Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

SustainabilitySustainability
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

7 December 2025

18 Pages

The Contribution of Regional Products to Short Agri-Food Supply Chains

,
,
,
and
1
Department of Economics, Koszalin University of Technology, 75-343 Koszalin, Poland
2
Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2025, 17(24), 10934;https://doi.org/10.3390/su172410934
This article belongs to the Special Issue Food, Supply Chains, and Sustainable Development—Second Edition
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Short food supply chains are a typical solution for traditional food distribution systems. Geographic proximity is a key determinant of both short supply chains and regional products. Regional foods are linked to a place, both through the origin of raw materials and through their ties to traditions. The aim of the study is to identify the key features of farmers–regional food producers building short food supply chains. The research material comes from surveys conducted in July 2024. The research covered farmers–small producers of regional food in Poland. 252 questionnaires were selected for the presented research. The respondents were divided into two groups: farmers who sold only directly and farmers who used sales intermediaries. Research shows that direct sales dominate among farmers and producers of regional food in Poland. Factors of particular importance in building short regional food supply chains include connections to recipes and family traditions, in terms of knowledge and practical skills. Given the numerous advantages of short regional food supply chains, this activity is worth supporting. Institutional support should encompass not only financial assistance but also organizational support to help connect producers with consumers. Promotional activities highlighting regional food and its producers could be another pillar of support.

1. Introduction

Regional food includes products associated with a region, its culture, and its history, characterized by originality, traditional recipes, and availability primarily within the region. It is typically prepared using ingredients specific to the region [1]. Regional food has many advantages, resulting from the combination of unique characteristics of high-quality regional raw materials, a simple (in the modern sense) production process, and a specific place of origin. Regional food production is associated with sustainable, environmentally friendly practices [2,3,4]. It is also a response to the growing awareness of modern consumers who want not only to eat healthily but also to reduce anthropogenic pressure on nature [5,6]. This also applies to the food distribution system. Sales of regional products are primarily concentrated in the production region [7,8]. Therefore, regional product supply systems help shorten food supply chains [9]. Short food supply chains are a solution within traditional food distribution systems, rather than mass food distribution channels [10,11,12]. Short food supply chains are considered environmentally friendly and are also called alternative, sustainable, and local [9,13,14]. This is due, among other things, to the shorter distance and time products travel, as well as the possibility of direct contact between the producer and the consumer, assuming no intermediaries or a minimum number of them [10,11,15].
For both short supply chains and regional products, geographical proximity is a key factor [16,17,18,19]. Regional food is strongly linked to place, not only in terms of the origin of raw materials, but also through its cultural identity and production traditions [4,19,20]. Regional food producers are essentially family businesses, where knowledge and skills are passed down from generation to generation. Family tradition is one of the pillars of this business [21,22,23]. Moreover, regional food producers are primarily small enterprises and farms that are the main links in regional and local agri-food networks [24]. These entities naturally engage in short food supply chains, among other reasons, due to the small-scale nature of production and its regional character [12,25,26,27,28]. It should be emphasized that such enterprises and farms usually have few resources and employ a small number of workers [29]. The primary source of financing for small businesses and farms is the savings of their owners and families. The primary form of financial support for development is reinvesting profits [30,31]. Hence, access to external financing is essential for expanding business activity [28,32,33].
The literature identifies numerous research gaps in both regional food and short food supply chains. The importance of results that support not only science but also practice in the sustainable development of the agri-food system is emphasized. Theoretical conclusions can become the basis for actions undertaken by social food movements and entrepreneurs focused on building a sustainable agri-food system [34]. Hence, further research in this area is needed, especially given a gap in identifying the characteristics, needs, motivations and constraints of local food system actors. This would allow for better design of effective logistics solutions in the short food supply chain and also provide decision-making knowledge for authorities, planners and politicians [6,35,36,37]. Particularly as the need to transition to more sustainable food systems has been recognized at the political level. Local authorities have begun to show increasing interest in alternative food systems as a tool to support the local economy and foster sustainable local development [38]. Further research is needed on the characteristics of short supply chains, particularly focusing on small, often family-owned farms. The characteristics of short supply chains are linked to development and tend to stimulate local economies and increase producer autonomy [17]. A more detailed and comprehensive vision of short supply chains and their stakeholders is needed. It is particularly important to identify the key success factors for short food supply chains [12]. Another gap concerns quantitative research. These studies provide statistical evidence based on surveys or secondary data. They are an important complement to the conceptual research and case studies that have so far dominated the field of agri-food supply chains [39]. Mustapa and Kallas [40] emphasize the need for further research on the effectiveness and scalability of short food supply chains in different economic and social contexts, especially considering the strong link between short food supply chains and cultural identity.
Taking into account research gaps, the study aims to identify the key features of farmers–regional food producers building short food supply chains. Answers to two fundamental research questions were sought:
Q1. What forms of sales dominate among farmers–producers of regional food?
Q2. What are the differences between farmers–producers of regional food who do not use sales intermediaries and those who use sales intermediaries?
Answers to these questions helped identify factors specific to short regional food supply chains. Basic business characteristics and resource sources (raw materials, finances, infrastructure, knowledge, and practical skills) were analyzed. Research features were categorized as very highly significant, highly significant, significant, and irrelevant. Based on this knowledge, theoretical, managerial and political implications have been formulated. Theoretical implications include contributions to the development of the concept of short food supply chains. Managerial and policy implications relate to the need to support the activities of farmers–producers of regional food in the field of short supply chains.
The article is structured as follows: Section 2 provides the theoretical background and research hypotheses. Section 3 addresses the study context. Section 4 presents the research methods and sources of materials. Section 5 presents the results, broken down by respondent characteristics and statistical comparison of the studied respondent groups. Section 6 contains a discussion of the results. Section 7 presents the conclusions.

