctlevelsofgovernment and governance which have quite different geographic bounds.However, distilling local simply to a spatial designation which must matchadministration spatial division does not fully capture the full range of whatconstitutes local from a social or biophysical perspective. When consideringdevelopment of local food systems, programs, or initiatives the perception andlived experience of the participants and the range of efficient and effectivenutrientcyclingandrecyclingshouldbeconsidered.

Over the course of the 21st century there has been an increasing promotion of“localfood.”Thisisperhapsasapushbackagainsttheincreasinglyglobalizedfoodchain. Globalized and fossil fuel-based linear food systems have brought withthem negative impacts on food security, food safety, and the environment(Holloway et al. 2007, Whatmore 2002). The long and opaque “supply chains”which have developed under the globalized food system are described ascontributingtoruralde-structuring,lossofruralcommunities,wideningmetabolicrifts. (Wald2016,Rentingetal.2003).Ananswertoamelioratingsomeoftheseills is a turn to local and cyclical food systems. The overarching theme in theacademic literature is that local is an inherently desirable location is a suitablenexus for the development of sustainable food systems. For example,Kloppenburgetal.(1996)createaneloquentargumentforthenecessitytoshiftawayfromtheglobalizedfoodsystemintoafoodshedmodelbasedonlocalizedconsumptionandproduction.Withinthiscallforchangeargumentthereisnotafunctionaldefinitionofwhatconcretelyconstitutesthelocal.Theirconceptionsoflocalaredealingwithanidealizedlocalortheoreticallocal.Withinthediscussionof local therearedissentingvoiceswhichcautiontheunexaminedanduncriticaladoption of local as always the most suitable answer (Born and Purcell 2006).Therehavealsobeenpreviousstudiesonenvironmentalandsocialimpactsoftheactoflocalizingfood.However,thesestudieshaveassumedalinearsupplychainsinsettingofconventionalfoodmarkets(Nicholsonetal.2015andSundkvistetal.2000).

My paper seeks to add to this discussion of local by situating local as livedexperiencethatexistsasbothapersonalperceptionofplaceandboundedextentdictated by the biophysical extent of nutrient (re)cycling. In addition, the casebeing examined operates as a cyclical food cycle and is not participating in theglobalized food chainmodel. This exploration of localwill be carried out in theFinnish context and specifically using a case study of a food system which isseeking to (re)localize production and consumption in conjunction creating aclosednutrientloopthroughrecycling.Thiscaseiscalledagroecologicalsymbiosis(AES) and is currently operating as a standalone case in Palopuro Village in thecapitolregionofFinland(Koppelmäkietal.2016).

Multipleavenuesofinvestigationareusedinpursuitofthemeaningoflocalandits role within the AES model. First, the existing narratives of local will beidentifiedusingaselectionofpolicydocumentsparticipantobservationconductedin Finland. Second, local will be viewed through the articulated perceptions oflocal from organic farmers, researchers and policy players. These perceptionswere gathered during a series of semi-structured interviews about the organicsectorandthethemeoflocalcameoutofthediscussionnaturallyandservedasacatalyst for forming furtherresearchquestionwhichdealmoredirectlywiththe

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


3

localconcept.Finally,localwillbeviewedthroughthelensoftheAESmodelasithasbeenexpressed inparticipatorymappingexerciseconductedwithconsumerparticipantsintheAESmodel.

Table1:Documentusedtoinformtheadministrativeconceptionoflocal

The AES model is currently only operating in one location in the Finnishcountryside,buttheactorsinvolvedinthemodelbelieveithasthepotentialtobea more generally applicable model suitable for wider adoption. To aid indeterminingtheviabilityofAESasareplicablemodel,athoroughunderstandingoftheroleandsituationofwhatconstitutes“local”isanessentialstep.Withoutasophisticated understanding of local in the original incarnation of AES itwill be

Type Name Source Scale UseofLocal ScopeandRelevance

GovernmentPolicyDocument

Food2030 MinistryofAgricultureandForestry

NationalLevel

Spatialmeasure

Economictool

Localizationasatooltobuildlocaleconomies.Localasaneconomicadvantage

GovernmentPolicyDocument

LocalFood–ButofCourse!

MinistryofAgricultureandForestry

NationalLevel

Spatialmeasure

Componentofculturalheritage

Localasaspatialmeasure.Localasarepositoryforlocalknowledgeandculture.

