4.2 Article

Food Self-provisioning in Europe: An Exploration of Sociodemographic Factors in Five Regions

期刊

RURAL SOCIOLOGY
卷 83, 期 2, 页码 431-461

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ruso.12180

关键词

-

资金

  1. EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) under research project GILDED [225383]
  2. project Postdoc USB through the EU Education for Competitiveness Operational Programme [CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0006]
  3. European Social Fund
  4. Bolyai Postdoctoral Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  5. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund [PD 116219]
  6. Institute of Geonics, The Czech Academy of Sciences [RVO 68145535]
  7. Scottish Government Rural Affairs, Food and the Environment Strategic Research Programme [WP 3.2, RD 4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents the results of an international comparative study on food self-provisioning, an activity still widespread in the countries of the Global North. We collected the data in a sociological survey done in 2010 as a part of the household energy use research project GILDED. We selected a region with urban and rural areas as a case study in each of the five EU countries, including Scotland, the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Our article raises two main research questions: (1) What is the level of food self-provisioning in the regions? (2) Who participates in it? Additionally, we inquired into the motivations of self-provisioners using the results of analyses of sociodemographic and food consumption habits for their interpretation. We found that the level of self-provisioning varies considerably among the regions. Its share ranges from 13 percent in Dutch urban areas to 58 percent in German rural areas. The effects of some sociodemographic and geographic factors differ significantly among the countries. However, we can summarize that living in one's own property, living in a house or in a rural area, having a partner or children, being retired, or having a low income increases the probability of food self-provisioning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据