A Bibliometric Analysis of Short Supply Chains in the Agri-Food Sector

Abstract

Short supply chains have recently gained increased attention because of the turbulence in the global environment caused by exogenous influences that create unstable and uncertain conditions. The emergence of short supply chains is of particular importance for sustainable development at large, but also for the viability of vulnerable communities and areas (e.g., remote and isolated, and islands). This paper aims to explore the area of short supply chains focusing on the agri-food sector from a bibliometric standpoint. Towards this end, journal articles listed in the Scopus database were analyzed using the software VOSviewer. We present a broad overview, recent developments, and fundamental ideas in the realm of short food supply chains, which may aid in our comprehension and future research on this topic.

1. Introduction

The previous century has seen significant changes in European agricultural and rural regions brought about by a variety of economic, environmental, policy, and social factors, including market globalization, rising global food demand, changes in climate, and industrial and economic upheavals [1]. The fragility of global supply systems, particularly the possibility for the disruptions of international food trade, has been brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the midst of this, the need for alternatives to the current food system that are more dependable and sustainable has rapidly increased. Both the need for direct food provision from regional sources that are environmentally sustainable, and the use of alternative food techniques, have increased dramatically [2]. While the worldwide conventional food system has helped to increase production, it has also created economic uncertainty and had detrimental consequences on the environment, the economy, and society. Land usage, energy consumption, fresh water use and pollution, climate change, soil degradation, and eutrophication are some of the environmental issues. The activity also challenges social and economic difficulties, in which small producers are often the most affected. There are allegations of rural migration, social and economic isolation, the reduction of production for self-consumption resulting to increasing food insecurity, the loss of autonomy, the regional disarticulation of development processes and ill health conditions owing to the usage of agrochemicals [3]. It is difficult to define sustainability in the context of an agri-food chain, since the term has a very broad meaning. Typically, the environmental, economic, and social concerns are considered. The economic part specifically relates to economic expansion, expenditures on human and social capital, modifications in consumer habits, price stability and transparency, and the expansion of farmers’ roles. The social dimension, on the other hand, is concerned with issues such as food safety, human health and nutrition, animal welfare, job growth, equity conditions, and moral standards. So, sustainability may be seen as the ability to preserve favorable environmental, social, and economic conditions across time; it can also be interpreted as a specific characteristic displayed by the supply chain [4].

Large-scale, highly automated, and highly industrialized agriculture is the foundation of conventional food supply networks. They are frequently referred to as long food supply chains with several nodes. The global industrialization of food supply chains has changed the way that food is produced, accessed, and consumed. Because of the emphasis on economic efficiency, food producers have persistently battled to remain in business despite lower financial returns, while also exerting significant pressure on ecosystems to supply the market for cheap food. As a result, ecosystems have suffered from a loss of biodiversity, deforestation, soil degradation, and water pollution, and rural regions have experienced socio-economic problems. Food producers have started new initiatives, which promote the creation of “reconnections” between producers and customers and make an effort to elucidate the ethics and duties associated with food production [5]. A system of economic organization marked by a general decline in product pricing and the consolidation of extensive production chains in which food loses its identity and cultural importance has been created as a result of the industrialization and globalization of the food markets [6].

Since it is the main provider of food for the global population, agribusiness is essential to the global economy. An agri-food supply chain is made up of a number of supply, production, post-harvest, storage, distribution, and processing stages, and integrates them. This system is in charge of getting agricultural goods from the early stages of production to the last stage of consumption. Although agri-food supply chains have parallels to normal manufacturing supply chains, they have characteristics that make their management more complicated. This is a result of influences such as governance, fluctuating food prices, climate-controlled variability, and food waste, as well as secure access to food and nutrition [7].

An endeavor has been made to embrace more sustainable business models because of worries about the detrimental effects of global food supply chains. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [8] have tried to engage the global community towards this objective. The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices into our food consumption paradigm poses difficulties on the social, economic, and ecological fronts. Today, eating habits and food choices are seen as crucial components of sustainability. The production of food is responsible for more than a quarter of all national greenhouse gas emissions. Consumers are forced to make decisions every day that might have a negative influence on the environment. Consuming seasonal food, particularly fruits and vegetables, can help consumers lessen the environmental impact of their dietary decisions by reducing long-distance imports and out-of-season local production, both of which are energy-intensive [9,10,11].

For reaching the sustainable development objectives, reducing food losses and waste poses a significant challenge. At every stage of food production, processing, retail, and consumption, losses and waste are produced. These factors include farmers’ training and experience, harsh weather circumstances, illnesses, pests, access to equipment, financing, and markets, among others [12].

Short food supply chains (SFSCs) have gained wide acceptance lately as paradigms that could help tackle the concerns discussed in the previous paragraphs. Moreover, they may prove of particular importance in global crises and disruption occasions, but also in the case of vulnerable regions, such as remote and isolated areas, including islands. In the literature there may be found a few review papers on:

• Alternative agri-food networks and SFSCs (2013) [13];

• Sustainability and SFSCs (2014) [14];

• Alternative and sustainable food systems for cereals [15];

• Sustainability and SFSCs (2020) [16];

• Local food systems (2021) [17];

• The logistics of the short food supply chain (2021) [18];

• Theoretical frameworks of food system governance (2022) [19];

• Issues and challenges in SFSCs (full-text content analysis) (2022) [20];

• Climate-smart agriculture as a means to assure food security through short supply chains (systematic bibliometric and bibliographic literature review) (2022) [21].

This paper aims to explore the area of SFSCs from a bibliometric standpoint. To our knowledge there has not been any similar attempt in the recent literature, and we aim at contributing towards this direction. Bibliometric analysis is an established and efficient technique, which allows us to explore the subtleties of a particular field’s evolutionary history while illuminating its frontiers. Towards this end, journal articles listed in the Scopus database were analyzed using the software VOSviewer. We present a broad overview, recent developments, and fundamental ideas in the realm of SFSCs, which may aid in the comprehension and future research on mainstreaming the concept and practice of SFSCs in the case of vulnerable areas. In the remainder of the paper a broad overview of contemporary issues on SFSCs is presented. Next, the methodology adopted is discussed, along with the results. The paper comes to an end with a discussion and some concluding remarks.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Supply Chain Considerations in Regional Development

It is difficult to encounter literature on local and regional sustainable supply chain management. Typically, it is challenging and demanding to meet the logistical demands of the isolated and rural areas residents. Therefore, it is necessary to develop suitable and sustainable mechanisms to connect these places to the global supply chains but also to adopt alternative practices, such as short supply chains, that may provide solutions to many of their requirements. In such a case, achieving local connections requires the development and operation of suitable networks.

Especially in the case of islands, inter-island transportation must be reasonably priced, easily accessible, and consistent, in order to promote economic progress. Transportation infrastructure may promote economic development by easing the flow of products. Inter-island domestic travel is essential for servicing economically successful industries, such as tourism, agriculture, and fisheries, as well as for reaching distant outer islands. In these circumstances, inter-island communication needs to be enhanced, particularly for islands that fall under the categories of outer and remote islands [22,23].

Currently, many remote small islands are viewed as desirable tourist locations. As a mechanism for the revitalization of such locations, governance plays a significant role in achieving a more productive, environmentally sound, socially responsible, and sustainable management structure. Each actor in the tourism network is essential to the good governance of a remote and isolated place. A new conception of the relationship between the state and society is necessary, as there are strict separations between the public and private sectors [24].

Small island populations are considered marginal because they frequently live in isolated regions that might have an adverse effect on their economics, politics, and social networks. Due to their varied geographic traits and transportation needs, most distant islands are hard to access. These islands’ populations struggle to obtain basic logistical services as a result of their poor accessibility, necessitating longer shipment lead times. On the other hand, small island communities have a great potential to deal with a variety of threats by employing their ‘traditional knowledge’. The benefits of islands in terms of their high social capital encourage good governance practices and frequently enables islanders to live in enviable conditions. Small island populations do, in fact, frequently develop distinctive civilizations and maintain a deep connection to their own land and culture. In the face of upheavals, whether they be cultural or environmental, this relationship unquestionably offers benefits. Any risk reduction approach must first determine the inherent capacity of island populations [25,26].

Island-based communities might vary greatly from one another, but because of their isolation, they are all subject to a similar set of limitations. These problems frequently involve size disparities in all aspects of economic activity, an excessive reliance on international commerce, high transportation costs, and other infrastructure constraints. Additionally, they frequently build their economies on a single or small number of economic enterprises. A common thread connecting many island communities is their reliance on the importation of goods and services. While certain things may be acquired locally, importation—either directly from overseas or through a neighboring community—is sometimes necessary [27,28].

The logistical dead-zone problem, which occurs in hard-to-reach places where the delivery demand cannot be punctually supplied by traditional transportation vehicles (i.e., ships or trucks) owing to the inherent geographical circumstances, persists despite the world’s logistics infrastructure constantly improving. The demand in distant places with limited populations may not be properly satisfied by logistics providers, especially when contrasted to more typical delivery areas. This is because governments or logistics companies may not make the necessary investments to meet the demand in these areas. Commercial businesses, especially logistics companies, concentrate in densely populated areas since the potential demand immediately increases earnings. As a result, severe competition between private enterprises in certain industries is extremely prevalent, and businesses frequently invest more to win over their competitors. Low population regions, on the other hand, typically receive less attention and investment from businesses [29].

2.2. Alternative Food Networks

By utilizing ideas like self-organization and self-management, alternative food networks (AFNs) are upending the conventional food system in an effort to reduce the length of the food supply chain and offer consumers greater control. New methods of network-wide information management and sharing are facilitated by the process of producers and customers re-connecting [30,31]. Farmers first lobbied for the creation of AFNs as a marketing tactic to avoid squeezing between actors in the supply chains (upstream and downstream) and to eliminate the imbalance in farm-to-retail marketplaces, enhancing the profitability of agricultural operations and their market strength. Their success, however, is mainly attributable to the shifting consumer demand, which shifted to a stronger focus on quality and a better understanding of the environmental and social challenges tied to traditional food systems [32,33]. In contrast to the agro-industrial paradigm, embeddedness has been used extensively to define AFNs, which have been endorsed as nurturing intimate, real, trustworthy, and equitable relationships, whereas the former is associated with anonymous, sometimes unfair relationships. In contrast to the agro-industrial paradigm, which reflects the decoupling of the food business from social structures, they are therefore strongly rooted in social interactions [34,35].

As a result of worries about the long-term viability of globalized retail trade and the increased prevalence of health-conscious consumer behavior, governments, and groups of conscious consumers around the world are placing more of an emphasis on the promotion and development of local food systems, small-scale retail chains, and the production of high-quality local food products, to boost the market. Trust is the cornerstone of food purchases, but it seems to be eroding due to factors including the impact of constantly changing and “non-personalized” retail commerce, frequent food scandals, and environmental sustainability concerns, etc. [36,37].

Poças Ribeiro et al. [38] classified six different types of AFNs according to their rationale and features using a multi-actor viewpoint framework: consumer-led; producer-led; third-sector led; community supported agriculture; public-led; and business platforms. Key challenges and facilitating conditions varied according to AFN type, and depended on AFN specificities.

2.3. The Emergence of Short Food Supply Chains

Supply chains are intricate systems that are typically made up of several businesses and other economic actors, all of whom contribute to getting the finished product to the consumer. They fall under the wide category of “hybrid institutions”, which are complicated organizational structures with several stakeholders working together to complete tasks that neither the market nor a single enterprise can complete alone [39].

Traditional supply chains, which include many stages and a number of middlemen, suffer from several well-known inefficiencies and flaws. Such supply chains typically experience severe post-harvest losses and product waste in addition to the increase in market price brought on by repeated marginalization. In this context, SFSCs have lately been put up as alternative systems capable of producing goods of a higher caliber, while fostering efficiency and sustainability [40,41,42]. Actually, Marsden et al. [43] first introduced the concept of SFSCs in reaction to agro-industrial food systems, which are associated with a high number of intermediaries. In contrast to AFNs, the SFSC idea is more narrowly focused and takes into account the relationships among the many players that are directly engaged in the creation, processing, distribution, and consumption of novel food products [44]. Charatsari et al. [45] defined SFSCs as food production and distribution channels, where the number of agents or actors that mediate between the producer and the final consumer of a product is minimal or zero, and where their structure permits the seamless, two-way flow of information between the endpoints of the chain. Such systems have the potential to redistribute power in the agri-food sector, promote cooperation within rural communities by bringing producers and consumers closer together, and mitigate the negative environmental effects of conventional food distribution networks. Therefore, the purpose of SFSCs is to effectively establish localized direct relationships between producers and consumers, separating them from the intermediary actors and constructs that make up traditional supply chains. In a nutshell, the ultimate goal is to enhance the efficiency of the networks that support agriculture and food. Therefore, the dissociation serves as the impetus for the market innovation process [46]. In reaction to the various economic, environmental, and social problems of the traditional agri-food systems during the past 30 years, rural development methods that represent alternatives to the industrial mode of food production and distribution have arisen. The “re-territorialization” or “re-localization” of food supply networks or chains into shorter structures is one of these approaches [47]. The European Union defines short supply chain as: “a supply chain involving a limited number of economic operators, committed to co-operation, local economic development, and close geographical and social relations between producers, processors and consumers” [48]. Moreover, the European Union later clarified that a short supply chain is: “a supply chain involving a limited number of economic operators, committed to co-operation, local economic development, and close geographical and social relations between producers, processors and consumers” [49].

2.4. Short Food Supply Chains Typologies

SFSCs have attracted a lot of academic interest, especially in Europe, where producers’ creative organizational activities, altering consumer demand, changes in food legislation, food safety issues, and people’s skepticism of the globalized agri-food system, have all led to an increase in the renewal and reconfiguration of SFSCs. SFSCs include a broad range of market-based initiatives, such as on-farm direct sales, community-supported agriculture (CSA), farmers’ markets, farmer shops, direct farmer-to-retailer, artisan, canteen or restaurant procurement schemes, as well as online marketplaces that offer well-known farmers’ products [16,30,50,51,52,53,54].

SFSCs have been conceived based on a variety of considerations and many relevant typologies have been presented. First of all, the terms “face to face”, “proximate”, and “spatially extended” SFSCs were introduced to indicate a focus on proximity [43,44]. Geographical and organizational proximity, which might be weak or strong, can be used to distinguish among four different types of supply networks [53]: supply chains with loose ties; indirect relations; distance relations; and direct relations. Short supply chains are the last three, whereas the first scenario, which involves loosely connected supply channels, is comparable to traditional long supply chains. Malak-Rawlikowska et al. [55] proposed a similar strategy for defining short supply chains based on the three “proximity” dimensions: physical (geographic) proximity; organizational proximity; and social proximity.

According to Wubben et al. [56], there are three distinct business models for SFSCs, as a SFSC might be initiated by a stakeholder with the goal of boosting its company’s economic viability, assisting producers, or fostering producer-consumer connections. Therefore, there are many alternative channels that bring together producers with consumers: on-farm and off-farm; with or without one intermediary; and with or without the Internet [57].

3. Materials and Methods

For the purposes of this paper the Scopus database was used in order to find relevant papers to be included in the analysis. Initially, two different searches were carried out on 13 August 2022:

• (TITLE-ABS-KEY (agricultural) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (agrifood) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (agrofood) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (food) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“short supply chain”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) (138 results)

• (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“short food supply chain”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“short agri-food supply chain”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“short agro-food supply chain”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) (238 results)

That is to say, we looked for journal articles written in English without any time limitations, based on the titles, the abstracts, and the authors’ keywords. By merging the above searches, a set of 352 documents was formed. After analyzing this set, 24 articles were excluded either because they were not written in English or because they examined and regarded as irrelevant to the topic studied. Finally, a set of 327 papers was formed, which is presented in Appendix A. The 327 results were exported from Scopus in csv format. They range from 2000 to 2022 (until 13 August) and their distribution in time is presented in Figure 1.

Next, the csv file was imported in VOSviewer (version 1.6.18), which is a software program for creating and representing bibliometric networks [58,59,60]. VOSviewer offers various analysis modes; for the purpose of this paper the following were used:

• Bibliographic coupling (by authors and by documents);

• Co-authorship (by authors and by countries);

• Co-citation (by cited sources);

• Co-occurrence (by author keywords);

• Text data (title and abstract fields).

In the latter, binary counting was used, which addresses the occurrences of a word/phrase at least once in the respective fields. When full counting is used, the total number of times a phrase appears across all documents is addressed. For all other analysis modes, fractional counting was used. The objective of fractional counting is to limit the effect of articles with several authors. In all cases, for the clustering of nodes a minimum cluster size was defined, which was calculated as the rounded value of the 7% of all items displayed in the network of nodes. Other limitations and choices will be presented for each individual analysis mode.

4. Results

In all the analysis modes the following cluster colors are used:

• Cluster 1—red;

• Cluster 2—green;

• Cluster 3—blue;

• Cluster 4—yellow;

• Cluster 5—purple;

• Cluster 6—cyan;

• Cluster 7—orange;

• Cluster 8—brown.

Total link strengths were chosen as weights. More significance is attributed to an item having a higher weight than one with a lower weight. Items having a greater weight are displayed more prominently in a map’s representation than items with a lower weight. Clustering resolution, which is the level of detail of the clustering, was set to 1.00. In all analysis modes, network and density visualizations are presented. In the latter, cluster density was chosen where the color of a point is produced by mixing the colors of the clusters involved. In addition, the tables with the information presented in the visualizations are presented in the Appendix B. The tables’ cells are colored according to the clusters in which items belong.

4.1. Bibliographic Coupling

A link between two sources that both cite the same source is known as a bibliographic coupling link.

4.1.1. By Authors

Three (3) documents were set as a minimum number of documents of an author, while the minimum number of citations of an author was 0. Of the 983 authors, 44 met the thresholds and participate in the bibliographic coupling network: one big; one medium; and one small cluster, were created. Cluster 1 contained 30 authors on the marketing and strategy aspects of SFSCs. Cluster 2 contained eight authors focusing on sustainability. Cluster 3 had six authors addressing local agri-food networks. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and isolated. Cluster 1 seems to be disintegrated. The results are presented in Table A1 (Appendix B) and in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The larger the circle in Figure 2, the more the publications a researcher has. The stronger a relationship between two researchers is based on bibliographic coupling, and the closer they are situated to one another [59]. Of course, when two or more researchers are co-authors of the same papers, they have the same values in all columns of Table A1.