NGOPolicyAgenda

FromUniformitytoDiversity

InternationalPanelofExpertsonSustainableFoodSystems

InternationalPanelofExpertsonSustainableFoodSystems

InternationalLevel

Positiveconnotationandgenerallygood,butnotovertlydefined

Localasarepresentativeforalternativeagriculturalmodels

Localasadesirable,butidealizedspace

Grassrootsorganizationdeclaration

NyéléniDeclaration2007

Nyéléni Supranational(Grassrootsorganization)

OrganizationalUnit

Theconceptoflocalisnottiedtoanadministrativeorspecificspatialmeasure.Itisusedaunitoforganizationbetweenhumanactorswithintheagricultural/socialsystem

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


4

difficulttodevelopanassessmentoftheappropriatescaleoflocalforsubsequentmodels.Itshouldbenotedthatdeepexaminationofthecomplexsetofvariableswhichgointocreatingtheperceptionoflocalarebeyondthescopeofthispaper.Atthisstageoftheresearchtheperceptionoflocalistakenatfacevaluewithoutdeepinquiryintoallthevariablesthatcametogethertoformandinfluencethatperception.

LocalasReflectedthroughPolicyDocuments

TheFinnishMinistryofAgricultureandForestryhasageneral foodpolicy (Food2030), an organic food policy, and a local food policy. This local food policy iscalled,“LocalFood–ButofCourse!”andwaspublishinMay2013.EventhetitleofthisdocumentindicatesalackofcriticalengagementwiththeconceptoflocalfoodandfallsintowhatBornandPurcell(2006)havetermedthe“localtrap.”Inthat, local food is assumed to be more sustainable, more efficient, or bettersimplybecause it isproduced inaspecificgeographicregion.Thereportdefineslocalas:

localfoodmeanslocally-producedfoodthatpromotesthelocaleconomy, employment and food culture of the regionconcerned, has been produced and processed from rawmaterialofthatregion,andismarketedandconsumedinthatregion.Inthiscontext,regionmeansthetraditional‘maakunta’oracorrespondingorsmallerregionalentity

This definition is decidedly vague and there is not specific scientific evidencepresentedinthepolicyorreferencedregardinghowthisdesignationoflocalwasmade. The concept of local is more like a brand than a meaningful space ofproduction and consumption – this is highlighted by the use of the wordlähiruokaa to describe local food in the local food program instead of thetraditionally used words paikallinen ruoka.When translated into English bothwords generally mean “local food,” but there is a marked difference in theconnotations with the words in Finnish. Lähiruokaa had become a trendydesignationforanyfoodproducedinFinlandandthisisthewordwhichhasbeenchosenbythegovernmenttodescribethelocalfoodpolicy.Thereisafeelingthatlähiruokaahasbeenco-optedbycorporationsasamarketingtooltobeontrendwithsustainabilityandsubsequentlythemeaninghasbeenwatereddown.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


5

Fig.1:Consumerperceptionoftheirlocalareaisnotalwaysinsyncwiththeadministrativedefinitions,inaddition,oftentimesdifferentlevelsofadministrationusedifferentspatialextentsintheirinterpretationoflocal

RoleofGeographicImaginationinproducing“local”

Thesubjectivityoflocalcreatesambiguitywhenassigninganobjectivespatialmeaningtolocal.Theconceptof“local”ispersonallyandsociallyconstructed;therearemanyvalueswhichneedtobeunpackedtofullyappreciatethemeaningoflocalwithinaspecificcontext(Feagan,2007).Geographicimaginationisoftenusedinexaminethe“ness”ofaparticularobjectorculture–inthiscaseitisbeingusedtoexplorethelocalness(Massey1998).Inshortitisthecollectionofcultureandpersonalvaluesattachedtoaphenomenonviewedthroughageographicallens.Theconceptoflocaldoesnotmeanthesamethingtoonepersonasitdoestoanotherpersonbecauseonanindividuallevel,local,whichisafacetofplace,istiedupinthegeographicimagination.Forexample,ifsomeonewasbornandraisedinonekuntaandtheirplaceofworkisintheadjacentkuntaandtheytravelthereeveryday,thenitisentirelypossiblethattheareaofbothkuntaswouldconstitutelocalintheirgeographicimagination.Inaddition,therehavebeennumerousmergersofthesekuntalocaladministrativeunitsasthepopulationinFinlandcontinuestoshiftfromthecountrysidetourbanareas.