2. Hypotheses Development

Mass food production is contributing to the growing importance of high-quality food and food safety. Consequently, consumers are increasingly seeking food products that meet these requirements. Regional products are an ideal counterbalance, providing a good alternative to mass food production [41]. The special importance of regional food results from the close connection with the place of production, the socio-cultural conditions of a given region [42], or the production tradition passed down from generation to generation [43]. Currently, both producers and consumers are showing increasing interest in this type of product [44]. This is often the result of a relatively high willingness to pay for authentic and natural products [45,46].
In scientific studies, regional products are most often described as products closely linked to a specific geographic region [44,47,48,49]. According to Arenas-Gaitán et al. [50], in the United States, regional products are those produced within 400 miles. In European conditions, a product is considered regional if it is produced, processed, and sold within a radius of 20 to 100 km. This means the definition is based on the distance products must travel to reach the customer. In addition to their geographical location, a characteristic feature of regional products is their higher price compared to conventional products. However, it is worth emphasizing that their relatively high purchase cost is also associated with their high quality and natural production methods. This makes customers willing to pay a higher price, ensuring the quality of the product they purchase [51]. To clearly identify these types of products, the European Union has established a system of geographical indications, designations of origin, and traditional specialties guaranteed [52].
Regional food is often associated with various arguments supporting its benefits. These include greater energy or transport efficiency [53,54,55] or supporting local economies [41,51]. This is also reflected in the definition presented by Feenstra [56], which indicates that regional food is a collaborative effort to build more locally based, self-reliant food economies, in which sustainable food production, processing, distribution, and consumption are integrated to enhance the economic, environmental and social health of a particular place”. Additionally, Barlagne et al. [57] and Hashem et al. [58] state that the development of regional food markets supports the overall food system’s sustainability. Research by Haid et al. [45] on regional products showed that they are closely linked to sustainable development. This is a decisive factor in regional product purchasing decisions. The literature also highlights another role of regional food, which is crucial to the research being conducted. Namely, it supports the development of relationships between producers and consumers [43]. Kneafsey et al. [59] indicate that these foods are “commodities that are produced and processed within a defined geographic area in which the distribution chain will be short between producer and consumer”. Production scale is often limited, which helps maintain high quality but limits the ability to achieve a cost advantage. Consequently, distribution often occurs through short supply chains [60,61]. Short supply chains for regional food significantly strengthen the producer–consumer relationship and allow for maintaining relatively high prices for sold products [43].
The concept of SFSC was first proposed by Marsden et al. [62] and later by Renting et al. [63]. It is a specific model within the alternative food networks family of models. Marsden et al. [62] characterize SFSCs by focusing on their role in “shifting the production of food commodities out of their ‘industrial mode’ and potentially ‘short-circuiting’ the long, complex and rationally organized industrial chains within which a decreasing proportion of total added value in food production is captured by primary producers”. Among recent definitions found in the literature, the following one is considered comprehensive, as it encompasses the key features of SFSC. It was proposed by Michel-Villarreal et al. [64], based on the supply chain definition presented by Christopher [65]: “short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) are networks of connected and interdependent actors mutually and cooperatively working together to control, manage and improve the flows of information-embedded products, services, resources, and/or information, from farm to fork, seeking a reduction in intermediaries and physical distance between producers and consumers” [62].
Therefore, the main assumption of short supply chains is to organize food production and distribution to minimize the number of intermediaries between producers and consumers. These chains include only a limited number of entities involved in cooperation, support local development, and maintain relations between producers and consumers [66]. In the literature, in addition to the so-called “social or logistical proximity,” manifested primarily by the number of intermediaries in the food chain, another criterion for classifying short food supply chains is the distance between the place of production and the place of sale (geographical proximity) [11]. Some authors add a social aspect to the definition of short supply chains, emphasizing communication between producers and consumers, which enables control over the information provided to final consumers and the receipt of consumer feedback [67,68,69]. It is closely associated with the so-called informational proximity, which refers to the consumer’s possession of information regarding the food itself, as well as its place and method of production [70]. According to Dupé et al. [71], the closer tie between the producer and the consumer is the main factor influencing the farmer’s satisfaction with the work performed. It may be a motivation for those considering distributing their products through a short food supply chain.
Interest in short supply chains is growing rapidly, especially given their significant role in creating more sustainable food chains. Sometimes they are even considered a panacea for revitalizing rural economies [72,73]. In the European Union, they are considered a key pillar of the “farm to fork” strategy for transitioning to a more sustainable food system [74]. The widespread promotion of short food supply chains stems from their positive impact on sustainable development in the social, economic, and environmental dimensions [75].
Short supply chains often involve small and medium-sized enterprises, which are less competitive in conventional supply chains. They experience higher unit costs and are unable to achieve economies of scale. Participation in short food supply chains is an opportunity for these entities to increase profitability and survive in the market, as well as to utilize their potential [11,46] fully. This stems from the fact that food distributed through these types of sales channels (often regional or organic) is usually very high-quality, commanding higher prices than would be the case through conventional sales [76,77].
Short supply chains may also help reduce negative environmental impacts. Fragomeli et al. [78] indicate that they contribute to reducing energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon footprint. The authors emphasize that short food supply chains reduce resource consumption and food waste. They promote less polluting production methods and shorter transport distances. It is worth emphasizing, however, that short food supply chains have significant potential, but they do not guarantee sustainable development [79]. On the contrary, the literature contains opinions that frequent deliveries of relatively small amounts of food may also hurt the environment [80,81] or, as indicated by Bloemhof et al. [82], that adverse environmental effects occur but are not as significant.
In turn, the social dimension of sustainable development is among the basic and most important benefits of short food supply chains [59]. Malak-Rawlikowska et al. [11] even write that there is strong evidence of growing social recognition for short food supply chains. They significantly strengthen bonds and direct relationships between producers and consumers, build trust, and stimulate a sense of community among local communities. Research shows that direct relationships with producers strengthen producers’ positions in the supply chain and contribute to the development of rural areas [77].
The development of local markets based on short supply chain solutions involves the implementation of innovative organizational and logistical solutions that will increase the importance of local markets in terms of the number of participating producers and consumers, the diversity of the product range offered, the sales volume, and the dynamism of the local economy by creating, among other things, new jobs, services, and building social relationships [83].
The literature identifies various enterprise characteristics in relation to the length of the food supply chain. The basis for extending the food supply chain (including premium foods) is typically sufficiently large production capacity. They are determined by access to broadly understood resources, including external sources [26]. In this respect, the importance of external sources of financing for increasing business expansion and innovation is emphasized [28,32,33]. However, a characteristic feature of short food supply chains is the involvement of small local enterprises and farms [6,9,11,25,46]. Such businesses typically have few resources, employ few workers, and have limited opportunities for expansion [12,29]. In terms of financing, the activities of such enterprises and farms are based on the simplest forms, including their own sources [30,31]. It should be emphasized that regional food is often produced by small local businesses and farms and sold through short supply chains [60,61]. A characteristic feature of regional food is its connection with the place of production (and the origin of resources) [44,47,48,49] and traditions, including family ones, passed down from generation to generation. These traditions include not only knowledge but also practical skills that are important for maintaining the production process of regional food [42,43]. Based on the above-mentioned features, two research hypotheses were formulated:
H1. 
Due to greater expansion, farms with longer food supply chains are characterized by significantly larger scales of activity (including employment, sales range, business diversification and innovation), as well as significantly greater involvement of external resources (infrastructural, financial, knowledge and practical skills).
H2. 
Due to their greater connection with the local environment and proximity, farms conducting only direct sales are characterized by significantly smaller scale of activity (including employment, sales range, diversification of activities and innovation), as well as significantly greater involvement of their own and family resources (infrastructural, financial, knowledge and practical skills).

3. Study Context

The study context focuses on short agri-food supply chains in Poland, characterized by close geographic and social connections among producers, processors, and consumers. Agricultural production in Poland is close to end consumers, facilitating collaboration among local producers to strengthen local food markets. Such partnerships contribute to the development of rural economies, create innovative avenues for selling local products, and attract informed consumers seeking healthy, authentic food. By removing intermediaries between farmers and consumers, short agri-food supply chains offer advantages to both parties: farmers can sell their products directly and benefit financially, while consumers gain access to fresh, high-quality food from a reliable source at lower prices than in retail settings [84].
The participation of food producers in short supply chains increases Polish farmers’ share of added value, strengthens local economies, provides low-income people with access to good food and a healthy diet, supports small businesses, and improves the profitability of small farms. Furthermore, short agri-food supply chains enable food to reach consumers directly from the field to the plate while maintaining high quality and authenticity. Food produced and sold in short supply chains, thanks to their unique characteristics, can become a showcase of the region’s heritage.
In Poland, farmers or small food processing plants can operate in the following forms:
(i)
Direct supply may include primary plant-based products, such as cereals, fruits, vegetables, cultivated mushrooms, and cultivated herbs coming exclusively from one’s own crops or breeding. This does not apply to products from special sections of agricultural production within the meaning of the personal income tax regulations; raw materials from personally collected herbs and forest undergrowth; or the products as mentioned earlier, which can also be sold in dried and pickled form.
Sales may be conducted within the voivodeship where primary production takes place or in adjacent voivodeships. Direct deliveries, according to regulations, can take various forms. The most common methods of distributing agricultural products of plant origin are sales directly on the farm—consumers purchase products from the farm at any time and date; sales at a farmers’ market—a farmer rents space at a market and sells products on specific days of the week and at specific times, or daily; sales on the roadside—usually applies to seasonal products, especially fruits and vegetables; this method does not require significant capital investment, but sanitary and safety conditions are unfavorable; sales directly to the consumer’s home (“door-to-door”)—products are often delivered to regular customers who place an order for a specific type and quantity of product for a specific delivery date. This form of sales requires appropriate transportation. Online sales—implemented in various ways, including individual delivery or shipping to the consumer. “Pick-your-own” sales—where the buyer can pick directly from the farmer’s field. This is used for soft fruit, especially strawberries, stone fruit, apples, pears, and plums. Orchards must be equipped with appropriate ladders and containers to facilitate harvesting. Neighborhood sales—“farmer-to-farmer”—can include both plant products, such as grains and hay, as well as household products that the farmer does not produce himself but purchases from a neighbor. Sales to local shops and catering establishments (restaurants, bars, school canteens, and others) are also included.
(ii)
Direct sales apply only to unprocessed animal products. The regulation governing this form of business is the Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development of 30 September 2015, on veterinary requirements for the production of animal products intended for direct sale.
Direct sales are limited to the following areas: the voivodeship where animal products are produced, neighboring voivodeships, and other voivodeships within Poland, if conducted during exhibitions, festivals, fairs, or markets organized to promote these products.
(iii)
Agricultural retail (RHD) is a form of retail trade for which Polish law has adopted separate regulations regarding the oversight of official food control bodies and introduced specific tax preferences. Such retail trade allows, among other things, the processing, treatment, and sale of produced food to end consumers and, as of 1 January 2019, to retail establishments intended for end consumers located within a specific area.
The choice of business form depends on the individual farmer or processor. It should be tailored to their situation, particularly the type of primary production and the potential for food production. The chosen form of sale determines the legal requirements each farmer–producer must meet when placing food products on the market, primarily regarding food safety. The regulations govern both individual and collective activities of farmers in the production, processing, and sale of food, as well as those of non-agricultural entrepreneurs engaged in food processing and sale. The Strategic Plan for the Common Agricultural Policy for 2023–2027 provides for interventions that support the creation and development of short food chains, both on-farm and off-farm.

4. Materials and Methods

The research material comes from surveys conducted in July 2024. The research covered producers of regional food in Poland. To ensure that the respondents are actually involved in regional food, the research covered producers associated with the European Culinary Heritage Network in 2022 (it should be added that Poland withdrew from the network in 2022 due to formal and legal changes). The network was the only such comprehensive association of regional food producers in Poland. The research covered only producers still involved in the production of regional food.
It should be emphasized that the presented results are part of a larger study. The sample selection was carried out in two stages [85]. In the first stage, a research sample was established using quota sampling, which took into account the structure of producers from all Polish voivodeships participating in the Culinary Heritage Network until 2022. 400 correctly completed questionnaires were obtained. In the second stage, 252 questionnaires were selected for the presented research. These were questionnaires completed by farmers–small producers of regional food.
The research was conducted using the CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing) technique. This technique was chosen due to its relatively low costs and high accuracy in completing the questionnaires. During the telephone conversation, a trained interviewer enters the respondent’s answers into the database in real time [86]. The first part of the interview contained general, standardized questions about their business (forms of sales, employment, sales range, activity diversification, innovation). These questions helped identify research groups of respondents and their business characteristics. In the second part, respondents identified the percentage structure of various resource groups needed for regional food production, broken down by raw material sources, finances, infrastructure, knowledge, and practical skills (Table 1). Questions regarding resource sources referred to the specificity of regional food production and allowed for the search for differences in this respect between the research groups. Respondents’ concerns were discussed with the interviewers on an ongoing basis, minimizing response errors. The form of the research also allowed for freedom of expression and detail among respondents.
Table 1. Measurement description of the research variables.
In addition, the respondents were divided into two groups due to the length of the food supply chain. According to the Theory of Competitive Exchange, there are three groups of actors in the market: producers, consumers, and intermediaries. Intermediaries include all enterprises that connect producers with consumers and thus influence product prices [87]. In our research, the first group included farmers–producers of regional food who conduct only direct sales (154 respondents), while the second group included those who conduct sales through intermediaries (98 respondents). The statistical significance of differences between these groups was examined using a series of Mann–Whitney tests with continuity correction. This is a nonparametric test, appropriate due to the sample size, the method of measuring the researched features, and the presence of tied ranks [88,89]. Various levels of statistical significance were analyzed, with p < 0.05 considered significant, p < 0.01 considered highly significant, and p < 0.001 considered very highly significant [90].
The analyzed variables were divided into several groups (Table 1): business size (employment, sales range, activity diversification, innovation), raw material resources (own crops and breeding, local and regional), financial resources (own, external), infrastructure resources (own, external), knowledge resources (recipes and family knowledge, recipes from outside the family), and practical skills resources (family tradition, own experiences).

5. Results

The research results are presented in tables. Table 2 presents data on sales methods among the surveyed group of farmers–regional food producers. Table 3 presents characteristics of the surveyed farmers–regional food producers. Table 4 provides a statistical comparison of the surveyed farmers–regional food producers.
Table 2. Forms of sales among farmers–producers of regional food.
Table 3. Characteristics of the surveyed farmers–regional food producers—average values.
Table 4. Comparison of the surveyed farmers–regional food producers—statistical significance of differences between groups.
In terms of sales forms (Table 1), on-farm sales predominate (71.83%). This form of sales generally requires no additional costs for organizing and operating the sales point. It can be implemented without additional employment or the cost of delivering products to customers. The next most popular form of direct sales is own store or catering point (36.51%). Having own off-farm sales point requires additional resources, including financial and labor resources. A significant number of respondents reported selling at local markets (28.57%). This is a place designated explicitly for sales (a square or market hall) that brings together many sellers and buyers simultaneously. It is usually located close to the farm, reducing transportation time and costs. Less popular sales venues are fairs and festivals (14.68%). These events can be located far from the farm and often require appropriate product display. However, they offer many opportunities—beyond sales, they facilitate product promotion and attract customers beyond local and regional levels. A small percentage of respondents reported collaborating with local institutions such as schools, kindergartens, and hospitals (5.16%). It is important to emphasize that this is a form of stable, often multi-year collaboration. Other forms of direct sales were reported by 14.29% of respondents, including roadside sales and direct-to-consumer delivery. Indirect sales are dominated by stores owned by others (26.98%). This method does not require its own point of sale but offers lower product prices. The same applies to wholesalers, used by 9.92% of respondents. Wholesale usually refers to large-scale production. Other forms of indirect sales were declared by 13.10% of respondents, including cooperation with intermediary companies.
The collected data (Table 2) shows that the average age of farms in this group is almost 26 years, indicating that respondents already have experience in their business. These are typically small farms that employ an average of 8 people year-round and an additional 5 during the season. The small size of the business translates into an average regional sales volume. The activities of the surveyed farms are only slightly diversified. Production and trade dominate, representing the primary form of activity related to the production of regional food. Among other, less common forms of activity, respondents declared educational activities (workshops, training), social activities (supporting local initiatives), and activities encompassing a broad range of services. The innovativeness of the surveyed farms is also low. Only 20% of respondents introduced any innovation in their business in the last year, and the majority reported that it was a single type of innovation. In terms of resource base, own resources dominate. The data show that respondents’ regional food is produced primarily from their own crops and livestock (78.73%), while local and regional raw materials are used to a much lesser extent (21.11%). An even greater disparity exists in financial resources: internal resources account for 90.85%, while external resources account for only 9.15%. The regional food producers surveyed predominantly utilize their own infrastructure (93.97%), with external infrastructure providing only a minor supplement (4.05%). Given the connection between regional food and the region’s tradition and history, family knowledge passed down from generation to generation (74.50%), and family traditions (68.39%) are of significant importance. Sources of expertise from outside the family (9.23%) and personal experience (20.08%) are less important.
For further analysis, respondents were divided into two groups. The primary criterion was the length of the food supply chain (Table 1). All respondents sell directly, with only some additionally using intermediaries. The first group consists of farmers–regional food producers who do not use sales intermediaries. This group comprised 61.11% of respondents. The second group consists of farmers–regional food producers who use sales intermediaries. This group comprised 38.89% of respondents. Farmers who used only direct contact with end customers reported selling their regional products primarily on their own farms (73.38%), in their own shops or restaurants (36.36%), at fairs and festivals (11.04%), or at local markets (11.04%). Farmers who used intermediaries reported selling their products primarily through other people’s shops (69.39%), other intermediary companies (33.67%), and wholesalers (25.51%). It is worth emphasizing that in this group, farmers, in addition to indirect sales, also conduct direct sales, primarily on their own farms (69.39%), at local markets (56.12%), in their own shops or restaurants (36.73%), and at fairs and festivals (20.41%). The data indicate that farmers using intermediaries are significantly more active in sales than farmers conducting only direct sales.
Statistical analysis of differences between the studied groups showed significant differences in most of the examined characteristics (Table 3). The only difference was not observed in terms of business duration, although the data in Table 2 indicate that farms not using intermediaries were slightly older (average 26 years) than those not using intermediaries (average 25 years). Farms using sales intermediaries were significantly larger, both in terms of permanent (average 9 people) and seasonal (average 7 people) employment. In the case of farms not using sales intermediaries, permanent employment reached an average of 7 people and seasonal employment an average of 3 people. The sales reach of farms using sales intermediaries was significantly greater than that of other farms conducting only direct sales, reaching an average regional level (2.15). Farms that conducted only direct sales slightly exceeded their local sales reach (1.39) on average. Farms using intermediaries are significantly more engaged in diversifying activities (1.37) and innovation (0.56). These farms engage in additional activities—such as educational and social activities and other services—to a greater extent and also implement more innovations. The activities of farms that conduct only direct sales are primarily limited to the production and sale of regional food (average index value 1.16), which also indicates low innovation (0.12).
For both groups surveyed, the basis of production was raw materials from their own crops and livestock. However, it should be emphasized that farms that conduct only direct sales use their own sources to a significantly greater extent (82.27%) than farms that use intermediaries (73.16%). In turn, farms using intermediaries supplement their raw material base with local and regional resources to a significantly greater extent (26.43%) compared to other farms (17.73%). Similar results were obtained for financial and infrastructure resources. Respondents’ own resources are the basis of their operations. However, farms using sales intermediaries rely significantly more on external financing sources (12.09%) than other farms (7.27%). Farms conducting direct sales exclusively rely substantially more on their own resources (92.73%) than other farms (87.91%). In terms of production infrastructure, farms using sales intermediaries use external infrastructure to a significantly greater extent (6.73%) than other farms (2.34%). Farms conducting only direct sales, on the other hand, use their own infrastructure to a significantly greater extent (95.06%) compared to farms using intermediaries (92.24%). In terms of sources of knowledge and practical skills, family recipes and traditions are the foundation. However, similarly to other resource sources, farms that sell only directly rely significantly more on family knowledge (81.43%) and family traditions (75.23%) than other farms (63.62% and 57.65%, respectively). Farms using intermediaries, on the other hand, rely significantly more on recipes from outside the family (12.91%) and their own experiences (26.02%) than other farms (6.88% and 16.30%, respectively).

6. Discussion

Undoubtedly, short food supply chains play a significant role in agricultural activity, including regional food production. The study confirmed both research hypotheses. According to the first hypothesis, farms that use sales intermediaries are characterized by significantly larger-scale operations and substantially greater reliance on external resources. This is consistent with the results of Ding et al. [26], Lee and Lee [27], and Saunil [28], who state that greater production capacity, including a larger resource base, is the basis for expanding operations and extending the supply chain, while low production capacity limits not only export but also innovation activities. One possibility for expanding operations is to raise additional capital. According to our results, external financing sources are more frequently used by farmers–regional food producers with longer supply chains. In this respect, our research results are consistent with the views of Saunil [28], Oum et al. [32], and Sadat and Nasrat [33], who argue that access to external financing sources is crucial for business expansion. These funds can support expanding the raw material base, infrastructure, and even knowledge and skills, for example, by financing training and workshops.
The second research hypothesis was also positively verified, according to which farms conducting only direct sales are characterized by a significantly smaller scale of operations and a significantly greater involvement of their own and family resources. Our research confirmed that these entities employ few workers [29], their main source of financing is their own funds [30,31], and their operations are based on knowledge and family traditions [21,22,23]. Key factors in building short supply chains for regional food include the connection to recipes and family traditions, knowledge, and practical skills. These constitute the foundation of regional food producers’ operations. They are primary to other conditions.
Short regional food supply chains appear to be a response to mass food production and food security issues. According to research, farmers and regional food producers in Poland conduct direct sales. Only some of them use intermediaries; however, they support themselves with direct sales. This is consistent with the findings of Paciarotti and Torregiani [12] and Nordhagen et al. [25], who found that these small entities operate in short supply chains. This is important because short food supply chains can contribute to better utilization of available resources and, therefore, to market survival [11,46]. As emphasized by Michel-Villarreal et al. [72] and Evola et al. [73], short food supply chains can contribute to the development of rural areas. Research shows that short regional food supply chains are crucial for small farms. The importance of these farms extends beyond economic activity; they also have significant social significance, often providing employment and support for families. In the cultural sphere, the operation of these farms supports the survival of traditions passed down from generation to generation, as noted by Sołdaczuk [21], Adiasih et al. [22], and Azman and Majid [23].
The presented research results have theoretical, managerial and political implications. Theoretical implications include contributions to the development of the SFSC concept for regional products. Key factors influencing the length of the regional food supply chain have been identified. Our findings point to a number of significant characteristics of regional food producers involved in short supply chains. Very highly significant features include small employment, short sales range, poor innovation, low level of use of external infrastructure, less importance of own experience, but very strong links with recipes and family traditions in terms of knowledge and practical skills. Highly significant features cover a very high share of own sources in financing and a low share of external sources, a high level of reliance on own infrastructure and a low importance of recipes from outside the family in terms of knowledge. Quite significant features refer to the small diversification of activities, as well as to the structure of raw material sources, with the dominance of own raw materials. Business duration is irrelevant to the length of the regional food supply chain. Therefore, key features of regional food producers involved in short supply chains include smaller scale of activities, reliance on their own resources and a strong connection to family recipes and traditions.
In terms of managerial and political implications, the presented research provides knowledge for decision-makers and authorities. According to our findings, short food supply chains involve small farms with limited capacity and resources. However, it is important to emphasize their important role in delivering high-quality food directly to the customer, which contributes to the sustainability of these supplies. These small links in the food supply chain should be supported in many ways. The main way regional products are sold is directly on farms. This can lead to difficulties in reaching customers at the point of sale. Institutional support could be helpful in this regard by helping connect producers with consumers organizationally. Given the small percentage of regional food sales to local institutions, support is needed to establish cooperation between farmers–producers of regional food and local social institutions that purchase this food, such as schools, preschools, nurseries, and hospitals. Such cooperation offers mutual benefits—high-quality food for institutions and the possibility of stable income for farmers. With support, even small farms can be involved in this process. Of course, public aid also involves financial support, for example, for infrastructure renovation or the purchase of necessary production equipment. Promotional activities can also be important for regional food, including promoting the values of these products and producers and creating conditions for the development of the regional agri-food market. Local and regional authorities, as well as other initiators, can play a role in this regard.
The research had certain limitations. Primarily, survey-based research, while effective, does not allow for in-depth detail. It requires simplification. Questions mainly focused on the last year of business operations. It is also worth emphasizing that the research was conducted with a specific group of respondents, which limits the ability to generalize to agricultural operations or the food sector. Given these limitations, further research should span a more extended period and include questions about the business’s future. This would provide a more complete picture. In the context of the conducted research, it seems essential to seek answers to the question of what advantages and disadvantages farmers–producers of regional food perceive from short supply chains. The answers to these questions may prove critical for guidance on supporting regional food producers.

