lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330

Contents lists avai

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ j rurstud

Ecological embeddedness: An interrogation and refinement of the concept withinthe context of alternative food networks in the UK

Carol Morris a,*, James Kirwan b

a School of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UKbCountryside and Community Research Institute, UK

Keywords:NatureEcologyEcological embeddednessAlternative food networkFood quality

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 115 846 6143.E-mail address: carol.morris@nottingham.ac.uk (C

1 Alternative food networks (AFN) encompass a nuExamples include organic and other forms of ecologicwith considerations of ecological embeddedness. Othschemes, and fairly traded goods and produce which cwith ‘alternatives’ to the norm, or mainstream. As Renthat embody alternatives to the more standardisedopposition of alternative and conventional food chainet al., 2006), but this paper argues that there is still athese chains may also be participating in convention

0743-0167/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.03.004

a b s t r a c t

Among their many ‘alternative’ characteristics, food networks that seek to reconfigure the relationshipbetween producers and consumers are understood as having the potential to be beneficial for the ruralenvironment and landscape. One of the ways in which this characteristic has been conceptualised isthrough the notion of ‘ecological embeddedness’. Although the roots of this concept lie in economicsociology, where the social embeddedness of economic relations has been the focus of interest, agro-foodresearchers have extended its meaning to suggest that alternative or ‘quality’ food production can also beseen as increasingly embedded in ‘natural’ or ecological processes. However, this paper argues that untilnow the notion of ecological embeddedness has lacked conceptual clarity. As such, the aim is to inter-rogate and refine the concept of embeddedness, specifically as it pertains to ecologies within the contextof food production on-farm. Ecological embeddedness, it is argued, must encompass more than justrecognition of the general influence of the natural environment on economic activity. Specifically, it mustreflect a change in the relations between economic actors and the natural environment that producesa benefit to both. The paper also establishes how the concept of ecological embeddedness might beoperationalised in research practice as a means of exploring the ecological dimensions of alternative foodnetworks. An illustration of this empirical application is provided. The paper concludes by asserting thevalue of ecological embeddedness as a concept, in spite of the observed limitations of embeddedness inother contexts and the challenges that are associated with its ecological application.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As paradoxical as it may seem, given the obvious dependence offood production on it, nature, so agro-food geographers have sug-gested, has become much more significant within research into theoperation of agro-food chains and networks in recent years. Thisfresh interrogation, involving the repositioning and reconceptual-isation of nature, has been widely attributed to and motivated bythe emergence of ‘quality’ or ‘alternative’1 food networks, togetherwith the “effervescent biopolitics of agro-biotechnologies”

. Morris).mber of diverse initiatives and deal or ‘environmentally sensitive’ aer characteristics of AFNs includeome from locally unique and distinting et al. (2003, p. 394) observe Aindustrial mode of food supply”.s as being too simplistic (e.g. (Ilberutility in describing some food chal supply chains.

All rights reserved.

(Goodman, 2001, p. 183). As a number of commentators haveobserved, there is a strong association between food quality andnature as consumers, concerned about the safety and provenanceof food products from industrialised, globalised and standardisedfood systems, seek out the products of (re)localised and qualityfood chains that are perceived to have a higher natural content andare therefore less susceptible to “malign human interference”(Murdoch et al., 2000, p. 108). Penker concurs, suggesting that “asmall but growing number of consumers” (2006, p. 372) are willingto pay extra for foods that are ‘more natural’.

velopments that have recently risen to prominence within the agro-food system.griculture and this helps to explain why studies of AFNs have often been bound upan emphasis on direct marketing such as farm shops, farmers’ markets and box

ctive places of production. Although diverse, what they have in common is a concernFNs represent “newly emerging networks of producers, consumers, and other actorsIt is acknowledged that some recent scholarship has sought to problematise they and Maye, 2006; Marsden and Sonnino, 2008; Sonnino and Marsden, 2006; Vennains as having some ‘alternative’ characteristics even though producers involved in

2 This is not to suggest that orthodox economics accepted this incursion, butrather that certain fields, most notably economic geography, started to engage witheconomic sociology. The term New Economic Sociology was coined in 1985 by MarkGranovetter. The aim of this sub-discipline was to contest the claims of orthodoxeconomics and to recognise ‘extra-market’ concerns such as networks, institutionsand culture (Peck, 2005).

C. Morris, J. Kirwan / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330 323

Response by some agro-food scholars to these new concerns forquality has been to question the relevance and ability of political-economic analyses to fully accommodate the enhanced status ofnature that they imply. Although nature, as Goodman (2001)details, has not been completely neglected in accounts of theglobalisation and industrialisation of the food sector e keyconcerns of political economists e it has tended to be seen “asessentially passive in the face of unfolding socio-economicprocesses” (Murdoch et al., 2000, p. 112). Since nature playsa crucial role in mediating processes of industrialisation, and placesconstraints upon the extraction of profit and value from the foodsector, food companies are continually trying to reduce e or‘outflank’ e the importance of nature in the food productionprocess (Murdoch et al., 2000). The twin concepts of appropriationand substitution (Goodman et al., 1987) have been key to explain-ing this outflanking process. An identified problemwith this type ofperspective is that it regards nature as a ‘residue’ to be displaced, asfar as possible, by industrial processes (Murdoch et al., 2000). Thisunderstanding of nature as a passive entity, that is appropriatedand substituted for within the process of agro-food system indus-trialisation and globalisation, is no longer considered sufficient foranalysing food chains in which nature is being reasserted as a keycomponent of their development. As a result approaches have beensought which take more seriously the status of nature within theoperation of food chains and networks (Goodman, 2001; Marsdenet al., 2000). It is one of the approaches that has emerged out ofthis questioning of political economy that is the focus of interesthere: the concept of ecological embeddedness.