LocatingthelocalinAgroecologicalsymbiosis

Agroecologicalsymbiosisisanextensionofthetheoryofindustrialsymbiosis(IS)to the agricultural sector (Graedel & Allenby 1995). Graedel’s (1996) definedindustrialecologyasaformofproductioninwhichtheuseofenergyandmaterialflowsresemblethoseinnaturalecosystems.However,hisoriginalconceptionofISwas not explicit about the influence of spatial scales which prove to be quiteimportant when considering the biophysical limitations of nutrient (re)cycling.Hence, Chertow (2000) suggested that industrial symbiosis is an operation inwhich the partners of the symbiosis must be in spatial proximity, which morecloselymimicsthecomponentsofanaturalecosystemandallowsforalocalizedco-evolution. Using an ecosystem as a base model cements the place basednatureof theAESmodel asecosystems innatureexist in a real and contiguousspace. Drawing on the analogy of biological symbiosis, partner entities (e.g.,companiesor inthecaseofAESfoodproducersandprocessors) inan ISbenefit

Administrative areas Local area in the geographic imagination

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


6

from each other by turning what would ordinarily be waste into a resource(internal recycling).AESfurtherexpandsonthefoundationof ISas itnotonly isconcernedwiththerecyclingaspects,butitalsoactivelypromotes(re)localizationinthefoodsystem.AESispremisedonusinganagroecologylenstointerpretandunderstandthefunctionsofagriculturalsystems(Francisetal.2003)

InAES,thesuccessful functioningofthesystemisnot judgedsolelythroughtheefficiencyofthenutrientcycle,butalsothereintegrationoftheproducerandtheconsumer. In the pilot case this social component is expressed through theinteractionofproducersandconsumersinasocialspacewhichhasbeencreatedontheanchoringfarminthemodel.Thespacethefarmhascreatedgoesbeyondasimplyaretailmarketwhich ispremisedoneconomicactivityanddeliberatelyworksactivelytosupportthepromotionoflocalfoodcultureandsocialheritage.One of the ways the farm seeks to do this through the production of foodintendedfor localsaleandconsumption.This isthepointwherethequestionofwhat constitutes local enters the discussion of AES.Where is the intersectionsbetweentheconsumerperceptionoflocalandthespatiallimitsofthebiophysicalsystem?WithoutananswertothisquestionitisdifficulttodetermineiftheAESisservingitsgoalof(re)localizingthefoodsystem.

TheAESmodelbeganorganicallyasacooperationbetweentheproducersandthelocalcommunityinPalopuroVillageinFinland.Aftertheproducer,processor,andconsumercooperationwerealreadyunderway,actorsinPalopuroapproachedtheUniversityofHelsinkianddescribedthesystemstheyweredeveloping.Itwastheactors in the village that sought the collaborationwith academic researchers toname and create amodel from the agricultural system they had independentlydevised. From the academic perspective, the intention is to develop themodelfurther and create parameters tomeasure success of themodel fromboth thebiophysical and social perspective. If themodel proves to be effective there ishopethatthismodelwillbereproducibleandscalableincontextsoutsideoftheFinnish countryside. It is hypothesized the AES could stand a step toward trueagriculturalsustainability.Developingthemetricstodeterminethespatialscaleofthebiophysicalsystemisagoalofouroverarchingresearchproject.However,thedetailsofthebiophysical(re)cyclingintheAESandthescientificstepstodevelopthosemetricsarebeyondthescopeofthispaper.

Place-based agriculture is not a new concept and has been explored in theliterature through the lens of urban-rural food systems (Marsden and Sonnio2012). Awareness of place is a needed as a component of developing a(re)localizedproductionandconsumptionsystem.Everythingthatisgrownintheworld has a physical location, a discrete space where it comes into being. Inaddition,everythingthatisconsumedintheworldisalsorootedtoanactualactwhichtakesplacesinaphysicalspace.Evenaseaseoftransportationhascreateda smaller seemingworld; technology stillhasnot createdaprovision toprovidewirelesscalories.TheAESmodelseekstobringtheproductionandconsumptioninto closer proximity as a strategy to facilitate nutrient (re)cycling. Thisreintroductionoftheproducerandconsumerisalsoasteptowardtransformationto sustainable agricultural systems and healing the metabolic rift perpetratedunder theglobalized, industrial agriculturalmodel (SeeMarx1867, Foster1999,

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


7

McClintock2010,andMoore2011forafurtherdiscussionofmetabolicriftinthecontextofagriculturalsystems).

