4.7 Article

Food consumption as social practice: Solidarity Purchasing Groups in Rome, Italy

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 230-239

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.07.003

关键词

Sustainable consumption; Practice of food consumption; Local food; Alternative food networks; Solidarity Purchasing Groups; Rome (Italy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Italy the Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (GAS) are groups of households that cooperate in purchasing food and other goods directly from producers on the basis of ethical and environmental criteria and considerations of solidarity. They present themselves as a movement with a shared critique of the dominant model of consumption, a movement whose aim is to build a more sustainable economy by changing the way they buy their food and other goods. These specificities make GAS an ideal case study for analysis of how a new practice of enhanced sustainable food consumption can emerge and develop. In this paper we examine the discourses and practices of GAS operating in Rome (Italy). We look specifically at the social and demographic characteristics of GAS members, the way their belief in sustainability and the motivation to support it can change food buying habits and how personal and collective motivations interconnect with normative, social and material factors in the generation and reproduction of a new practice. Transcending dichotomous perspectives of sustainable consumption as a matter of changing individual behaviour patterns or as something that is constrained by material and normative considerations, we employ concepts derived from theories of practice and sustainable consumption to analyse the social construction of a new food buying routine, allowing the interconnections between agency, cultural and social norms and material/functional structures to emerge in a continuous dialectical process of routinisation and reflexivity. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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