4.1.2. By Documents

The minimum number of citations of a document was set to 20. Of the 327 documents, 83 met the threshold and 81 of them participate in the bibliographic coupling network. Two medium and six small clusters were created, signifying groups of publications citing the same documents. Cluster 1 contained 18 articles and cluster 2 contained 17 articles. Cluster 3 and cluster 4 had 10 and nine articles, respectively, whereas cluster 5 and cluster 6 had eight and seven articles, respectively. Clusters 7 and 8 had six articles each. All clusters are characterized by proximity. All clusters, but the green and the brown, seem to be disintegrated. The results are presented in Table A2 (Appendix B) and in Figure 4 and Figure 5. In all cases, the first author is shown. In the red cluster, the paper [61] has the highest link strength. In this paper, the authors analyze the producers’ and consumers’ perceptions of two SFSCs for Parmigiano Reggiano PDO cheese, in a rural area and in a peri-urban area, in Italy. In the green cluster, the paper [62] has the highest link strength. Through a methodical examination and an emphasis on the relationships between AFN traits and sustainability, the authors want to offer readers a better grasp of the sustainability potential of AFNs. They define and summarize their major traits by analyzing the conceptualizations of AFNs that are mirrored in the literature. They then combine assertions about how these traits could translate into sustainability. In the blue cluster, the paper [16] has the highest link strength. This literature review gives a current assessment of the definition, description, and sustainability of SFSCs. In the yellow cluster, the paper [63] has the highest link strength. The study tries to comprehend the developmental routes of sustainability challenges within agri-food markets by evaluating their drivers and trends, and is based on a thorough analysis of the current international literature. In the purple cluster, the papers [37,64] have the highest link strength. Todorovic et al. demonstrated how SFSCs could be designed from the perspectives of cutting-edge logistics modes and modern information and communication technologies, based on two distinct conceptual models, with the ultimate goal of outlining and evaluating various food distribution scenarios in the direction of greater sustainability. Schmutz et al. present the results of exploratory research that used examples of SFSCs from London to obtain a more thorough knowledge of various urban SFSC types, and their comparative effectiveness. In the cyan cluster, the paper [18] has the highest link strength. In contrast to the existing polarization of the supply chain approach literature, this paper tries to establish and define the coexistence conceptual framework of food supply chains and SFSCs. In the orange cluster, the paper [65] has the highest link strength. The purpose of this literature review is to further enlighten researchers and practitioners on the potential and role of logistics in enhancing the efficacy and sustainability of SFSCs. In the brown cluster, the paper [66] has the highest link strength. The motivation of farmers and the perceived impacts of their involvement in SFSCs were investigated by the authors. Along with their size, output, selling channels, relative market share, and the adoption of quality certifications, farm locations were also examined.

4.2. Co-Authorship

When two or more scholars collaborate to write a publication, a co-authorship link is created.

4.2.1. By Authors

Two documents were set as a minimum number of documents of an author, while the minimum number of citations of an author was 0. Of the 983 authors, 173 met the thresholds and 30 participated in the co-authorship network: one big; one medium; and two small clusters were created. Cluster 1 contained 13 and cluster 2 contained eight authors. Cluster 3 and cluster 4 contained five and four authors, respectively. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and cluster 4 is rather isolated. Clusters 3 and 4 seem to be disintegrated. The results are presented in Table A3 (Appendix B) and in Figure 6 and Figure 7. In all cases, the total link strength within clusters are rather small. Moreover, there are articles with many authors that facilitate links between different clusters. This finding, combined with the fact that only 17.34% of the authors who met the threshold participated in the co-authorship network, indicates that the cooperation among scholars is rather fragmented.

4.2.2. By Countries

Three documents were set as a minimum number of documents of a country, while the minimum number of citations of a country was 0. Of the 53 countries, 32 met the thresholds and 31 participated in the co-authorship network. Two thirds are European countries: two medium, and five small clusters were created. Cluster 1 contained nine countries and cluster 2 contained six countries. Cluster 3 and cluster 4 contained four countries each, whereas cluster 5 and cluster 6 contained three countries each. Cluster 7 contained two countries. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and seem to be disintegrated. The results are presented in Table A4 (Appendix B) and in Figure 8 and Figure 9. In this case, it is evident that geographic proximity and/or the same language have a role to play. In addition, the mobility of researchers is to a certain degree responsible for these results. Moreover, there are countries with a pioneering role in SFSCs, such as the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. Last, but not least, funded programs, especially in the EU, facilitate international co-operations.

4.3. Co-Citation (by Cited Sources)

A link between two sources that are both referenced in the same source is known as a co-citation link.

The minimum number of citations of a source was set to 30. In all, 70 journals with articles in English met the threshold and participated in the co-citation network: one big, two medium, and one small cluster, were created. Cluster 1 contained 25 journals and cluster 2 contained 22 journals. Cluster 3 contained 15 journals and cluster 4 contained eight journals. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and contain journals from various disciplines. Cluster 1 mostly contains journals about agriculture and food science. The “British Food Journal” and “Food Policy” have a dominant presence in this cluster. Cluster 2 mostly contains journals focused on sustainability and environmental protection. “Sustainability” and the “Journal of Cleaner Production” are by far at the forefront in this cluster. Cluster 3 has journals about rural development and geography, while the “Journal of Rural Studies” is the leader, not only of this cluster, but of the whole set of journals; three other journals, namely “Sociologia Ruralis”, “Agriculture and Human Values”, and “Environment and Planning A”, have a remarkable presence in this cluster. Cluster 4 has journals about operations and supply chain management, but none seem to have an influential presence. In any case, the clustering presented in this subsection is an excellent indication of the concerns that have led to the emergence of SFSCs. The results are presented in Table A5 (Appendix B) and in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

4.4. Co-Occurrence (by Author Keywords)

A link between two sources that both contain the same term (e.g., keyword) is known as a co-occurrence link.

The minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was set to four. Of the 993 keywords, 52 met the threshold and 44 participated in the co-occurrence network. Keywords related to methodological issues, as well as geographic regions and countries, were excluded. We also decided to exclude the keyword “short food supply chains” due to its evident dominant presence; two medium, and five small clusters, were created. Clusters 1 and 2 contained 10 and eight keywords, respectively. Clusters 3, 4, and 5 contained six keywords each, whereas clusters 6 and 7 contained four keywords each. Although the clusters are quite clearly shaped, only the small ones seem to be more consistent. Alternative food networks, sustainability, local foods, local food systems, food supply chains, farmers’ markets, COVID-19 pandemic, food security, and consumers, have the higher total link strengths, indicating major research focus priorities. The results are presented in Table A6 (Appendix B) and in Figure 12 and Figure 13.

4.5. Text Data (Title and Abstract Fields)

The minimum number of occurrences of a term was set to 20. In all, 87 met the threshold and 42 participated in the text-data network. Nouns/phrases related to geographic regions and countries, methodological approaches, as well as trivial noun/phrases, were excluded: two big, and one medium cluster, were created. Clusters 1 and 2 contained 15 nouns/phrases each, and cluster 3 had 12 nouns/phrases. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and they are characterized by proximity in some of their parts. Nouns/phrases about agri-food supply chains, the food sector, and market relations, are found in all clusters. Sustainability (over the years) and the COVID-19 pandemic (over the last 3 years) seem to have a significant impact in the research around SFSCs. The results are presented in Table A7 (Appendix B) and in Figure 14 and Figure 15.

5. Discussion

From the bibliometric analysis performed, there are various emerging areas of interest.

There is a conflict between alternative food models and the globalizing industrial food model. Commitment to more sustainable and socially equitable agriculture production has increased among the alternative ideas in recent years [67]. It has become vital to analyze the new production, distribution, marketing, and consumption models, or what we might collectively refer to as “local food”, in light of these two principles. Even the local food industry may be seen as a reaction against the dominant industrial agri-food paradigm, which is governed by market pressures. In turn, it might be considered that industrialized markets regulate our food, which is increasingly disconnected to customers’ immediate environments. As a result, the significance of our culinary traditions, which frequently revolve on the consumption of fresh and seasonal foods, is decreasing.

The rising divide between producers and customers in the conventional food sector is the primary issue that the establishment of SFSC attempts to solve: geographically, as evidenced by the growing physical distance between the places where food is produced and consumed; culturally, cognitively, and organizationally, as confirmed by a lack of knowledge about and a sense of anonymity surrounding the origins of food; and cognitively, as evidenced by the rise in the number of large and globalized corporations managing their operations [45,68].

Shortening food supply chains is currently thought to be carried out primarily to increase transparency, lower costs, and improve producers’ income. The reasons for putting sustainable development concepts into practice are equally crucial, particularly in terms of reviving the rural economy [69]. From a business perspective, SFSCs allow farmers the chance to cut out middlemen and merchants, internalize bigger profits, and have direct access to customers, who are more prepared to pay for locally produced commodities. Participating in SFSCs may help farmers withstand economic downturns, since they stand to keep a larger portion of revenues than they would in a conventional supply chain. The involvement of farms in SFSCs appears to have positive spillover effects on society. For instance, shopping at food markets improves customer satisfaction because of the quality and freshness of the products; it re-connects people to their local community; and it facilitates social interaction, which in turn fosters the growth of social capital [52]. The SFSC could prove to be a successful marketing strategy for small farmers because it would give them the opportunity to compete with large-scale distribution companies. In order to pursue the integration between the worlds of production and consumption, the short supply chain would therefore constitute a strategy to remove the concentration of economic power from the major links of the agri-food chain, and restore it to agricultural producers and consumers [70].

Regardless of their place of origin or intended goals, all of these initiatives—from AFNs that challenge the dominant agro-industrial paradigm to traditional SFSCs that are reviving in Europe—present a promise of eminence when contrasted to long supply chains: an alternative way to organize food production, trades, and consumption, as well as the advantages that go along with it [71].

Many current and potential stakeholders need the support of local, national, and international authorities to have access to infrastructure, financial resources, training, and networking opportunities, in order to engage in SFSCs and increase their supply capacity. Through policy reforms, policymakers also have a significant impact on the ability of SFSCs to operate [20,72]. The discussion revolving around SFSC is the most significant aspect of food geography at the regional level. According to this viewpoint, geographic proximity within local supply chains has the potential to result in the so-called “values of proximity”, i.e., reduced transportation costs, higher value added, the preservation of the cultural landscape, a stronger sense of regional identity, and employment development. The freshness and quality of produce, environmental protection, social justice, organic production, the dissemination of sustainable agricultural practices, support for local and regional farmers, and seasonal eating, are some examples of the positive associations, symbolic meanings, or qualitative associations that can be attached to a region’s food [73,74,75]. The development of synergies between agriculture and other rural pursuits, such as tourism and handicraft, is another significant outcome of SFSCs [57,76]. The benefits of SFSCs are also seen in every aspect of their operation and presence. They strengthen the idea of social capital by fostering greater interaction and ties between producers and customers. They also strengthen knowledge and behavioral change, while enhancing the sense of community. As a result, they strongly emphasize values such as trust as identifiable producers, and consumers take center stage in the supply chain and reflect a greater sense of political and market governance relevance [55,77,78]. Moreover, consumers can assess a food item’s genuine worth thanks to SFSCs. Therefore, they may better understand how and where food is produced, leading to the development of a deeper trusting relationship between consumers and producers [5,79].

Naturally, producers with limited production and logistics capacities are frequently involved in SFSCs. They identify adequate marketing channels that allow them to start their own businesses by taking part in SFSCs. On the other hand, producers frequently find it difficult to scale up their operations through narrow distribution channels because of their constrained access to markets and financial resources. In some instances, the inability of SFSC stakeholders to scale up their production and distribution in the face of rising consumer demand for SFSC products results in a mismatch between demand and supply [20,64]. AFNs typically face three different types of challenges [80]: choosing actors and building relationships to form the supply chain; establishing relationships with the mainstream; and the requirement to raise awareness and keep a close relationship with consumers. Testa et al. [81] highlighted various criticism issues on AFNs. These include barriers to access such products due to economic inequality and poverty, structural problems of the networks, which affect product distribution, especially in areas with low population density, and the fact that food products can scarcely be absorbed completely by local demand.

To help meet the societal difficulties connected to freight transportation, which is a core issue in food supply chains, the logistics industry must transform in terms of sustainability. Unfortunately, the focus of legislative solutions to reduce traffic and emissions is mostly on human mobility. The introduction of distribution centers that promote the use of light commercial vehicles, as well as the use of electric vehicles to carry out the distribution, are two of the most highly valued opportunities to reduce the negative effects of freight delivery in order to meet the EU policy goal on CO₂ free urban logistics by 2030 [82]. Moreover, the viability of utilizing unmanned delivery drone services to sparsely inhabited areas has been tested by many national or public postal businesses from various countries. These tests are primarily focused on consumer convenience and reducing the logistical challenges associated with delivery to isolated islands and mountainous regions. Governments or public companies began to investigate this kind of delivery as a decent alternative to deal with the logistical dead-zone issues [29].

Developments in urban logistics could possibly be adapted in the case of remote areas. It can be stated that the rationale around urban logistics has been applied for years in remote areas. In particular, the terms, logistics pooling, resource sharing, and mixed passenger and freight transport planning, are introduced when discussing urban logistics. Innovative methods of urban mobility include mixed passenger/freight transit networks and cargo hitching, which are connected to the sharing economy and broader smart city paradigms. Passenger and freight movements and systems coexist in the urban environment to form the intricate system of urban mobility. The development of integrated people and freight synchromodal transportation networks, and the accompanying planning and scheduling strategies to ensure the efficient and dependable delivery of each package and retail delivery, are the main goals of mixed/cargo hitching solutions. In order to increase the efficiency and efficacy of the total urban mobility system, with reference to both central and peripheral locations, freight, and passenger movements, as well as urban network resources, are combined [83].

6. Concluding Remarks

Global food systems are under tremendous strain from factors such as population expansion, growing incomes, urbanization, trade liberalization, policy changes, dietary changes, technology advancements, and environmental deterioration. It is obvious that we must move toward food systems that are more diverse, robust, and sustainable. The SDGs state that this transition should provide consumer access to healthy food, increased farmer income, the mitigation of climate change, and the protection of natural resources [17,63].

Farmers are encouraging direct sales to customers in an effort to lessen their reliance on retail and opaque supply networks. Public agencies and advocacy groups take the lead in assisting and innovating agricultural and food industries toward more sustainable practices. Businesses in the retail, foodservice, or intermediate wholesale sectors, work to expand the availability of regional foods or source more locally. Following a number of food-related incidents, NGOs and concerned citizens seek to more actively advance their interests in the food supply chain [56]. Through cutting-edge models capable of enhancing local economic sustainability and social cohesion, the EU plan seeks to promote the reorganization and relocalization of food systems. The amount of product value maintained by the farmers has decreased as a result of the division between consumer and producer, and the addition of several levels of intermediary. On the other hand, growing consumer interest in food transparency and recognized concerns contributes to a degree to a readiness to pay more for locally produced goods, with a large premium going to the farmers [84].

Food supply chains are undergoing a reinvention process. The unanticipated COVID-19 pandemic, the recent war conflict in Ukraine, and the SDGs have caused consumer behavior to alter and further strained conventional food supply chains. Although the COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented problems for food systems, consumers, business managers, and researchers, continue to focus on increasing food supply chains’ resilience to deal with sources of unexpected instability [85]. Today’s SFSCs represent a more endogenous, territorialized, ethical, and environmentally conscious approach to food products. These channels are regarded as the most suitable for local, small-scale, and organic production families. Food is also re-socialized and re-spatialized in SFSCs. In fact, local cuisine may be a manifestation of cultural capital and rural embeddedness, and serve as an engine for territorial development in both rural and peri-urban communities [86].

Remote and isolated communities, especially islands, face various problems related to the supply of goods, both from the production and the consumer side. In particular, food supply chains are of major importance for such areas since they are responsible for the well-being of populations; but they are also connected with other important industries, such as the tourism. SFSCs are the de facto solution in various problems that these communities face. In some cases, there is really no alternative for both producers and consumers (residents). Thus, in this case, it is important to enhance the relationship among stakeholders so that it is based on the mutual trust and understanding of what they can, want, and will do. Comprehending that they have to collaborate in building win-win relationships is crucial even for the existence of such communities, given the scarcity in resources. Hence, the study of sustainability in remote and isolated communities requires holistic approaches in a multi-dimensional context, since their natural and constructed environments should be considered as dynamic ecosystems, taking into account the different types of stakeholders who interact in these domains. Across this line of reasoning, investigating the cases of the Greek remote islands’ communities, a “place-based” multi-layered approach in stakeholder analysis has been proposed, enriching human activities and the wellbeing of remote communities with several factors, such as natural environment, critical infrastructure, regulatory frame, remoteness, connectivity, cohesiveness, equity, and eco-efficiency, as well as stakeholders’ multi-identity [87].

Moreover, many such areas in Europe offer premium agri-food products with geographical indications (protected designation of origin—PDO, protected geographical indication—PGI, geographical indication—GI). The value enclosed in such products is perceived to be higher when they are bought or consumed close to the place of production, and in direct connection with the producers. This value conservation is improved when the SFCS paradigm is adapted. Consumers feel that they get the best out of this experience, while producers feel that they have the desirable control over their products. There are cases when seasonality in production is associated with high season tourism. This brings excellent opportunities to producers and consumers, since they are actually brought together on an occasion which facilitates trade: producers have adequate quantities to sell, and consumers may seek local products to enhance their tourism experience.

Despite the obvious connections of SFSCs with remote and isolated communities, including islands, the relevant body of research is extremely limited, as shown in the bibliometric analysis presented in this paper. The experience gathered in the field of SFSCs can be utilized in the case of such communities after the deep study and analysis of the particular traits of such areas. Since interpersonal relations are a pillar of SFSCs, human geography can also provide insights on such interactions.

The research presented in this paper has some limitations due to the methodological choices made. Firstly, a single database (Scopus) was used, while there may be relevant papers which are not listed there. Moreover, during the elaboration of the csv file it was noted that several calibrations and adjustment had to be made. This means that there is ground for the development of more robust approaches and tools associated with knowledge management and bibliometric analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.T.T.; methodology, G.T.T. and P.T.; software, G.T.T.; validation, G.T.T., P.T., P.R. and A.A.; formal analysis, G.T.T., P.T., P.R. and A.A.; investigation, G.T.T., P.T., P.R. and A.A.; resources, G.T.T., P.T., P.R. and A.A.; data curation, G.T.T.; writing—original draft preparation, G.T.T., P.T., P.R. and A.A.; visualization, G.T.T., P.T., P.R. and A.A.; supervision, G.T.T.; project administration, P.T.; funding acquisition, P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This research has been co-financed by the European Union and Greek national funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call RESEARCH—CREATE—INNOVATE (project code: T1EDK-04743). The authors would like to ex-press their gratitude to the developers of VOSviewer as they offer it for free in the community.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures

Figure 1. Distribution of publications over the years.

Figure 2. Bibliographic coupling (by authors)—network visualization.

