Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

Learning, communicating and eating inlocal food-systems: the case of organicbox schemes in Denmark and Norway

Hanne Torjusena, Geir Liebleinb! and Gunnar Vittersøa

aNational Institute for Consumer Research (SIFO) Oslo, Norway; bDepartment of Plant andEnvironmental Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB), As, Norway

ABSTRACT The present study explores whether organic box schemes can improve learning,communication and food consumption in a sustainable direction. Customers’ conceptionsand practices in three box schemes operating in Norway and Denmark in 2001 werestudied. The study was conducted as a survey including all subscribers in the three boxschemes. Three indicators of sustainability were chosen to assess the contribution of localbox schemes to sustainable food provisioning. These indicators were: awareness of food-system issues, improved communication and social relations in the box schemes, andchanges in food consumption practice. The studied box schemes held the potential ofenhancing all the sustainability indicators that were explored in this study. The studyindicates that when box schemes are multi-functional, when they focus not only on fooddistribution but also on providing an arena for learning and actual changes in foodpractices, they have potential to support the development of more sustainable, local andorganic food-systems.

Introduction

Spurred by the environmental, social and economical challenges posed by theconventional, industrialised and globalised food-system, a range of alternativeshas emerged during the past few years (Cone and Myhre 2000, Hinrich 2003,Lapping 2004, Feagan et al. 2004), conjoined as local food-systems by Feagan(2007). Locally sourced, organically produced food has been put forth as avehicle for sustainable consumption (Seyfang 2006). Such local sourcing may beachieved through a wide range of alternative distribution channels such ascommunity-supported agriculture, farm shops, farmers’ markets and food box

Local EnvironmentVol. 13, No. 3, 219–234, April 2008

!Corresponding author. Email: geir.lieblein@umb.no

1354-9839 Print/1469-6711 Online/08/030219-16# 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13549830701669252http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

schemes. In all these initiatives there is an emphasis on re-localisation of the food-system, with the risk of letting “local” become a proxy for sustainable. While thereis a recognition of the false dichotomy between the local and the global (Feagan2007, Hinrich 2003), and risk of the local becoming an arena for reactionary poli-tics (Hinrich 2003), many authors hold the opinion expressed by DuPuis andGoodman (2005) that “Place has a role in the building of alternative food-systems.” A similar logic applies to organic farming, where the industrialorganic food chain that increasingly dominates the organic spectrum is a longway from its philosophical origins (Steiner 2005, Howard 1943) and its pioneerfarmers (Guthman 2004, Hall and Mogyorody 2001). “The inspiration fororganic was to find a way to feed ourselves in keeping with the logic of nature,to build a food-system that looked more like an ecosystem that would draw its fer-tility and energy from the sun” (Pollan 2006, p. 183). Alongside the newly emer-gent industrial organic model exists localised and small-scale organic farming.According to Guthman (2004, p. 313), supporting politics and policies will becrucial to “enable organic agriculture to be what it is imagined”.Using local, organic food-systems as the point of departure, the present study

aims to explore in what ways organic box schemes, as one of the many elementsof a local food-system (Feagan et al. 2004), can contribute to sustainable foodconsumption and thereby have a transformative potential for food-system localis-ation and sustainability. The chosen sustainability indicators were as follows.

1. Food-system awareness

Kloppenburg and colleagues emphasise the need for knowledge about the food-system as a basis for change.

If the production, processing, and transport of what they eat is destructive of the land and ofhuman community – as it very often is – how can they [people] understand the implications oftheir own participation in the global food-system when those processes are located elsewhereand so are obscured from them?How can they act responsibly and effectively for change if theydo not understand how the food-system works and their role within it? (Kloppenburg et al.1996, p. 34)

A sustainable alternative should therefore not only provide food but also supportlearning processes among consumers. Innovation plays a key role in the developmentof alternatives to the dominant food-system, and Leeuwis (2004) emphasises thatinnovation is on one side a matter of facilitating improvements that fit within thespecific social and natural setting, and on the other, to promote learning processesamong those involved to strengthen the stability of the innovation. Improved infor-mation and communication are further perceived as important in order to increasepurchases of organic food (Methi et al. 2002, Torjusen 2004, Vittersø 2003).

2. Communication and social relations

Such experiential (Kolb 1984) food-system learning must become situated(Lave and Wenger 1991) to enable its transformation into food consumptionpractice. Lave and Wenger (1991, p. 43) emphasise “the significance of shiftingthe analytical focus from the individual learner to learning as participation in

220 H. Torjusen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

the social world, and from the concept of cognitive process to the more-encompassing view of social practice”. It is further suggested that sustainablefood-systems should be based on “authentic trusting relationships that are embeddedin community” (Hendrickson and Heffernan 2002, p. 361). Box schemes mayrepresent one food-system solution in which relations are personalised and food isre-localised by means of transparency and broad contextual information andpossibilities of direct contact with both place of production and people involved.As such, a further indicator of a sustainable food-system is the social and communi-cative context within which food is moved from producers to consumers.