Agro-food researchers have suggested that alternative or‘quality’ food production can be seen as increasingly embedded in‘natural’ relations (Murdoch et al., 2000; Murdoch and Miele,1999; Nygard and Storstad, 1998; Whatmore and Thorne, 1997).In making this claim they have been influenced, in part at least, bythe economic-sociological concept of social embeddedness, whichhas been seen as useful in analysing alternative food systems(Hinrichs, 2000). However, it is the contention of this paper thatthe use of the notion of embeddedness in the context of ‘natural’relations has tended to take place in a rather imprecise anduncritical fashion. The aim, then, is to interrogate and refine theconcept of embeddedness, specifically as it pertains to ecologieswithin the context of food production on-farm and to establishhow it might be operationalised in research practice as a means ofexploring the ecological dimensions of AFNs. The term ‘ecological’is preferred to ‘natural’ in that it more precisely identifies theobject of analysis. Ecology in this context is understood as thebranch of biology that deals with the relationships of organisms toone another and to their physical surroundings. More specifically,it refers to organisms as both non-human (e.g. farm animals, birds,insects) and human (e.g. producers and consumers), and physicalsurroundings as the ‘natural environment’ of food production e.g.pastures, streams, soil and hedgerows. Food production processes,particularly those associated with intensive farming systems, arewidely understood as disrupting ecological relationships withnegative consequences for both the humans and non-humans thatconstitute them (e.g. Buttel, 2006; Lacy, 2000; Pretty, 2005). Whenfood networks are conceptualised as ‘naturally’ or ‘ecologically’embedded it is often implied that nature or ecology or landscapebenefits in some way and as such it is acknowledged from theoutset that the concept of ecological embeddedness is normativein character.

The task is undertaken for two reasons. First, while acknowl-edging that there is a body of work that has been critical of socialembeddedness (e.g. Chiffoleau, 2009; Hess, 2004; Jones, 2008;Krippner, 2001; Peck, 2005) as it has moved away from itsorigins in the work of Karl Polanyi (1957 [1944]), and its

subsequent popularisation by Mark Granovetter (1985), the paperargues that it is worthwhile to explore embeddedness within anecological context, not least because its use here has not receivedthe same critical attention as that given to social embeddedness.Second, ecological embeddedness is interrogated in order toclarify the potential of the concept to understand how, why, and towhat extent the ecological e as expressed through the meanings,understandings and practices of producers and consumers e

shapes the development and operation of AFNs. As such,a constructivist approach to understanding ecological relations isadopted which acknowledges the materiality of the non-human,and therefore avoids a ‘hyper constructionist’ (Castree 2001, p.16)position, but approaches this through the talk and practices ofhuman actors within AFNs. While a constructivist perspectiveinevitably places limitations on what can be claimed for ecologi-cally embedded AFNs in terms of any quantifiable material‘benefits’ to their underlying ecology, it nevertheless enables theformulation of a conceptualisation of ecological embeddedness asa means of understanding the variable significance of on-farmecologies to the development and operation of AFNs from theperspectives of key actors involved.

Although research on AFNs has burgeoned in recent years, it hasbeen suggested that further work is required to understand theirheterogeneity, the diverse ways in which they contribute to ruraldevelopment and the institutional arrangements that mightsupport these processes (Marsden and Smith, 2005; Marsden andSonnino, 2008; Renting et al., 2003). In this sense, the ecologicaldimensions of AFNs contribute to their heterogeneity (and in turnmay have specific implications for institutional support) but thesehave received relatively less attention in recent research; some-thing this paper seeks to address.

The paper firstly considers the evolution of the notion ofembeddedness, from origins within economic sociology to itstranslation into spatial and ecological domains. A section thatrefines the concept of ecological embeddedness is then followedby one that makes suggestions for how the concept might beoperationalised empirically in order to explore the ecologicaldimensions of AFNs. An illustration of this empirical application isprovided, using material drawn from research that was designedto explore the relationship between the biodiversity of grazingand food quality. The paper concludes by asserting the value ofecological embeddedness as a concept, in spite of the observedlimitations of embeddedness in other contexts and the challengesthat are associated with its ecological application.

2. Embeddedness: from the social to the spatial and theecological

Within neoclassical economics the economy is abstracted fromsociety, seen as an autonomous and self-regulating arena in whichagents enter and leave the market as strangers (Peck, 2005). Whilsteconomists are aware that economies are influenced by politics,culture and society, they see them as exogenous factors to beignored in building an ideal economic framework (Callon, 1998;Friedland and Robertson, 1990). Between the 1890s and 1960sthis neoclassical economic view of the market prevailed, but sincethe 1970s its premises have been called into question2 as those

3 A focus on on-farm ecologies justifies the use of the term ‘ecological’, asdescribed in the introduction. However, when analysis focuses less on these ‘localecologies’ (Murdoch et al., 2000) and instead on, for example, food miles or energyuse as in the case of Penker’s (2006) analysis of the so-called ecological embedd-edness of Austrian bread supply chains, a wider term such as ‘environmentalembeddedness’ might be more appropriate as this captures concerns and activitiesthat go beyond the biological or ecological to encompass resource use. Meanwhile,the notion of ‘natural embeddedness’ appears to be insufficiently precise, not leastbecause of the complexity of the term ‘nature’ (e.g. Castree, 2003).

C. Morris, J. Kirwan / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330324

factors treated as exogenous to the exchange process have beenincreasingly acknowledged, and the trans-disciplinary approach ofeconomic sociology has grown in importance (Block, 1990;Granovetter, 1990; Thorne, 1996). The notion of ‘social embedd-edness’ underpins this shift, having its origins in the work of theeconomic historian Karl Polanyi (1886e1968) (e.g. 1957 [1944]). Inhis seminal paper, Granovetter (1985) expanded on the notion ofembeddedness introduced by Polanyi, arguing that an embedded-ness approach can facilitate an understanding of how the workingsof a capitalist economy are influenced by being embedded withinongoing social relations.

These ideas have resonated with researchers interested inexploring the complexities of AFNs (Murdoch et al., 2000). Asa result, an examination of the embeddedness of such networkshas been seen as enabling a better understanding of their situ-ated dynamics and potential than political-economic approaches.Hinrichs (2000, p. 296), for example, in writing about farmers’markets and community supported agriculture, argues that:“for many, the notion of social embeddedness has becomea convenient shorthand for social ties, assumed to modify andenhance human economic interactions [and that] embeddedness,in this sense of social connection, reciprocity and trust, isoften seen as the hallmark (and comparative advantage) of directagricultural markets”. Often linked to direct marketing, isrecognition of the growing consumer interest in the provenanceof the food they eat. Produce that is embedded within particularcontexts, especially local contexts, is seen to have a marketingadvantage in that “locally produced food is often assumed to beof a higher quality than global food” (Murdoch et al., 2000: 111;Nygard and Storstad, 1998). This has seen the initial focuson ‘social’ relations (within the context of embeddedness) beingextended to incorporate ‘spatial’ relations (both territorial andgeographic), as a means of understanding the implications ofthis dynamic to the development of AFNs (Hess, 2004; Murdochet al., 2000; Sonnino and Marsden, 2006). Here, “globalization isoften equated with processes of disembedding [and] localizationor regionalization is referred to as ‘re-embedding food systems”(Penker, 2006, p. 369). However, this simplistic dichotomy hasbeen the subject of considerable debate. For example, Hess(2004) argues that globalisation does not necessarily result indis-embedded relationships and that developing and maintain-ing relationships of trust (i.e. social embeddedness) withinsupply chains is significant whatever the geographic scale ofoperation (Doel, 1996, 1999). In this vein, Renting et al. (2003,p. 400), in their discussion of ‘short food supply chains’, arguethat spatial embeddedness is less about proximity (i.e. reducingthe geographical distance between producer and consumer) andmore about embedding the product concerned with ‘value-ladeninformation’ about the place of production, at the point ofconsumption.