Figure 3. Bibliographic coupling (by authors)—density visualization.

Figure 4. Bibliographic coupling (by documents)—network visualization.

Figure 5. Bibliographic coupling (by documents)—density visualization.

Figure 6. Co-authorship (by authors)—network visualization.

Figure 7. Co-authorship (by authors)—density visualization.

Figure 8. Co-authorship (by countries)—network visualization.

Figure 9. Co-authorship (by countries)—density visualization.

Figure 10. Co-citation (by cited sources)—network visualization.

Figure 11. Co-citation (by cited sources)—density visualization.

Figure 12. Co-occurrence (by author keywords)—network visualization.

Figure 13. Co-occurrence (by author keywords)—density visualization.

Figure 14. Text data (title and abstract fields)—network visualization.

Figure 15. Text data (title and abstract fields)—density visualization.

Appendix A

• Abiral, B.; Atalan-Helicke, N. Trusting Food Supply Chains during the Pandemic: Reflections from Turkey and the U.S. Food Foodways 2020, 226–236, doi:10.1080/07409710.2020.1790147.

• Adamashvili, N.; Colantuono, F.; Conto, F.; Fiore, M. Investigating the Role of Community of Practice for Sharing Knowledge in Agriculture Sector. J. Global. Bus. Advance 2020, 13, 162–184, doi:10.1504/JGBA.2020.110612.

• Aggestam, V.; Fleiß, E.; Posch, A. Scaling-up Short Food Supply Chains? A Survey Study on the Drivers behind the Intention of Food Producers. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 51, 64–72, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.003.

• Aguiar, L.C.; DelGrossi, M.E.; Thomé, K.M. Short Food Supply Chain: Characteristics of a Family Farm. Cienc. Rural 2018, 48, doi:10.1590/0103-8478cr20170775.

• Aiello, G.; Giovino, I.; Vallone, M.; Catania, P. A Multi Objective Approach to Short Food Supply Chain Anagement. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 58, 313–318, doi:10.3303/CET1758053.

• Al Shamsi, K.B.; Compagnoni, A.; Timpanaro, G.; Cosentino, S.L.; Guarnaccia, P. A Sustainable Organic Production Model for “Food Sovereignty” in the United Arab Emirates and Sicily-Italy. Sustainability 2018, 10, doi:10.3390/su10030620.

• Albrecht, C.; Smithers, J. Reconnecting through Local Food Initiatives? Purpose, Practice and Conceptions of ‘Value.’ Agric. Hum. Values 2018, 35, 67–81, doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9797-5.

• Aleksiev, G.; Doncheva, D. Organic Production Impact on Consumers: The Case of Bulgarian Organic Honey. Qual. Access Success 2021, 22, 154–158.

• Ali, A.; Xia, C.; Ouattara, N.B.; Mahmood, I.; Faisal, M. Economic and Environmental Consequences’ of Postharvest Loss across Food Supply Chain in the Developing Countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 323, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129146.

• Alvarez, A.; García-Cornejo, B.; Pérez-Méndez, J.A.; Roibás, D. Value-Creating Strategies in Dairy Farm Entrepreneurship: A Case Study in Northern Spain. Animals 2021, 11, doi:10.3390/ani11051396.

• Alves, C.E.; Dal’ Magro, G.P.; Viacava, K.R.; Dewes, H. Food Acquisition in the Geography of Brazilian Obesity. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00037.

• Anderson, J.D.; Mitchell, J.L.; Maples, J.G. INVITED REVIEW: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic for Food Supply Chains*. App. Ani. Sci. 2021, 37, 738–747, doi:10.15232/aas.2021-02223.

• Andrei, J.V.; Ion, R.A.; Chivu, L.; Pop, R.E.; Marin, A. Investigations on Farmers’ Willingness to Associate and Join in Environmental Responsible Short Supply Chain in Romania. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 1617–1639, doi:10.15666/aeer/1702_16171639.

• Annunziata, A.; Ardeleanu, M.P.; Ianuario, S.; Pascale, P.; Vecchio, R.; Viola, I. Marketing Strategies for Organic Foods: The Role of Distribution and Communication. Qual. Access Success 2010, 11.

• Annunziata, A.; Mariani, A. Consumer Perception of Sustainability Attributes in Organic and Local Food. Recent Pat. Food Nutr. Agric. 2018, 9, 87–96, doi:10.2174/2212798410666171215112058.

• Aouinaït, C.; Christen, D.; Carlen, C.; Massri, C.; Reipurth, M.; Hieke, S.; Hegyi, A.; Kujáni, K.; Major, Á.; Fricz, Á.S.; et al. Barriers and Facilitators of Purchasing from Short Food Supply Chains in Europe: Insights from a Stakeholder Perspective. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 196–207, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a6.

• Aouinait, C.; Christen, D.; Carlen, C.; Mehauden, L.; Mora, P.; Massar, B.; Frederiks, M. Motivations and Barriers for Engagement in Short Food Supply Chains: Insights from European Focus Groups. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 219–231, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a8.

• Armesto-López, X.A.; Gómez-Martín, M.B.; Cors-Iglesias, M.; Martínez-Ibarra, E. Short Food Supply Chains in Barcelona’s Markets. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 243, 15–24, doi:10.2495/UA200021.

• Arru, B.; Furesi, R.; Madau, F.A.; Pulina, P. “Value Portfolio”, Value Creation and Multifunctionality: The Case Study of an Italian Wine Agritourism Farm. Aestimum 2019, 75, 163–181, doi:10.13128/aestim-8149.

• Arthur, H.; Sanderson, D.; Tranter, P.; Thornton, A. A Review of Theoretical Frameworks of Food System Governance, and the Search for Food System Sustainability. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst. 2022, doi:10.1080/21683565.2022.2104422.

• Ashe, L.M. The Compromised, Colonized Discourse of Alternative Food. Rev. Colomb. Soc. 2018, 41, 103–121, doi:10.15446/rcs.v41n2.70171.

• Ashtab, S.; Campbell, R. Explanatory Analysis of Factors Influencing the Support for Sustainable Food Production and Distribution Systems: Results from a Rural Canadian Community. Sustainability 2021, 13, doi:10.3390/su13095324.

• Aubert, M.; Enjolras, G. Do Short Food Supply Chains Go Hand in Hand with Environment-Friendly Practices? An Analysis of French Farms. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2016, 12, 189–213, doi:10.1504/IJARGE.2016.076932.

• Aubert, M.; Enjolras, G. The Dynamics of Direct Selling for Wine-Growing Farms. Int. J. Entrepreneurship Small Bus. 2021, 44, 155–176, doi:10.1504/IJESB.2021.118440.

• Aubry, C.; Kebir, L. Shortening Food Supply Chains: A Means for Maintaining Agriculture Close to Urban Areas? The Case of the French Metropolitan Area of Paris. Food Policy 2013, 41, 85–93, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.04.006.

• Aysoy, C.; Kirli, D.H.; Tumen, S. How Does a Shorter Supply Chain Affect Pricing of Fresh Food? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Food Policy 2015, 57, 104–113, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.10.003.

• Azima, S.; Mundler, P. Does Direct Farm Marketing Fulfill Its Promises? Analyzing Job Satisfaction among Direct-Market Farmers in Canada. Agric. Hum. Values 2022, 39, 791–807, doi:10.1007/s10460-021-10289-9.

• Bakos, I.M.; Khademi-Vidraa, A. Empirical Experiences of the Hungarian Alternative Food Buying Communities. Deturope 2019, 11, 55–73.

• Baldi, L.; Bertoni, D.; Migliore, G.; Peri, M. How Alternative Food Networks Work in a Metropolitan Area? An Analysis of Solidarity Purchase Groups in Northern Italy. Agric. Food Econ. 2019, 7, doi:10.1186/s40100-019-0139-3.

• Barbosa, M.W. Uncovering Research Streams on Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Bibliometric Study. Global Food Secur. 2021, 28, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100517.

• Barska, A.; Wojciechowska-Solis, J. E-Consumers and Local Food Products: A Perspective for Developing Online Shopping for Local Goods in Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, doi:10.3390/su12124958.

• Basso, S.; Di Biagi, P.; Crupi, V. Downscaling Food System for the ‘Public City’ Regeneration—An Experience of Social Agriculture in Trieste. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14052769.

• Battini, D.; Calzavara, M.; Persona, A.; Sgarbossa, F. Sustainable Packaging Development for Fresh Food Supply Chains. Pack Technol Sci 2016, 29, 25–43, doi:10.1002/pts.2185.

• Bayir, B.; Charles, A.; Sekhari, A.; Ouzrout, Y. Issues and Challenges in Short Food Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14053029.

• Bazzani, C.; Canavari, M. Alternative Agri-Food Networks and Short Food Supply Chains: A Review of the Literature. Econ. Agro-Aliment. 2013, 15, 11–34, doi:10.3280/ECAG2013-002002.

• Belliveau, S. Resisting Global, Buying Local: Goldschmidt Revisited. Great Lakes Geogr. 2005, 12, 44–53.

• Benedek, Z.; Balázs, B. Current Status and Future Prospect of Local Food Production in Hungary: A Spatial Analysis. Eur. Plann. Stud. 2016, 24, 607–624, doi:10.1080/09654313.2015.1096325.

• Benedek, Z.; Baráth, L.; Fertő, I.; Merino-Gaibor, E.; Molnár, A.; Orbán, É.; Nemes, G. Survival Strategies of Producers Involved in Short Food Supply Chains Following the Outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Hungarian Case-Study. Sociol. Ruralis 2022, 62, 68–90, doi:10.1111/soru.12358.

• Benedek, Z.; Fertö, I.; Marreiros, C.G.; De Aguiar, P.M.; Pocol, C.B.; Čechura, L.; Poder, A.; Pääso, P.; Bakucs, Z. Farm Diversification as a Potential Success Factor for Small-Scale Farmers Constrained by COVID-Related Lockdown. Contributions from a Survey Conducted in Four European Countries during the First Wave of COVID-19. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251715.

• Benedek, Z.; Fertő, I.; Molnár, A. Off to Market: But Which One? Understanding the Participation of Small-Scale Farmers in Short Food Supply Chains—a Hungarian Case Study. Agric. Hum. Values 2018, 35, 383–398, doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9834-4.

• Berti, G.; Mulligan, C. Competitiveness of Small Farms and Innovative Food Supply Chains: The Role of Food Hubs in Creating Sustainable Regional and Local Food Systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, doi:10.3390/su8070616.

• Bertram, D.; Chilla, T.; Wilhelm, C. Short Value Chains in Food Production: The Role of Spatial Proximity for Economic and Land Use Dynamics. Land 2021, 10, doi:10.3390/land10090979.

• Besik, D.; Nagurney, A. Quality in Competitive Fresh Produce Supply Chains with Application to Farmers’ Markets. Socio-Econ. Plann. Sci. 2017, 60, 62–76, doi:10.1016/j.seps.2017.03.001.

• Bimbo, F.; Bonanno, A.; Nardone, G.; Viscecchia, R. The Hidden Benefits of Short Food Supply Chains: Farmers’ Markets Density and Body Mass Index in Italy. Int. Food Agribus. Manage. Rev. 2015, 18, 1–16.

• Bini, V. Food Security and Food Sovereignty in West Africa. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 2018, 37, 1–13, doi:10.1080/19376812.2016.1140586.

• Blanc, J. Family Farmers and Major Retail Chains in the Brazilian Organic Sector: Assessing New Development Pathways. A Case Study in a Peri-Urban District of São Paulo. J. Rural Stud. 2009, 25, 322–332, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.01.002.

• Blasi, E.; Cicatiello, C.; Pancino, B.; Franco, S. Alternative Food Chains as a Way to Embed Mountain Agriculture in the Urban Market: The Case of Trentino. Agric. Food Econ. 2015, 3, doi:10.1186/s40100-014-0023-0.

• Bonadonna, A.; Alfiero, S.; Cane, M.; Gheribi, E. Eating Hamburgers Slowly and Sustainably: The Fast Food Market in North-West Italy. Agric. 2019, 9, doi:10.3390/agriculture9040077.

• Bonfert, B. Community-Supported Agriculture Networks in Wales and Central Germany: Scaling Up, Out, and Deep through Local Collaboration. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14127419.

• Borčić, L.S. Short Food Supply Chains in Croatia: Perspectives of Organic Food Producers Involved with Groups of Solidary Exchange. Hrvat. Geogr. Glas. 2020, 82, 5–33, doi:10.21861/HGG.2020.82.01.01.

• Borsellino, V.; Schimmenti, E.; El Bilali, H. Agri-Food Markets towards Sustainable Patterns. Sustainability 2020, 12, doi:10.3390/su12062193.

• Borsellino, V.; Zinnanti, C.; Migliore, G.; Di Franco, C.P.; Schimmenti, E. An Exploratory Analysis of Website Quality in the Agrifood Sector: The Case of Extra Virgin Olive Oil. Qual. Access Success 2018, 19, 132–138.

• Brulard, N.; Cung, V.-D.; Catusse, N.; Dutrieux, C. An Integrated Sizing and Planning Problem in Designing Diverse Vegetable Farming Systems. Int J Prod Res 2019, 57, 1018–1036, doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1498985.

• Brumă, I.S.; Vasiliu, C.D.; Rodino, S.; Butu, M.; Tanasă, L.; Doboș, S.; Butu, A.; Coca, O.; Stefan, G. The Behavior of Dairy Consumers in Short Food Supply Chains during COVID-19 Pandemic in Suceava Area, Romania. Sustainability 2021, 13, doi:10.3390/su13063072.

• Bui, T.N.; Nguyen, A.H.; Le, T.T.H.; Nguyen, V.P.; Le, T.T.H.; Tran, T.T.H.; Nguyen, N.M.; Le, T.K.O.; Nguyen, T.K.O.; Nguyen, T.T.T.; et al. Can a Short Food Supply Chain Create Sustainable Benefits for Small Farmers in Developing Countries? An Exploratory Study of Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–17, doi:10.3390/su13052443.

• Butu, A.; Brumă, I.S.; Tanasă, L.; Rodino, S.; Vasiliu, C.D.; Doboș, S.; Butu, M. The Impact of COVID-19 Crisis upon the Consumer Buying Behavior of Fresh Vegetables Directly from Local Producers. Case Study: The Quarantined Area of Suceava County, Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1–25, doi:10.3390/ijerph17155485.

• Camara, S.B.; Andreatta, T. Socioeconomic Reproduction of Farmers from the Extreme North of Rio Grande Do Sul-Br Inserted in Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCS). Rev. Bras. Gestao Desenvolv. Reg. 2021, 17, 33–47.

• Campos, A.S.N.; Satolo, E.G.; Mac-Lean, P.A.B.; Júnior, S.S.B. Economic Sustainability Analysis of the Specialty Coffee Farmers in Garça/SP. Coffee Sci. 2021, 16, doi:10.25186/.V16I.1993.

• Cánovas-Molina, A.; Cánovas Soler, A.; García-Frapolli, E. City-Traditional Agriculture Dialogues: The ‘Huerta de Murcia’ Case Study. Land Use Policy 2021, 111, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105780.

• Carbone, A. Food Supply Chains: Coordination Governance and Other Shaping Forces. Agric. Food Econ. 2017, 5, doi:10.1186/s40100-017-0071-3.

• Carlson, L.A.; Bitsch, V. Applicability of Transaction Cost Economics to Understanding Organizational Structures in Solidarity-Based Food Systems in Germany. Sustainability 2019, 11, doi:10.3390/su11041095.

• Carmona, I.; Griffith, D.M.; Aguirre, I. Understanding the Factors Limiting Organic Consumption: The Effect of Marketing Channel on Produce Price, Availability, and Price Fairness. Organic Agriculture 2021, 11, 89–103, doi:10.1007/s13165-020-00331-1.

• Carolan, M. It’s About Time: Temporal and Spatial Fixes Find Vertical Farms and Local Food in the Shadow of COVID-19. J. Peasant Stud. 2022, doi:10.1080/03066150.2022.2082287.

• Carter, E. Desperately Seeking Happy Chickens: Producer Dynamics and Consumer Politics in Quality Agricultural Supply Chains. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2020, 48, 933–946, doi:10.1108/IJSE-01-2020-0001.

• Chang, B.P.I.; Massri, C.; Reipurth, M.; Petropoulou, E.; Hüttl-Maack, V.; Gawlik, D.; Kujáni, K.; Szente, V.; Hegyi, A.; Fricz, Á.S.; et al. Barriers and Facilitators of Purchasing from Short Food Supply Chains: Evidence from Consumer Focus Groups in Germany, Spain, Greece and Hungary. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 208–218, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a7.

• Chaparro Africano, A.; Calle Collado, Á. Peasant Economy Sustainability in Peasant Markets, Colombia. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst. 2017, 41, 204–225, doi:10.1080/21683565.2016.1266069.

• Chaparro-Africano, A.M. Toward Generating Sustainability Indicators for Agroecological Markets. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst. 2019, 43, 40–66, doi:10.1080/21683565.2019.1566192.

• Charatsari, C.; Kitsios, F.; Lioutas, E.D. Short Food Supply Chains: The Link between Participation and Farmers’ Competencies. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 643–652, doi:10.1017/S1742170519000309.

• Charatsari, C.; Kitsios, F.; Stafyla, A.; Aidonis, D.; Lioutas, E. Antecedents of Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Short Food Supply Chains. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2317–2333, doi:10.1108/BFJ-09-2017-0537.

• Chiffoleau, Y.; Dourian, T. Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Is Shortening the Answer? A Literature Review for a Research and Innovation Agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1–21, doi:10.3390/su12239831.

• Chiffoleau, Y.; Millet-Amrani, S.; Rossi, A.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G.; Merino, P.L. The Participatory Construction of New Economic Models in Short Food Supply Chains. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 182–190, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.01.019.

• Chrysanthopoulou, F.; Lameris, M.; Greil, G.; Vudragovic, D.; Flynn, K. An Online Innovation Platform to Promote Collaboration and Sustainability in Short Food Supply Chains. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 232–247, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a9.

• Cicatiello, C. Alternative Food Shoppers and the “Quantity Dilemma”: A Study on the Determinants of Their Purchases at Alternative Markets. Agric. Food Econ. 2020, 8, doi:10.1186/s40100-020-00160-6.

• Cicia, G.; Furno, M.; Del Giudice, T. Do Consumers’ Values and Attitudes Affect Food Retailer Choice? Evidence from a National Survey on Farmers’ Market in Germany. Agric. Food Econ. 2021, 9, doi:10.1186/s40100-020-00172-2.

• Clark, J.K.; Jablonski, B.B.R.; Inwood, S.; Irish, A.; Freedgood, J. A Contemporary Concept of the Value(s)-Added Food and Agriculture Sector and Rural Development. Community Dev. 2021, 52, 186–204, doi:10.1080/15575330.2020.1854804.