AES is situated as a pushback against the globalized food chain and a way tooperate successfully outside of the industrial agriculturalmodel. Not seeking toworkwithin the globalized food chain, but to create cyclical systemson a scalewhich is appropriate to thebiophysical constraints and the social boundariesofthe consumer geographic imagination. In the AESmodel, a defined local as anintegral facet in theability todetermine thepotential of scalability and the keyfactorindeterminingtheappropriatecustomerbasesforanAESsystem.Itshouldbe noted that AES is as a model is focused more on creating opportunities toproduceandconsumefoodlocallyandinseekingforadefinitionoflocalitisnotastrict spatial measure, but a place based measure of what bound of the localsystemaroundeachAESmodel.Thismeans thatwhat is local in theAESmodeloperatinginPalopuromightnotbethesamescaleforlocalinanothergeographicsetting.Weareattemptingtodeterminetheextentof local inthePalopuroAESmodel todetermine aneffective set ofways to catalogue the extent of local inothergeographiccontexts. InasuccessfulAESsystem,theextentof localshouldbe treated as tool to exercise the principles of an ecologymodeled agriculturalsystem.

ResearchQuestions

Thebaseresearchquestion is:What is the“local” in local food?Thisquestion isexplored in the context of Finland and the articulated goals for increased localfoodintheFinnishFoodPolicy.Essentially,thegovernmentlaysaheavyemphasisontheneedforlocalfoodandisgenerallyverypositiveaboutthedevelopmentoflocal foodenterprises.Thegeographicextentof local is set to the regional leveland remains quite flexible. However, in designing viable agricultural systemswhich promote the production and distribution of “local food” the consider ofwhat constitutesaproductas local is two-foldanddoesnotalwaysneatlyalignwith the administrative regions. One must take into consideration both thebiophysical boundaries of self-sustaining agricultural system and the geographicimaginationof theconsumers.Thus, tocreateaproductwhich is truly localandviable it must fall within the boundaries of the biophysical extent and theconsumer’s perception of the local region. As perception is exercised on anindividual level it is almost impossible to find a space which will satisfy thegeographic imagination of each individual consumer. However, based on thepreliminary findings thereappear tobecommonlysharedways inwhich local isperceivedas spatialextent.By spatialextent, Imean thegeographic regionalorportionof the landscapewhich is included in an individual’s livedexperienceoftheir local space. This paper will explore the concept of local from threemainperspectives.First, througha reviewof thepertinentpolicydocuments.Second,the reflection on what local means from interviews conducted with organicfarmers, policy actors, and researchers in the organic sector. Finally, throughparticipatorymappingconductedwithconsumersinvolvedintwodifferentshortchainsystems.

Methods

This paper is based on interpretative qualitative work carried out in Finlandbetween2013and2017.Thebaseobservationsinthispaperwerebuiltoverthe

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


8

course of three projects centered aroundorganic agriculture, alternative supplychains, and rural agricultural development. The methods employed over theseprojects include semi-structured interviews, participant observation, semi-structuredsurveys,andparticipatorymapping.

The interviews quoted in this paper came out of a research project whichaddressedtheinterplaybetweenstatepowerandtheEUintheadministrationoforganicagriculturalpolicy.Whiletheoverarchingtopicmightseemfarawayfromthetopicscoveredherein,theinterviewsforthisprojectinadvertentlyhighlightedthesubjectoflocal.Overthecourseoftheinterviews,astrongdiscourseemergedontheroleoflocalityasaconsiderationoffoodprocurement.Theparticipantsinthese interviewswere Finnishorganic farmers, policy actors at the regional andnationallevel,andorganicresearchers.IusedsnowballsamplinganddidnothavespecificgeographicboundswithinFinlandforthelocationofmyinformants.Thus,theseinterviewscomefromallpartsofFinland.Thefarmerswerelargelylocatedinruralareas,whilethepolicyactorsandresearcherswerefromurbanareas.Thisresearchrevealedlocalasimportanttopicandleadtothesecondproject.

Given what was learned about the conception of local in the first interviewproject,forthesecondinterviewprojectIchosetofocusontheroleofalternativesupply chains and urban gardening in the (re)localization of food production,processing, and procurement. In this research, I more directly approached thelocal question through a participatorymapping exercise, asking respondents todemonstratebymarkingonablankmapofFinlandwhat theyconsidered tobetheextentof local food.The respondents in thisparticipatorymappingexercisewereparticipantsinaHelsinkibasedcommunitysupportagriculture(CSA)project.The participants were chosen at random from a group who volunteered toperform manual labor at the CSA fields. Interviews were also conducted withparticipants,but the resultsof those interviewsarenot reported in thisproject.ThispilotparticipatorymappingprojecthasledtothecurrentprojectinPalopuroVillage.