From this brief discussion it is apparent that the notion of socialembeddedness, andwhat it mightmean in a geographical or spatialcontext, has been the subject of considerable debate and critique. Itis surprising therefore that extension of the concept into thedomain of nature has received less critical scrutiny in spite of theassertion byMurdoch et al. (2000) that embeddedness can refer notonly to social relations but also to ‘natural relations’. However, istranslation of an economic-sociological concept into an ecologicalcontext as straightforward as Murdoch et al. suggest? Ecologicalembeddedness appears to encompass a distinct set of relationshipsbetween a broader set of actors and objects that occupy differentlocations from those that are the focus of social embeddedness,particularly when this has been applied to the analysis of AFNs. Asa first step to developing a more critical perspective, we discussa number of papers that have variously worked with the concept of

‘ecological’ or ‘natural’ or ‘environmental’ (the moniker varies)3

embeddedness.Within this small body of work, there is explicit acknowledge-

ment of the contribution of economic sociology to the utilisation ofthe concept of embeddedness in this domain. In one of the earlieststudies of ‘alternative’ food geographies, Whatmore and Thorne(1997) combine insights from Actor Network Theory (ANT) andeconomic sociology to explore fair trade networks, suggesting thatthe ‘environmental embeddedness’ of such networks is accom-plished through the deployment of organic farming practices.Organic farming is also recognised as the basis of the ‘naturalembeddedness’ of quality food networks inWales, byMurdoch et al.(2000). As in the study by Whatmore and Thorne the idea ofembeddedness is combined with insights from ANT, but alsoConventions Theory, in a conceptual package that enables researchto “emphasise that nature is not amerebackdrop to economic actionbut is symmetrically entangled with the economic. The notion ofembeddedness can, therefore, be extended to include natural, aswell as social relations” (116). In both cases, ecological embedded-ness is used to describe alternative food networks that are based onenvironmentally friendly farming practices. However, in spite of theconsideration given to a Granoveterian understanding by both ofthese sets of authors, the notion of embeddedness is being used aslittlemore than adescriptor (of anAFNas either naturallyembeddedor not), thereby providing minimal analytical purchase.

In thehands of Penker (2006), ecological embeddedness takes onadifferent form. Inmaking reference to bothGranovetter (1985) andMurdoch et al. (2000), Penker sets out to measure and map theecological embeddedness of bread supply chains in Austria, at bothnational and regional scales. Her position, that all food chains areecologically embedded (a position that would probably be disputedby both Whatmore and Thorne (1997) and Murdoch et al’s (2000)analyses), leads to a case study approach of individual food chainsto revealwhere, howandwhy they are ecologically embedded, withparticular emphasis placed on the use of energy in the productionand distribution of the products concerned. In so doing, more effortis devoted to actually analysing the nature of ecological embedd-edness inparticular food chains, than is the case in eitherWhatmoreand Thorne or Murdoch et al. However, as the focus here is on post-farm processes and energy use within distribution and processing,in particular, the analysis of ‘ecological embeddedness’ appears torefer to a set of processes that could be more appropriatelydescribed in terms of life cycle analysis.

In an altogether different context, Whiteman and Cooper (2000)use the idea of ecological embeddedness to elucidate the tacit envi-ronmental knowledges of subsistence hunting communities inCanada. In their paper, they examine in some detail the intimate andecologically-sensitiveknowledgeofaparticularareaof landproducedthrough a longstanding and ongoing relationship between humansand non-humans. Although reference is made at the outset toGranoveter’s (1985) conceptualisation of social embeddedness, thisbecomes largely irrelevant within the subsequent discussion ofethnographic data. This study, in making use of the term embedd-edness, makes passing reference to its origins within economicsociology, but ends up employing the term in a completely different

C. Morris, J. Kirwan / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330 325

way, one that has little if anything to dowith economic relations andactivity.

It is clear from this brief critique that ecological embeddednesshas been applied to a variety of environmental practices, includingorganic farming (Murdoch et al., 2000; Murdoch and Miele, 1999;Whatmore and Thorne, 1997), ‘traditional’ subsistence huntingpractices (Whiteman and Cooper, 2000) and energy use in theproduction anddistributionof food (Penker, 2006). It is perhapsopento question as to whether all of these practices are, in and of them-selves, necessarily indicative of ecological embeddedness.Moreover,although reference is made to the Granovetarian notion ofembeddedness, there is variable effort devoted to working thisthrough the analysis of these very different empirical contexts ina way that sustains a meaningful focus on ‘ongoing social relations’,or their ecological equivalent, and what this might imply foreconomic activity in general and the exchange of the commodities ofinterest, in particular. Furthermore, when making reference toecological or natural embeddedness, researchers actually appear tobe referring to place or territorial rootedness instead. This is indica-tive of a tendency to employ a ‘common sense’ or ‘dictionary’ defi-nitionof embeddedness i.e. as ‘fixedfirmly in its surroundings’ ratherthan itsmore specific interpretationwithin economic sociology. Thisis certainly the case in Whiteman and Cooper’s conceptualisation ofecological embeddedness “as the degree to which a manager isrooted in the lande that is, the extent towhich themanager is on theland and learns from the land in an experientialway” (1267). It is alsoimplied by the statement that quality food chains are being‘embedded in local ecologies’ (Murdoch et al., 2000), and that theireconomic potential can be compromised if they become tooembedded (i.e. too firmly fixed) in their particular locality. Penker’s(2006) assertion that all food chains are embedded in the ecolog-ical context of their respective locations is another example of thisslippage in the use of the term, together with her observation thatwork on natural embeddedness “very quickly .[leads].back toquestions about the provenance of food commodities” (369). Whilenot denying the interconnections between ecology and place, thisconflation potentially diverts attention from the specific connectionbetween ecology and economic activity. Given that a focus onecological embeddedness, and its more precise definition as articu-lated below, is connected with the normative agenda of reinforcingthe use of ecologically beneficial production practices, it makesanalytical sense to not simply equate the ecological with place.