3. Food consumption practice

Food is, along with transportation and housing, one of the three categories ofhousehold consumption with the largest environmental impact (Moll et al.2005, Vittersø et al. 1998). Indicators of more sustainable food consumptioninclude the composition of the diet and how it constitutes a part of daily life. Fol-lowing Southerton et al. (2004, p. 7), “consumption is not only an outcome of per-sonal attitudes and intentions or connected with fulfilment of utilitarian needs, butis related to the changing social, economic and technical organisation of everydaylife”. Spargaaren (2004) states that high levels of green provisioning options bringpeople into positions where the greening of their lifestyles becomes more feasible.However, Chappells et al. (2004) insist that it does not necessarily follow that indi-vidual consumers automatically engage in sustainable consumption. Rather, theseauthors emphasise the role of social and technical intermediaries and how theyshape and reshape contexts for environmental action. They recognise that “con-sumption patterns and practices are dependent on the organisation of specificsystems of [service] provision and . . . [how they] interface with other regimes ofeveryday life” (Chappells et al. 2004, p. 148). The box schemes in this study areviewed as alternative systems of food provisioning that, by distinctive means ofmarketing and distribution, frame the consumption of food at the householdlevel. Since box schemes represent a framing of consumer choice that is distinctfrom other food-buying contexts, such as supermarkets, it is of particular interestto see how actual food consumption practices may be influenced by participationin such schemes.Based on these three indicators of food-system sustainability we asked the fol-

lowing questions in our study. Do organic box schemes contribute to:

1. Increased awareness about food-system issues?2. Improved communication and social relations between people in the food-

system?3. More sustainable food consumption practice?

Methods

Box schemes

Three organic box schemes were studied, two in Norway and one in Denmark.Both the Norwegian cases were grocer initiated, while the Danish case was

Local Environment 221

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

farmer initiated. In Norway these were the only two operating at the time: onenear the capital Oslo in the southeast part of the country and one in the proximityof Stavanger, a city on the southwest coast. In Denmark, we chose to study a boxscheme on Zealand, in the eastern part of Denmark, operating within a 25-kmradius around the farm.

Newsletters and deliveries

The three box schemes distributed exclusively organic products, and they all pro-vided weekly information along with the food supply. There was, however, vari-ation among the schemes regarding management style, degree of flexibility for thecustomers, types of deliveries and area of operation. Newsletters generally pro-vided detailed information about the particular foods that were distributed atany given time; recipes and ideas for cooking; as well as descriptions of thenatural and social context of food production. Such descriptions included, forexample, information about the harvest, or, often, information about one particu-lar farm. Table 1 shows that the Danish case mainly sourced its produce locally,and mostly from the same farm, while the Norwegian cases sourced their producenationally or internationally. Due to the climatic conditions in Scandinavia, localfruits and vegetables are only available in the winter and springtime to a limiteddegree. In these seasons fruit and vegetables are mainly imported. This was alsothe case for the Danish box scheme, with imported vegetables for three months inthe wintertime. There is a very limited production of organic fruits and vegetablesinNorway,which explainwhy the box schemesmainly sourced their producenation-ally and not as much locally.

Data collection

These three box schemes were studied to gain a basis for analysis of more generalcharacteristics of organic box schemes. The study was conducted as a survey inwhich all subscribers in the box schemes received a questionnaire and a pre-stamped return envelope with their vegetable delivery. Data collection wascarried out from mid-June 20011 until January 2002. Return rates were 57%(Zealand case), 45% (Oslo case) and 46% (Stavanger case). The subscriberswere reminded through the respective newsletters to respond.The questionnaire consisted of 22 sets of questions covering socio-economic

background data and topics such as length and type of subscription and recruit-ment to the box scheme. The questionnaire included several questions derivedfrom the research questions of the study presented above. These questions wereformulated as statements about the box schemes and the perceived effects fromtaking part in it. The respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or dis-agreement. The formulation of questions were deliberately varied so that respon-dents actively had to vary between negations and confirmations.

1. Food-system awarenessWe were interested in whether the respondents had perceived any changes in theirawareness about food-system issues as a result of taking part in the box scheme.