• Coelho de Souza, J.; da Silva Pugas, A.; Rover, O.J.; Nodari, E.S. Social Innovation Networks and Agrifood Citizenship. The Case of Florianópolis Area, Santa Catarina/Brazil. J. Rural Stud. 2021, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.002.

• Cojocariu, C.R. A Sustainable Food Supply Chain: Green Logistics. Metal. Int. 2012, 17, 205–207.

• Collison, M.; Collison, T.; Myroniuk, I.; Boyko, N.; Pellegrini, G. Transformation Trends in Food Logistics for Short Food Supply Chains—What Is New? Stud. Agric. Econ. 2019, 121, 102–110, doi:10.7896/j.1909.

• Conner, D.S.; Campbell-arvai, V.; Hamm, M.W. Value in the Values: Pasture-Raised Livestock Products Offer Opportunities for Reconnecting Producers and Consumers. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2008, 23, 62–69, doi:10.1017/S1742170507002086.

• Cordeiro, M.C.; Santos, L.; Marujo, L.G. COVID-19 and the Fragility of Brazilian Small Farming Resilience. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2021, 18, doi:10.14488/BJOPM.2021.027.

• Corsi, S.; Mazzocchi, C. Alternative Food Networks (AFNs): Determinants for Consumer and Farmer Participation in Lombardy, Italy. Agric. Econ. 2019, 65, 259–269, doi:10.17221/230/2018-AGRICECON.

• Corvo, L.; Pastore, L.; Antonelli, A.; Petruzzella, D. Social Impact and Sustainability in Short Food Supply Chains: An Experimental Assessment Tool. New Medit 2021, 20, 175–189, doi:10.30682/NM2103L.

• Craveiro, D.; Marques, S.; Marreiros, A.; Bell, R.; Khan, M.; Godinho, C.; Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C. Equity, Health, and Sustainability with Prove: The Evaluation of a Portuguese Program for a Short Distance Supply Chain of Fruits and Vegetables. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, doi:10.3390/ijerph16245083.

• Cruz, J.L.; Puigdueta, I.; Sanz-Cobeña, A.; González-Azcárate, M. Short Food Supply Chains: Rebuilding Consumers’ Trust. New Medit 2021, 20, 33–47, doi:10.30682/NM2104C.

• D’Amico, M.; Di Vita, G.; Bracco, S. Direct Sale of Agro-Food Product: The Case of Wine in Italy. Qual. Access Success 2014, 15, 247–253.

• D’Amico, M.; Di Vita, G.; Chinnici, G.; Pappalardo, G.; Pecorino, B. Short Food Supply Chain and Locally Produced Wines: Factors Affecting Consumer Behavior. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2014, 26, 329–334.

• De Bernardi, P.; Bertello, A.; Venuti, F.; Foscolo, E. How to Avoid the Tragedy of Alternative Food Networks (AFNs)? The Impact of Social Capital and Transparency on AFN Performance. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2171–2186, doi:10.1108/BFJ-07-2019-0537.

• De Bernardi, P.; Bertello, A.; Venuti, F.; Zardini, A. Knowledge Transfer Driving Community-Based Business Models towards Sustainable Food-Related Behaviours: A Commons Perspective. Knowl. Manage. Res. Pract. 2021, 19, 319–326, doi:10.1080/14778238.2019.1664271.

• De Oliveira, T.E.; Freitas, D.S. Local Beef Production: What Rio Grande Do Sul Is Waiting For? Rev. Agronegocio Meio Ambiente 2017, 10, 321–341, doi:10.17765/2176-9168.2017v10n2p321-341.

• De Pascale, G.; Colantuono, F.; Djelveh, S.; Conto, F. Economic Sustainability in Short Food Supply Chain. the Case of the Horizon 2020 Project “Short Food Supply Chain Knowledge and Innovation Network (SKIN).” Riv. Studi Sulla Sostenibilita 2017, 2017, 169–181, doi:10.3280/RISS2017-001011.

• de Paulo Farias, D.; de Araújo, F.F. Will COVID-19 Affect Food Supply in Distribution Centers of Brazilian Regions Affected by the Pandemic? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 103, 361–366, doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2020.05.023.

• de Souza, A.B.; Fornazier, A.; Delgrossi, M.E. Local FoI Od Systems: Potential for New Market Connections for Family Farming. Ambient. Soc. 2020, 23, 1–20, doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc20180248r2vu2020L5AO.

• Delibas, H.I. Trust and the Clean Food Imaginaries: An Analysis of a Short Food Supply Chain from Romania. Future of Food: J. Food, Agriculture Soc. 2021, 9, 1–13, doi:10.17170/kobra-202102163258.

• Delicato, C.; Collison, M.; Myronyuk, I.; Symochko, T.; Boyko, N. Is Local Better? Consumer Value in Food Purchasing and the Role of Short Food Supply Chains. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2019, 121, 75–83, doi:10.7896/j.1906.

• Demartini, E.; Gaviglio, A.; Pirani, A. Farmers’ Motivation and Perceived Effects of Participating in Short Food Supply Chains: Evidence from a North Italian Survey. Agric. Econ. 2017, 63, 204–216, doi:10.17221/323/2015-AGRICECON.

• Deppermann, A.; Havlík, P.; Valin, H.; Boere, E.; Herrero, M.; Vervoort, J.; Mathijs, E. The Market Impacts of Shortening Feed Supply Chains in Europe. Food Secur. 2018, 10, 1401–1410, doi:10.1007/s12571-018-0868-2.

• Deselnicu, O.C.; Costanigro, M.; Souza-Monteiro, D.M.; Thilmany McFadden, D. A Meta-Analysis of Geographical Indication Food Valuation Studies: What Drives the Premium for Origin-Based Labels? J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2013, 38, 204–219.

• Dimitri, C.; Gardner, K. Farmer Use of Intermediated Market Channels: A Review. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 34, 181–197, doi:10.1017/S1742170518000182.

• Doernberg, A.; Piorr, A.; Zasada, I.; Wascher, D.; Schmutz, U. Sustainability Assessment of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSC): Developing and Testing a Rapid Assessment Tool in One African and Three European City Regions. Agric. Hum. Values 2022, 39, 885–904, doi:10.1007/s10460-021-10288-w.

• Dombroski, K.; Diprose, G.; Sharp, E.; Graham, R.; Lee, L.; Scobie, M.; Richardson, S.; Watkins, A.; Martin-Neuninger, R. Food for People in Place: Reimagining Resilient Food Systems for Economic Recovery. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1–17, doi:10.3390/su12229369.

• dos Santos, M.J.P.L. Smart Cities and Urban Areas—Aquaponics as Innovative Urban Agriculture. Urban For. Urban Greening 2016, 20, 402–406, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.004.

• Dos-Santos, M.J.P.L.; Baptista, N.; Machado-Santos, C. Smart and Sustainable Cities in the Mediterranean Region: The Contribution of Short Supply Chains of Food. Ecocycles 2021, 7, 8–17, doi:10.19040/ECOCYCLES.V7I2.196.

• Dragicevic, A.Z. Emergence and Dynamics of Short Food Supply Chains. Netw. Spat. Econ. 2021, 21, 31–55, doi:10.1007/s11067-020-09512-7.

• Drejerska, N.; Gołębiewski, J.; Fiore, M. Social Media for Interactions with Customers within the Short Food Supply Chain: The Case of the SKIN Project. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2019, 121, 94–101, doi:10.7896/j.1908.

• Drljača, M. Reversible Supply Chain in Function of Competitiveness. Pord. Eng. Arch. 2019, 22, 30–35, doi:10.30657/pea.2019.22.06.

• Dubois, A. Translocal Practices and Proximities in Short Quality Food Chains at the Periphery: The Case of North Swedish Farmers. Agric. Hum. Values 2019, 36, 763–778, doi:10.1007/s10460-019-09953-y.

• Dunay, A.; Lehota, J.; Mácsai, É.; Illés, C.B. Short Supply Chain: Goals, Objectives and Attitudes of Producers. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2018, 15, 199–217, doi:10.12700/APH.15.6.2018.6.17.

• Dupré, L.; Lamine, C.; Navarrete, M. Short Food Supply Chains, Long Working Days: Active Work and the Construction of Professional Satisfaction in French Diversified Organic Market Gardening. Sociol. Ruralis 2017, 57, 396–414, doi:10.1111/soru.12178.

• Elghannam, A.; Arroyo, J.; Eldesouky, A.; Mesias, F.J. A Cross-Cultural Consumers’ Perspective on Social Media-Based Short Food Supply Chains. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2210–2221, doi:10.1108/BFJ-11-2017-0633.

• Elghannam, A.; Escribano, M.; Mesias, F. Can Social Networks Contribute to the Development of Short Supply Chains in the Spanish Agri-Food Sector? New Medit 2017, 16, 36–42.

• Elghannam, A.; Mesias, F. Short Food Supply Chains from a Social Media Marketing Perspective: A Consumer-Oriented Study in Spain. New Medit 2019, 18, 79–90, doi:10.30682/nm1901g.

• Elghannam, A.; Mesias, F.J.; Escribano, M.; Fouad, L.; Horrillo, A.; Escribano, A.J. Consumers’ Perspectives on Alternative Short Food Supply Chains Based on Social Media: A Focus Group Study in Spain. Foods 2020, 9, doi:10.3390/foods9010022.

• Ely, A.; Geall, S.; Song, Y. Sustainable Maize Production and Consumption in China: Practices and Politics in Transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 259–268, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.001.

• Engelseth, P. Developing Exchange in Short Local Foods Supply Chains. Intl. J. Food Syst. 2016, 7, 229–242, doi:10.18461/ijfsd.v7i3.734.

• Enjolras, G.; Aubert, M. Short Food Supply Chains and the Issue of Sustainability: A Case Study of French Fruit Producers. Int. J. Retail Disrtib. Manage. 2018, 46, 194–209, doi:10.1108/IJRDM-08-2016-0132.

• Enthoven, L.; Van den Broeck, G. Local Food Systems: Reviewing Two Decades of Research. Agric. Syst. 2021, 193, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103226.

• Entsminger, J.S. Research Report: Coordinating Intermediaries and Scaling up Local and Regional Food Systems: An Organizational Species Approach to Understanding the Roles of Food Hubs. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2020, 51, 32–42.

• Escobar-López, S.Y.; Amaya-Corchuelo, S.; Espinoza-Ortega, A. Alternative Food Networks: Perceptions in Short Food Supply Chains in Spain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–15, doi:10.3390/su13052578.

• Espelt, R.; Peña-López, I.; Miralbell, O.; Martín, T.; Vega, N. Impact of Information and Communication Technologies in Agroecological Cooperativism in Catalonia. Agric. Econ. 2019, 65, 59–66, doi:10.17221/171/2018-AGRICECON.

• Evola, R.S.; Peira, G.; Varese, E.; Bonadonna, A.; Vesce, E. Short Food Supply Chains in Europe: Scientific Research Directions. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14063602.

• Fabbrizzi, S.; Menghini, S.; Marinelli, N. The Short Food Supply Chain: A Concrete Example of Sustainability. A Literature Review. Riv. Studi Sulla Sostenibilita 2014, 189–206, doi:10.3280/RISS2014-002012.

• Facchini, F.; De Pascale, G.; Faccilongo, N. Pallet Picking Strategy in Food Collecting Center. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, doi:10.3390/app8091503.

• Filimonau, V. The Prospects of Waste Management in the Hospitality Sector Post COVID-19. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105272.

• Filippini, R.; Marraccini, E.; Lardon, S.; Bonari, E. Is the Choice of a Farm’s Commercial Market an Indicator of Agricultural Intensity? Conventional and Short Food Supply Chains in Periurban Farming Systems. Ital. J. Agron. 2016, 11, doi:10.4081/ija.2016.653.

• Fleiß, E.; Aggestam, V. Key Aspects of Scaling-up Short Food Supply Chains: A Survey on Swedish Food Producers. J. Austrian Soc. Agric. Econ. 2016, 26, 115–124, doi:10.24989/OEGA.JB.26.13.

• Fleury, P.; Lev, L.; Brives, H.; Chazoule, C.; Désolé, M. Developing Mid-Tier Supply Chains (France) and Values-Based Food Supply Chains (USA): A Comparison of Motivations, Achievements, Barriers and Limitations. Agric. 2016, 6, doi:10.3390/agriculture6030036.

• Floriš, N.; Schwarcz, P. Slovak Agricultural Enterprises in Short Food Supply Chains-Evaluation of Economic Aspects. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2021, 22, 860–867, doi:10.5513/JCEA01/22.4.3228.

• Floriš, N.; Schwarcz, P.; Schwarczová, L.; Munk, M. Short Food Supply Chains and Small Farms—Evidence from Slovakia. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14052728.

• Fogarassy, C.; Nagy-Pércsi, K.; Ajibade, S.; Gyuricza, C.; Ymeri, P. Relations between Circular Economic “Principles” and Organic Food Purchasing Behavior in Hungary. Agronomy 2020, 10, doi:10.3390/agronomy10050616.

• Forssell, S.; Lankoski, L. The Sustainability Promise of Alternative Food Networks: An Examination through “Alternative” Characteristics. Agric. Hum. Values 2015, 32, 63–75, doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9516-4.

• Friedmann, H. Scaling up: Bringing Public Institutions and Food Service Corporations into the Project for a Local, Sustainable Food System in Ontario. Agric. Hum. Values 2007, 24, 389–398, doi:10.1007/s10460-006-9040-2.

• Galati, A.; Giacomarra, M.; Concialdi, P.; Crescimanno, M. Exploring the Feasibility of Introducing Electric Freight Vehicles in the Short Food Supply Chain: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2021, 9, 950–957, doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2021.04.015.

• Galati, A.; Migliore, G.; Thrassou, A.; Schifani, G.; Rizzo, G.; Adamashvili, N.; Crescimanno, M. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Agri-Food Products Delivered with Electric Vehicles in the Short Supply Chains. FIIB. Bus. Rev. 2022, doi:10.1177/23197145221112743.

• Galeano-Barrera, C.J.; Mendoza-García, E.M.; Martínez-Amariz, A.D.; Romero-Riaño, E. Theoretical Model of Territorial Agro-Industrial Development through Multi-Focus Research Analytics. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 94, 295–304, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.06.014.

• Galli, F.; Bartolini, F.; Brunori, G.; Colombo, L.; Gava, O.; Grando, S.; Marescotti, A. Sustainability Assessment of Food Supply Chains: An Application to Local and Global Bread in Italy. Agric. Food Econ. 2015, 3, doi:10.1186/s40100-015-0039-0.

• Gaviglio, A.; Bertocchi, M.; Marescotti, M.E.; Demartini, E.; Pirani, A. The Social Pillar of Sustainability: A Quantitative Approach at the Farm Level. Agric. Food Econ. 2016, 4, doi:10.1186/s40100-016-0059-4.

• Gaviglio, A.; Demartini, E.; Marescotti, M.E. The Creation of a Local Supply Chain for Large Wild Ungulates Meat: Opportunities and Limitation from an Italian Alpine Case Study. Qual. Access Success 2017, 18, 215–222.

• Gaviglio, A.; Filippini, R.; Madau, F.A.; Marescotti, M.E.; Demartini, E. Technical Efficiency and Productivity of Farms: A Periurban Case Study Analysis. Agric. Food Econ. 2021, 9, doi:10.1186/s40100-021-00181-9.

• Ghosh-Jerath, S.; Kapoor, R.; Dhasmana, A.; Singh, A.; Downs, S.; Ahmed, S. Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Systems and Determinants of Resilience in Indigenous Communities of Jharkhand State, India: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Sustain. food Syst. 2022, 6, doi:10.3389/fsufs.2022.724321.

• Giacomarra, M.; Tulone, A.; Crescimanno, M.; Galati, A. Electric Mobility in the Sicilian Short Food Supply Chain. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2019, 121, 84–93, doi:10.7896/j.1907.

• Giampietri, E.; Finco, A.; Del Giudice, T. Exploring Consumers’ Attitude towards Purchasing in Short Food Supply Chains. Qual. Access Success 2015, 16, 135–141.

• Giampietri, E.; Finco, A.; Del Giudice, T. Exploring Consumers’ Behaviour towards Short Food Supply Chains. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 618–631, doi:10.1108/BFJ-04-2015-0168.

• Giampietri, E.; Verneau, F.; Del Giudice, T.; Carfora, V.; Finco, A. A Theory of Planned Behaviour Perspective for Investigating the Role of Trust in Consumer Purchasing Decision Related to Short Food Supply Chains. Food Qual. Preference 2018, 64, 160–166, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.09.012.

• Giuca, S.; De Leo, S. A Social Network Linking Rural and Peri-Urban Agricultural Production to the City of Rome: A Case Study. Econ. Agro-Aliment. 2019, 21, 507–522, doi:10.3280/ECAG2019-002016.

• Givens, G.; Dunning, R. Distributor Intermediation in the Farm to Food Service Value Chain. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 34, 268–270, doi:10.1017/S1742170517000746.

• González-Azcárate, M.; Cruz Maceín, J.L.; Bardají, I. Why Buying Directly from Producers Is a Valuable Choice? Expanding the Scope of Short Food Supply Chains in Spain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 911–920, doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.003.

• González-Azcárate, M.; Cruz-Maceín, J.L.; Bardají, I. Certifications in Short Food Supply Chains in the Region of Madrid. Part of the Alternative? Ecol. Econ. 2022, 195, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107387.

• Grando, S.; Carey, J.; Hegger, E.; Jahrl, I.; Ortolani, L. Short Food Supply Chains in Urban Areas: Who Takes the Lead? Evidence from Three Cities across Europe. Urban. Agric. Reg. Food. Syst. 2017, 2, 1–11, doi:10.2134/urbanag2016.05.0002.

• Grasseni, C. Family Farmers between Re-Localisation and Co-Production. Anthropol. Notebooks 2014, 20, 49–66.

• Gromasheva, O. Buying Directly from Farmers: Tactics of St. Petersburg Consumers. Demokratizatsyia 2019, 27, 101–128.

• Gruchmann, T.; Seuring, S.; Petljak, K. Assessing the Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Local Food Distribution: A Theory-Elaboration Study. Supply Chain Manage. 2019, 24, 767–783, doi:10.1108/SCM-02-2019-0073.

• Guzmán, G.I.; López, D.; Román, L.; Alonso, A.M. Participatory Action Research in Agroecology: Building Local Organic Food Networks in Spain. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst. 2013, 37, 127–146, doi:10.1080/10440046.2012.718997.