In the section that follows, the paper attempts to build someconceptual clarity for ecological embeddedness (section 3.1),initially suggesting some refinements to the economic-sociologicalconcept of social embeddedness, before making suggestions forhow it might be applied empirically in order to help make sense ofthe ecological dimensions of AFNs (section 3.2).

3. Ecological embeddedness

3.1. Conceptual refinement

Key to the idea of social embeddedness is the role that ongoingsocial relations can play in “generating trust and discouragingmalfeasance” (Granovetter, 1985, p. 490), thereby influencingeconomic activity. Following this, therefore, it is logical to assertthat ecological embeddedness should be conceived as the ways inwhich ongoing ecological relations (i.e. relationships betweeneconomic actors and the underlying ecology of production) influ-ence economic activity and in this particular case the production,exchange and consumption of food within the context of AFNs.However, logical though this definition appears to be, it belies someof the difficulties of working with an economic-sociologicalconcept in an ecological and network context. These issues have not

been adequately addressed within previous research that has madereference to ecological embeddedness.

When applied elsewhere to the analysis of AFNs (and notably byHinrichs (2000) and Kirwan (2004)), the Granoveterian notion ofsocial embeddedness has focused primarily on understanding theongoing relations between social actors within specific economicexchange contexts, such as farmers’ markets. When food networksare understood as ecologically embedded, this involves the trans-lation of the concept of social embeddedness into a domain inwhich the relationships are not just about people, but about peopleand natural objects and processes. Further, these relationshipsextend beyond the exchange context and stretch ‘back’ to the farm;meaning the natural objects and processes are not physicallypresent at the point of exchange. If the concept of ecologicalembeddedness is to help clarify how, why and to what extent theecological can shape the development and operation of AFNs, itclearly needs to encompass more than the context of exchange toconsider as well what is happening on the farm, at the point ofproduction. Decisions taken on-farm in relation to ecology willhave a significant impact on the way in which the ecological canshape the development of AFNs. How is it, for example, thata producer both views andmakes use of the ecology of their farm inrelation to developing product quality, distinctiveness and trust?Furthermore, how do producers publicise the ecological dimen-sions of their product to the consumer and what role does it play inthe latter’s purchasing decisions? These questions and issues pointto the need to refine the notion of embeddedness.

One of the more general criticisms of embeddedness asa concept is that all economic activity is necessarily sociallyembedded (Granovetter, 1985); likewise, it has been argued that allfood production is ecologically embedded (Penker, 2006), whetherthis is organised through ‘conventional’ or ‘alternative’ networks. Itis undeniable that all food production has a ‘natural’ component, inthat it utilises natural resources. This, however, suggests that littleor no analytical weight can be attributed to the concept ofecological embeddedness, because if all food chains are charac-terised as such what makes certain chains distinctive or inter-esting? The concept of ecological embeddedness must, therefore,encompass more than just recognition of the general influence ofthe natural environment on economic activity, and food produc-tion-consumption in particular.

The first point of conceptual clarification, and hence refinement,to be made then is that the natural environment of production (inthe form of on-farm ecological relations) must inform and makea difference to the development and operation of an AFN, includingthat it becomes an element of the consumer’s purchasing decision,in order for that network to beunderstood as ecologically enbedded.For this to happen, a conscious or deliberate effort on the part ofproducers to communicate information about on-farm ecologicalrelationsmust occur, either in person or through packaging or otherpromotional materials. As a result of this process of communicationthe exchange process may be reshaped through the realisation ofadded economic value, such as achieving a higher price for the foodproduct, and/or by the opening up of new market opportunities.Furthermore, by generating interest and e perhaps most signifi-cantlye fostering trust in the product among consumerswhomightbe concerned about foodorigins,methods of production andquality,consumers can be reassured by the ecological information provided(Penker, 2006). If subsequently theyvalue theproduct, theymaybuyit again and continue to do so for as long as they trust that itwill fulfiltheir expectations. Ecological relations e between the naturalenvironment of production, producers and consumers e can in thisway be seen as ‘ongoing’ in a similar sense to the ongoing socialrelations that are understood by Grannoveter as defining socialembeddedness.

C. Morris, J. Kirwan / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330326

The second point of conceptual clarification and refinement thatfollows from this is the need to consider what is being communi-cated and, more importantly, what this reveals about the charac-teristics of the on-farm ecological relations. As acknowledgedearlier, ecologically embedded food chains are different to and insome way perceived to be ‘better than’ food chains that are not soembedded suggesting, therefore, that something more than simplythe communication of information about the natural environmentof production is going on within these chains. Specifically, thisdifference reflects a change in the relations between economicactors (both producers and consumers) and the natural environ-ment that produces a benefit to both. Underpinning these changedrelations, this paper asserts, is the influence of values that areassociated with a commitment to the conservation, enhancementand sustainable utilisation of the natural environment of produc-tion. It is these values, and their associated actions, that arecommunicated to consumers who, holding similar values or beingsympathetic towards these values, purchase the product. In sodoing, both the organisation of the food production business on-farm, and the exchange process for these products, is affected. Thenotion of ecological embeddedness in this sense enables recogni-tion of how, through its communication to the consumer, theunderlying ecology of production can facilitate the realisation ofadded value for the producer, satisfy the demands of certainconsumers and contribute to on-farm environmental management.

This is not to deny that a producer could include informationabout aspects of the farm’s natural environment in their promo-tional activities that may not provide a meaningful or ‘authentic’account of and insight into their production methods. After all,claims aboundon food labelling about the purported ‘naturalness’ofproducts when production methods may be anything but environ-mentally beneficial (see alsoWinter, 2003). Clearly this is important,with authenticity determined by regulation as well as the devel-opment of trust between producer and consumer. Nevertheless, themechanics of this determination is beyond the scope of this paper,which is concerned to establish the value of the conception ofecological embeddedness as ameans ofmaking sense of theways inwhich the ecologicale from the perspective of the actors involvede

shapes the development and operation of AFNs.Having set out a conceptual refinement of ecological embedd-

edness in this section, the following section discusses how theconcept might be operationalised in empirical research.

