Alternative Food Projects, Localization and Neoliberal Urban Development

Summary Introduction The aims of this thesis are twofold; firstly, it aims to increase the understanding of the extent to which community gardens enhance social cohesion for those involved; secondly, it aims to gain insight into the importance community gardeners attach to food growing per se, and the extent to which participants perceive community gardens as an alternative to the industrial food system. I define community gardens as a plot of land in an urban area, cultivated either communally or individually by people from the direct neighbourhood or the wider city, or in which urbanites are involved in other ways than gardening, and to which there is a collective element. Over the last years, community gardens have sprung up in several Dutch cities. Although there are various reasons for an increasing interest in community gardens, there are two that I focus on in this thesis in particular. The first is the assumption made that community gardens stimulate social cohesion in inner-city neighbourhoods, to be seen in the light of the 'participatory society'. The second is community gardens' contribution to the availability of locally produced food, in the context of an increased interest in Alternative Food Networks (AFNs). The Dutch government aims to transform the Dutch welfare state into a participatory society in which citizens take more responsibility for their social and physical environment. This way the government not only hopes to limit public spending, but also wishes to increase social bonding and the self-organisational capacity of society. Community gardens fit the rhetoric around the participatory society, as they are examples of organised residents taking responsibility for their living environment. Moreover, the literature suggests that gardens are physical interventions that may decrease isolation by acting as meeting places. However, both the extent to which community gardens enhance social cohesion and under what conditions they may do so are unclear, especially as gardens come in various designs, shapes and sizes. The popularity of community gardens also seems to be related to an overall increasing societal interest in food, and can be discussed in relation to Alternative Food Networks. AFNs are food systems that are different in some way from the mainstream, and are seen as a reaction to consumer concerns about the conventional food system. They are often considered to be dictated by political motivations and injected with a 'deeper morality'. The category 'AFN' is however a heterogeneous category, as is the conventional food system; neither can be easily defined. The degree to which community gardens can be seen as AFNs is therefore unclear. While they do improve the availability of local food and operate outside of the market economy, we do not know how much and how often people eat from their gardens, nor do we know to what extent they are involved in the gardens in order to provide an alternative to the industrial food system. Hence, there is a lack of knowledge about the sense in which community gardens are alternative alternatives. Research questions The overall research question of this thesis is: What is the significance of community gardening in terms of its intention to promote social cohesion as well as its representation as an alternative food system? This broad question is instructed by the following sub-questions: Why do people get involved in community gardens? What are their motivations?How, to what extent, and under which conditions does community gardening promote the development of social relations between participants? How do participants value these social effects? To what extent do the diets of community garden participants originate from the gardens in which they are involved? What is the importance of food in community gardens?What is the importance of growing or getting access to alternative food for participants of community gardens? Methodology An important theoretical lens in this research is the theory of practice. Practices are defined as concrete human activity and include things, bodily doings and sayings. By performing practices people not only draw upon but also feed into structure. Routinisation – of practices, but also of daily life – therefore plays a central role in practice theory. Practice theory allows for an emphasis on practical reality as well as a study of motivations. This focus on how people manage everyday life, and how gardening fits within that, makes it particularly useful for this thesis. I define social cohesion as the way in which people in a society feel and are connected to each other (De Kam and Needham 2003) and operationalised it by focusing on 'social contacts, social networks, and social capital', one of the elements into which social cohesion is often broken up. This element was operationalised as 1) contacts (the width of social cohesion) and 2) mutual help (the depth of social cohesion). This research has a case study design; I studied four Dutch community gardens over a two-year period of time, and later supplemented these with an additional three cases. As practices consist of both doings and sayings, analysis must be concerned with both practical activity and its representation. I used participant observations to study practical activities, and interviews, questionnaires and document study to examine the representation of these activities. Findings Chapters 3 to 7 form the main part of this thesis. They are papers/book chapters that have been submitted to or are published by scientific journals or books. All of them are based on the field work. In chapter 3 we compare two of the case studies and determine to what extent they can be seen as 'alternative'. We argue that although reflexive motivations are present, most participants are unwilling to frame their involvement as political, and mundane motivations play an important role in people's involvement as well. By using the concept of 'food provisioning practices' we show that participants of community gardens are often required to be actively involved in the production of their food. This means that participants are both producers and consumers: the gardens show a 'sliding scale of producership'. This chapter also shows that political statements are not a perfect predictor of actual involvement in community gardening. This finding was one of the main reasons for starting to use the theory of practice, which is the main topic of the next chapter. In chapter 4 we compare one of my case studies with an urban food growing initiative in New York City. By comparing the internal dynamics of these two cases and their relations with other social practices, we investigate whether different urban food growing initiatives can be seen as variations of one single practice. We also study the question of whether the practice can be seen as emerging. In particular, we take the elements of meaning, competences and material (Shove et al. 2012) into account. We found both similarities and differences between the two cases, with the main difference relating to the meanings practitioners attach to the practice. We conclude, therefore, that it is not fully convincing to see these cases as examples of the same social practice. We also argue that urban food growing may be considered an emerging practice, because it combines various practices, both new and established, under one single heading. In chapter 5 we use the theory of practice to explore how urban food growing is interwoven with everyday life. We compare four community gardens - two allotments and two cases which we define as AFNs. We found that participants of the allotments are involved in the practice of gardening, while members of the AFNs are involved in the practice of shopping. The gardening practice requires structural engagement, turning it into a routine. The produce is a result of that routine and is easily integrated into daily meals. As AFNs are associated with the practice of shopping, they remain in competition with more convenient food acquisition venues. Eating from these gardens is therefore less easily integrated in daily life; every visit to the garden requires a conscious decision. Hence, whether members are primarily involved in shopping or in growing has an impact on the degree to which they eat urban-grown food. This shows that motivations are embedded in the context and routine of everyday life, and 'only go so far'. Chapter 6 concerns the organisational