In this third iteration of investigation into “local” the participatory mappingexercise has been paired with a semi-structured survey. This survey integratesquestions about where respondents have lived, currently live, and where theyconsider their home to be. Respondents are drawn from consumer who areparticipating in social activities being held at the social space which has beencreated on one of the farms participating in the AESmodel. In addition to theparticipatory mapping activity, multiple participant observations and non-interviewconversationswereconductedatthesamesitein2016.Theseactivitiescoupledwiththepreviousresearchprojectsservedtoinformthedevelopmentofthe survey and participatorymapping activity. At present this paper is formallyreporting the preliminary results of the most recent survey and participatorymapping research in Palopuro village. However, the prior projects and theknowledgegaineddoesplayaroleinthedevelopmentofmyconclusions.

InitialDataAnalysis

The results reported herein from the interview data and the participatorymappingare in thepreliminary stagesofanalysisanddeconstruction.Therearereoccurring narratives in the interviews and overarching trends in theparticipatory mapping activities which have emerged from this initial analysis.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


9

Thesepreliminaryresultswillinformcontinuedfieldwork.Itshouldbenotedthatthe interviews were not conducted with the AES concept in mind and thediscussion of local in the interviews represents amore general exploration intotheideaoflocal.Thethemeoflocalfoodintheinterviewswassurprisingandnotanticipated. When the theme emerged in the early interviews, it was moredeliberately explored in later interviews. Forthcoming fieldworkwill be focusedspecificallyonthequestionoflocalandwillbeconductedwiththeproducerandconsumerpopulationparticipatingintheAESmodelinPalopuro.

Locatingpersonalnarrativesoflocal

IntheinterviewsacleardivisionwasestablishedbetweenFinnishproducedfoodand food which is produced outside of Finland. In almost all cases, when apreference was indicated, it was for food produced in Finland. The desire forFinnishfoodandonelineofreasoningforthisisillustratedinthefollowing:

WhenIgotothegrocerystoreandbuyeggs–wehavehereinoneshopsthereismany,manyeggsproduced.So,thereisourlocaleggsandorganiceggsandfreeheneggsandeggsarethatare.ButIalwaysbuythatlocalbecauseIknowheisalmostmyneighborwhoproducedthoseeggs,butthesearenotorganics.But I knowhim I sawthemanalmosteverydaywhen Igo tothe shop and he delivers the eggs to the shops. But that isdifficult–IusuallyIbuyorganiceverytime,butitalsohastobefrom Finland because I know Finnish farmers so much.(Interviewee172013)

It shouldbenoted thatwhenasked to considerbetweena local conventionallygrown product and a foreign organic product there was a preference for theFinnishconventionalproduct.Therewasamarkeddividebetweenfoodwhichisproduced domestically and foodwhich came from other countries. Thereweremultiple reasons given for why Finnish food was preferred, including possiblenationalisticmotivationsasdescribedbelow:

I try to buy organic and if that is not available I buy at leastFinnish produce. If I have a choice between an organicallyproduced carrot, but that is produced in Spain and aconventionally produced carrot that is produced in Finland. Ichoose theFinnishoneeven if it is conventionalbecause it isalso a bit of patriotism involved I guess. Support the localfarmersandsoon.(Interviewee572014)

In addition, there was an articulated desire to support localentrepreneurs.Thisentrepreneur indicatedthattheywere interestedinotherentrepreneursand theyextended that idea that small farmsbettersupporthisvalueofsupportingentrepreneurs.

If I am an entrepreneur so I think of all the others who arehavingthesesmallbusinesseslikeme.Iwouldratherbuyfroma small entrepreneur than a big one. Andmaybe that is alsopart of the idea when you choose the product in thesupermarket, you try to support the local and the small. If itcomes fromabroad, it is probably froma big farm. That is at

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


10

least the idea I have, I don’t know if it is really true or not.(Interviewee622014)

Inadditiontothepatrioticorpoliticalmotivations,supportforlocalfoodwasalsolinkedtoasimplelifestyleandadistancingfromthecomplicatedglobalizedfoodchain.OneofthecornerstonesoftraditionFinnishfoodculture lies ingatheringfood from the forests. Finland has a wide variety of berries, mushrooms, andotherforestproductswhichgrownwidelyandareallowtobegatheredfreelyforown’s use on all land. Perhaps this tradition has served to create a connectionwithfoodthathastranscendedthemorerecentindustrializationandurbanizationoftheFinnishpopulation.