• Haas, R.; Sterns, J.; Meixner, O.; Nyob, D.-I.; Traar, V. Do US Consumers’ Perceive Local and Organic Food Differently?: An Analysis Based on Means-End Chain Analysis and Word Association. Intl. J. Food Syst. 2013, 4, 214–226, doi:10.18461/ijfsd.v4i3.435.

• Hanus, G. Ethnocentrism in Polish Consumer Food Behaviour as a Determinant of Short Supply Chain Development. European J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 9, 169–180, doi:10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n4p169.

• Hardman, M.; Clark, A.; Sherriff, G. Mainstreaming Urban Agriculture: Opportunities and Barriers to Upscaling City Farming. Agronomy 2022, 12, doi:10.3390/agronomy12030601.

• Harrison, B.; Foley, C.; Edwards, D.; Donaghy, G. Outcomes and Challenges of an International Convention Centre’s Local Procurement Strategy. Tour. Manage. 2019, 75, 328–339, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.05.004.

• Havadi-Nagy, K.X. Food Hubs in Romania Assessment of a Pilot Project. Mitt. Osterr. Geogr. Ges. 2021, 163, 327–348, doi:10.1553/moegg163s327.

• Hebrard, F.J.C.; Braun, S.; Argyropoulos, D. Towards Innovation-Driven and Smart Solutions in Short Food Supply Chains. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 129–137, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a1.

• Hergesheimer, C.; Wittman, H. Weaving Chains of Grain: Alternative Grain Networks and Social Value in British Columbia. Food Cult. Soc. 2012, 15, 375–393, doi:10.2752/175174412X13276629245803.

• Hernández-Rubio, J.; Pérez-Mesa, J.C.; Piedra-Muñoz, L.; Galdeano-Gómez, E. Determinants of Food Safety Level in Fruit and Vegetable Wholesalers’ Supply Chain: Evidence from Spain and France. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, doi:10.3390/ijerph15102246.

• Herold, P.; Roessler, R.; Willam, A.; Momm, H.; Valle Zárate, A. Breeding and Supply Chain Systems Incorporating Local Pig Breeds for Small-Scale Pig Producers in Northwest Vietnam. Livest. Sci. 2010, 129, 63–72, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.01.004.

• Hills, K.M.; Goldberger, J.R.; Jones, S.S. Commercial Bakers and the Relocalization of Wheat in Western Washington State. Agric. Hum. Values 2013, 30, 365–378, doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9403-9.

• Hoang, V. Modern Short Food Supply Chain, Good Agricultural Practices, and Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and Case Study in Vietnam. Agronomy 2021, 11, doi:10.3390/agronomy11122408.

• Horská, E.; Petriľák, M.; Šedík, P.; Nagyová, Ľ. Factors Influencing the Sale of Local Products through Short Supply Chains: A Case of Family Dairy Farms in Slovakia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1–17, doi:10.3390/su12208499.

• Huang, A.; Chang, F.-J. Article Prospects for Rooftop Farming System Dynamics: An Action to Stimulate Water-Energy-Food Nexus Synergies toward Green Cities of Tomorrow. Sustainability 2021, 13, doi:10.3390/su13169042.

• Hyland, J.; Crehan, P.; Colantuono, F.; Macken-Walsh, Á. The Significance of Short Food Supply Chains: Trends and Bottlenecks from the SKIN Thematic Network. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2019, 121, 59–66, doi:10.7896/j.1904.

• Hyland, J.J.; Macken-Walsh, Á. Multi-Actor Social Networks: A Social Practice Approach to Understanding Food Hubs. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14031894.

• Ilbery, B.; Maye, D. Alternative (Shorter) Food Supply Chains and Specialist Livestock Products in the Scottish-English Borders. Environ. Plann. A 2005, 37, 823–844, doi:10.1068/a3717.

• Ilbery, B.; Maye, D.; Kneafsey, M.; Jenkins, T.; Walkley, C. Forecasting Food Supply Chain Developments in Lagging Rural Regions: Evidence from the UK. J. Rural Stud. 2004, 20, 331–344, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.09.001.

• Iocola, I.; Campanelli, G.; Diacono, M.; Leteo, F.; Montemurro, F.; Persiani, A.; Canali, S. Sustainability Assessment of Organic Vegetable Production Using a Qualitative Multi-Attribute Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, doi:10.3390/su10103820.

• Iocola, I.; Colombo, L.; Guccione, G.D.; De Vita, P.; Palumbo, M.; Ritunnano, V.; Sciacca, F.; Virzì, N.; Canali, S. A Multi-Criteria Qualitative Tool for the Sustainability Assessment of Organic Durum Wheat-Based Farming Systems Designed through a Participative Process. Ital. J. Agron. 2021, 16, 1–15, doi:10.4081/ija.2021.1785.

• Jancso, A.; Csaszar, G.; Varga, L. Physicochemical Quality of Directly Sold Raw Milk in Hungary. Acta Aliment. 2016, 45, 347–353, doi:10.1556/AAlim.2015.0016.

• Jantyik, L.; Balogh, J.M.; Török, Á. What Are the Reasons behind the Economic Performance of the Hungarian Beer Industry? The Case of the Hungarian Microbreweries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–14, doi:10.3390/su13052829.

• Jarzebowski, S.; Bourlakis, M.; Bezat-Jarzebowska, A. Short Food Supply Chains (SFSC) as Local and Sustainable Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, doi:10.3390/su12114715.

• Ji, C.; Chen, Q.; Zhuo, N. Enhancing Consumer Trust in Short Food Supply Chains: The Case Evidence from Three Agricultural e-Commerce Companies in China. J. Agribusiness Dev. Emerg. Economies 2020, 10, 103–116, doi:10.1108/JADEE-12-2018-0180.

• Joltreau, T.; Smith, A. Short Versus Long Supply Chains in Agri-Food Sectors: Peaceful Coexistence or Political Domination? The Case of Foie Gras in South-West France. Sociol. Ruralis 2020, 60, 680–697, doi:10.1111/soru.12305.

• Kacz, K.; Hegyi, J.; Gombköto, N. Characteristics of Community Supported Agriculture in the Western Transdanubia Region. Deturope 2019, 11, 42–54.

• Kallas, Z.; Alba, M.F.; Casellas, K.; Berges, M.; Degreef, G.; Gil, J.M. The Development of Short Food Supply Chain for Locally Produced Honey: Understanding Consumers’ Opinions and Willingness to Pay in Argentina. Br. Food J. 2019, 123, 1664–1680, doi:10.1108/BFJ-01-2019-0070.

• Kapała, A. Food Safety Requirements for Short Supply Chains in the Legislation of the European Union, Selected EU Member States and the USA: A Comparative Study. Eur. Food Feed Law Rev. 2021, 16, 286–295.

• Kapała, A. About the Need for a Harmonised Labelling for Locally Produced Food A Study of Local Food Labels in Selected EU Member States. European J. Comp. Law Gov. 2022, 4, 1–28, doi:10.1163/22134514-bja10033.

• Kapała, A.M. Legal Instruments to Support Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in France. Law. 2022, 11, doi:10.3390/laws11020021.

• Karg, H.; Drechsel, P.; Akoto-Danso, E.K.; Glaser, R.; Nyarko, G.; Buerkert, A. Foodsheds and City Region Food Systems in Two West African Cities. Sustainability 2016, 8, doi:10.3390/su8121175.

• Kiss, K.; Ruszkai, C.; Szucs, A.; Koncz, G. Examining the Role of Local Products in Rural Development in the Light of Consumer Preferences-Results of a Consumer Survey from Hungary. Sustainability 2020, 12, doi:10.3390/su12135473.

• Kiss, K.; Ruszkai, C.; Takács-György, K. Examination of Short Supply Chains Based on Circular Economy and Sustainability Aspects. Resources 2019, 1–21, doi:10.3390/resources8040161.

• Kizos, T. Multifunctionality of Farm Households in Greece. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. 2010, 64, 105–116, doi:10.1080/00291951.2010.481137.

• Kizos, T.; Vakoufaris, H. Alternative Agri-Food Geographies? Geographic Indications in Greece. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2011, 102, 220–235, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2010.00612.x.

• Kizos, T.; Vakoufaris, H. What Is the Extent of Short Food Supply Chains in Greece? Evidence from the Cheese Supply Chains in the North Aegean Region. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2011, 9, 48–67, doi:10.1504/IJARGE.2011.040218.

• Korhonen, K.; Kotavaara, O.; Muilu, T.; Rusanen, J. Accessibility of Local Food Production to Regional Markets—Case of Berry Production in Northern Ostrobothnia, Finland. Eur. Countrys. 2017, 9, 709–728, doi:10.1515/euco-2017-0040.

• Koutsou, S.; Sergaki, P. Producers’ Cooperative Products in Short Food Supply Chains: Consumers’ Response. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 198–211, doi:10.1108/BFJ-05-2018-0297.

• Kovács, I.; Lendvai, M.B.; Beke, J. The Importance of Food Attributes and Motivational Factors for Purchasing Local Food Products: Segmentation of Young Local Food Consumers in Hungary. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14063224.

• Kurtsal, Y.; Ayalp, E.K.; Viaggi, D. Exploring Governance Mechanisms, Collaborative Processes and Main Challenges in Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of Turkey. Bio-based Appl. Economics 2020, 9, 201–221, doi:10.13128/bae-8242.

• Lagerkvist, C.J.; Hess, S.; Okello, J.; Hansson, H.; Karanja, N. Food Health Risk Perceptions among Consumers, Farmers, and Traders of Leafy Vegetables in Nairobi. Food Policy 2013, 38, 92–104, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.001.

• Lanfranchi, M.; Giannetto, C. A Case Study on the Role of Farmers’ Markets in the Process of Shortening the Food Chain and the Possible Economic Benefits for Consumers. Qual. Access Success 2015, 16, 94–98.

• Lankauskienė, R.; Vidickienė, D.; Gedminaitė-raudonė, Ž. Evolution of Short Food Supply Chain Theory and Practice: Two-Sided Networks and Platforms. Energies 2022, 15, doi:10.3390/en15031137.

• Le Velly, R.; Goulet, F.; Vinck, D. Allowing for Detachment Processes in Market Innovation. The Case of Short Food Supply Chains. Consum. Mark. Cult. 2021, 24, 313–328, doi:10.1080/10253866.2020.1807342.

• Lehtinen, U. Sustainability and Local Food Procurement: A Case Study of Finnish Public Catering. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 1053–1071, doi:10.1108/00070701211252048.

• Levidow, L.; Birch, K.; Papaioannou, T. EU Agri-Innovation Policy: Two Contending Visions of the Bio-Economy. Crit. Policy Stud. 2012, 6, 40–65, doi:10.1080/19460171.2012.659881.

• Levidow, L.; Pimbert, M.; Vanloqueren, G. Agroecological Research: Conforming—or Transforming the Dominant Agro-Food Regime? Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst. 2014, 38, 1127–1155, doi:10.1080/21683565.2014.951459.

• Levidow, L.; Psarikidou, K. Food Relocalization for Environmental Sustainability in Cumbria. Sustainability 2011, 3, 692–719, doi:10.3390/su3040692.

• Levidow, L.; Sansolo, D.; Schiavinatto, M. Agroecological Innovation Constructing Socionatural Order for Social Transformation: Two Case Studies in Brazil. Tapuya: Lat. Am. Sci. Tech. Soc. 2021, 4, doi:10.1080/25729861.2020.1843318.

• Lioutas, E.D.; Charatsari, C. Smart Farming and Short Food Supply Chains: Are They Compatible? Land Use Policy 2020, 94, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104541.

• Loiseau, E.; Colin, M.; Alaphilippe, A.; Coste, G.; Roux, P. To What Extent Are Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) Environmentally Friendly? Application to French Apple Distribution Using Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124166.

• Lombardi, A.; Migliore, G.; Verneau, F.; Schifani, G.; Cembalo, L. Are “Good Guys” More Likely to Participate in Local Agriculture? Food Qual. Preference 2015, 45, 158–165, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.005.

• Luo, J.; Liang, Y.; Bai, Y. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Short Food Supply Chains Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 2833–2856, doi:10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0465.

• MacMahon, A.; Smith, K.; Lawrence, G. Connecting Resilience, Food Security and Climate Change: Lessons from Flooding in Queensland, Australia. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015, 5, 378–391, doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0278-0.

• Majewski, E.; Komerska, A.; Kwiatkowski, J.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Was, A.; Sulewski, P.; Goła, M.; Pogodzinska, K.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Tocco, B.; et al. Are Short Food Supply Chains More Environmentally Sustainable than Long Chains? A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the Eco-Efficiency of Food Chains in Selected EU Countries. Energies 2020, 13, doi:10.3390/en13184853.

• Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Majewski, E.; Was, A.; Borgen, S.O.; Csillag, P.; Donati, M.; Freeman, R.; Hoàng, V.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Mancini, M.C.; et al. Measuring the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability of Short Food Supply Chains. Sustainability 2019, 11, doi:10.3390/su11154004.

• Mancini, M.C.; Arfini, F. Short Supply Chains and Protected Designations of Origin: The Case of Parmigiano Reggiano (Italy). Ager 2018, 2018, 43–64, doi:10.4422/ager.2018.11.

• Mancini, M.C.; Menozzi, D.; Donati, M.; Biasini, B.; Veneziani, M.; Arfini, F. Producers’ and Consumers’ Perception of the Sustainability of Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of Parmigiano Reggiano PDO. Sustainability 2019, 11, doi:10.3390/su11030721.

• Manzone, M.; Calvo, A. Woodchip Transportation: Climatic and Congestion Influence on Productivity, Energy and CO2 Emission of Agricultural and Industrial Convoys. Renew. Energy 2017, 108, 250–259, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.074.

• Markou, M.; Stylianou, A.; Giannakopoulou, M.; Adamides, G. Identifying Business-to-Business Unfair Trading Practices in the Food Supply Chain: The Case of Cyprus. New Medit 2020, 19, 19–34, doi:10.30682/nm2001b.

• Marsden, T.; Banks, J.; Bristow, G. Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring Their Role in Rural Development. Sociol. Ruralis 2000, 40, 424–438, doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00158.

• Martens, K.; Rogga, S.; Zscheischler, J.; Pölling, B.; Obersteg, A.; Piorr, A. Classifying New Hybrid Cooperation Models for Short Food-Supply Chains—Providing a Concept for Assessing Sustainability Transformation in the Urban-Rural Nexus. Land 2022, 11, doi:10.3390/land11040582.

• Mass, M.; Abebe, G.K.; Hartt, C.M.; Yiridoe, E.K. Consumer Perceptions about the Value of Short Food Supply Chains during COVID-19: Atlantic Canada Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14138216.

• Mastronardi, L.; Marino, D.; Cavallo, A.; Giannelli, A. Exploring the Role of Farmers in Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of Italy. Int. Food Agribus. Manage. Rev. 2015, 18, 109–130.

• Mastronardi, L.; Marino, D.; Giaccio, V.; Giannelli, A.; Palmieri, M.; Mazzocchi, G. Analyzing Alternative Food Networks Sustainability in Italy: A Proposal for an Assessment Framework. Agric. Food Econ. 2019, 7, doi:10.1186/s40100-019-0142-8.

• Matacena, R.; Corvo, P. Practices of Food Sovereignty in Italy and England: Short Food Supply Chains and the Promise of De-Commodification. Sociol. Ruralis 2020, 60, 414–437, doi:10.1111/soru.12283.

• Matzembacher, D.E.; Meira, F.B. Sustainability as Business Strategy in Community Supported Agriculture: Social, Environmental and Economic Benefits for Producers and Consumers. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 616–632, doi:10.1108/BFJ-03-2018-0207.

• Maye, D.; Swagemakers, P.; Wiskerke, J.S.C.; Moschitz, H.; Kirwan, J.; Jahrl, I. Transformative Potential from the Ground up: Sustainable Innovation Journeys, Soft Change and Alignment of Interests in Urban Food Initiatives. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2022, 29, 222–237, doi:10.1177/09697764211028887.

• Mazzocchi, C.; Corsi, S.; Ruggeri, G. The Coexistence of Local and Global Food Supply Chains: The Lombardy Region Case Study. Agric. 2020, 10, 1–11, doi:10.3390/agriculture10110540.

• Medina, G.D.S.; Gosch, M.S.; DelGrossi, M.E. Development Pathways for Family Farmers: Lessons from Brazil on the Need for Targeted Structural Reforms as a Means to Address Regional Heterogeneity. Geoforum 2021, 118, 14–22, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.11.008.

• Michel-Villarreal, R.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.L.; Canavari, M.; Hingley, M. Resilience and Digitalization in Short Food Supply Chains: A Case Study Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, doi:10.3390/su13115913.

• Michel-Villarreal, R.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.L.; Hingley, M. Exploring Producers’ Motivations and Challenges within a Farmers’ Market. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2089–2103, doi:10.1108/BFJ-09-2019-0731.

• Migliore, G.; Schifani, G.; Cembalo, L. Opening the Black Box of Food Quality in the Short Supply Chain: Effects of Conventions of Quality on Consumer Choice. Food Qual. Preference 2015, 39, 141–146, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.006.

• Mirabella, N.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S. LCA for Assessing Environmental Benefit of Eco-Design Strategies and Forest Wood Short Supply Chain: A Furniture Case Study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1536–1550, doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0757-7.

• Moore, D.; Massar, B.; Frederiks, M.; Veltkamp, R.; Runhaar, H. Gamification for Sustainable Food Transitions: Supporting Multi-Level Cooperation in Short Food Supply Chains Through GAIN. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 248–259, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a10.

• Morel, K.; San Cristobal, M.; Léger, F.G. Small Can Be Beautiful for Organic Market Gardens: An Exploration of the Economic Viability of French Microfarms Using MERLIN. Agric. Syst. 2017, 158, 39–49, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.08.008.

• Morel, K.; San Cristobal, M.; Léger, F.G. Simulating Incomes of Radical Organic Farms with MERLIN: A Grounded Modeling Approach for French Microfarms. Agric. Syst. 2018, 161, 89–101, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.08.006.

• Morkūnas, M.; Rudienė, E.; Ostenda, A. Can Climate-Smart Agriculture Help to Assure Food Security through Short Supply Chains? A Systematic Bibliometric and Bibliographic Literature Review. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2022, 20, 207–223, doi:10.3846/bmee.2022.17101.

• Mouléry, M.; Sanz, E.S.; Debolini, M.; Napoléone, C.; Josselin, D.; Mabire, L.; Vicente-Vicente, J.L. Self-Sufficiency Assessment: Defining the Foodshed Spatial Signature of Supply Chains for Beef in Avignon, France. Agric. 2022, 12, doi:10.3390/agriculture12030419.

• Mundler, P.; Jean-Gagnon, J. Short Food Supply Chains, Labor Productivity and Fair Earnings: An Impossible Equation? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 697–709, doi:10.1017/S1742170519000358.