differences between the seven case studies in this thesis and the extent to which these influence the enhancement of social cohesion. We study people's motivations for being involved in the gardens and compare these with the three main organisational differences. This comparison reveals that the gardens can be divided into place-based and interest-based gardens. Place-based gardens are those in which people participate for social reasons – aiming to create social bonds in the neighbourhood. Interest-based gardens are those in which people participate because they enjoy growing vegetables. Nevertheless, all of these gardens contribute to the development of social cohesion. Moreover, while participants who are motivated by the social aspects of gardening show a higher level of appreciation for them, these social aspects also bring added value for those participants who are motivated primarily by growing vegetables. In chapter 7 we present a garden that exemplifies that gardens may encompass not only one, but indeed several communities, and that rapprochement and separation take place simultaneously. While this garden is an important meeting place, thereby contributing to social cohesion, it harbours two distinct communities. These communities assign others to categories ('us' and 'them') on the basis of place of residence, thereby strengthening their own social identities. Ownership over the garden is both an outcome and a tool in that struggle. We define the relationship between these two communities as instrumental-rational – referring to roles rather than individuals - which explains why they do not form a larger unity. Nevertheless, the two communities show the potential to develop into a larger imagined garden-community. Conclusions This thesis shows that the different organisational set-ups of community gardens reflect gardeners' different motivations for being involved in these gardens. The gardens studied in this thesis can be defined as either place-based or interest-based; gardens in the first category are focused on the social benefits of gardening, whereas gardens in the second category are focused on gardening and vegetables. Nevertheless, social effects occur in both types of gardens; in all of the gardens studied, participants meet and get to know others and value these contacts. Based on this finding, I conclude that community gardens do indeed enhance social cohesion. Place-based community gardens specifically have the potential to become important meeting places; they offer the opportunity to work communally towards a common goal, and once established, can develop into neighbourhood spaces to be used for various other shared activities. Most interest-based gardens lack opportunities to develop the social contacts that originated at the garden beyond the borders of the garden. These gardens are often maintained by people who do not live close to the garden or to each other, and those who garden are generally less motivated by social motivations per se. Important to note is that community gardens do not necessarily foster a more inclusive society; they often attract people with relatively similar socio-economic backgrounds and may support not one, but several communities. Most participants from place-based gardens eat from their gardens only occasionally; others never do so. This type of community garden can therefore hardly be seen as a reaction to the industrialised food system, let alone an attempt to create an alternative food system. Nevertheless, certain aspects of these gardens are in line with the alternative rhetoric. By contrast, most gardeners at interest-based gardens eat a substantial amount of food from their gardens, and to some of them the choice to consume this locally-grown food relates to a lifestyle in which environmental considerations play a role. However, this reflexivity is not expressed in political terms and participants do not see themselves as part of a food movement. Participants who buy rather than grow produce showed the greatest tendency to explain their involvement in political terms, but many of them have difficulty including the produce in their diets on a regular basis. I therefore conclude that community gardens cannot be seen as conscious, 'alternative' alternatives to the industrial food system. Nonetheless, the role of food in these gardens is essential, as it is what brings participants together – either because they enjoy gardening or because the activities which are organised there centre around food. Theoretical contributions In this thesis I used and aimed to contribute to the theory of practice. Using participant observations to study what people do in reality was particularly useful. It turned research into an embodied activity, enabling me to truly 'live the practice', and therefore to understand it from the inside. Deconstructing the practice of food provisioning into activities such as buying, growing and cooking was helpful in gaining an understanding of how people manage everyday life, and how food acquisitioning fits into their everyday rhythms. It sheds light on how and to what extent people experience the practice of community gardening as a food acquisitioning practice, and to what degree they relate it to other elements of food provisioning such as cooking and eating. The focus on the separate elements of food provisioning practices helped me realise that acquiring food from community gardens represents a different practice to different people; some are engaged in the practice of growing food, others in the practice of shopping for food. This thesis showed that motivations delineate how the practice 'works out in practice'; the way in which a practice such as community gardening is given shape attracts people with certain motivations, who, by reproducing that practice, increase the attractiveness of the practice for others with similar motivations. This implies that while community gardening appears to be one practice, it should in fact be interpreted as several distinct practices, such as the practice of food growing or the practice of social gathering. Motivations therefore influence a garden's benefits and outcomes. This thesis thus highlights that motivations should not be overlooked when studying practices. Apprehending the motivations of community gardeners is also an important contribution to the literature around AFNs, since it helps us to understand the extent to which urban food production is truly alternative. By studying motivations, this thesis reveals that AFNs do not necessarily represent a deeper morality, or that not all food growing initiatives in the city can be defined as alternative. However, participants of community gardens are often both producers and consumers (there is a 'sliding scale of producership'); the gardens are thus largely independent from the conventional food system. Moreover, for participants who buy produce, the meaning of the gardens often goes beyond an economic logic (there is a 'sliding scale of marketness'). Hence, while the gardens studied in this thesis are no alternative alternatives, most of them can be qualified as 'actually existing alternatives' (after Jehlicka and Smith 2011). This thesis showed that even those gardens in which the commodification of food is being challenged do not necessarily represent a deeper morality, which is contrary to what is argued by Watts et al. (2005). This implies that understanding whether or not initiatives resist incorporation into the food system is insufficient to be able to determine whether or not they can be defined as alternative food networks. However, determining whether or not deeper moral reflection is present is not a satisfactory way of defining food networks as alternative either, as this neglects the fact that motivations do not always overlap with practical reality. This suggests that establishing whether a food network can be regarded as alternative requires studying both motivations and practical reality. The thesis also raises the question to what extent the label AFN is still useful. Since it is unclear what 'alternative' means exactly, it is also unclear whether a given initiative can be considered alternative. Moreover, the world of food seems too complex to be represented by a dichotomy between alternative and conventional food systems; the gardens presented in this thesis are diverse and carry characteristics of both systems. I therefore suggest considering replacing the term AFN with that of civic food networks, as Renting et al. (2012) advocate.