“I like to use local products and I – because I eatmyself in asimpleway.Iusually,formyself,andformyfamily,Ibuybasicrawmaterials.Itmeanspotatoes,carrots,berriesIamgrowingmyselforpickingupintheforest.MushroomsIampickingup.Iamalso fishingbecause I am livingnearby lake.” (Interviewee522014)

The interview responses also showed that therewas informal hierarchyof fooddesirabilitysharedbytherespondents.Itisinterestingtonotethatthishierarchyin not based solely on spatial measures as it is not possible to determine thediscrete distance of the producer in each of the categories from the consumer.Local food is themostdesirableandcanbeassumedtobe intheclosestspatialproximity. However, once you step outside of the personally perceived “local”thereareconsiderationswhichtranscendthespatial.Thus,theoverallhierarchyisbothspatialandscalar.

Fig.1:Thecorrelationwhichcameoutintheinterviewbetweendesirabilityofafoodítemandwhereitwasproduced.Thisgraphicisproducedasapreliminaryimpressionoftheexpressionofthedesirabilityofthegeneralizedcategoriesoffoodlocla,organic,conventional,andforeign.TheseideaswillbefurtherexploredmorespecificallyanddeliberatelyinforthcominginterviewswithparticipantsintheAESmodel.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


11

LocalappearstobeanimportantconceptinFinland,andtheprocurementoflocalfoodwasoftendescribedasapriority,evensurpassingthedesirefororganicfood.Forexample,oneindividualexpressedthisdesireforlocalinthisway:

Perhaps not only organic, butwe could say organic and localfood. I think the local food is a little bit stronger.Has been alittlebut strongerhereandespeciallyFinnish food.UseoriginFinnishrawmaterialsandsoon.”(Interviewee362014)

The focus on local food as more desirable than simply organic food is furtherreinforcedbyanotherrespondent:

Iwouldpersonallyprefer localandorganicthenagain Iwouldpreferlocalratherthanorganicthatcomesfromanywhere.IfIhave local conventionally producedmuttonmeat sheepmeatsoIwouldpreferthattobuyfromthelocalproducerthantheNewZealandorganic.(Interviewee52013)

This categorization of desirability is important because it highlights the role oforganic when it enters the globalized food chain. When participating in theglobalizedfoodchainorganicfoodisatasmuchriskasconventionalfoodasbeingnot food from somewhere, but food from anywhere, food from nowhere(McMichael2009,Campbell2009).Thepreliminaryresultsfromtheseinterviewsformed thebasis for thedevelopmentofparticipatorymappingexerciseswhichwillbefurtherdiscussedinthenextsection.

Category Description NumberofMaps

1 TheentiretyofFinlandismarkedasthelocalarea. 4

2 Multiple administrative areas around and including therespondents’ home region is marked. All markings follow theofficialadministrativeboundaries

5

3 Multipleadministrativeareasincludingtherespondents’homearemarked,but theydonot follow theofficial administrativedivisions

11

4 The respondents home region is marked following the officialadministrativeregion

2

5 Less than one administrative region is marked correspondingwiththeareatherespondentlives

4

6 There is no correlation to the stated home area of therespondent.

4

7 The respondent made no markings on the map. It should benoted that this only occurred in the Palopuro participatory

6

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


12

Table2:Thistableincludesallthecategorieswhichwereobservedinthepreliminaryparticipatorymappingactivities.Perhapsinfurtheriterationsoftheresearchthecategorieswillbesummarized,butpresentlythefullbreathbettersupportstheargumentregardingthemyriadofgeographicimaginationsofpersonallocalareas.

ParticipatoryMappingData

To date, two pilot participatory mapping activities have been completed withparticipantsintwoshortfoodchains.Theseparticipantswereaskedtophysicallydrawtheextentofwhat theyconsider tobe theirown localarea.These resultswere then categorized independently by myself and a research assistant. Wedeveloped categories separately, grouped the maps into the categories, andcomparedour results.Withoutanypriordiscussion,wehad five categories thatwere fundamentally the same. While we used different words in our categorytitles, theywereexpressing the same typeof groupand containedmanyof thesamemaps.Inaddition,thereweretwocategorieswhichdidnotmatchup.Therewere44mapstotalandtheresearcherscategorized81percentofthemapsinthesamecategorieswithoutpriorconversation.Inthebelowgraphictheredoutlineis a visualization of themost commonway that local was expressed.Which is,multiple administrative areas including the respondents’ home area, but notfollowinganypredefinedadministrativeboundaries.Thisisperhapsanindicationthat the administrative boundaries might not be the most appropriate to usewhencreatingaconceptionoflocalinafunctioningAES.