• Mundler, P.; Laughrea, S. The Contributions of Short Food Supply Chains to Territorial Development: A Study of Three Quebec Territories. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 45, 218–229, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.04.001.

• Muñoz Torres, M.J.; Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á.; Ferrero-Ferrero, I.; Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Rivera-Lirio, J.M. Transitioning the Agri-Food System. Does Closeness Mean Sustainability? How Production and Shipping Strategies Impact Socially and Environmentally. Comparing Spain, South Africa and U.S. Citrus Fruit Productions. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst. 2022, 46, 540–577, doi:10.1080/21683565.2022.2039835.

• Nakandala, D.; Lau, H.C.W. Innovative Adoption of Hybrid Supply Chain Strategies in Urban Local Fresh Food Supply Chain. Supply Chain Manage. 2019, 24, 241–255, doi:10.1108/SCM-09-2017-0287.

• Nardin, G.; Catanzaro, G. A Self-Sufficient System (“Energy Island”) FED Only with Bio-Oil from Local Crops. Helia 2007, 30, 143–156, doi:10.2298/HEL0746143N.

• Nchanji, E.B.; Lutomia, C.K. COVID-19 Challenges to Sustainable Food Production and Consumption: Future Lessons for Food Systems in Eastern and Southern Africa from a Gender Lens. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 2208–2220, doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.05.016.

• Nchanji, E.B.; Lutomia, C.K. Regional Impact of COVID-19 on the Production and Food Security of Common Bean Smallholder Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implication for SDG’s. Global Food Secur. 2021, 29, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100524.

• Neulinger, A.; Bársony, F.; Gjorevska, N.; Lazányi, O.; Pataki, G.; Takács, S.; Török, A. Engagement and Subjective Well-Being in Alternative Food Networks: The Case of Hungary. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 306–315, doi:10.1111/ijcs.12566.

• Ochoa, C.Y.; Matarán, A.; Olmo, R.M.; López, J.M.; Fuentes-Guerra, R. The Potential Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Strengthening Periurban Agriculture in Spain: The Cases of Madrid and Barcelona. Sustainability 2019, 11, doi:10.3390/su1102080.

• Ochoa, C.Y.; Ruiz, A.M.; Olmo, R.M.; Figueroa, A.M.; Rodríguez, A.T. Peri-Urban Organic Agriculture and Short Food Supply Chains as Drivers for Strengthening City/Region Food Systems-Two Case Studies in Andalucia, Spain. Land 2020, 9, doi:10.3390/LAND9060177.

• Ogier, M.; Cung, V.-D.; Boissière, J. Service Network Design in Short and Local Fresh Food Supply Chain. RAIRO Rech Oper Oper Res 2013, 47, 445–464, doi:10.1051/ro/2013051.

• Oñederra-Aramendi, A.; Begiristain-Zubillaga, M.; Malagón-Zaldua, E. Who Is Feeding Embeddedness in Farmers’ Markets? A Cluster Study of Farmers’ Markets in Gipuzkoa. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 61, 22–33, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.05.008.

• Orlando, F.; Spigarolo, R.; Alali, S.; Bocchi, S. The Role of Public Mass Catering in Local Foodshed Governance toward Self-Reliance of Metropolitan Regions. Sustainable Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 152–162, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.013.

• Paciarotti, C.; Torregiani, F. Short Food Supply Chain between Micro/Small Farms and Restaurants: An Exploratory Study in the Marche Region. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1722–1734, doi:10.1108/BFJ-04-2018-0253.

• Paciarotti, C.; Torregiani, F. The Logistics of the Short Food Supply Chain: A Literature Review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 428–442, doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.002.

• Padel, S.; Midmore, P. The Development of the European Market for Organic Products: Insights from a Delphi Study. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 626–647, doi:10.1108/00070700510611011.

• Parodi, G. Agroecological Transition and Reconfiguration of Horticultural Work among Family Farmers in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Cah. Agric. 2018, 27, doi:10.1051/cagri/2018020.

• Parrag, V.; Szegedyné, Á.F.; Sebőka, A. Application of Digital Solutions to Improve the Operation of Short Food Supply Chains. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 151–160, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a3.

• PATÓ, B.S.G.; CSISZÁRIK-KOCSIR, Á.; VARGA, I.; HERCZEG, M.; DOMINEK, Á.; PATÓ, B.; KISS, F. SHORT SUPPLY CHAINS FROM AN INTERMEDIARY’S POINT OF VIEW. Online J. Model. New Eur. 2020, 34, 168–183, doi:10.24193/OJMNE.2020.34.09.

• Pato, M.L. Short Food Supply Chains-a Growing Movement. The Case Study of the Viseu Dão Lafões Region. Open Agric. 2020, 5, 806–816, doi:10.1515/opag-2020-0077.

• Pereira, Á.; Villanueva-Rey, P.; Vence, X.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijóo, G. Fresh Milk Supply through Vending Machines: Consumption Patterns and Associated Environmental Impacts. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 15, 119–130, doi:10.1016/j.spc.2018.05.003.

• Peters, R.; Gregory, M. Networking, Small Farms and EU Rural Development Policy. EuroChoices 2014, 13, 36–39, doi:10.1111/1746-692X.12050.

• Petropoulou, E.; Benos, T.; Theodorakopoulou, I.; Iliopoulos, C.; Castellini, A.; Xhakollari, V.; Canavari, M.; Antonelli, A.; Petruzzella, D. Understanding Social Innovation in Short Food Supply Chains: An Exploratory Analysis. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 182–195, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a5.

• Plakias, Z.T.; Demko, I.; Katchova, A.L. Direct Marketing Channel Choices among US Farmers: Evidence from the Local Food Marketing Practices Survey. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 475–489, doi:10.1017/S1742170519000085.

• Poças Ribeiro, A.; Harmsen, R.; Feola, G.; Rosales Carréon, J.; Worrell, E. Organising Alternative Food Networks (AFNs): Challenges and Facilitating Conditions of Different AFN Types in Three EU Countries. Sociol. Ruralis 2021, 61, 491–517, doi:10.1111/soru.12331.

• Polita, F.S.; Madureira, L. Evolution of Short Food Supply Chain Innovation Niches and Its Anchoring to the Socio-Technical Regime: The Case of Direct Selling through Collective Action in North-West Portugal. Sustainability 2021, 13, doi:10.3390/su132413598.

• Pölling, B.; Mergenthaler, M. The Location Matters: Determinants for “Deepening” and “Broadening” Diversification Strategies in Ruhr Metropolis’ Urban Farming. Sustainability 2017, 9, doi:10.3390/su9071168.

• Poponi, S.; Arcese, G.; Mosconi, E.M.; Pacchera, F.; Martucci, O.; Elmo, G.C. Multi-Actor Governance for a Circular Economy in the Agri-Food Sector: Bio-Districts. Sustainability 2021, 13, doi:10.3390/su13094718.

• Popp, J.; Oláh, J.; Kiss, A.; Temesi, Á.; Fogarassy, C.; Lakner, Z. The Socio-Economic Force Field of the Creation of Short Food Supply Chains in Europe. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2019, 58, 31–41.

• Poppe, K. COVID-19 Will Change the Agri-Food System—but How? EuroChoices 2020, 19, 20–25, doi:10.1111/1746-692X.12276.

• Pulighe, G.; Lupia, F. Food First: COVID-19 Outbreak and Cities Lockdown a Booster for a Wider Vision on Urban Agriculture. Sustainability 2020, 12, doi:10.3390/su12125012.

• Raffo, A.; Baiamonte, I.; Nardo, N.; Nicoli, S.; Moneta, E.; Peparaio, M.; Sinesio, F.; Paoletti, F. Impact of Early Harvesting and Two Cold Storage Technologies on Eating Quality of Red Ripe Tomatoes. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 805–818, doi:10.1007/s00217-017-2996-x.

• Raftowicz, M.; Kalisiak-Medelska, M.; Struś, M. Redefining the Supply Chain Model on the Milicz Carp Market. Sustainability 2020, 12, doi:10.3390/su12072934.

• Régnier, F.; Dalstein, A.-L.; Rouballay, C.; Chauvel, L. Eating in Season—A Lever of Sustainability? An Interview Study on the Social Perception of Seasonal Consumption. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14095379.

• Reina-Usuga, L.; de Haro-Giménez, T.; Parra-López, C. Food Governance in Territorial Short Food Supply Chains: Different Narratives and Strategies from Colombia and Spain. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 75, 237–247, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.02.005.

• Reina-Usuga, L.; Parra-López, C.; de Haro-Giménez, T. Urban Food Policies and Their Influence on the Development of Territorial Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of Cities in Colombia and Spain. Land Use Policy 2022, 112, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105825.

• Reis, K.; Desha, C.; Campbell, S.; Liddy, P. Working through Disaster Risk Management to Support Regional Food Resilience: A Case Study in North-Eastern Australia. Sustainability 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su14042466.

• Renting, H.; Marsden, T.K.; Banks, J. Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural Development. Environ. Plann. A 2003, 35, 393–411, doi:10.1068/a3510.

• Rivera-Ferre, M.G.; López-i-Gelats, F.; Ravera, F.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; di Masso, M.; Binimelis, R.; El Bilali, H. The Two-Way Relationship between Food Systems and the COVID19 Pandemic: Causes and Consequences. Agric. Syst. 2021, 191, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103134.

• Rivero Santos, A.M. Contributions of Social Currencies to Alternative Short Food Supply Chains. Urban. Agric. Reg. Food. Syst. 2017, 2, 1–15, doi:10.2134/urbanag2016.07.0005.

• Rogers, J.; Fraszczak, M. “Like the Stem Connecting the Cherry to the Tree”: The Uncomfortable Place of Intermediaries in a Local Organic Food Chain. Sociol. Ruralis 2014, 54, 321–340, doi:10.1111/soru.12041.

• Romagnoli, F.; Molina, J.; Parrado, Á. How to Improve Smallholder Market Access: Evaluation of Mercados Campesinos in Colombia. Agron. Colomb. 2018, 36, 79–87, doi:10.15446/agron.colomb.v36n1.67970.

• Romero-López, A.R.; Ramos, F.M. Understanding the Linkages between Small-Scale Producers and Consumers through the Analysis of Short Food Supply Chains in a Local Market in Nopala de Villagrán, Hidalgo, Mexico. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 2017, 14, doi:10.11144/Javeriana.cdr14-79.ulsp.

• Rosol, M.; Barbosa, R., Jr. Moving beyond Direct Marketing with New Mediated Models: Evolution of or Departure from Alternative Food Networks? Agric. Hum. Values 2021, 38, 1021–1039, doi:10.1007/s10460-021-10210-4.

• Ross, N.J. How Civic Is It? Success Stories in Locally Focused Agriculture in Maine. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2006, 21, 114–123, doi:10.1079/RAF2005134.

• Rucabado-Palomar, T.; Cuéllar-Padilla, M. Short Food Supply Chains for Local Food: A Difficult Path. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 182–191, doi:10.1017/S174217051800039X.

• Ruszkai, C.; Tari, I.P.; Patkós, C. Possible Actors in Local Foodscapes? Leader Action Groups as Short Supply Chain Agents—a European Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–21, doi:10.3390/su13042080.

• Sacchi, G.; Cei, L.; Stefani, G.; Lombardi, G.V.; Rocchi, B.; Belletti, G.; Padel, S.; Sellars, A.; Gagliardi, E.; Nocella, G.; et al. A Multi-Actor Literature Review on Alternative and Sustainable Food Systems for the Promotion of Cereal Biodiversity. Agric. 2018, 8, doi:10.3390/agriculture8110173.

• Salvatore, F.P.; Fanelli, S.; Lanza, G.; Milone, M. Public Food Procurement for Italian Schools: Results from Analytical and Content Analyses. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 2936–2951, doi:10.1108/BFJ-09-2020-0807.

• Schmutz, U.; Kneafsey, M.; Kay, C.S.; Doernberg, A.; Zasada, I. Sustainability Impact Assessments of Different Urban Short Food Supply Chains: Examples from London, UK. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2018, 33, 518–529, doi:10.1017/S1742170517000564.

• Schoolman, E.D.; Morton, L.W.; Arbuckle, J.G., Jr.; Han, G. Marketing to the Foodshed: Why Do Farmers Participate in Local Food Systems? J. Rural Stud. 2021, 84, 240–253, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.055.

• Schou, J.S.; Johansen, P.H.; Olsen, J.V.; Frølund, M. Landowners Rural Embeddedness. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 90, 26–33, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.01.008.

• Schreiber, K.; Soubry, B.; Dove-McFalls, C.; MacDonald, G.K. Diverse Adaptation Strategies Helped Local Food Producers Cope with Initial Challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons from Québec, Canada. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 90, 124–133, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.02.002.

• Schreiber, K.; Soubry, B.; Dove-McFalls, C.; MacDonald, G.K. Untangling the Role of Social Relationships for Overcoming Challenges in Local Food Systems: A Case Study of Farmers in Québec, Canada. Agric. Hum. Values 2022, doi:10.1007/s10460-022-10343-0.

• Sebök, A.; Varsanyi, K.; Kujani, K.; Xhakollari, V.; Fricz, A.S.; Castellini, A.; Di Gioia, D.; Gaggia, F.; Canavari, M. Value Propositions for Improving the Competitiveness of Short Food Supply Chains Built on Technological and Non-Technological Innovations. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 161–181, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a4.

• Sellitto, M.A.; Vial, L.A.M.; Viegas, C.V. Critical Success Factors in Short Food Supply Chains: Case Studies with Milk and Dairy Producers from Italy and Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1361–1368, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.235.

• Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Luthra, S.; Kumar, A. Managing Disruptions and Risks amidst COVID-19 Outbreaks: Role of Blockchain Technology in Developing Resilient Food Supply Chains. Oper. Manage. Res. 2021, doi:10.1007/s12063-021-00198-9.

• Singh-Peterson, L.; Lawrence, G. Insights into Community Vulnerability and Resilience Following Natural Disasters: Perspectives with Food Retailers in Northern NSW, Australia. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 782–795, doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.873396.

• Smith, K.; Lawrence, G.; MacMahon, A.; Muller, J.; Brady, M. The Resilience of Long and Short Food Chains: A Case Study of Flooding in Queensland, Australia. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 45–60, doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9603-1.

• Stanco, M.; Lerro, M.; Marotta, G.; Nazzaro, C. Consumers’ and Farmers’ Characteristics in Short Food Supply Chains: An Exploratory Analysis. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2019, 121, 67–74, doi:10.7896/j.1905.

• Syrovátková, M.; Hrabák, J.; Spilková, J. Farmers’ Markets’ Locavore Challenge: The Potential of Local Food Production for Newly Emerged Farmers’ Markets in Czechia. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2015, 30, 305–317, doi:10.1017/S1742170514000064.

• Szabo, D. Determining the Target Groups of Hungarian Short Food Supply Chains Based on Consumer Attitude and Socio-Demographic Factors. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2017, 119, 115–122, doi:10.7896/j.1705.

• Szabó, D.; Juhász, A. Consumers’ and Producers’ Perceptions of Markets: Service Levels of the Most Important Short Food Supply Chains in Hungary. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2015, 117, 111–118, doi:10.7896/j.1519.

• Szegedyné Fricz, Á.; Ittzés, A.; Ózsvári, L.; Szakos, D.; Kasza, G. Consumer Perception of Local Food Products in Hungary. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2965–2979, doi:10.1108/BFJ-07-2019-0528.

• Taiti, C.; Costa, C.; Petrucci, W.A.; Luzzietti, L.; Giordani, E.; Mancuso, S.; Nencetti, V. Are Peach Cultivars Used in Conventional Long Food Supply Chains Suitable for the High-Quality Short Markets? Foods 2021, 10, doi:10.3390/foods10061253.

• Tasca, A.L.; Nessi, S.; Rigamonti, L. Environmental Sustainability of Agri-Food Supply Chains: An LCA Comparison between Two Alternative Forms of Production and Distribution of Endive in Northern Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 725–741, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.170.

• Testa, R.; Galati, A.; Schifani, G.; Crescimanno, M.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Migliore, G. Are Alternative Food Networks Winning Strategies to Increase Organic SMEs Profitability? Evidence from a Case Study. Int. J. Globalisation Small Bus. 2020, 11, 65–82, doi:10.1504/IJGSB.2020.105583.

• Testa, R.; Migliore, G.; Schifani, G.; Tinebra, I.; Farina, V. Chemical-Physical, Sensory Analyses and Consumers’ Quality Perception of Local vs. Imported Loquat Fruits: A Sustainable Development Perspective. Agronomy 2020, 10, doi:10.3390/agronomy10060870.

• Thatcher, J.; Sharp, L. Measuring the Local Economic Impact of National Health Service Procurement in the UK: An Evaluation of the Cornwall Food Programme and LM3. Local Environ. 2008, 13, 253–270, doi:10.1080/13549830701669005.

• Thilmany, D.; Canales, E.; Low, S.A.; Boys, K. Local Food Supply Chain Dynamics and Resilience during COVID-19. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2021, 43, 86–104, doi:10.1002/aepp.13121.

• Thomé, K.M.; Cappellesso, G.; Ramos, E.L.A.; Duarte, S.C.D.L. Food Supply Chains and Short Food Supply Chains: Coexistence Conceptual Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123207.

• Thomopoulos, R. A Practical Application Approach to Argumentation for Multicriteria Analysis and Decision Support. EURO J. Decis. Process. 2018, 6, 237–255, doi:10.1007/s40070-018-0087-2.

• Thulasiraman, V.; Nandagopal, M.S.G.; Kothakota, A. Need for a Balance between Short Food Supply Chains and Integrated Food Processing Sectors: COVID-19 Takeaways from India. J Food Sci Technol 2021, 58, 3667–3675, doi:10.1007/s13197-020-04942-0.

• Todorovic, V.; Maslaric, M.; Bojic, S.; Jokic, M.; Mircetic, D.; Nikolicic, S. Solutions for More Sustainable Distribution in the Short Food Supply Chains. Sustainability 2018, 10, doi:10.3390/su10103481.

• Török, Á.; Agárdi, I.; Maró, G.; Maró, Z.M. Business Opportunities in Short Food Supply Chains: The Economic Sustainability of Three Hungarian Para-Gastro Restaurants. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2022, 124, 22–29, doi:10.7896/j.2253.

• Torquati, B.; Cecchini, L.; Paffarini, C.; Chiorri, M. The Economic and Environmental Sustainability of Extra Virgin Olive Oil Supply Chains: An Analysis Based on Food Miles and Value Chains. Econ. Agro-Aliment. 2021, 23, 1–28, doi:10.3280/ECAG1-2021OA11391.