3.2. Suggestions for the operationalisation of ecologicalembeddedness in empirical research

The recommendations in this section have been shaped by theauthors’ involvement in an interdisciplinary research projectinvolving food scientists, ecologists and social scientists, fundedunder the UK Research Council’s Rural Economy and Land Use(RELU) programme.4 The substantive focus of the project was therelationship between the biodiversity of grazing and the quality ofthe food products, specifically meats and cheeses, derived from thisgrazing. The products were conceptualised within the research ashaving the potential to realise an increased exchange value (therebyenhancing the incomes of producers and creating other, related,rural development opportunities); while at the same timepurportedly producing environmental gains (specifically enhancedbiodiversity) in the spaces of production, which in turn wouldreassure consumersabout the conditionsunderwhich their foodhasbeenproduced. The researchproject analysed ‘frompasture to plate’

4 More information about the programme as a whole can be viewed at: http://www.relu.ac.uk.

38 high quality food products (lamb, beef and cheese), that wereidentified throughpromotional activitieswhere referencewasmadeto biodiversity or farmland ecology more broadly. They wereselected in a purposive way to illustrate a range of recognised agro-ecologies: salt marshes, moorland and heather moor (in the case ofsheepproduction), andneutralwet, acidic andcalcareousgrasslandsin the case of beef production. Each of these environments is asso-ciated with distinctive botanical communities that are typicallyproduced through the operation of extensive grazing systems. Theintention here is not to ‘report’ the social science data generated bythe research project e semi-structured interviews with actorsclosely involved in the production of the products (includingfarmers, estate and farm managers), analysis of promotional mate-rials and focus groupswith consumers -but todrawon theprocess oftrying to make sense of those data in order to make suggestionsabout how the concept of ecological embeddedness can be oper-ationalised in researchpractice. Twoempirical taskseanda series ofsub-tasks e are identified and these are discussed below.

The first empirical task is to establish how, why and in whatways AFNs are ecologically embedded. It is suggested that fourcomponents, or ‘dimensions’, comprise the key elements ofempirical investigation. These will elucidate how the actorsinvolved in food production businesses address the ecologicalelements of food production and how these subsequently shape theprocess of exchange, from the perspective of both producers andconsumers. It is further suggested that each of these dimensions islinked and will be combined in various ways by the actors involvedin AFNs, to shape the ways in which a food network becomesecologically embedded.

The first dimension relates to the way in which the producerunderstands the role and importance of ecological relations withintheir farming system and food enterprise, and in particular whatmotivates them to use environmentally beneficial modes of foodproduction. Exploring the influence of different ecological valueswill be particularly relevant here as these will contribute to thevariety of ways in which AFNs become ecologically embedded.Following Hinchcliffe et al. (2003), it is suggested that both intrinsicand instrumental values of nature are likely to be at work inecologically embedded AFNs. The former recognises that nature hasan inherent value, and the food producers expressing these valuesare primarily concerned with realising environmental benefits ontheir farm, with any commercial benefits being seen either asincidental, or as a beneficial by-product. Meanwhile, instrumentalvalues of nature emphasise the benefits to humans of ‘taking care’of nature, where emphasis is placed on the economic value of on-farm ecologies. Definitively categorising the producers involved asbeing either those who value their on-farm natures intrinsically, orinstrumentally is unlikely to be helpful though, as most producersare likely to embody a combination of the two aspects, albeit indifferent degrees. As such, it is helpful to think in terms ofa continuum of instrumentalism, with ‘high instrumentalism’ beingwhere economic goals are prioritised when undertaking environ-mentally beneficial practices and ‘low instrumentalism’ beingwhere economic goals are of secondary importance to maintainingor improving the underlying ecological features of the farm, andwhere the producer proceeds primarily on the basis of intrinsicvalues of nature. However, this is not to suggest that high instru-mentalism means ecological embeddedness is less important5;rather, ecological embeddedness can emerge in relation to any part

5 In distinction to Block’s (1990) analysis of social embeddedness and how‘instrumentalism’ and price considerations (or ‘marketness’) can reduce thesignificance of embeddedness within economic transactions, here an ‘instrumental’orientation to on-farm ecologies does not imply ‘less’ ecological embeddedness.

Table 1The four dimensions of ecological embeddedness.

1.Understanding A. The way in which producers understand the role andimportance of ecological relations within their farmingsystem and food enterprise, and in particular theenvironmental values that underpin their use ofenvironmentally beneficial modes of food production.B. The way in which producers conceptualise andunderstand the relationship between the ecologicalconditions of production and the characteristics/qualitiesof the food products they produce.

2. Realising The ways in which producers attempt to realiseecological benefits within their production systemsthrough specific practices. This includes their suitabilityto localised ecological conditions, the selection ofparticular breeds of cattle and sheep, and the ecologicalmanagement of landscape features such as watercourses.

3. Utilising The ways in which information about the ecologicalconditions of production is utilised to influence theexchange process. This includes promotional materialsthat make links between the ecology of productionand the eating qualities of the product on sale.

4. Negotiating The ways in which consumers negotiate the ecologicalinformation they receive about food produce, that inturn influences their purchasing decisions and hencethe exchange process.

C. Morris, J. Kirwan / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330 327

of this continuum, which indicates instead the variety of environ-mental orientations of the producers involved. This complexentanglement of the ecological and the economic ‘on-farm’ hasparallels with the work of Fish et al. (2003) on the participation offarmers in agri-environmental schemes. In this work, different‘styles of participation’ are distinguished according to the depth ofcommercial motivation for entering a scheme, so that someparticipants are driven solely by economic considerations whileothers aremotivated to do so by awider range of factors that do notnecessarily include any commercial concerns.

How producers conceptualise the relationship between theecological conditions of production and the characteristics/quali-ties of the food products they produce is another aspect of the‘understanding’ dimension of ecological embeddedness that wouldbe worth exploring empirically, and might be usefully informed byexisting research on producer understandings of food quality (e.g.Ilbery and Kneafsey, 2000). It is possible of course that producersmay not acknowledge this connection, even when they aremanaging their food production businesses in an environmentallybeneficial way. Even when highlighted, ecological relations arelikely to be one of a combination of factors shaping producers’perceptions of quality.

The second dimension relates to the way in which particularproduction processes and practices realise ecological benefits. Asthe earlier discussion of existing work on ecological embedded-ness indicated, it has often been assumed that organic farmingsystems are the only way in which AFNs become so embedded.However, this paper recommends that investigation is not limitedto this particular type of farming system and instead considersthe diversity of reported ways in which producers attempt torealise ecological benefits within their production systems. Thismay include their suitability to localised ecological conditionse.g. through extensive (low input) grazing practices, the selectionof particular breeds of cattle and sheep and the ecologicalmanagement of features such as hedgerows and water courses.The role and effectiveness of institutional structures, such as thepresence of environmental designations and the availability ofenvironmental grant schemes in shaping and financially sup-porting these practices, should also be examined. This, in turn,points to the role of a range of other actors off-farm who mayhave an interest in supporting the development of ecologicallyembedded AFNs.