mappingperhapsbecauseitwaspartofalargersurveyandnotastand-aloneexercise

8 Mapswerecategorizedindifferentcategoriesbytheresearchersso there was no correlation between the researchers’interpretationofthemaps

8

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


13

Fig. 2: Eachoutline representsadifferentpersonalperceptionof theextentof theareathatislocalfromeachofthecategoriesdiscoveredintheanalysisexceptforcategories6,7,and8.

PreliminaryConclusions

AESisanendogenousformofrural(re)development.ToachieveasuccessfulAESmodel as outlined by the founders of AES, it is necessary for the farming tomeaningfulengagewiththelocalfrombothabiophysicalandsocialperspective.Thebiophysicallimitsofalocalsystemcanbequantifiedthroughexaminationofthenutrientcyclesandtheeffectivelimitsofself-containedsystem.However,thesocial perception of what constitutes local is a much more nuanced. Theinterviews revealed a narrative which associated spatial measures with foodprocurement and desirability. In addition, themes of organic and conventionalwereoftentiedtotheconsiderationaboutfoodchoice.Inthisthereseemedtobea preference for own food – in the sense that food from the “local” region isconsideredasdistinctanddifferentfromfoodoutsidethe“local.”This localwasreadily identified by respondents in the participatory mapping activities. Thesepreliminaryresultsshowthattherearedefinablecategorieswhichcorrespondtotheindividualconceptionofwhatconstituteslocal. Itwillbeinterestingtoseeifthese samecategoriesholdwhena larger sample size is utilized. Itwasevidentfrom the participatorymapping that the personal perceptions of local often donotmatchwithadministrativedefinitions.

Location of Palopuro Village

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


14

NextStepsforthisresearch

Thispaper reportspreliminary finds fromanongoing researchproject.Thenextsteps are further analysis of the existing interview and participatory mappingmaterials.Theseresultswillbetriangulatedwithextensive in-situobservation inPalopuro village, additional semi-structured interviews with participants in theAESmodel includingproducers,processor,andconsumers. IncollaborationwiththenutrientcyclingfocusedresearcherswewillworktofindintersectionbetweenthebiophysicalandsocialcycleswithintheAESmodelandlooktowarddevelopingmetrics to determine the extent of local. These further research actionswill becarriedoutin2017,2018,and2019.Along-rangegoalofthisresearchisfindingsuitablepartnerlocationstoestablishadditionalworkingAESmodels.

Acknowledgements:

IwouldliketothankJuhaHeleniusandMarkusKrögerfortheirguidancethroughthiswritingprocess.ThisresearchissupportedbytheDENVIDoctoralProgramattheUniversityofHelsinkiwhereIamcompletingmydoctoraltraining.Iwouldalsolike to thank the FulbrightCommission, the Finlandia Foundation,DeltaGammaFoundation, theAmericanGeographical Society, and theUniversity ofHelsinki’sCooperative Research and Teaching Fund for their support of the multiplefieldworkexperienceswhichhavecontributedtothispaper. Inaddition, Iwouldlike to thank my colleagues and research assistants who have helped me todeveloptheseideas.Myheartfeltthankstotherespondentsinmyinterviewsandparticipatorymappingwhohavegivenmeinsightintotheirpersonalperceptions.Theviewsexpressedhereinaremyownanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoffundersorparticipants.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


15

References:

Born,B.andM.Purcell.2006.Avoidingthelocaltrap:Scaleandfoodsystemsinplanningresearch.Journalofplanningeducationandresearch26(2):195-207.

Campbell,H.2009.Thechallengeofcorporateenvironmentalism:sociallegitimacy,ecologicalfeedbacksandthe‘foodfromsomewhere’regime.AgricultureandHumanValues.26(4):309-319.

Chertow,M.R.2000.Industrialsymbiosis:literatureandtaxonomy.AnnualReviewofEnergyandEnvironment25:313-317.

Feagan,R.2007.Theplaceoffood:mappingoutthe‘local’inlocalfoodsystems.ProgressinHumanGeography31:23-42.

Foster,J.B.1999.Marx'sTheoryofMetabolicRift:ClassicalFoundationsforEnvironmentalSociology.AmericanJournalofSociology105:366-405.

Francis,C,etal.2003.Agroecology:theecologyoffoodsystems.JournalofSustainableAgriculture22:99-118.

Graedel,T.E.1996.Ontheconceptofindustrialecology.AnnualReviewofEnergyandEnvironment21:69-98.

GraedelT.E.,B.R.Allenby.1995.IndustrialEcology.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ,PrenticeHall.

Kloppenburg,J.,J.Hendrickson,andG.W.Stevenson.1996.Comingintothefoodshed.Agricultureandhumanvalues13(3)33-42.

Holloway,L.,etal.2007.Possiblefoodeconomies:amethodologicalframeworkforexploringfoodproduction–consumptionrelationships.SociologiaRuralis47:1-19.

Koppelmäki,K.etal.2016.‘PalopuroAgroecologicalSymbiosis’Apilotcasestudyonlocalsustainablefoodandfarming(Finland).Paperpresentedatthe7thInt.Conf.LocalizedAgri-FoodSystems,May8-10,inStockholm,Sweden.

Marx,K.1867.DasKapital,KritikderpolitischenÖkonomie.IIIBand.VerlagvonOttoMeisner,Hamburg.

Marsden,T.andSonnino,R.2012.Humanhealthandwellbeingandthesustainabilityofurban–regionalfoodsystems.CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability,4(4):427-430.

Massey,D.1998.Thespatialconstructionofyouthcultures.Coolplaces:Geographiesofyouthcultures.121-129.

McClintock,N.2010.Whyfarmthecity?Theorizingurbanagriculturethroughalensofmetabolicrift.CambridgeJournalofRegions,EconomyandSociety3:191-207.

McMichael,P.2009.Afoodregimegenealogy.TheJournalofPeasantStudies.36(1):139-169.

Moore,J.W.2011.Transcendingthemetabolicrift:atheoryofcrisesinthecapitalistworld-ecology,JournalofPeasantStudies,38:1,1-46.

Nicholson,C.F.,etal.2015.EnvironmentalandEconomicImpactsofLocalizingFoodSystems:TheCaseofDairySupplyChainsintheNortheasternUnitedStates.

SundkvistÅ,A.M.Jansson,andP.Larsson.2000.Strengthsandlimitationsoflocalizingfoodproductionasasustainability-buildingstrategy—ananalysisofbreadproductionontheislandofGotland,Sweden.EcologicalEconomics37:217-227.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


16

Renting,H.,T.Marsden,andJ.Banks.2003.Understandingalternativefoodnetworks:exploringtheroleofshortsupplychainsinruraldevelopment.EnvironmentandPlanningA35:393-411.

Wald,N.andD.P.Hill.2016.‘Rescaling’alternativefoodsystems:fromfoodsecuritytofoodsovereignty.AgricultureandHumanValues33:203-213.

WhatmoreS(2002)Fromfarmingtoagribusiness.Theglobalagro-foodsystem.In:R.J.Johnstonetal.(eds.)GeographicsofGlobalChange.Malden,MA:BlackwellPublishers,p.58-67.

Elfu

turodelaalim

entación


17

NazioartekoHizketaldiaELIKADURARENETORKIZUNAETANEKAZARITZARENERRONKAKXXI.MENDERAKO:

Munduanork,nolaetazer-nolakoinplikaziosozial,ekonomikoetaekologikorekinelikatukoduenizangodaeztabaidagaia

InternationalColloquiumTHEFUTUREOFFOODANDCHALLENGESFORAGRICULTUREINTHE21stCENTURY:

Debatesaboutwho,howandwithwhatsocial,economicandecologicalimplicationswewillfeedtheworld.

April24th-26th.EuropaCongressPalace.VitoriaGasteiz.Álava.BasqueCountry/Europe

ColoquioInternacionalELFUTURODELAALIMENTACIÓNYRETOSDELAAGRICULTURAPARAELSIGLOXXI:

Debatessobrequién,cómoyconquéimplicacionessociales,económicasyecológicasalimentaráelmundo.

\]/\^deAbril,\_`a.PalaciodeCongresosEuropa.Vitoria-Gasteiz.Álava.PaísVasco.Europa.

GUNTZAILEAK/COLABORAN/COLLABORATINGORGANIZATIONS

LAGUNTZAEKONOMIKOA/APOYAN/WITHSUPPORTFROM

2017koapirilaren24/26.EuropaBiltzarJauregia.Vitoria-Gasteiz.Araba.EuskalHerria.Europa.