222 H. Torjusen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

In relation to this question the customers were asked to respond to the followingstatements:

a) “I have become more concerned with ‘the history of the food’ – what happensfrom production to consumption”

b) “I choose more eco-labelled products in general”c) “It has increased my knowledge about organic agriculture”d) “It has made me less positive towards organic agriculture”e) “The box scheme has increased my knowledge about food”f) “Through the subscription I get (fruits and) vegetables I did not know

before”

2. Communication and social relationsThe participants in the survey were asked to respond to five statements about com-munication, information and social relations in the box schemes:

g) “It is a pleasant way to shop”h) “The subscription gives me good opportunity to give feedback as a customer”i) “Information about who has grown the vegetables is important to me”j) “The newsletter is an important part of the box scheme”

Table 1. Characterisation of box schemes in the study

Box schemes

Key features attime of study

Denmark Zealandcase Norway Oslo case Norway Stavanger case

Production form Organic Organic (bio-dynamic) OrganicInitiated by Farmers Grocer GrocerOperating since 1985 September 1997 October 1999Key elements inconcept

Fresh organicvegetables, localquality products,saves time, exciting

“A taste of life”,bio-dynamic

“Organic fruit andvegetables for ahealthier everydaylife”

Products Vegetables Vegetables Fruit and vegetablesProvenance Local (mainly single

farm)National andinternational

National andInternational

Distribution Within 25 km Within Oslo area Within Stavanger areaPick-up places (32) Pick-up places (28) Home deliveryWeekly or bi-weekly Weekly Customer’s choice

Box types Large and small box:DKK89/64

Large and small bag:NOK125/75

Choice of products,minimum NOK150for home delivery

Communication Weekly newsletter inbox and on website

Weekly newsletter Weekly informationsheet and website

Customers at timeof survey

Approx. 900 306 220

Local Environment 223

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

k) “The subscription gives me opportunity to support local initiatives andbusiness”

3. Food consumption practiceIncreased use of organic produce is commonly used as an indicator of sustainability.A change in diet with more fruits and vegetables at the expense of meat is also seenas beneficial from an ecological perspective. Consuming more local and moreseasonal food may also be seen as indicators of more sustainable consumption. Wewere interested to know whether there were increases in use of organic, green,local and seasonal products as a consequence of participating in the box schemes,and how people’s daily lives were affected from participating in such arrangements.The customers were asked to answer the following questions related to changes ineating practices:

l) “I relate to food with more enthusiasm”m) “I eat more organically produced food”n) “I eat more (fruit and) vegetables”o) “The box scheme is important to me because it provides seasonal food”p) “The box scheme is important to me because it gives me access to local food”q) “The box scheme has a simplifying effect in everyday life”r) “The box scheme has a complicating effect in everyday life”

Qualitative data materialThe questionnaire included both pre-coded and open-ended answers. Statisticalanalyses were conducted based on the pre-coded questions, and answers toopen-ended questions were used to get a richer picture of the participants’ con-ceptions as well as a deeper understanding of the responses to the other pre-coded survey questions. In the presentation of the survey results the qualitativematerial is presented along with the quantitative data in order to get a “thicker”description of the findings in the survey.

Results

The survey results are presented in three tables displaying how the customers’answers were distributed across the three box schemes. Qualitative data arepresented as quotations in the text as a supplement to the survey results.

About the subscribers

Background data about the subscribers were collected in order to get a picture ofwho enters into these kinds of subscription arrangements. In this section weprovide a brief overview of the subscribers. It is clear that the “average subscriber”in the box scheme is not an “average” Danish or Norwegian consumer. A majorityof the subscribers reported that they also often bought organic food from sourcesother than the box scheme. In other words, they must be charactersed as morededicated organic consumers than the average consumer. With the exception ofthe Oslo case, the respondents had been subscribers for more than one year.

224 H. Torjusen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

The shorter experience in the Oslo case may be explained by the fact that thisscheme had only operated for just over one year.

Socio-economic background

More than 80% of the respondents were women. These figures correspond wellwith the fact that it is usually women who take the initiative to enter into thesearrangements, and that women for the most part have the main responsibilityfor food purchase in the household (Brusdal and Lavik 2007). The typical respon-dent was living in a family with children, and was less than 45 years old. Amajority of the respondents were educated above high school level. More house-holds in the Stavanger case belonged to the higher income levels than in theOslo and Zealand cases.2 Compared with Stavanger and Zealand, more house-holds in Oslo belonged to the lower income levels.3

