undervalued sustainable practice?
DESCRIPTION
The paper presents results of food self-provisioning case study from five European regions. Food self-provisioning (gardening) has many positive aspects: lowering ecological footprint of food, increase of self-efficacy and decrease of the dependency on global markets, preservation of traditional knowledge and possible improvement of social networks through exchange of food. European Union and many of its member states support alternative food networks and environmentally friendly agricultural policies, such as organic farming or farmers markets. However, the gardening seems to be undervalued or misunderstood; this activity has not received enough attention of the policymakers. Some European scholars tend to interpret the gardening in Western Europe as a way of self-realization and in Eastern Europe as a heritage of socialist era or coping strategy of poor people. We argue that this simplification neglects the local specifics and we interpret gardening more as a hobby or continuation of traditions. Data from the sociological survey with 2500 respondents carried out in rural and urban regions in five EU countries (UK, Netherlands, Germany, Czechia, Hungary) in 2010 are presented, to show how widespread is the gardening and which social groups are most involved. The results document that gardening is common among most of the regions. Though people do not need to be aware of the consequences of their activities, they unintentionally promote alternative sustainable practices. We conclude that gardening should deserve more support of the policymakers and interest of academics, since it is widespread activity with high sustainability potential.TRANSCRIPT
Undervalued Sustainable Practice? Case of Food Self-Provisioning in Five European Regions
Jan Vávra, Miloslav Lapka, Eva CudlínováUniversity of South Bohemia, Czech Republic
Purpose and structure• How widespread is food-self provisioning in
Europe and who participates in it?
• Structure of presentationo Introductiono FSP in Europeo Research questionso Methodso Resultso Discussion and Conclusion
Introduction• Food self-provisioning (FSP) - informal food
production, subsistenceo Growing own food by people who are not farmers by profession, and do not
aim to sell
Source: www.sheknows.com, www.cranstonstyle.com, magazin.ceskenoviny.cz, www.ediblegardenproject.com
Types of garden• Backyard• Allotment• Weekend house• Community• Other
Sustainability potential of FSP
• Environmental impact of agro-industrial food productiono Energy demand – machines, greenhouses, transportation, processing,
packaging, freezing, distribution, etc. (Jungbluth, Tietje and Scholz 2000)• Food makes ¼ of average Czech’s carbon footprint (Vávra et al. 2012)
o Soil erosion, overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, loss of biodiversity, etc.
• FSP – small scale production, seasonal foodo Usually less fertilizers, lower energy demand, low food-miles, etc.o Potential problems (e.g. transport to the plot, freezing)
• Social and economic aspects of FSPo Food exhchange, barter and gifts, improvement of social networks
(Jehlička and Smith 2011)o Local resilience, continuation of tradition, lower dependance on global
markets (bad harvest, oil price, speculations)• Though economic benefit are sometimes questionable
FSP in Europe• Long tradition of gardening and allotments in some
European countries (roots in 19th century)
• Importance of FSP during WWII and to some extent in socialist countries
• 1990’s post-socialist transitiono FSP very important in Russia
(Seeth et al. 1998) and other states with economic problems
• FSP tends to be more frequent in post-socialist states
Source: news.bbc.co.uk
European FSP narratives
• “Western view” (Alber and Kohler 2008)o FSP is significantly more widespread in Eastern Europe (EE) than Western
(WE)o FSP is hobby or self-realization in WE (postmodern trend); habit or coping
strategy of the poor in EE – urban peasantry
• “Eastern reaction” (Jehlička and Smith 2011, Jehlička et al. 2012, Smith and Jehlička 2013)o “Western view” neglects differences between EE states and their historyo Long history of FSP in many European stateso FSP as hobby (results from Czech research)o Market approaches are favored, FSP is neglected in public policieso High sustainability potential – Quiet sustainability
Research questions• How widespread is FSP in selected
countries/regions?
• Is there still any distinction between Eastern and Western Europe?
• Is there any difference between urban and rural areas?
• Who is involved in FSP (effect of socio-demographics).