Whatever the underlying understanding of the natural envi-ronment of the producers operating the food production businessesin question, and of the production processes and practicesemployed to realise ecological benefits, the AFNs of which thesebusinesses comprise a key part cannot be understood in terms ofecological embeddedness unless the influence of ecological rela-tions on the exchange process, is also examined. This necessitatesinvestigation of a third dimension: the various ways in whichinformation about the ecological conditions of production is utilisedto influence the exchange process. Analysis needs to take place ofhow producers tell their stories about ecology within theirpromotional materials and activities, including the links that aremade with the eating qualities of the products on sale. Otheraspects to these narratives of nature that would also be worthexploring are references to: ’traditional’ production practices thatare perceived to be appropriate for the underlying ecology of thearea in question, resulting in a positive influence on the intrinsicqualities of the products involved; environmental certificationschemes, and the nature and landscape conservation activitiesundertaken with or without the aid of such schemes; and to thebreed of animal, both in terms of the intrinsic eating qualities of thefood products with which they are associated, but also suitability tothe place of production and its ecology.

The previous three dimensions of ecological embeddednesshave discussed this from the producer’s point of view, but it is alsonecessary to address how consumers negotiate the ecologicaldimensions of foods within AFNs, and the relative importance theyascribe to these dimensions within their purchasing decisions. Thisintroduces the fourth and final dimension of ecological embedd-edness as it has been refined in this paper. Recent research byMorris and Kirwan (2010), suggests that consumers draw on awiderange of information when considering the ’value’ of the food theyare buying. However, it is clear that knowledge of, and interest in,the management of the natural, on-farm environment tends to befairly low on their list of priorities. Nevertheless, it appears thatconsumers draw on various ‘realistic knowledges’ of food produc-tion processes, whereby they are often instinctively attracted tofood that is ’natural’ or ’traditional’, or has been produced inenvironmentally significant areas with which they are familiar.Promotional materials that emphasise these aspects of productiontend to attract consumers to at least try the product concerned.However, key to this process of negotiation is that consumers’value, accept and trust the information they receive. All of thesefactors should be considered when investigating this ‘negotiation’dimension of ecological embeddedness.

As alluded to in section 3.1., it is only the third and fourthdimensions that are directly concerned with how the ecological hasthe potential to influence the exchange context. However, asargued, this is insufficient to allow for any meaningful analyticalpurchase in relation to exploring the ecological dimensions of AFNs.In including the first two dimensions above, therefore, the notion ofecological embeddedness becomes a useful conceptual tool thattakes into account decisions taken on-farm in relation to ecology,thereby helping to understand how the ecological can shape thedevelopment of AFNs from production through to consumption.A summary of each of the dimensions is provided in Table 1.

Having explored these four dimensions (that contribute towardsthe ecological embeddedness of AFNs) and their interrelationships,it is recommended that a second task for empirical researchemploying the concept of ecological embeddedness is to establish ifsome AFNs are ‘more’ ecologically embedded than others. This doesnot imply a quantitative assessment of ecologically beneficialoutcomes (since the approach being detailed here is constructivistin emphasis), but rather it acknowledges that ecological relations

C. Morris, J. Kirwan / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330328

might be regarded by the actors involved as more influential in thedevelopment and operation of some AFNs than in others. In turn,this points to the need to explore the ways in which ecologicalrelations entangle with other factors and processes, including othermodes of embeddedness, to influence the exchange process withinAFNs. This is prompted in part by Hinrich’s (2000) discussion of the‘conceptual shadows’ of social embeddedness within AFNs. Heranalysis of two types of direct agricultural market shows how AFNsare not only characterised by social embeddedness but, followingBlock (1990), by a mix of social ties and more instrumentalbehaviours and price considerations, the particular combination ofwhich varies depending on the type of direct agricultural marketconcerned (Hinrichs, 2000). In other words, as Hinrichs (op cit,p.296) goes on to explain, it is “possible to find trappings of themarket in economic contexts suffused with social ties”. In anecological context this suggests that there is a need to establish therelative significance of ecological relations (vis a vis other rationalesfor operating a food business, and social and spatial embeddedness)within the development and operation of AFNs and how this variesaccording to the particular food network concerned. It might beanticipated that in some cases a consumer is persuaded to buya product principally on the basis of its ecological credentials; or itmay be a combination of buying a product from someone theconsumer trusts (social embeddedness), or that has come froma place they believe means it will be of a good quality (indicatingthe relative importance of spatial embeddedness) ore and perhapsmore speculatively - breed of animal (suggesting, perhaps, anotherform of embeddedness located within the bodies of distinctivetypes of livestock). Building on Hinrichs (2000, p. 297), AFNs cantherefore be understood as being characterised by “fluctuatingmixes” of ecological embeddedness, commercial considerations aswell as social and spatial embeddedness and that these are likely toexist in productive tension with one another.

4. Ecological embeddedness: an illustration of the refinedconcept

In order to explicate further the potential of the concept ofecological embeddedness, as refined in this paper, this sectionprovides an illustration of how itmight be used tomake sense of theways in which the ecological relations of production shape thedevelopment and operation of a particular AFN. To do this, empiricalmaterial is drawn from the RELU project outlined above, specificallyinterviews with actors associated with a food enterprise located onthe coast of the county of Cumbria, in theNorthWest of England. Thelarge agricultural estate at the centre of the food business comprisesmore than 6000 ha of land, part of which is let to two tenant farmerswith the remainder farmed ‘in-house’. On the latter, livestock is nolonger farmed but the tenanted holdings have, at the initiative of theestate,moved into the production of saltmarsh lamb. This enterprisewas established in 2001 and designed in part to assist the estate’stenant farmers in thewakeof the footandmouthdiseaseoutbreak (ofthe same year), which had detrimentally impacted their incomesand, as a result, the ability of the estate to derive rental income.Central to the lamb enterprise is that the salt marshes were under-stood by the estate manager and owner as having unexploitedeconomicpotential. In this respect, the productionof saltmarsh lambwas seen as an opportunity to make better use of the salt marshresources of the estate, reflecting an instrumental view of thisecology. The estatemanager explained that he had been aware of thereputation of salt marsh lamb as a “premier food product”, particu-larly fromNormandy, and “this sort of anecdotal evidence” providedthe basis of the move into its production. To ‘qualify’ as salt marshlamb the estate prescribes that the animals have to graze the marshfor at least threemonths, fromanagewhen theyare old enough todo

so. The production of high quality meats such as salt marsh lamb(which has realised premium prices) fits into a wider ambition todevelop an estate brand of quality foods. It is perceived that the saltmarsh lamb is of the highest quality in terms of taste, tenderness andtexture and that this is, in part, as a direct result of the grazing.