In recent years, scholars have turned their attention toward alternative food systems and diverse forms of food production, distribution, and consumption, often in response to the unsustainable practices of the dominant global food system. This mainstream food system, which governs food production and distribution on a massive scale, is widely recognized as environmentally and socially unsustainable. It is built upon capitalist structures entrenched in racism, colonialism, and imperialism, perpetuating ecological degradation, labor exploitation, and social inequalities. These impacts are far-reaching, contributing to environmental depletion, exploitation of workers and their communities, further marginalization of vulnerable populations, and exacerbation of global disparities in food access and security—issues central to rising global inequality. It is essential, however, not to position these “alternative” food systems solely as responses to the capitalist model. Rather than establishing a dichotomy of mainstream versus alternative, we can draw from J.K. Gibson-Graham’s concept of “diverse economies,” which moves beyond this binary (J. K. Gibson-Graham and K. Dombroski, eds. The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Cheltenham, UK: Edgar Elgar, 2020). This approach recognizes that alternative methods of organizing food production, distribution, and consumption are not secondary or peripheral to the dominant model; instead, they represent legitimate and transformative possibilities. These alternatives challenge the view that the capitalist food system is the central or most important model, highlighting instead a diversity of practices that are integral to reimagining sustainable food futures. Across the globe, farmers and food workers, grassroots food movements, community-led initiatives, and food justice organizations are promoting diverse practices and visions grounded in sustainability, social and ecological justice, and commitments to decolonial struggle and racial and gender equity. These groups actively resist the destructive tendencies of industrial food systems, proposing pathways to food systems that are more just, resilient, and attuned to the needs of people and the planet. To understand the depth and scope of these alternative food practices, it is essential to engage with scholarly research from a variety of fields, including political economy of food system transitions, agroecology and sustainable food systems, and labor and peasant studies. Scholars in these fields document a range of efforts that push against the status quo, demonstrating the potential of agroecological systems, local food networks, food cooperatives and community-supported agriculture. These approaches advocate for transforming food systems, restoring degraded ecosystems, and ensuring fair and equitable access to food. It is worth noting that the vast scope and diversity of scholarship on alternative food systems cannot be fully captured in this article. This work offers a starting point for those interested in exploring alternative food systems and practices but does not encompass the full breadth of the field. Readers are encouraged to consider this article as an introduction, providing foundational insights into the varied, community-driven practices of food production, distribution, and consumption across diverse regions and local realities.