Food-system awareness

Table 2 shows that the participation in the box schemes had influenced the food-system awareness of the participants. More than 60% had become moreconcerned about the origin of their food and what happens from production toconsumption. The fact that almost 80% of the consumers report that theirknowledge about organic farming had increased is interesting because it demon-strates that box schemes supported an awareness that went beyond the consumersector of the food-system and extended all the way to where and how one’s foodwas produced. Knowledge about food is an important component of food-systemknowledge, and the results in Table 2 show that the general food knowledge aswell as the specific knowledge of new types of food had been increased for morethan 70% of the participants. A further interesting finding was that as a result oftheir participation in the box scheme, around 60% of the subscribers state thatthey chose more eco-labelled products in general, such as washing detergents,paper tissue, etc.This finding indicates that the experiential learning about food-systems,

organic farming and food improved the general environmental awareness of theparticipants, and that they used this generic awareness when they bought non-food items.In the open comments, participants reflected on sustainability issues related to

the food-system as a whole, from how food is produced to how it is broughtinto the home. In the following examples, some of the dilemmas are pointedout, in which what are seen as the most sustainable options are not available atall levels of the food chain at the same time:

My priority as a consumer would be to buy locally produced organic food to a largest extentpossible. Until this is possible, I prefer to buy organic products that have travelled, before non-organic local. As a consumer I am concerned both with organic food, because it is best for theenvironment, and the distance the food has travelled for the same reason. (Oslo case)

I want to support organic farming, but I think that much of the point is lost when the veg-etables are transported the long distance from Spain or France. Such transport should beavoided for environmental reasons. I prefer vegetables from the region. (Oslo case)

Local Environment 225

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

Locally produced organic food is the best ecology. When the food is transported over long dis-tances (south of Europe and further away) I question whether the limits for sustainability areoverstepped because of the transport. (Zealand case)

These concerns reflect diverse individual evaluations of complex issues, in whichpositive and negative aspects of the production and distribution of food arediscussed. Organic production as well as short transport distances are seenas crucial elements in the way in which the subscribers – as consumers – cancontribute to a more sustainable food-system.

Table 2. Food-system awareness among consumers in three box schemes in Norway andDenmark (%)

StatementAgreefully

Agreepartly

Disagreepartly

Disagreecompletely

Don’t know/unanswered N

a. “I have become more concernedwith ‘the history of the food’ –what happens from productionto consumption”

Denmark–Zealand case 21 39 13 16 11 407Norway–Oslo case 24 40 16 11 12 131Norway–Stavanger case 24 39 14 13 10 102

b. “I choose more eco-labelledproducts in general”

Denmark–Zealand case 28 30 15 20 8 412Norway–Oslo case 35 27 13 16 11 132Norway–Stavanger case 47 36 7 6 5 102

c. “It has increased my knowledgeabout organic agriculture”

Denmark–Zealand case 43 38 7 6 5 415Norway–Oslo case 41 42 7 7 6 132Norway–Stavanger case 31 40 15 11 4 103

d. “It has made me less positivetowards organic agriculture”

Denmark–Zealand case 4 3 3 84 5 410Norway–Oslo case 4 1 5 86 6 132Norway–Stavanger case 4 2 5 89 1 103

e. “The box scheme has increasedmy knowledge about food”

Denmark–Zealand case 33 40 11 11 6 410Norway–Oslo case 39 37 13 7 7 133Norway–Stavanger case 23 40 17 12 8 103

f. “Through the subscription I get(fruits and) vegetables I didn’tknow before”

Denmark–Zealand case 71 18 6 3 3 411Norway–Oslo case 64 23 7 5 1 134Norway–Stavanger case 28 39 9 18 6 102

226 H. Torjusen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

Communication and social relations

Table 3 shows that communication and social relations were elements in the boxschemes that were valued by subscribers and constituted a source of motivation.The newsletter evidently played a crucial role for the communication process,

Table 3. Communication and social relations in three box schemes in Norway and Denmark (%)

StatementAgreefully

Agreepartly

Disagreepartly

Disagreecompletely

Don’t know/unanswered N

g. “It is a pleasant way toshop”

Denmark–Zealand case 58 21 8 5 8 411Norway–Oslo case 76 16 4 1 4 134Norway–Stavangercase

62 25 6 1 7 102

h. “The subscription givesme good opportunityto give feedback as acustomer”

Denmark–Zealand case 40 34 14 6 17 410Norway–Oslo case 32 34 14 7 14 134Norway–Stavangercase

50 33 10 3 5 104

i. “Information aboutwho has grown thevegetables isimportant to me”

Denmark–Zealand case 47 36 10 4 4 413Norway–Oslo case 46 37 10 4 3 132Norway–Stavangercase

47 34 17 1 1 103

j. “The newsletter is animportant part of thebox scheme”

Denmark–Zealand case 59 30 6 2 4 412Norway–Oslo case 59 30 7 2 4 132Norway–Stavangercase

31 34 16 7 13 99

k. “The subscription givesme opportunity tosupport localinitiatives andbusiness”

Denmark–Zealand case 59 24 2 3 12 410Norway–Oslo case 46 27 7 7 13 131Norway–Stavangercase