The entire coastline in this part of Cumbria is covered witha plethora of environmental designations (SAC, SPA, RAMSAR) andthe salt marshes are part of the Morecombe Bay Site of SpecialScientific Interest. Natural England, the government body respon-sible for nature conservation, states: “The saltmarshes are particu-larly important for their vegetation which is diverse, supportinga number of rare and uncommon plants, as well as a variety ofnationally scarce invertebrate species”. Aware of the responsibilitiesattendant on this environmental interest, and intent on realising thepotential of the underlying ecology, the estate manager has workedquite closely with Natural England, from the establishment of thesaltmarsh lamb enterprise, “to try andmaintain a balance” betweenthe conservation and economic interests (implying in turn therelevance of intrinsic, alongside the instrumental, values of natureidentified earlier). He claimed that “the grazing works very well topreserve the saltmarshes as theyare not intensively grazed” and thetenant farmers have entered into agri-environment scheme agree-ments to help support this approach to grazing. In terms of utilisingthe ecology of production, the salt marsh lamb is sold throughavariety of alternative outlets, including the estate’s food hall, via itswebsite, through a farm shop at a stately home in Derbyshire, localand London-based butchers, and a regional chain of deli-cum-supermarkets. Promotional materials state that: “The salt marshesgrasses make the meat denser and sweeter with a less fatty, lightertexture. It’s all to dowith the grasses theygraze on”. It is also statedon the website that the “managed grazing makes a positive contri-bution tomarshland ecosystem”. As such, the underlying ecology ofthe place of production is explicitly used to promote what isdistinctive about the eating qualities of the products on sale,alongside which are conservation claims about the grazing systemfromwhich the food product is derived. Ecology is front and central,and being actively mobilised by the producer within the process ofexchange. Demand for the product is strong, suggesting its ecolog-ical characteristics are a factor in interesting consumers. However,further investigation of the negotiation dimension of ecologicalembeddedness would help to reveal the relative importance of theecological vis a vis the place of production, and the place of retail(with all that this implies in terms of trust, value and cost) withinpurchasing decisions.

This brief narrative account illustrates how the differentdimensions of this paper’s conceptualisation of ecological embe-ddedness (understanding, realising, utilising and negotiating) canbe worked through empirical material and used to indicate therelative significance of ecological relations within the developmentand operation of a particular AFN. Aqualitative approach of this typecould be employed in an examination of ecological embeddednessacross a number of AFNs to reveal the various ways in which theybecome ecologically embedded, through diverse environmentalvalues, practices and promotional strategies on the part ofproducers and the negotiation of these by consumers, and therelative importance of ecological concerns within their develop-ment and operation. Such efforts could also be used to show thatecological embeddedness may be entangled with its social andspatial forms, to different degrees, a process thatwill also contributeto revealing the ecological heterogeneity of AFNs.

5. Conclusion

This paper has attempted to interrogate and refine the concept ofecological embeddedness so that it can be used as an analytical tool

C. Morris, J. Kirwan / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330 329

to explore the ways in which the underlying ecology of productionplays a role in the development and operation of AFNs. Although inother contexts the conceptof embeddedness appears tohave runoutof conceptual steam (e.g. Hess, 2004; Jones, 2008; Peck, 2005),whenthinking about thenatural environmentof production this paperhasargued that the imprecision of ecological embeddedness as appliedelsewhere can be overcome to enable AFNs (or indeed conventionalfood networks that meet the conceptual criteria detailed herein) tobe meaningfully understood as ecologically embedded. This entails,in thefirst instance, rejection of thenotion that all foodnetworks areecologically embedded. An intensively managed wheat field inCambridgeshire, East England, for example, can be said to beembedded in local ecologies because it is, like all other forms of foodproduction, ‘fixed firmly in its surrounding mass’, but this does notmean that it can be understood as being part of a distinctive,ecologically-sensitive food network. Crucially, ecological embedd-edness as a concept needs to include both a commitment to theconsciousmanagement of on-farm ecologies by food producers andthe communication of these ecological relations at the point ofexchange. It also needs to consider howandwhy consumers ‘buy in’and continue tobuy in to the ecological dimensions of a product. Theexchange process must be influenced in someway by producer andconsumer attention to the ecological dimensions of on-farmproduction for a food network to be understood as ecologicallyembedded, in the terms defined herein.

The paper has suggested that in using this clarified concept ofecological embeddedness, research should pay attention to fourdimensions associated with the way that producers and consumersrelate to the ecological: understanding, realising, utilising andnegotiating. ‘Deconstructing’ AFNs in this actor-oriented andsocially constructivist way necessarily means that a producer’senvironmental values, intentions and reported actions are themeasure of whether or not on-farm ecologies ‘benefit’ from theecological embeddedness of AFNs. As such, it would be worthconsidering howan interdisciplinary approach (involving the input,for example, of ecological science and economics) would add to theconceptualisation of ecological embeddedness set out herein,particularly in terms of being able to contribute more quantitativeassessments of ecological and economic benefit. These limitationsaside, however, the approach is revealing of the ways in whichproducers approach the ecological aspects of food production andthe relative significance of thesewithin their promotional activities.Concomitantly, it will enable investigation of the importance placedupon these dimensions by consumers. In approaching investigationof the ecological dimensions of AFNs in this way, it is possible ofcourse that producers may be revealed as using environmentallyfriendly practices, and yet are not ‘carrying them forward’ to thepoint of exchange, and that discrepancies and tensions may emergebetween producer and consumer perspectives on the ecological.These outcomes will be important, however, in terms of under-standing the relative importance of the ecological within AFNs and,by extension, the extent to which they can be meaningfully under-stood as ecologically embedded. They are also likely to be importantin signalling issues in terms of the sustainability of these networks.For example, a failure to communicate ecological managementpractices to the end consumer (whether directly or through otherpromotionalmeans)maymean that these are not directly rewardedeconomically and this in turn may discourage the continuation ofthese practices. Indeed, following Penker (2006, p. 378), this couldbe interpreted as a missed opportunity both economically andecologically as “ultimately, trustworthy and easily comprehensibleinformation about a .[food’s ecological dimensions]. mightreward and encourage environmentally benign conditions in a foodsystem otherwise driven by pressures of globalisation, stand-ardisation and competitive price margins”.

In interrogating and refining the notion of ecological embedd-edness, this paper has articulated a more precise conceptual toolthat can help understand the significance of the underlying ecologyof production in the development and operation of AFNs, as well astheir ecological heterogeneity. Previous research on such foodnetworks has paid insufficient attention to this diversity (e.g.Murdoch et al., 2000; Whatmore and Thorne, 1997), limitingunderstanding of the potential of AFNs to foster more environ-mentally benign modes of food production.

Acknowledgements

This paper draws on a RELU research project ‘Eating biodiversity’(Award RES 224-25-0041) lead by Henry Buller, University ofExeter. The other members of the project teamwere: Jeff Wood andFran Whittington, University of Bristol; Alan Hopkins and RobertDunn, Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; andOwain Jones, Countryside and Community Research Institute. Inadditionwewould like to thank the referees for their constructivelycritical comments that helped to improve the paper.

References

Block, F., 1990. Postindustrial Possibilities: a Critique of Economic Discourse.University of California Press, Berkeley.

Buttel, F., 2006. Sustaining the unsustainable: agro-food systems and environmentin the modern world. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T., Mooney, P. (Eds.), Handbook ofRural Studies. Sage Publications, London, pp. 213e229.

Callon, M., 1998. Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets ineconomics. In: Callon, M. (Ed.), The Laws of the Markets. Blackwell Publishers,Oxford, pp. 1e57.

Castree, N., 2001. Socialising nature: theory, practice and politics. In: Castree, N.,Braun, B. (Eds.), Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics. BlackwellPublishers, Oxford, pp. 1e21.

Chiffoleau, Y., 2009. From politics to Co-operation: the dynamics of embeddednessin alternative food supply chains. Sociologia Ruralis 49, 218e235.

Doel, C., 1996. Market development and organisational change: the case of the foodindustry. In: Wrigley, N., Lowe, M. (Eds.), Retailing, Consumption and Capital.Longman, Harlow, Essex, pp. 48e67.

Doel, C., 1999. Towards a supply-chain community? Insights from governanceprocesses in the food industry. Environment and Planning A 31, 69e85.

Fish, R., Seymour, S., Watkins, C., 2003. Conserving English Landscapes: landmanagers and agri-environmental policy. Environment and Planning A 35,19e41.

Friedland, R., Robertson, A., 1990. Beyond the marketplace. In: Friedland, R.,Robertson, A. (Eds.), Beyond the Marketplace: Rethinking Economy and Society.Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 3e49.

Goodman, D., 2001. Ontology matters: the relational materiality of nature and agro-food studies. Sociologia Ruralis 41, 182e200.

Goodman, D., Sorj, A., Wilkinson, J., 1987. From Farming to Biotechnology. BasilBlackwell, Oxford.

Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem ofembeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91, 481e510.

Granovetter, M., 1990. The old and the new economic sociology: a history and anagenda. In: Friedland, R., Robertson, A. (Eds.), Beyond the Marketplace:Rethinking Economy and Society. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 89e112.

Hess, M., 2004. ’Spatial’ relationships? Towards a reconceptualisation of embedd-edness. Progress in Human Geography 28, 165e186.

Hinchcliffe, S., Blowers, A., Freeland, J. (Eds.), 2003. Understanding EnvironmentalIssues. Wiley, Chichester and the Open University, Milton Keynes.

Hinrichs, C., 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types ofdirect agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 295e303.

Ilbery, B., Kneafsey, M., 2000. Producer constructions of quality in regional speci-ality food production: a case study from south west England. Journal of RuralStudies 16, 217e230.

Ilbery, B., Maye, D., 2006. Retailing local food in the Scottish-English borders:a supply chain perspective. Geoforum 37, 352e367.

Jones, A., 2008. Beyond embeddedness: economic practices and the invisibledimensions of transnational business activity. Progress in Human Geography32, 71e88.

Kirwan, J., 2004. Alternative strategies in the UK agro-food system: interrogatingthe Alterity of farmers’ markets. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 395e415.

Krippner, G., 2001. The elusive market: embeddedness and the paradigm ofeconomic sociology. Theory and Society 30, 775e810.

Lacy, W., 2000. Empowering communities through public work, science, and localfood systems: revisiting democracy and globalization. Rural Sociology 65,3e26.

C. Morris, J. Kirwan / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 322e330330

Marsden, T., Banks, J., Bristow, G., 2000. Food supply chain approaches: exploringtheir role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 424e438.

Marsden, T., Smith, E., 2005. Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable developmentin local communities through quality food production and local branding.Geoforum 36, 440e451.

Marsden, T., Sonnino, R., 2008. Rural development and the regional state: denyingmultifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 24, 422e431.

Morris, C., Kirwan, J., 2010. Food commodities, geographical knowledges and thereconnection of production and consumption: the case of naturally embeddedfood products. Geoforum 41, 131e143.

Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., Banks, J., 2000. Quality, nature, and embeddedness: sometheoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. EconomicGeography 76, 107e125.

Murdoch, J., Miele, M., 1999. ’Back to nature’: Changing ’worlds of production’ in thefood sector. Sociologia Ruralis 39, 465e483.

Nygard, B., Storstad, O., 1998. De-globalisation of food markets? Consumer percep-tions of safe food: the case study of Norway. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 35e53.

Peck, J., 2005. Economic Sociologies in Space. Economic Geography 81, 129e175.Penker, M., 2006. Mapping and measuring the ecological embeddedness of food

supply chains. Geoforum 37, 368e379.

[1944] Polanyi, K., 1957. The Great Transformation. First Beacon Paperback Edition.Beacon Press, Boston, MA.

Pretty, J., 2005. The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Agriculture. Earthscan, London.Renting, H., Marsden, T., Banks, J., 2003. Understanding alternative food networks:

exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ-ment and Planning A 35, 393e411.

Sonnino, R., Marsden, T., 2006. Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships betweenalternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of EconomicGeography 6, 181e199.

Thorne, L., 1996. Local exchange trading systems in the United Kingdom: a case ofre-embedding. Environment and Planning A 28, 1361e1376.

Venn, L., et al., 2006. Researching European ‘alternative’ food networks: somemethodological considerations. Area 38.3, 248e258.

Whatmore, S., Thorne, L., 1997. Nourishing networks: alternative geographies offood. In: Goodman, D., Watts, M. (Eds.), Globalising Food: Agrarian Questionsand Global Restructuring. Routledge, London, pp. 287e304.

Whiteman, G., Cooper, W., 2000. Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Manage-ment Journal 43, 1265e1282.

Winter, M., 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism.Journal of Rural Studies 19, 23e32.