Taste in the Anthropocene: The Emergence of “Thing-power” in Food Gardens

Alternative food systems and networks, which have emerged around the world, are often fragmentary, reduced in size and frequently unfold in parallel, hardly linked to each other. Agroecology faces the challenge of scaling up these initiatives to gain size and a significant impact on food production and consumption. Within the agroecological movement, however, diverse conceptions exist of what a sustainable food system should be. It is thus necessary to reach an extensive consensus, from the perspective of agroecology, on the principles guiding the construction of such a system. This paper discusses the principles that would best steer the building of Agroecology-based Local Agri-food Systems (ALAS). To this end, a critical review of the scientific literature on alternative food networks and systems was performed. In so doing, we highlighted the aspects that one could consider as purely agroecological in nature and sought to bring them together to form a coherent proposal. Consequently, the present paper systematizes the main contributions of literature on alternative food networks and systems, taking into account the characteristics of sustainability from an agroecology viewpoint, and identifies the issues requiring further development. Several principles are proposed to define local food systems, based on the four dimensions of sustainability: environmental health, economic viability, social equity and the right to decide what, how and for whom food is produced.

Despite the various studies on food governance structured around alternative food systems (AFS), analysis of the essential characteristics of it which facilitate the sustainability of the food system (FS) is still incipient. This study aims to clarify the debate on the role of governance in sustainability of the FS by way of the following two objectives: (i) to characterise the analytical approach of the literature in the processes of structuring of food governance related to AFS, and (ii) to reflect qualitatively on the essential factors to be considered which ensure sustainable processes and trajectories of the AFS. The research methodology is based on a systematic review of the literature in order to define the approaches identified in the relevant studies in their analysis of the food governance process. From the results, a conceptual framework is proposed that determines the strategies related to food governance which can help meet the challenges of the AFS. A multi-actor and multilevel governance is identified that takes into account both structural and variable aspects linked to the interdependent relationships that are involved in the construction processes of the alternative food networks (AFN). We conclude our study by identifying certain gaps in the knowledge as well as new lines of study that we deem necessary in order to consolidate the AFS from a vision of sustainability.

Situating the ‘alternative’ within the ‘conventional’ – local food experiences from the East Riding of Yorkshire, UK

Farmer's Cooperatives to Regionalize Food Systems: A Critique of Local Food Law Scholarship and Suggestion for Critical Reconsideration of Existing Legal Tools for Changing the US Food System