Methods• 7 FP EU GILDED focused on
energy demand of households
• Questionnaire survey in 2010:
o Regions in UK (Scotland), Netherlands, Germany, Czechia, Hungary
• Different economic, social and political history
• Different natural conditions• Traditional market and post-
socialist economies• Urban-rural comparison
• „Do you produce any food products on your own?“
• Almost 2500 respondents in 5 countries/regions (approx. 500 in each country)
• Results of 2127 questionnaires are presented
Sample and variables• Socio-demographic characteristics
o Region (urban/rural) o Gender o Age o Household type (single/partners/with childern) o Employment (employed/retired/homemaker/unemployed/student)o Education (low/middle/university) o House (apartement/house)
• Samples are relatively representative according to gender and age, though slighlty overeducated
• Regional representativeness, not national
• Urban/rural bias (50:50)
Socio-demographic characteristics of the samples (valid
%)
Scotland Netherlands Germany Czechia Hungary
RegionUrban 47,5 54,8 52,6 48,7 48,2
Rural 52,5 45,2 47,4 51,3 51,8
GenderMale 56,6 51,3 54,3 48,9 49,1
Female 43,4 48,7 45,7 51,1 50,9
Age categories
Up to 34 7,4 14 17,2 27,5 33,7
35 to 59 52,5 54,8 51,1 50,6 41,5
60 and more 40,2 31,2 31,7 21,9 24,8
Household type
Single 20,3 18 14,9 15,3 15,4
Partners w/o child 44,6 41,4 41,4 35,5 25,2
With children 32,6 39,1 39,2 47,1 38,5
Other (incl. students)
2,5 1,5 4,5 2,1 9,2
Student living (only HUN)
not used not used not used not used 11,7
Employment
Employed 53,4 62,4 56 63,5 44,7
Retired 37 22,6 29,5 22,4 28,2
Homemaker+Unemployed
3,9 8,6 7,5 6,4 8,7
Student+Other 5,6 6,3 6,9 7,8 18,3
Education
Low 24 26,6 20 32,7 42,2
Middle 35,3 28,7 37,9 48,9 40,1
University 40,7 44,7 42 18,4 17,7
DwellingApartment 0,7 5,9 18,5 28,9 7,1
House 99,3 94,1 81,5 71,1 92,9
N 408 394 464 425 436
Results I: Share of respondents participating
in FSP
Results II: Urban/rural FSP (%)
Urban RuralChi square
(df=1)
Scotland 32,5 53,3 17,918**
Netherlands 13,9 24,7 7,503**
Germany 32,4 57,3 29,075**
Czechia 35,7 56,9 19,055**
Hungary 51,9 46,5 1,291
* p < 0,05; ** p < 0,01
Results III: Logistic regression for each country (FSP as dependent dummy variable:
1 yes, 0 no) Scotland Netherlands Germany Czech Rep. Hungary
B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B)
Independent variables
Region (reference: urban)
Rural 0,95** 2,58 0,73* 2,08 1,06** 2,88 0,15 1,16 -0,22 0,81
Gender (reference: male)
Female 0,34 1,40 1,04** 2,83 -0,37 0,69 0,54* 1,71 -0,07 0,94
Age (reference: up to 34)
35–59 years -0,25 0,78 -0,27 0,77 0,61* 1,84 0,37 1,45 0,72* 2,05
60 and more -0,79 0,45 -0,04 0,96 0,81 2,24 0,95 2,58 0,85 2,35Household type (reference: single)
Two partners 0,67* 1,94 1,63** 5,10 1,00** 2,73 0,64 1,90 0,65 1,92
Having children 0,02 1,02 1,39* 4,02 0,94* 2,56 1,53** 4,62 0,56 1,75 Other (incl. student exc. HUN) -0,57 0,57 -18,34 0,00 1,91** 6,74 1,59 4,91 0,75 2,11
Student living not used not used not used not used -0,06 0,94Employment (reference: employed)
retired 0,47 1,60 0,30 1,35 -0,09 0,92 0,56 1,74 0,89* 2,42
homemaker+unemployed -0,35 0,70 0,58 1,78 0,15 1,16 -0,18 0,83 0,95* 2,59
student+other -0,14 0,87 -0,63 0,53 -0,38 0,68 -0,29 0,75 -0,50 0,61
Education (reference: low)
Middle 0,67* 1,95 0,52 1,68 0,08 1,08 0,78** 2,19 -0,55* 0,58
High 0,95** 2,57 0,72 2,05 0,07 1,08 0,43 1,53 -0,67* 0,51Income (reference: lowest quintile)
2nd quintile -0,39 0,68 -0,69 0,50 0,21 1,24 0,12 1,12 0,18 1,20
3rd -0,75* 0,47 -1,24** 0,29 -0,29 0,75 -0,35 0,71 0,02 1,02
4th -0,54 0,58 -1,02* 0,36 0,14 1,15 -0,97* 0,38 -0,41 0,66
5th -0,40 0,67 -0,74 0,48 -0,43 0,64 -0,20 0,82 -0,74 0,48Dwelling (reference: apartment)
Not used in the model Not used in the model Not used in the model
Not used in the model House 1,45** 4,46
Constant -1,15 0,32 -3,48** 0,03 -2,01** 0,14 -3,26** 0,04 -0,58 0,56
Nagelkerke pseudo R2 0,139 0,191 0,164 0,292 0,258
N 408 394 464 425 436
Summary of the results
• FSP is widespread in some regions of WE
• Difference between urban and rural areas
• Important predictors of FSP:o Rurality (or liviging in house)o Having partner and childerno Older age (weaker predictor)
• Tendencies and uncertainties:o Education (different in Scotland, Czechia, Hungary)o Incomeo Gender
• Unimportant characterisitcs:o Employment status (only in Hungary)
Discussion and Conclusion
• Summaries of the countries/regionso Scotland – FSP tends to be postmodern self-realizationo Netherlands – non-middle class familieso Germany – widespread among familieso Czechia – widespread among familieso Hungary – tradition of older generation
• FSP and shopping habitso Scotland and Netherlands – FSP positively correlates with organic shopping, in Czechia
negatively (Vávra et al. 2013)
• Income is not good predictoro Contradiction to the urban peasantryo FSP can be relatively expensive
• FSP as “Unintentional sustainability”o Low-carbon lifestyle caused some non-environmental reasons, neither by poverty
• Underestimated potential of FSP in (not only) EE countrieso Market approaches (farmers markets, organic products) are supported, FSP less
Thank you for your attention!
Jan Vávra, PhDUniversity of South Bohemia, Czech Republic
[email protected]://jcu.academia.edu/JanVávra