66 29 2 0 3 99

Local Environment 227

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

and around 90% saw the newsletter as an important part of the box scheme (theStavanger case was an exception with 65%). More than 80% valued the infor-mation about who had grown the vegetables they received, and around 70%thought that they were given the opportunity to give feedback as a customer.The community dimension of the box scheme was apparent, since around 80%found that this was a pleasant way to shop, and, interestingly, around 70% sawtheir participation in the box scheme as an opportunity to support local initiativesand business.Open comments indicate that some of the customers experienced personalised

relations with the farmers – either through actual visits and meetings, or mediatedby the newsletter. Even in the box schemes run by grocers, such as in the Stavangercase, one of the subscribers expressed a sense of personal trust relations with thefarmers: “My family trusts the producers; [we are] pleased to avoid pesticide resi-dues and the like – [we feel] increased pleasure at the table and security.” A respon-dent from Zealand noted, “I trust my vegetable supplier that I always get fresh andnice and good vegetables!” The transparency in the box schemes, including clearidentification of the producers, and the embedded, contextual information may beimportant elements in explaining this. A sense of trust and community was alsoexpressed with regard to people with other roles in the box scheme system, includingdeveloping “a positive social relationship with the store where we pick up the bag”,andmeeting “extraordinarily nice chauffeurs”. Comments also included accounts oftalking more about food issues with friends: “The subscription has brought me torecommend and discuss organic food with my friends, colleagues and others.”Descriptions of aspects that were valued by participants evolve around the

element of connecting to a particular place as well as the dimensions of communi-cation and social relations. Sometimes these go together. The communicativedimension was described in terms of finding “the small messages in the newsletterabout how things are out in the field” important, or appreciating the possibility to“involve myself in the work process at the farm – a great joy and enrichment”. Thenewsletter was pointed out as useful in facilitating this relation: “I think the weeklydelivered description of life at the farm gives me a good picture of the great piece ofwork it is to produce vegetables of high quality – thank you for that!”One participant from Oslo explained, “The proximity to the producers of the

food means a lot, especially when the products are local. It is nice to be part ofthe same cycle.” Another one described how different values were interconnected:“By subscribing I have the opportunity to support organic farming in order toimprove the quality of the food I get. This support may also contribute to amore pleasant life for the farmer.”Other commentsweremore focused on connecting to the placewhere the vegetables

were grown. In the Zealand case, field walks are mentioned as positive and “pleasantarrangements” bymany; somewere particularly content that their children could par-ticipate and “relate to where we get our vegetables from”. One described how “mychildren ask all the time ‘Is this organic fruit?’ and so on. They have become very con-cerned with what they eat, where and how it has grown.” Adults as well noted that “Ihave become more aware of the types of products that are produced in the district.”There were also accounts of taking part in a box scheme as a way of deliberately

conveying a signal to the market and the wider society: “The free market forces

228 H. Torjusen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

dominate in society. [I] therefore wish to contribute with a signal as a consumerthat organic food is something of great value for me, and that I will pay extrafor this.” Here, the practice of subscribing also serves as an act of politicalconsumption.

Food consumption practice

In addition to the provenance of food items, the dietary composition itself has asignificant influence on the overall sustainability of the diet. Among organic boxscheme subscribers, new dietary patterns may reflect associations with thechoice of organic foods as well as the distinctive ways the box schemes influenceconsumer choice of food compared with buying food in a supermarket context.Table 4 shows that, not surprisingly, around 90% reported that subscribing to a

regular delivery of organic fruit and vegetables had increased their overall con-sumption of organic food. Besides providing the organic products, it seems thatother aspects of the box schemes also had a positive effect on how participantsrelated to eating organic food. One of the ways in which this seems to have hap-pened is through a broadened quality perspective. Some of the open comments givean insight into how this was experienced: “Now, I use absolutely all vegetables inthe refrigerator, because I know that the quality is high and there is a lot of nour-ishment in the vegetables,” noted one respondent from the Oslo case.Changing the amount of meat or fish relative to the amount of vegetables is

central in increasing the sustainability of the diet. To maximise the food-valuein relation to the use of resources in food production, eating more grains, fruitand vegetables is essential, as approximately 80% of the energy is lost in meat pro-duction. Table 4 shows that more than 80% of the respondents reported that theyhad increased their consumption of fruits and vegetables. In the Oslo case, esti-mates of vegetable consumption among the subscribers were compared with thenational average by the organisers. Results, presented in their newsletter of 10October 2000, indicated that subscribers bought (and presumably ate) at least60 kg of vegetables annually per person, which was approximately 50% morethan the national average. Another difference was the types of vegetables: thebox scheme provided fewer tomatoes, cucumbers and bell peppers than theaverage consumption level, although including more than 60 types of vegetables,including viper’s grass, watercress, mizuna, hokkaido and corn. The organisersargue in the newsletter that while the latter vegetables can be produced in an eco-logically responsible way, the former are often produced in greenhouses at greatenergy expense.Eating locally implies eating seasonally, since it reflects what can be produced in

the area at any particular time of year. Freshness is another positive aspect of localdistribution. The provision of locally produced food was seen as an important partof the box scheme for many of the respondents (51–90%), and so was the pro-vision of seasonal food (77–95%). “One really feels that one lives with theseasons,” said one Danish respondent. It is to be noted that the highest percentageof consumers interested in local food were in the Zealand case, where the boxscheme had the most clear local profile, with one organic farm at the centre ofthe operation.