• Tsolakis, N.; Srai, J.S. A System Dynamics Approach to Food Security through Smallholder Farming in the UK. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 57, 2023–2028, doi:10.3303/CET1757338.

• Tudisca, S.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Sgroi, F.; Testa, R.; Giamporcaro, G. Role of Alternative Food Networks in Sicilian Farms. Int. J. Entrepreneurship Small Bus. 2014, 22, 50–63, doi:10.1504/IJESB.2014.062130.

• Tudisca, S.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Sgroi, F.; Testa, R. Socio-Economic Assessment of Direct Sales in Sicilian Farms. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2015, 27, 101–108.

• Tulla, A.F.; Vera, A.; Valldeperas, N.; Guirado, C. New Approaches to Sustainable Rural Development: Social Farming as an Opportunity in Europe? Hum. Geogr. 2017, 11, 25–40, doi:10.5719/hgeo.2017.111.2.

• Tundys, B.; Wiśniewski, T. Benefit Optimization of Short Food Supply Chains for Organic Products: A Simulation-Based Approach. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, doi:10.3390/APP10082783.

• Vercher, N. Territorial Social Innovation and Alternative Food Networks: The Case of a New Farmers’ Cooperative on the Island of Ibiza (Spain). Agric. 2022, 12, doi:10.3390/agriculture12060748.

• Verraes, C.; Uyttendaele, M.; Clinquart, A.; Daube, G.; Sindic, M.; Berkvens, D.; Herman, L. Microbiological Safety and Quality Aspects of the Short Supply Chain: SWOT Analysis of the Belgian Case Study. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 2250–2264, doi:10.1108/BFJ-04-2015-0122.

• Vîntu, C.-R.V.; Chiran, A.C.; Leonte, E.C.; Ştefan, M.; Jitea, M.I. Can Agritourism Be a Viable Niche Market for the Small Romanian Fruits and Vegetables Producers? Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2016, 44, 619–624, doi:10.15835/nbha44210570.

• Vitali, A.; Grossi, G.; Martino, G.; Bernabucci, U.; Nardone, A.; Lacetera, N. Carbon Footprint of Organic Beef Meat from Farm to Fork: A Case Study of Short Supply Chain. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 5518–5524, doi:10.1002/jsfa.9098.

• Vittersø, G.; Torjusen, H.; Laitala, K.; Tocco, B.; Biasini, B.; Csillag, P.; de Labarre, M.D.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Maj, A.; Majewski, E.; et al. Short Food Supply Chains and Their Contributions to Sustainability: Participants’ Views and Perceptions from 12 European Cases. Sustainability 2019, 11, doi:10.3390/su11174800.

• Wang, M.; Kumar, V.; Ruan, X.; Saad, M.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, A. Sustainability Concerns on Consumers’ Attitude towards Short Food Supply Chains: An Empirical Investigation. Oper. Manage. Res. 2021, doi:10.1007/s12063-021-00188-x.

• Wang, Z.; Yao, D.-Q.; Yue, X. E-Business System Investment for Fresh Agricultural Food Industry in China. Ann. Oper. Res. 2017, 257, 379–394, doi:10.1007/s10479-015-1830-8.

• Winarno, H.; Perdana, T.; Handayati, Y.; Purnomo, D. Food Hubs and Short Food Supply Chain, Efforts to Realize Regional Food Distribution Center (Case Study on the Establishment of a Food Distribution Center in Banten Province, Indonesia). Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 9, 338–350.

• Wojciechowska-Solis, J.; Kowalska, A.; Bieniek, M.; Ratajczyk, M.; Manning, L. Comparison of the Purchasing Behaviour of Polish and United Kingdom Consumers in the Organic Food Market during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, doi:10.3390/ijerph19031137.

• Wubben, E.F.M.; Fondse, M.; Pascucci, S. The Importance of Stakeholder-Initiatives for Business Models in Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of the Netherlands. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 2013, 13, 139–149, doi:10.3920/JCNS2013.1004.

• Yoshida, S.; Yagi, H. Long-Term Development of Urban Agriculture: Resilience and Sustainability of Farmers Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan. Sustainability 2021, 13, doi:10.3390/su13084316.

• Yuna, C.; Sarah, M.-A.; Arielle, C. From Short Food Supply Chains to Sustainable Agriculture in Urban Food Systems: Food Democracy as a Vector of Transition. Agric. 2016, 6, doi:10.3390/agriculture6040057.

• Zhang, X.; Qing, P.; Yu, X. Short Supply Chain Participation and Market Performance for Vegetable Farmers in China. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2019, 63, 282–306, doi:10.1111/1467-8489.12299.

• Zhang, X.; Yu, X. Short Supply Chain Participation, and Agrochemicals’ Use Intensity and Efficiency: Evidence from Vegetable Farms in China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2021, 13, 721–735, doi:10.1108/CAER-05-2020-0108.

• Zivkovic, L.; Pesic, M.B.; Schebesta, H.; Nedovic, V.A. Exploring Regulatory Obstacles to the Development of Short Food Supply Chains: Empirical Evidence from Selected European Countries. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, SI138–SI150, doi:10.7455/ijfs/11.SI.2022.a2.

• Zoll, F.; Specht, K.; Siebert, R. Alternative = Transformative? Investigating Drivers of Transformation in Alternative Food Networks in Germany. Sociol. Ruralis 2021, 61, 638–659, doi:10.1111/soru.12350.

Appendix B

Table A1

Bibliographic coupling (by authors)—results.

Author	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
Charatsari C.	3	72	299.53
Lioutas E.D.	3	72	299.53
Benedek Z.	4	41	214.06
Demartini E.	4	79	207.35
Gaviglio A.	4	79	207.35
Fertő I.	3	30	200.33
Elghannam A.	4	65	188.14
Mesias F.J.	4	65	188.14
Del Giudice T.	4	209	157.00
Aubert M.	3	27	154.35
Enjolras G.	3	27	154.35
Marescotti M.E.	3	43	148.60
Finco A.	3	201	137.05
Giampietri E.	3	201	137.05
Canavari M.	4	62	117.31
Mundler P.	3	94	92.00
Petropoulou E.	3	0	84.74
Hyland J.J.	3	26	76.84
Ruszkai C.	3	42	73.69
Fricz Á.S.	3	0	61.85
Kujáni K.	3	0	61.85
González-Azcárate M.	3	18	51.22
Aouinaït C.	3	0	48.71
Kizos T.	3	35	42.01
Maye D.	3	293	40.21
Colantuono F.	3	16	38.00
Delgrossi M.E.	3	28	21.96
Levidow L.	4	239	20.00
Lawrence G.	3	88	20.00
Kapała A.M.	3	3	3.00
Donati M.	3	121	271.85
Török Á.	6	145	261.38
Lecoeur J.-L.	3	133	231.24
Majewski E.	3	133	231.24
Malak-Rawlikowska A.	3	133	231.24
Tocco B.	3	133	231.24
Vittersø G.	3	133	231.24
Mancini M.C.	3	120	154.01
Migliore G.	7	156	455.08
Schifani G.	5	142	436.99
Crescimanno M.	4	19	330.96
Galati A.	4	19	330.96
Testa R.	4	90	305.77
Di Trapani A.M.	3	80	229.87

Table A2

Bibliographic coupling (by documents)—results.

Document	Citations	Total Link Strength
Mancini M.C. (2019)	31	44.00
Mundler P. (2016)	86	41.00
Tudisca S. (2014)	47	37.00
Tudisca S. (2015)	27	36.00
Lombardi A. (2015)	42	33.00
Migliore G. (2015)	84	31.00
D’Amico M. (2014b)	67	28.00
Malak-Rawlikowska A. (2019)	76	25.00
Vittersø G. (2019)	43	25.00
D’Amico M. (2014a)	27	22.00
Benedek Z. (2018)	20	19.00
Syrovátková M. (2015)	24	17.00
Mastronardi L. (2015)	37	16.00
Aubry C. (2013)	133	14.00
Bimbo F. (2015)	23	9.00
Thatcher J. (2008)	22	8.00
Jarzebowski S. (2020)	55	6.00
Carbone A. (2017)	35	4.00
Forssell S. (2015)	152	48.00
Bazzani C. (2013)	51	32.00
Ilbery B. (2005)	213	28.00
Ilbery B. (2004)	80	17.00
Renting H. (2003)	1008	14.00
Galli F. (2015)	51	13.00
Aguiar L.C. (2018)	23	13.00
Conner D.S. (2008)	25	10.00
Marsden T. (2000)	616	9.00
Friedmann H. (2007)	128	8.00
Gaviglio A. (2016)	30	8.00
Blanc J. (2009)	28	8.00
Dupré L. (2017)	20	7.00
Deselnicu O.C. (2013)	100	3.00
Padel S. (2005)	58	3.00
Guzmán G.I. (2013)	44	3.00
Herold P. (2010)	37	3.00
Chiffoleau Y. (2020)	35	52.00
Berti G. (2016)	152	40.00
Yuna C. (2016)	53	28.00
Chiffoleau Y. (2019)	35	27.00
Charatsari C. (2018)	20	26.00
Albrecht C. (2018)	27	22.00
Al Shamsi K.B. (2018)	27	13.00
Levidow L. (2014)	132	7.00
Ely A. (2016)	31	4.00
Levidow L. (2012)	94	2.00
Borsellino V. (2020)	45	58.00
Giampietri E. (2016)	61	37.00
Giampietri E. (2018)	119	23.00
Giampietri E. (2015)	21	23.00
Smith K. (2016)	54	11.00
Aggestam V. (2017)	31	11.00
Dos Santos M.J.P.L. (2016)	57	2.00
Lagerkvist C.J. (2013)	37	1.00
Nchanji E.B. (2021)	21	1.00
Todorovic V. (2018)	43	16.00
Schmutz U. (2018)	27	16.00
Elghannam A. (2017)	21	15.00
Elghannam A. (2020)	31	14.00
Matzembacher D.E. (2019)	31	14.00
Pölling B. (2017)	25	10.00
Barska A. (2020)	33	6.00
Pulighe G. (2020)	78	1.00
Thomé K.M. (2021)	29	52.00
Kiss K. (2019)	30	46.00
Lioutas E.D. (2020)	39	11.00
Butu A. (2020)	67	9.00
Barbosa M.W. (2021)	21	7.00
Filimonau V. (2021)	33	3.00
De Paulo Farias D. (2020)	29	3.00
Paciarotti C. (2021)	46	71.00
Sellitto M.A. (2018)	65	34.00
Nakandala D. (2019)	29	22.00
Tasca A.L. (2017)	73	7.00
Besik D. (2017)	29	7.00
Battini D. (2016)	36	6.00
Demartini E. (2017)	36	29.00
Annunziata A. (2018)	21	24.00
Wubben E.F.M. (2013)	23	19.00
Gruchmann T. (2019)	25	17.00
Lehtinen U. (2012)	65	9.00
Karg H. (2016)	36	5.00

Table A3

Co-authorship (by authors)—results.

Author	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
Kujáni K.	3	107	3.00
Fricz Á.S.	3	0	3.00
Reipurth M.	2	13	2.00
Alfaro B.	2	0	2.00
Chang B.P.I.	2	0	2.00
Cruz E.S.	2	0	2.00
Gawlik D.	2	0	2.00
Hegyi A.	2	0	2.00
Hieke S.	2	0	2.00
Hüttl-Maack V.	2	0	2.00
Massri C.	2	0	2.00
Lameris M.	2	16	1.00
Braun S.	2	0	1.00
Petropoulou E.	3	13	3.00
Theodorakopoulou I.	2	90	2.00
Xhakollari V.	2	33	2.00
Antonelli A.	2	0	2.00
Benos T.	2	0	2.00
Castellini A.	2	0	2.00
Iliopoulos C.	2	0	2.00
Petruzzella D.	2	0	2.00
Aouinaït C.	3	0	3.00
Massar B.	2	1624	2.00
Carlen C.	2	0	2.00
Christen D.	2	0	2.00
Frederiks M.	2	0	2.00
Canavari M.	4	62	3.00
Vilalta-Perdomo E.L.	2	161	2.00
Michel-Villarreal R.	2	65	2.00
Hingley M.	2	16	2.00

Table A4

Co-authorship (by countries)—results.

Country	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
Italy	88	1737	19.00
Hungary	29	309	10.00
France	29	592	9.00
Belgium	10	203	8.00
Poland	15	252	7.00
Norway	4	148	3.00
Ireland	4	26	3.00
Vietnam	3	84	2.00
Finland	4	239	1.00
United Kingdom	35	2860	21.00
Netherlands	17	1086	12.00
United States	22	320	6.00
Austria	6	96	4.00
Serbia	3	43	2.00
India	3	15	2.00
Portugal	9	92	4.00
Czech Republic	3	32	2.00
Romania	7	90	1.00
Slovakia	3	9	1.00
Spain	35	345	16.00
Egypt	5	65	5.00
Mexico	4	16	3.00
Colombia	4	16	2.00
Germany	19	186	12.00
China	6	56	4.00
Croatia	3	40	1.00
Switzerland	6	15	6.00
Greece	10	115	3.00
Brazil	15	196	2.00
Australia	8	129	3.00
Canada	14	422	2.00

Table A5

Co-citation (by cited sources)—results.

Source	Citations	Total Link Strength
British Food Journal	287	256.42
Food Policy	240	219.85
Renewable Agriculture And Food Systems	173	164.34
Food Quality and Preference	155	142.62
American Journal of Agricultural Economics	111	103.82
Appetite	108	101.39
International Journal of Consumer Studies	91	87.84
Agriculture	76	73.69
Journal of Food Distribution Research	77	72.40
Agribusiness	74	70.97
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review	69	67.59
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics	66	64.28
Agricultural Economics	63	61.04
New Medit	63	59.20
Quality—Access to Success	74	52.83
Agricultural and Food Economics	52	49.58
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture	45	43.94
Economia Agro-Alimentare	41	39.72
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review	38	36.97
Journal of Food Products Marketing	37	36.65
Studies in Agricultural Economics	33	31.67
Journal of Agricultural Economics	32	31.34
European Review of Agricultural Economics	33	31.07
Italian Journal of Food Science	30	29.82
Food Control	33	29.78
Sustainability	566	475.61
Journal of Cleaner Production	290	256.03
Agricultural Systems	85	80.13
Ecological Economics	63	61.81
Trends in Food Science and Technology	62	57.95
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems	54	49.49
Journal of Peasant Studies	49	47.26
Journal of Environmental Management	48	46.87
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment	57	43.20
Agronomy For Sustainable Development	46	43.00
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health	43	37.97
World Development	40	37.33
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics	40	36.46
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture	33	32.86
Global Food Security	34	32.67
Ecology and Society	32	31.25
Science	32	30.50
Resources, Conservation and Recycling	33	30.33
Research Policy	33	30.25
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment	31	29.84
Technological Forecasting and Social Change	31	29.39
Science of the Total Environment	30	29.13
Journal of Rural Studies	855	696.54
Sociologia Ruralis	467	404.09
Agriculture and Human Values	387	345.65
Environment and Planning A	251	241.93
Land Use Policy	155	142.23
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development	93	84.70
Geoforum	76	74.46
Local Environment	75	73.41
International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food	73	69.33
Progess in Human Geography	70	67.34
Economic Geography	49	48.76
Journal Of Economic Geography	32	31.96
European Urban and Regional Studies	33	31.51
International Planning Studies	33	29.72
Community Development	35	25.76
International Journal of Production Economics	79	73.04
Supply Chain Management	62	56.70
Agriculture And Agricultural Science Procedia	50	48.08
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management	49	43.74
Sustainable Production and Consumption	38	37.09
International Journal of Production Research	33	31.15
International Journal of Operations and Production Management	34	31.01
European Journal of Operational Research	37	29.84

Table A6

Co-occurrence (by author keywords)—results.

Keyword	Occurrences	Total Link Strength
trust	5	5.00
agroecology	7	4.00
organic farming	6	4.00
social innovation	5	4.00
logistics	4	4.00
urban agriculture	5	3.00
urban food systems	4	3.00
family farming	4	2.00
indicators	4	2.00
transitions	4	2.00
local foods	30	21.00
farmers’ markets	18	13.00
consumer behavior	10	9.00
food systems	8	8.00
organic food	6	5.00
life cycle assessment	6	2.00
sustainable development	5	2.00
environmental impacts	4	2.00
local food systems	24	21.00
rural development	12	5.00
consumer attitudes	5	4.00
food hubs	5	4.00
theory of planned behavior	6	3.00
local products	5	2.00
COVID-19 pandemic	17	13.00
food security	15	12.00
resilience	8	8.00
governance	5	4.00
food policies	4	3.00
food	4	2.00
alternative food networks	37	31.00
sustainability	33	24.00
local	5	4.00
territory	4	4.00
innovation	4	3.00
information and communication technology	4	2.00
food supply chains	30	14.00
community supported agriculture	8	7.00
direct marketing	5	4.00
quality	4	3.00
consumers	11	11.00
farmers	9	8.00
direct sales	11	5.00
small and medium enterprises	4	3.00

Table A7

Text data (title and abstract fields)—results.

Term	Occurrences	Relevance Score
short food supply chain	178	2.0314
actor	45	1.9193
community	44	1.3276
alternative food network	29	1.3009
chain	79	1.1073
initiative	40	0.9982
sustainability	82	0.8758
agriculture	55	0.8599
development	110	0.7902
practice	62	0.7667
network	59	0.7579
food system	79	0.6734
system	81	0.6473
role	76	0.6174
process	48	0.3492
short supply chain	86	1.6539
farm	58	1.3312
producer	125	1.3113
intermediary	26	1.2354
local food	27	1.2021
consumer	155	1.1840
product	123	1.0997
farmer	127	1.0936
supply chain	75	0.9778
market	106	0.9758
demand	40	0.8804
relationship	55	0.7428
value	88	0.7067
quality	56	0.6732
production	74	0.6499
COVID-19 pandemic	30	2.4711
consumption	42	1.2554
impact	74	1.0536
food	104	0.9499
food supply chain	63	0.9094
strategy	61	0.8347
food production	33	0.8054
challenge	44	0.7847
distribution	33	0.7066
benefit	52	0.5100
opportunity	41	0.5096
need	41	0.4691

References

1. Arru, B.; Furesi, R.; Madau, F.A.; Pulina, P. “Value Portfolio”, Value Creation and Multifunctionality: The Case Study of an Italian Wine Agritourism Farm. Aestimum; 2019; 75, pp. 163-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13128/aestim-8149]

2. Bonfert, B. Community-Supported Agriculture Networks in Wales and Central Germany: Scaling Up, Out, and Deep through Local Collaboration. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 7419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14127419]

3. Matzembacher, D.E.; Meira, F.B. Sustainability as Business Strategy in Community Supported Agriculture: Social, Environmental and Economic Benefits for Producers and Consumers. Br. Food J.; 2019; 121, pp. 616-632. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2018-0207]

4. Clark, J.P.; Busch, J.V. The Economic Benefit of a Shortened Supply Chain, a Case Study Involving Molded Composite Parts. SAE Tech. Pap.; 2002; 111, pp. 902-908. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2002-01-2041]

5. Aggestam, V.; Fleiß, E.; Posch, A. Scaling-up Short Food Supply Chains? A Survey Study on the Drivers behind the Intention of Food Producers. J. Rural. Stud.; 2017; 51, pp. 64-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.003]

6. Baldi, L.; Bertoni, D.; Migliore, G.; Peri, M. How Alternative Food Networks Work in a Metropolitan Area? An Analysis of Solidarity Purchase Groups in Northern Italy. Agric. Food Econ.; 2019; 7, 20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0139-3]

7. Barbosa, M.W. Uncovering Research Streams on Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Bibliometric Study. Glob. Food Secur.; 2021; 28, 100517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100517]

8. United Nations. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. Proceedings of the Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; New York, NY, USA, 25–27 September 2015.

