2014
DOI: 10.1007/s10460-014-9527-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Farm to institution programs: organizing practices that enable and constrain Vermont’s alternative food supply chains

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The most cited examples are farm-to-school programs, which aim to increase the share of locally produced food in school lunches in the USA by connecting food producers directly with schools in a collaborative program [18]. Local school catering value chains are commonly described using concepts such as short food supply chains and values-based supply chains, e.g., [15,[19][20][21]:…”
Section: Local Food Value Chains In School Cateringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most cited examples are farm-to-school programs, which aim to increase the share of locally produced food in school lunches in the USA by connecting food producers directly with schools in a collaborative program [18]. Local school catering value chains are commonly described using concepts such as short food supply chains and values-based supply chains, e.g., [15,[19][20][21]:…”
Section: Local Food Value Chains In School Cateringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Confronted with potential demand saturation in these direct-to-consumer markets (Low et al, 2015), small-and midscale farm enterprises (SMFEs) and practitioners in local-food system development have sought to link SMFEs into the "mainstream" market channels through which the vast majority of food is sold. Local food sold through intermediated market channels is often described in terms of SFME's "scaling-up" for larger markets (e.g., Day-Farnsworth, McCowan, Miller, & Pfeiffer, 2009;Friedmann, 2007;Heiss, Sevoian, Conner, & Berlin, 2015). One strategy to build cross-scale connections between SMFEs and larger buyers is for product to "piggy-back" on conventional distributional and retail infrastructure (Bloom & Hinrichs, 2011;Clark & Inwood, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simplicity of the ingenuity that occurs at the organization level makes the aggregate impact of such instances at the system level opaque, perhaps even elusive. Consequently, the grand narrative on LFS development has mostly neglected the impact of the routine in favor of celebrating cases of explicit innovation (e.g., Bagdonis et al ; Hayden and Buck ; Heiss et al ) or the overt confrontation of bureaucratic barriers and sources of systemic oppression (e.g., Allen ; Guthman , ; Hassanein ; Hinrichs ). We do not argue that these established lines of inquiry should be abandoned.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Local food practitioners are known to be motivated by a range of community, financial, political, sociocultural, and spiritual agendas, beliefs, (Lyson 2014;Mars and Schau 2017a;Tregear 2011). The organizational forms and strategic initiatives that shape the structure and impact of LFSs also vary widely and include community gardens (Macias 2008;Turner 2011), community-supported agriculture (CSA) (Hayden and Buck 2012;Uribe, Winham, and Wharton 2012), farmers' markets (Beckie, Kennedy, and Wittman 2012;Wittman, Beckie, and Hergesheimer 2012), and farm-to-institution initiatives (Bagdonis, Hinrichs, and Schafft 2009;Heiss et al 2015). Furthermore, the ways in which LFSs emerge and evolve vary from one locale or region to another, adding greater complexity and heterogeneity to the broader local food movement (Hinrichs 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%