My land is my food: Exploring social function of large land deals using food security–land deals relation in five Eastern European countries

Petrescu-Mag, Ruxandra Mălina; Petrescu, Dacinia Crina; Réti, Kinga-Olga

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.003

Cited by 47 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This aspect seems to condition the food choice for about half of the participants (34.8 + 15.8 = 50.6%). Local foods have a social dimension, contributing for the development of local communities and the establishment of local production systems may also contribute to a more efficient use of locally available renewable resources [44][45][46][47].…”

Section: Influence Of Sociodemographic Variables On Sustainable Food Choicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Issues as Drivers for Food Choice: Study from a Multinational Framework

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work intended to explore some motivations that influence people’s eating habits towards sustainability. This was an observational, cross-sectional study, carried out by questionnaire survey on a non-probabilistic sample of 10,067 participants from 13 countries (Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Romania and United States). Results indicated that people prefer fresh local foods from the season, being important because it allows transportation and storage to be reduced, which in many cases implies refrigeration systems and consequent energy expenditure. Although people avoid food waste at home, the awareness for the waste at restaurants still needs to be improved. Consumers seem to prefer foods that have been produced and packed in sustainable ways but still give importance to the package—understandable for food products. The results also indicated significant differences in the food choice motivations between groups for all sociodemographic variables tested (age, sex, marital status, education, professional area, living environment and country), but the association was high only for variable country. Additionally, a tree classification analysis allowed to identify the relative importance of the influential variables on the sustainable food choices, with country being the most important, followed by age and sex. Additionally, discriminant function analysis allowed establishing a model for the relation between country and six variables accounting for preservation of biodiversity, respect for life, save natural resources, save energy, reduce industrial pollution and minimal packaging. Although with some limitations, this study brings valuable insight into some aspects linked with sustainable food choices on a number of countries and how people shape their food choices according to some sustainability issues.

show abstract

Section: Influence Of Sociodemographic Variables On Sustainable Food Choicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Issues as Drivers for Food Choice: Study from a Multinational Framework

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Enforcement of this act ensures food security, balances the development of rural and urban areas, and resists climate change. Furthermore, the development of cropland is irreversible [23]. This act suggests that urban open space and cropland should be viewed as equally important in evaluating benefits or harms for national land planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boon or Bane: Effect of Adjacent YIMBY or NIMBY Facilities on the Benefit Evaluation of Open Spaces or Cropland

Liou

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate the benefit of urban open spaces and cropland with different adjacent public facilities seen as locally undesirable (“not in my backyard”, NIMBY) or desirable (“yes in my backyard”, YIMBY). The total benefit increases or decreases for urban open space and cropland with adjacent NIMBY or YIMBY facilities in a municipality in Taiwan. The results show that for the city as a whole, the current arrangement of NIMBY and YIMBY in different zones decreases the total benefit of urban open spaces in highly urbanized zones and increases the total damage to cropland in extremely rural zones. This indicates a need to avoid further installing NIMBY or YIMBY facilities in already occupied urban open spaces. The results also demonstrate that locating NIMBY or YIMBY facilities near cropland fails to highlight the benefit of YIMBY facilities and magnifies opposition to NIMBY facilities. For individual housing units, the total damage is 1.87% of the average housing price for cropland-type open space with adjacent NIMBY or YIMBY facilities, and the total benefit is 7.43% of the average housing price for urban-type open space in a highly urbanized area. In contrast, the total benefit for open space with adjacent NIMBY or YIMBY facilities is a 2.95–13.80% increase in the average housing price for areas with mixed urban open space and cropland.

show abstract

“…Enforcement of this act ensures food security, balances the development of rural and urban areas, and resists climate change. Furthermore, the development of cropland is irreversible [21]. This act suggests that urban open space and cropland should be viewed as equally important in evaluating benefits or harms for national land planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boon or Bane: Effect of Adjacent YIMBY or NIMBY Facilities on the Benefit Evaluation of Open Spaces or Cropland

Wu¹,

Wu²,

Liou³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate the benefit of urban open spaces and cropland with different adjacent public facilities seen as locally undesirable (“not in my backyard,” NIMBY) or desirable (“yes in my backyard,” YIMBY). The total benefit increases or decreases for urban open space and cropland with adjacent NIMBY or YIMBY facilities in a municipality in Taiwan. The results show that for the city as a whole, the current arrangement of NIMBY and YIMBY in different zones decreases the total benefit of urban open spaces in highly urbanized zones and increases the total damage to cropland in extremely rural zones. This indicates a need to avoid further installing NIMBY or YIMBY facilities in already occupied urban open spaces. The results also demonstrate that locating NIMBY or YIMBY facilities near cropland fails to highlight the benefit of YIMBY facilities and magnifies opposition to NIMBY facilities. For individual housing units, the total damage is 1.87% of the average housing price for cropland-type open space with adjacent NIMBY or YIMBY facilities, and the total benefit is 7.43% of the average housing price for urban-type open space in a highly urbanized area. In contrast, the total benefit for open space with adjacent NIMBY or YIMBY facilities is a 2.95%-13.80% increase in the average housing price for areas with mixed urban open space and cropland.

show abstract

My land is my food: Exploring social function of large land deals using food security–land deals relation in five Eastern European countries

Cited by 47 publications

References 63 publications

Environmental Issues as Drivers for Food Choice: Study from a Multinational Framework

Environmental Issues as Drivers for Food Choice: Study from a Multinational Framework

Boon or Bane: Effect of Adjacent YIMBY or NIMBY Facilities on the Benefit Evaluation of Open Spaces or Cropland

Boon or Bane: Effect of Adjacent YIMBY or NIMBY Facilities on the Benefit Evaluation of Open Spaces or Cropland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About