Local Environment 229

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

In the Nordic context “local food” means more root vegetables, as noted bymany. A Danish respondent wrote, “I follow the seasons in a lovely way andeat considerably more root vegetables.” Some expressed that they would haveliked a stronger focus on local, seasonal food in the scheme – as expressed by a

Table 4. Food consumption practices among consumers in three box schemes in Norway andDenmark (%)

StatementAgreefully

Agreepartly

Disagreepartly

Disagreecompletely

Don’t know/unanswered N

l. “I relate to food with moreenthusiasm”

Denmark–Zealand case 17 35 16 19 13 408Norway–Oslo case 24 33 19 15 10 132Norway–Stavanger case 21 37 21 12 10 101

m. “I eat more organicallyproduced food”

Denmark–Zealand case 69 20 3 5 0 410Norway–Oslo case 84 10 2 2 4 133Norway–Stavanger case 92 6 1 0 1 103

n. “I eat more (fruit and)vegetables”

Denmark–Zealand case 70 20 4 5 0 413Norway–Oslo case 48 30 7 11 6 133Norway–Stavanger case 55 25 8 10 3 102

o. “The box scheme isimportant to me becauseit provides seasonalfood”

Denmark–Zealand case 74 21 2 1 1 413Norway–Oslo case 40 41 11 4 5 133Norway–Stavanger case 28 49 10 10 4 102

p. “The box scheme isimportant to me becauseit gives me access to localfood”

Denmark–Zealand case 64 22 7 2 5 412Norway–Oslo case 18 33 19 17 13 132Norway–Stavanger case 52 38 6 2 2 99

q. “It has a simplifying effectin everyday life”

Denmark–Zealand case 38 36 13 5 8 412Norway–Oslo case 32 32 26 4 6 133Norway–Stavanger case 55 37 5 0 3 103

r. “It has a complicating effectin everyday life”

Denmark–Zealand case 1 8 11 76 4 409Norway–Oslo case 2 15 15 65 3 131Norway–Stavanger case 0 7 10 83 1 103

230 H. Torjusen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

participant in the Stavanger case, probably the scheme with the highest level ofinternational sourcing: “I would prefer an emphasis on root vegetables producedin Norway and cabbage/lettuce for instance, that is, products that can naturally beproduced and stored here.”Similarly to what was noted above, the limitation of following the local season

may be experienced not as a disadvantage but as a source of new knowledge andappreciation of different types of vegetables; here from the Danish case: “It is agreat advantage that I am ‘forced’ to use the vegetables of the season, and learnto know vegetables that were unknown to me and that I otherwise would nothave found or bought in the supermarket.”A majority found that the box scheme had a simplifying effect in everyday life

(64–92%), rather than a complicating effect (80–93% disagreed). The highestscore being found in the Stavanger case is likely explained by home delivery inthis scheme.Through the newsletters, information, recipes and ideas, food was contextua-

lised in relation to meals in everyday life. The contents of the boxes have beenthought to be suitable for combination in dishes, which are often explicitlydescribed in the accompanying newsletter of the week. This may be one factorexplaining how what may be seen as a restriction in choice has actually beenexperienced as facilitation of everyday life as well as an inspiration for greatervariety in the diet: “[It is] nice to be spared from making choices; then onebecomes more creative in making dinner!” Another participant from Oslo com-mented that one of the advantages of the box scheme was “the element of sur-prise!”, and she continues, “How nice not to have to decide what is for dinner– but be forced to make dinner with what you get.” So it seems that the restrictionof choice, which might be thought to be a difficulty, actually in some cases makesthings easier and even more pleasurable in everyday life.

Discussion

Food-system awareness

Many analysts have argued that knowledge is lost all along the way from field tomouth – as Hendrickson and Heffernan (2002, p. 359) describe – in tastes, incooking skills, in managing biodiversity. The results from our study show thatmany participants express that they have increased their knowledge about food-systems, food and agricultural practices. The box schemes have, in addition to pro-viding the customers with organic food, established an arena for experiential (Kolb1984) and situated learning (Lave andWenger 1991), supporting the learning pro-cesses of the participating consumers. We hold such learning to be vital for localfood-system alternatives to develop and be sustained.