Urban community gardening is emerging as a form of quiet activism challenging the corporate food system. In urban community gardening, quiet activism subtly challenges the dominant corporate food system. However, research tends to overlook its presence and impact in global South cities, where issues of food insecurity and corporatisation are acute. There is a gap in research on urban community gardening activism, with a focus mainly on global North cities. Global South cities and populations face unique challenges in the corporate food system that require attention and exploration in scholarly literature. We draw on qualitative research conducted with urban community gardeners in Cape Town, South Africa. Through interviews and observations, the study investigates how these gardeners engage in quiet activism to challenge the corporate food system. We find that community gardens are subtle but potent platforms for bolstering local food movements and fostering healthier dietary practices by cultivating and sharing produce. Quiet activism through community gardening offers a nuanced approach to challenging the corporate food system. The study highlights the need to recognise and understand varying levels of activism intensity and their implications for reshaping urban food systems. We underscore the need to discern the distinct embodiments necessitated by different modes of activism. Understanding these different modes of activism is crucial for comprehending their varying impacts on challenging and reshaping the corporate food system. This nuanced approach reveals the transformative potential inherent in community gardening practices. Community gardening in Cape Town exemplifies the transformative potential of understated acts in food activism.

In this paper, we critically interrogate the benefits of an interdisciplinary and theoretically diverse dialogue between ‘local food’ and ‘alternative food networks’ (AFNs) and outline how this dialogue might be enriched by a closer engagement with discourses of food sovereignty and the politics of scale. In arguing for a shift towards a greater emphasis on food sovereignty, we contend that contemporary discourses of food security are inadequate for the ongoing task of ensuring a just and sustainable economy of food. Further, rather than treating the local and the global as ontologically given categories around which to contest the politics of food, it is our contention that recognising the socio-spatial aspects of the politics of scale has the potential to reinvigorate discourses of food security, food sovereignty and AFNs. Understanding scale as both fixed to a degree as well as contingent and dynamic has implications for an understanding of the role of food systems, for how the rescaled state privileges certain food systems and the possibilities for resistance through ‘jumping scale’ and food utopias. All of these aspects are significant if we are to fully comprehend and contest the challenges of envisioning and enacting real utopias of food sovereignty.

Organic and low-input food systems are emerging worldwide in answer to the sustainability crisis of the conventional agri-food sector. “Alternative” systems are based on local, decentralized approaches to production and processing, regarding quality and health, and short supply-chains for products with strong local identities. Diversity is deeply embedded in these food systems, from the agrobiodiversity grown in farmers’ fields, which improves resilience and adaptation, to diverse approaches, contexts and actors in food manufacturing and marketing. Diversity thus becomes a cross-sectoral issue which acknowledges consumers’ demand for healthy products. In the framework of the European project “CERERE, CEreal REnaissance in Rural Europe: embedding diversity in organic and low-input food systems”, the paper aims at reviewing recent research on alternative and sustainable food systems by adopting an innovative and participatory multi-actor approach; this has involved ten practitioners and twenty-two researchers from across Europe and a variety of technical backgrounds in the paper and analysis stages. The participatory approach is the main innovation and distinctive feature of this literature review. Partners selected indeed what they perceived as most relevant in order to facilitate a transition towards more sustainable and diversity based cereal systems and food chains. This includes issues related to alternative food networks, formal and informal institutional settings, grass root initiatives, consumer involvement and, finally, knowledge exchange and sustainability. The review provides an overview of recent research that is relevant to CERERE partners as well as to anyone interested in alternative and sustainable food systems. The main objective of this paper was indeed to present a narrative of studies, which can form the foundation for future applied research to promote alternative methods of cereal production in Europe.

Shaw (2006) argues that “the rubrics of difference against which Whiteness is commonly juxtaposed rarely includes Indigeneity, or the experiences of Indigenous peoples regardless of the North American domination of the field, and its settler context” (853). Viewing Canada and the United States as post-colonial nations, this paper seeks to broaden understandings of Indigenous food production, distribution, and consumption practices and/or projects and how they work to resist colonial histories of oppression. hooks (1992) defines decolonization as “a process of cultural and historical liberation; an act of confrontation with a dominant system of thought” (1). Using the concept of “Whiteness”, this research attempts to prove how small-scale Indigenous food systems located in North America decolonize dominant ways of seeing alternative food systems as white food spaces. To present this research to an interdisciplinary audience I will first attend to defining key concepts informing this research including: post-colonial nation, decolonization, Whiteness, and Indigeneity. I will then spend some time exploring what Sarah Whatmore describes as “Alternative Food Networks” (AFNs) and claims as “white food spaces”. Finally, in an attempt to decolonize alternative food systems as white spaces, I will share various forms of present-day, small-scale Indigenous food systems such as Wild Rice production by The White Earth Anishinaabe, the ‘Food from the Land’ program in the O-pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation, and various Indigenous farmers markets and community gardens.