9. Elghannam, A.; Mesias, F.J.; Escribano, M.; Fouad, L.; Horrillo, A.; Escribano, A.J. Consumers’ Perspectives on Alternative Short Food Supply Chains Based on Social Media: A Focus Group Study in Spain. Foods; 2020; 9, 22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9010022]

10. Craveiro, D.; Marques, S.; Marreiros, A.; Bell, R.; Khan, M.; Godinho, C.; Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C. Equity, Health, and Sustainability with Prove: The Evaluation of a Portuguese Program for a Short Distance Supply Chain of Fruits and Vegetables. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 5083. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245083] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31842456]

11. Régnier, F.; Dalstein, A.-L.; Rouballay, C.; Chauvel, L. Eating in Season—A Lever of Sustainability? An Interview Study on the Social Perception of Seasonal Consumption. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 5379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14095379]

12. Ali, A.; Xia, C.; Ouattara, N.B.; Mahmood, I.; Faisal, M. Economic and Environmental Consequences’ of Postharvest Loss across Food Supply Chain in the Developing Countries. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 323, 129146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129146]

13. Bazzani, C.; Canavari, M. Alternative Agri-Food Networks and Short Food Supply Chains: A Review of the Literature. Econ. Agro-Aliment.; 2013; 15, pp. 11-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2013-002002]

14. Fabbrizzi, S.; Menghini, S.; Marinelli, N. The Short Food Supply Chain: A Concrete Example of Sustainability. A Literature Review. Riv. Studi Sulla Sostenibilità; 2014; 2, pp. 189-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3280/RISS2014-002012]

15. Sacchi, G.; Cei, L.; Stefani, G.; Lombardi, G.V.; Rocchi, B.; Belletti, G.; Padel, S.; Sellars, A.; Gagliardi, E.; Nocella, G. et al. A Multi-Actor Literature Review on Alternative and Sustainable Food Systems for the Promotion of Cereal Biodiversity. Agriculture; 2018; 8, 173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8110173]

16. Chiffoleau, Y.; Dourian, T. Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Is Shortening the Answer? A Literature Review for a Research and Innovation Agenda. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 9831. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12239831]

17. Enthoven, L.; Van den Broeck, G. Local Food Systems: Reviewing Two Decades of Research. Agric. Syst.; 2021; 193, 103226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103226]

18. Paciarotti, C.; Torregiani, F. The Logistics of the Short Food Supply Chain: A Literature Review. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2021; 26, pp. 428-442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.002]

19. Arthur, H.; Sanderson, D.; Tranter, P.; Thornton, A. A Review of Theoretical Frameworks of Food System Governance, and the Search for Food System Sustainability. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2022; 46, pp. 1277-1300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2022.2104422]

20. Bayir, B.; Charles, A.; Sekhari, A.; Ouzrout, Y. Issues and Challenges in Short Food Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 3029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14053029]

21. Morkūnas, M.; Rudienė, E.; Ostenda, A. Can Climate-Smart Agriculture Help to Assure Food Security through Short Supply Chains? A Systematic Bibliometric and Bibliographic Literature Review. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng.; 2022; 20, pp. 207-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2022.17101]

22. Widodo, K.H.; Purwaditya, A.K.; Soemardjito, J. Development of Sustainable Logistics for Indonesian Remote and Rural Islands Connectivity: A Case Study of the Anambas Islands Regency. Indones. J. Geogr.; 2021; 53, pp. 118-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22146/ijg.57722]

23. Teniwut, W.A.; Hamid, S.K.; Makailipessy, M.M. Mitigation Strategy on the Uncertainty Supply Chain of the Fisheries Sector in Small Islands, Indonesia. Uncertain Supply Chain. Manag.; 2020; 8, pp. 705-712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2020.8.002]

24. Sanfiel-Fumero, M.Á.; Armas-Cruz, Y.; González-Morales, O. Sustainability of the Tourist Supply Chain and Governance in an Insular Biosphere Reserve Destination: The Perspective of Tourist Accommodation. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2017; 25, pp. 1256-1274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1319466]

25. Rampengan, M.M.F.; Law, L.; Gaillard, J.C.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Sayer, J. Engaging Communities in Managing Multiple Hazards: Reflections from Small Islands in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr.; 2016; 37, pp. 249-267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12148]

26. Matheson, K. Small Islands, Resilience and Social Control: How the Falkland Islands Handled COVID-19. Round Table; 2022; 111, pp. 104-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2022.2036027]

27. Calderwood, E.; Freathy, P. Challenges in the Supply of Perishable Products to Island Communities. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res.; 2011; 21, pp. 145-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2011.562679]

28. Papapostolou, C.M.; Kondili, E.M.; Zafirakis, D.P.; Tzanes, G.T. Sustainable Water Supply Systems for the Islands: The Integration with the Energy Problem. Renew. Energy; 2020; 146, pp. 2577-2588. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.130]

29. Jung, H.; Kim, J. Drone Scheduling Model for Delivering Small Parcels to Remote Islands Considering Wind Direction and Speed. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2022; 163, 107784. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107784]

30. De Bernardi, P.; Azucar, D.; Forliano, C.; Franco, M. Innovative and Sustainable Food Business Models. Innovation in Food Ecosystems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 189-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33502-1_7] ISBN 9783030335014

31. Giuca, S.; De Leo, S. A Social Network Linking Rural and Peri-Urban Agricultural Production to the City of Rome: A Case Study. Econ. Agro-Aliment.; 2019; 21, pp. 507-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2019-002016]

32. Cicatiello, C. Alternative Food Shoppers and the “Quantity Dilemma”: A Study on the Determinants of Their Purchases at Alternative Markets. Agric. Food Econ.; 2020; 8, 15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00160-6]

33. Jarzebowski, S.; Bourlakis, M.; Bezat-Jarzebowska, A. Short Food Supply Chains (SFSC) as Local and Sustainable Systems. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 4715. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12114715]

34. Yuna, C.; Sarah, M.-A.; Arielle, C. From Short Food Supply Chains to Sustainable Agriculture in Urban Food Systems: Food Democracy as a Vector of Transition. Agriculture; 2016; 6, 57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6040057]

35. Corsi, S.; Mazzocchi, C. Alternative Food Networks (AFNs): Determinants for Consumer and Farmer Participation in Lombardy, Italy. Agric. Econ.; 2019; 65, pp. 259-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17221/230/2018-AGRICECON]

36. Bakos, I.M.; Khademi-Vidraa, A. Empirical Experiences of the Hungarian Alternative Food Buying Communities. Deturope; 2019; 11, pp. 55-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32725/det.2019.004]

37. Schmutz, U.; Kneafsey, M.; Kay, C.S.; Doernberg, A.; Zasada, I. Sustainability Impact Assessments of Different Urban Short Food Supply Chains: Examples from London, UK. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.; 2018; 33, pp. 518-529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000564]

38. Poças Ribeiro, A.; Harmsen, R.; Feola, G.; Rosales Carréon, J.; Worrell, E. Organising Alternative Food Networks (AFNs): Challenges and Facilitating Conditions of Different AFN Types in Three EU Countries. Sociol. Rural.; 2021; 61, pp. 491-517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12331]

39. Carbone, A. Food Supply Chains: Coordination Governance and Other Shaping Forces. Agric. Food Econ.; 2017; 5, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40100-017-0071-3]

40. Aiello, G.; Giovino, I.; Vallone, M.; Catania, P. A Multi Objective Approach to Short Food Supply Chain Anagement. Chem. Eng. Trans.; 2017; 58, pp. 313-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1758053]

41. Koutsou, S.; Sergaki, P. Producers’ Cooperative Products in Short Food Supply Chains: Consumers’ Response. Br. Food J.; 2020; 122, pp. 198-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2018-0297]

42. Albrecht, C.; Smithers, J. Reconnecting through Local Food Initiatives?. Purpose, Practice and Conceptions of ‘Value.’ Agric. Hum. Values; 2018; 35, pp. 67-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9797-5]

43. Marsden, T.; Banks, J.; Bristow, G. Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring Their Role in Rural Development. Sociol. Rural.; 2000; 40, pp. 424-438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00158]

44. Renting, H.; Marsden, T.K.; Banks, J. Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural Development. Environ. Plan. A; 2003; 35, pp. 393-411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a3510]

45. Charatsari, C.; Kitsios, F.; Lioutas, E.D. Short Food Supply Chains: The Link between Participation and Farmers’ Competencies. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.; 2020; 35, pp. 643-652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000309]

46. Le Velly, R.; Goulet, F.; Vinck, D. Allowing for Detachment Processes in Market Innovation. The Case of Short Food Supply Chains. Consum. Mark. Cult.; 2021; 24, pp. 313-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2020.1807342]

47. Berti, G.; Mulligan, C. Competitiveness of Small Farms and Innovative Food Supply Chains: The Role of Food Hubs in Creating Sustainable Regional and Local Food Systems. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 616. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8070616]

48. EUR-Lex—02013R1305-20180101—EN—EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1305/2018-01-01 (accessed on 9 August 2022).

49. EUR-Lex—32014R0807—EN—EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2014/807/oj (accessed on 9 September 2022).

50. Wang, M.; Kumar, V.; Ruan, X.; Saad, M.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, A. Sustainability Concerns on Consumers’ Attitude towards Short Food Supply Chains: An Empirical Investigation. Oper. Manag. Res.; 2022; 15, pp. 76-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00188-x]

51. Cruz, J.L.; Puigdueta, I.; Sanz-Cobeña, A.; González-Azcárate, M. Short Food Supply Chains: Rebuilding Consumers’ Trust. New Medit; 2021; 20, pp. 33-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30682/NM2104C]

52. Bimbo, F.; Bonanno, A.; Nardone, G.; Viscecchia, R. The Hidden Benefits of Short Food Supply Chains: Farmers’ Markets Density and Body Mass Index in Italy. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev.; 2015; 18, pp. 1-16.

53. Aubry, C.; Kebir, L. Shortening Food Supply Chains: A Means for Maintaining Agriculture Close to Urban Areas? The Case of the French Metropolitan Area of Paris. Food Policy; 2013; 41, pp. 85-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.04.006]

54. Horská, E.; Petriľák, M.; Šedík, P.; Nagyová, Ľ. Factors Influencing the Sale of Local Products through Short Supply Chains: A Case of Family Dairy Farms in Slovakia. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12208499]

55. Vittersø, G.; Torjusen, H.; Laitala, K.; Tocco, B.; Biasini, B.; Csillag, P.; de Labarre, M.D.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Maj, A.; Majewski, E. et al. Short Food Supply Chains and Their Contributions to Sustainability: Participants’ Views and Perceptions from 12 European Cases. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 4800. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11174800]

56. Wubben, E.F.M.; Fondse, M.; Pascucci, S. The Importance of Stakeholder-Initiatives for Business Models in Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of the Netherlands. J. Chain. Netw. Sci.; 2013; 13, pp. 139-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2013.1004]

57. Kiss, K.; Ruszkai, C.; Szucs, A.; Koncz, G. Examining the Role of Local Products in Rural Development in the Light of Consumer Preferences-Results of a Consumer Survey from Hungary. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 5473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12135473]

58. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Citation-Based Clustering of Publications Using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics; 2017; 111, pp. 1053-1070. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28490825]

59. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics; 2010; 84, pp. 523-538. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3]

60. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Text Mining and Visualization Using VOSviewer. arXiv; 2011; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1109.2058] arXiv: 1109.2058

61. Mancini, M.C.; Menozzi, D.; Donati, M.; Biasini, B.; Veneziani, M.; Arfini, F. Producers’ and Consumers’ Perception of the Sustainability of Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of Parmigiano Reggiano PDO. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 721. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11030721]

62. Forssell, S.; Lankoski, L. The Sustainability Promise of Alternative Food Networks: An Examination through “Alternative” Characteristics. Agric. Hum. Values; 2015; 32, pp. 63-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9516-4]

63. Borsellino, V.; Schimmenti, E.; El Bilali, H. Agri-Food Markets towards Sustainable Patterns. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12062193]

64. Todorovic, V.; Maslaric, M.; Bojic, S.; Jokic, M.; Mircetic, D.; Nikolicic, S. Solutions for More Sustainable Distribution in the Short Food Supply Chains. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 3481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10103481]

65. Thomé, K.M.; Cappellesso, G.; Ramos, E.L.A.; Duarte, S.C.D.L. Food Supply Chains and Short Food Supply Chains: Coexistence Conceptual Framework. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 278, 123207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123207]

66. Demartini, E.; Gaviglio, A.; Pirani, A. Farmers’ Motivation and Perceived Effects of Participating in Short Food Supply Chains: Evidence from a North Italian Survey. Agric. Econ.; 2017; 63, pp. 204-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17221/323/2015-AGRICECON]

67. Armesto-López, X.A.; Gómez-Martín, M.B.; Cors-Iglesias, M.; Martínez-Ibarra, E. Short Food Supply Chains in Barcelona’s Markets. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.; 2020; 243, pp. 15-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2495/UA200021]

68. Dubois, A. Translocal Practices and Proximities in Short Quality Food Chains at the Periphery: The Case of North Swedish Farmers. Agric. Hum. Values; 2019; 36, pp. 763-778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09953-y]

69. Raftowicz, M.; Kalisiak-Medelska, M.; Struś, M. Redefining the Supply Chain Model on the Milicz Carp Market. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2934. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12072934]

70. Lanfranchi, M.; Giannetto, C. A Case Study on the Role of Farmers’ Markets in the Process of Shortening the Food Chain and the Possible Economic Benefits for Consumers. Qual. Access Success; 2015; 16, pp. 94-98.

71. Chiffoleau, Y.; Millet-Amrani, S.; Rossi, A.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G.; Merino, P.L. The Participatory Construction of New Economic Models in Short Food Supply Chains. J. Rural. Stud.; 2019; 68, pp. 182-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.01.019]

72. Azima, S.; Mundler, P. Does Direct Farm Marketing Fulfill Its Promises? Analyzing Job Satisfaction among Direct-Market Farmers in Canada. Agric. Hum. Values; 2022; 39, pp. 791-807. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10289-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35600981]

73. Bertram, D.; Chilla, T.; Wilhelm, C. Short Value Chains in Food Production: The Role of Spatial Proximity for Economic and Land Use Dynamics. Land; 2021; 10, 979. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10090979]

74. Harrison, B.; Foley, C.; Edwards, D.; Donaghy, G. Outcomes and Challenges of an International Convention Centre’s Local Procurement Strategy. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 75, pp. 328-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.05.004]

75. Tundys, B.; Wiśniewski, T. Benefit Optimization of Short Food Supply Chains for Organic Products: A Simulation-Based Approach. Appl. Sci.; 2020; 10, 2783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10082783]

76. Sellitto, M.A.; Vial, L.A.M.; Viegas, C.V. Critical Success Factors in Short Food Supply Chains: Case Studies with Milk and Dairy Producers from Italy and Brazil. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 170, pp. 1361-1368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.235]

77. Delicato, C.; Collison, M.; Myronyuk, I.; Symochko, T.; Boyko, N. Is Local Better? Consumer Value in Food Purchasing and the Role of Short Food Supply Chains. Stud. Agric. Econ.; 2019; 121, pp. 75-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7896/j.1906]

78. Hoang, V. Modern Short Food Supply Chain, Good Agricultural Practices, and Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and Case Study in Vietnam. Agronomy; 2021; 11, 2408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122408]

79. Luo, J.; Liang, Y.; Bai, Y. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Short Food Supply Chains Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Br. Food J.; 2021; 124, pp. 2833-2856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0465]

80. Pereira, Á.; Villanueva-Rey, P.; Vence, X.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijóo, G. Fresh Milk Supply through Vending Machines: Consumption Patterns and Associated Environmental Impacts. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2018; 15, pp. 119-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.05.003]

81. Testa, R.; Galati, A.; Schifani, G.; Crescimanno, M.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Migliore, G. Are Alternative Food Networks Winning Strategies to Increase Organic SMEs Profitability? Evidence from a Case Study. Int. J. Glob. Small Bus.; 2020; 11, pp. 65-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2020.105583]

82. Napoli, G.; Polimeni, A.; Micari, S.; Dispenza, G.; Antonucci, V.; Andaloro, L. Freight Distribution with Electric Vehicles: A Case Study in Sicily. Delivery van Development. Transp. Eng.; 2021; 3, 100048. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.treng.2021.100048]

83. Mazzarino, M.; Rubini, L. Smart Urban Planning: Evaluating Urban Logistics Performance of Innovative Solutions and Sustainable Policies in the Venice Lagoon-The Results of a Case Study. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 4580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11174580]

84. Orlando, F.; Spigarolo, R.; Alali, S.; Bocchi, S. The Role of Public Mass Catering in Local Foodshed Governance toward Self-Reliance of Metropolitan Regions. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2019; 44, pp. 152-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.013]

85. Michel-Villarreal, R.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.L.; Canavari, M.; Hingley, M. Resilience and Digitalization in Short Food Supply Chains: A Case Study Approach. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 5913. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13115913]

86. Giampietri, E.; Verneau, F.; Del Giudice, T.; Carfora, V.; Finco, A. A Theory of Planned Behaviour Perspective for Investigating the Role of Trust in Consumer Purchasing Decision Related to Short Food Supply Chains. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2018; 64, pp. 160-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.09.012]

87. Trivellas, P.; Anastasopoulou, A.; Malindretos, G.; Reklitis, P.; Sakas, D.P. A Place Based Analysis of Stakeholders’ Advancing Sustainability in Remote and Isolated Communities: The Case of North Aegean Islands. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2021; 899, 012044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/899/1/012044]