Communication and social relations

According to Hendrickson and Heffernan (2002, p. 361), sustainable food-systemalternatives should seek to be strong where the conventional food-system is weak.They argue that, to be effective, these alternatives should “be personalised and

Local Environment 231

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

sustainable and propose a new vision, a vision of authentic social, economic andecological relationships between all actors in the food-system”, and further thatthey should rely on time and management rather than capital, and build authentictrusting relationships that are embedded in community. Through the newsletters,as well as making it possible for the participants to give feedback, the boxschemes explored in this study represented to their subscribers a personalisedalternative to the impersonal supermarkets with their abstract informationsystems. They have, moreover, re-localised food contrary to the de-localisationtaking place in the globalised food-system. It was surprising that such a high percen-tage of the participants in the Stavanger case valued the box schemes for their pro-vision of local food, given that Stavanger had the least amount of food sourcedlocally. We hold this to be a result of the box scheme making the food-systemmore transparent to the participants. As a result of the transparency, the participantsmight have had a mix of psychological and spatial distances in mind when they talkabout local food sources.

Food consumption practice

Participation in the box schemes influencednotonly people’sminds andattitudes, butalso their actual food consumption practice. Pfeffer (1998) found that experientiallearningmore readily leads to action than learning derived from reading books or lis-tening to lectures. We can speculate that it is the combined effect of the box schemesof providing the weekly food box and an arena for situated learning that led to par-ticipants changing their food consumption practices, and in a sustainable direction.

In summary

In this study of food-box schemes, subscribers have reported changes related toboth practice and attitudes towards food. By making new relations with otherpeople in the food-system, by making use of more embedded and contextualisedinformation about the food they buy and eat, by cooking and eating a more sea-sonal diet with adjusted or new dishes, they have become enthused and experi-enced changes in the way they relate to food and the food-system.We were surprised by how similar consumer experiences in the different box

schemes in most cases were, given the different country contexts and differentorganisation of the box schemes. This indicates that the findings reflect somecommon features in box schemes and the particular framing of consumer choicethat they represent. The box schemes invite people to engage in food in severalways, including intellectual understanding (information, newsletters); experiencesthrough the senses (eating the food, walking the fields); social and empatheticrelations (caring about the others in the food-system); and perhaps a sense of awe.Although “authentic” organic is intertwined with industrial organic, and the local

is intertwined with the global, especially in the Norwegian box schemes, we havefound that the studied box schemes held the potential to improve all the sustainabil-ity indicators that were explored in this study. The results of the study indicate thatwhen box schemes are multi-functional, that is when they focus not only on fooddistribution but also on providing an arena for situated food-system learning

232 H. Torjusen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

and facilitating actual changes in food practices, they have a potential to support thedevelopment of local and organic food-systems, resisting and influencing the trendsof food-system globalisation and the industrial organic model.The studied box schemes were small and to a large extent included already dedi-

cated consumers. Because it is anticipated that the challenges of industrialisation,de-localisation and globalisation occur in the move from small to intermediate andlarge, further studies should focus on what happens to small box schemes whenthey grow large and include a more diverse mix of consumers. In this study no eco-logical sustainability indicators were examined. Further studies should includeecological indicators such as food miles.We propose that the local distribution of organic food by box schemes has the

potential to contribute positively to increased sustainability in several ways, someof which contribute mainly to positive environmental effects and some of whichcontribute to social sustainability and building a human infrastructure forchange: more precisely, this contribution is mainly attached to the ways boxschemes may function as alternatives to conventional food-provisioning systems.The study shows that box schemes may be important alternatives in the waysthey provide arenas for building new knowledge and changed food practicesamong consumers. The way the box schemes are organised with emphasis oninformation and communication may lead to an increased proximity and under-standing between different actors in the food-system.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the funding of this project by a grant from the Norwegian ResearchCouncil programme for sustainable production and consumption. We would like to thank all partici-pants in the study – subscribers who took the time to fill in the questionnaires and organisers whohelped us set up the data collection. We also wish to thank colleagues who read and commented onprevious versions of the manuscript. One version has been presented in the consumption group ofthe European Sociological Association (ESA) in Copenhagen, August 2004. We also want to acknowl-edge the contributions of our colleagues Bjørn Jansen and Edvin Østergaard at the Norwegian Univer-sity of Life Sciences, who participated in the planning stages of the study. Finally, we thank ouranonymous reviewers and editor for valuable contributions during the revision of the paper.

Notes

1. Start date for Oslo case: 18 June 2001. Start date for Stavanger case and Danish case: 8 November 2001.2. The average household income in families with couples and children ranged between NOK600,000 and

NOK711,000 in 2000 (Statistics Norway 2002).3. Less than NOK300,000.

References

Brusdal, R. and Lavik, R., 2007. Alt ved det gamle? Om fordeling av dagligvareinnkjøp blant kvinner og menn i

parforhold. In: O. Gasdal et al., eds. Makt, mening og struktur: festskrift til Sigmund Grønmo. Bergen:

Fagbokforlaget, 125–140.

Chappells, H., Van Vliet, B. and Southerton, D., 2004. Conclusions. In: D. Southerton, H. Chappells and B. Van

Vliet, eds. Sustainable consumption. The implications of changing infrastructures of provisioning.

Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 144–150.

Local Environment 233

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Lie

blei

n, G

eir]

At:

09:1

8 23

May

200

8

Cone, C.A. and Myhre, A., 2000. Community-supported agriculture: a sustainable alternative to industrial

agriculture? Human organization, 59 (2), 187–197.

DuPuis, E.M. and Goodman, D., 2005. Should we go “home” to eat? Towards a reflexive politics of localism.

Journal of rural studies, 21, 359–371.

Feagan, R., 2007. The place of food: mapping out the “local” in local food-systems. Progress in human geogra-

phy, 31 (1), 23–42.

Feagan, R., Morris, D. and Krug, K., 2004. Niagara region farmers’ markets: local food-systems and sustainabil-

ity considerations. Local environment, 9 (3), 235–254.

Guthman, J., 2004. The trouble with “Organic Lite” in California: a rejoinder to the “conventionalisation”

debate. Sociologica ruralis, 44 (3), 301–316.

Hall, A. andMogyorody, V., 2001. Organic farmers in Ontario: an examination of the conventionalization argu-

ment. Sociologica ruralis, 41 (4), 399–422.

Hendrickson, M.K. and Heffernan, W.D., 2002. Opening spaces through relocalization: locating potential resist-

ance in the weaknesses of the global food-system. Sociologia ruralis, 42 (4), 347–369.

Hinrich, C.C., 2003. The practice and politics of food-system localization. Journal of rural studies, 19, 33–45.

Howard, A., 1943. An agricultural testament. London/New York: Oxford University Press.

Kloppenburg, Jr, J., Hendrickson, J. and Stevenson, G.W., 1996. Coming into the foodshed. Agriculture and

human values, 13 (3), 33–43.

Kolb, D., 1984. Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lapping, M.B., 2004. Toward the recovery of the local in the globalizing food-system: the role of alternative agri-

cultural and food models in the US. Ethics, place and environment, 7 (3), 141– 150.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Leeuwis, C., 2004. Communication for rural innovation – rethinking agricultural extension. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell Science.

Methi, N., et al., 2002. Consumption and environment in five European cities. Professional report no. 1-2002.

Lysaker, Norway: National Institutt for Consumer Research.

Moll, H.C., et al., 2005. Pursuing more sustainable consumption by analyzing household metabolism in

European countries and cities. Journal of industrial ecology, 9 (1–2), 259–275.

Pfeffer, J., 1998. The human equation: building profits by putting people first. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pollan, M., 2006. The omnivore’s dilemma. The search for a perfect meal in a fast-food world. London: Bloomsbury.

Seyfang, G., 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: examining local organic food networks.

Journal of rural studies, 22, 383–395.

Southerton, D., Warde, A. and Hand, M., 2004. The limited autonomy of the consumer: implications for sustainable

consumption. In: D. Southerton, H. Chappells and B. Van Vliet, eds. Sustainable consumption. The implications

of changing infrastructures of provisioning. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 32–48.

Spaargaren, G., 2004. Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy perspective. In:

D. Southerton, H. Chappells and B. Van Vliet, eds. Sustainable consumption. The implications of changing

infrastructures of provisioning. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 15–31.

Statistics Norway, 2002. Household income up – more inequality [online]. Available from: http://www.ssb.no/

english/ subjects/05/01/ifhus_en/arkiv/.

Steiner, R., 2004 [1924]. Agriculture course. The birth of the biodynamic method. Forest Row, UK: Rudolf

Steiner Press.

Torjusen, H., et al., 2004. European consumers’ conceptions of organic food: a review of available research.

Professional report no. 4-2004. Oslo: National Institute for Consumer Research.

Vittersø, G., 2003. Environmental information and consumption practices – a case study of households in

Fredrikstad. Professional report no. 4-2003. Oslo: National Institute for Consumer Research.

Vittersø, G., Strandbakken, P. and Stø, E., 1998. Grønt husholdningsbudsjett. Veiledning til et mindre miljøbe-

lastende forbruk [Green household budget. English summary]. Report no. 7-1998. Lysaker, Norway:

National Institute for Consumer Research.

234 H. Torjusen et al.