Understanding the dynamics of food and sustainability are pressing academic and public policy concerns. The food system in developed countries, especially that of the UK, often seems to be bedevilled by periodic alarms, for example, about the safety of food or its nutritional value. Anxieties about food safety and quality are allied to broader concerns about the relationships between producers and retailers, between retailers and manufacturers, and between economic actors in the food chain and policy makers and regulators. While public policy concerns relating to food are long-standing, contemporary debates on food and sustainability appear to have their own distinctive features. First, they involve a wider range of actors: all players in the supply chain have a legitimate voice in raising issues about how sustainability should be thought about and acted upon, and so too do a variety of other actors, ranging from bodies concerned with trade, alternative food networks, health, the environment and so on. In short, the public policy arena for dealing with food issues has become more crowded. Second, and partly as a consequence of the plethora of voices clamouring to be heard on food and sustainability, there is no fixed or agreed agenda. Many issues appear to wax and wane with regularity as their promoters bring them to the fore only to see them rapidly replaced by another issue, while others appear to have greater longevity, such those linked to climate change. Issues, however, do not simply disappear; rather they help to inform the way in which subsequent issues emerge. Policies are layered one upon another (Feindt and Flynn, 2009); issues interact, coalesce and compete in highly dynamic ways. Growing awareness of global threats to the food system has contributed to these debates, adding a further layer as concerns of food security and those of ecological sustainability converge (Godfray et al., 2010; SDC, 2009). This has prompted calls for new agri-food systems that recognise the multi-functionality of food; its social and environmental contributions in addition to its economic ones (IAASTD, 2009; House of Commons, 2009; Foresight, 2011). Advocates argue that new food systems need to be shaped to withstand greater volatilityand uncertainty (Ingram et al., 2010; Foresight, 2011) and need to operate within ecological limits, remain competitive while delivering fairer returns and greater social benefit (Pretty, 2008; Ambler-Edwards et al., 2009; The Royal Society, 2009; Garnett and Godfray, 2012). So, in recent years there have been, and continue to be, debates on food miles, food and health, food and climate change, the environmental impacts of food products, food and trade, alternative food systems, and food security. In this chapter we ask, to what extent is the current dominant food system capable of internal transformation to make it more sustainable? What is the potential for, perhaps, the key alternative food system, organic production, to engender change in the broader food system? The chapter is organised around five themes: the first discusses food supply chains in a global context; second, what is meant by food systems; third, the nature of alternative food systems; fourth, the potential transformative capacity of organic food; fifth, the environmental impacts of the food system, and concludes by pointing to some of the pressing academic and policy concerns.

This article examines the diversity of food networks that fit within the alternative food system of the United States. While farmers' markets, community supported agriculture schemes, and corporate organic food markets all fit within the alternative food system, they differ greatly in the conventions and beliefs that they represent. The alternative food system has divided into two movements: corporate, weak alternative food networks; and local, strong alternative food networks. The weak corporate version focuses on protecting the environment; however, it neglects issues concerning labor standards, animal welfare, rural communities, small-scale farmers, and human health. Local, strong alternative food networks not only assure environmental protection, but they also address the issues that weak alternatives neglect. Using three case studies from the Washington, D.C. metro area, the author explains that strong alternative food networks are better suited to create social and political change because they challenge the foundations of the conventional food system: standardized and generic products, price-based competition, consolidated power, and global scale. To affect true social and political change in the United States, the author recommends supporting strong alternative food networks by creating the requisite cultural and political space for them to succeed.

Recently, there has been a proliferation of alternatives to the global food system. Yet, there is still an ongoing debate on their potential to transform the food system and challenge its globalization. This research introduces institutional analysis to the food system literature in order to comprehend actors’ efforts to scale up alternatives and transform the food system at the local level. Such efforts are explored from an inductive research of the organization called M-Local Food Project, which gathers a range of diverse actors to work on expanding alternative food and transforming the food system in eastern France. Based on this organization’s analysis and its collaborative institutional work, this research highlights how to organize collective agency from the collaboration of multiple actors to co-build an alternative food system and extends the debate on alternative food potential to challenge the dominant global food system. It also provides an emerging model of collaborative institutional work that enriches the institutional analysis on the coalition for institutional changes and offers practical advice on tensions for alternative organizations that cannot be overcome.

Should we go “home” to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism