Content area
Full text
1. Introduction
The traditional food system has been subjected to growing concerns over the last few decades (Forssell and Lankoski, 2015; Nirino et al., 2019). It has been accused in particular of (1) environmental degradation, due to the excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, intensification of large-scale agricultural production and global logistic chains for transporting food over long distances (Anderson, 2008; Hoekstra and Wiedmann, 2014); (2) inadequate support to local economies and compression of producers and processors' economic margins in favour of global distributors (Barbera et al., 2018a, b; Mercado et al., 2016); (3) excessive focus on the tradable dimension of food instead of valorising food as natural resource, human right and cultural determinant (Vivero Pol, 2017; Baima et al., 2020). The increasing interest in various “alternative” forms of food production, distribution and consumption is seen as a response to these criticisms (Maye and Ilbery, 2006; Selfa and Qazi, 2005). These initiatives, aimed at shortening the food supply chain by facilitating connections and interactions between producers and consumers (Canfora, 2016; Kneafsey et al., 2013; Watts et al., 2005), are commonly called “Alternative Food Networks” (AFNs) (Renting et al., 2003; Jarosz, 2008; Sage, 2003). Although there is no unequivocal definition of AFNs, the literature has individuated some common points which characterise this model such as stewardship, sharing, self-production, equity, self-governance, sustainability, cooperation and embeddedness (Renting et al., 2003; Whatmore et al., 2003). These aspects lay the ground for analysing AFNs through a commons-based approach instead of considering food as just a commodity (Vivero Pol, 2017; Pettenati et al., 2018; Zhang and Barr, 2018). Moreover, the collective and participatory architecture of AFNs (De Bernardi et al., 2019a) increases the risk of incurring in the so-called “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). According to this theory, collective organisations are vulnerable to users' opportunistic short-termism, which can be identified in behaviours such as free riding, lethargy and disorganisation (Ricciardi et al., 2018). The intrinsic fragility of AFNs makes them particularly exposed to customer's lethargy. The phenomenon of AFNs has been traditionally studied from multiple disciplines, especially sociology and geography (Holloway and Kneafsey, 2000; Forssell and Lankoski, 2015; Jarosz, 2008; Maye and Ilbery, 2006), while only few...