7. Conclusions

Research shows that direct sales dominate among farmers and producers of regional food. The main form of selling regional products is directly on the farm, which typically requires no additional resources to organize a sales location and does not increase the producer’s transportation costs, as the consumer comes to the farm. The research also identified key characteristics of farmers and regional food producers in short food supply chains. Factors of particular importance in building short regional food supply chains include connections to recipes and family traditions, in terms of knowledge and practical skills. Business activities based on family traditions, passed down from generation to generation, not only achieve economic goals but also socio-cultural ones. Traditional family businesses typically have a group of regular customers, and the producer–consumer relationship is more direct in this setting.
Given the numerous advantages of short regional food supply chains, this activity is worth supporting. The smallest links in local food supply chains—small farms—require particular support. Institutional support should encompass not only financial assistance but also, and perhaps above all, organizational support that helps connect producers with consumers. Promotional activities highlighting regional food and its producers could be another pillar of support.
This research significantly enriches the existing academic discourse by presenting compelling evidence that addresses critical gaps in the literature surrounding both regional food systems and short food supply chains. It underscores the importance of findings that not only enhance scientific understanding but also inform practical applications essential to the sustainable development of the agri-food system. In particular, this study delves deeper into the identification of the diverse characteristics, specific needs, and pressing constraints faced by local food system actors. By doing so, it provides invaluable proxy information that can guide policymakers in formulating effective recommendations. Through these contributions, the research aims to foster a more resilient and equitable food landscape.
This research contributes to two strands of literature. The first pertains to regional development through local assets, with food serving as a notable example. The second refers to short agri-food supply chains, which represent a contemporary and alternative perspective on the overall functioning of agricultural systems.
The research, due to its case-study nature, contains an apparent limitation stemming from the chosen methodology. Therefore, it is recommended that in the future, the number of cases be expanded by examining additional contexts, regions, and countries. This approach could provide more relevant insights that may be more transferable and generalizable in nature.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; methodology, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; software, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; validation, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; formal analysis, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; investigation, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; resources, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; data curation, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; writing—original draft preparation, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; writing—review and editing, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; visualization, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; supervision, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; project administration, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K.; funding acquisition, L.O., D.J., P.B., M.M.W.-Z., G.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to In Poland, economic survey research on entrepreneurs requires informed consent from participants and respect for the General Data Protection Regulation rather than the consent of the Ethics Committee.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mazur, A.; Dominik, P. Using the potential of regional cuisine and traditional food in regional development. Entrep. Manag. 2017, XVIII 8(III), 61–72. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  2. Szczepaniak, I.; Tereszczuk, M. Regional and Traditional Products as a Way to Improve Competitiveness of Polish Food Producers in Foreign Markets. In Proceedings of the RSEP International Conferences on Social Issues and Economic Studies, 2nd Multidisciplinary Conference, Madrid, Spain, 2–4 November 2016; pp. 67–73. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bryła, P. Regional Ethnocentrism on the Food Market as a Pattern of Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Zdon-Korzeniowska, M. Building a regional brand on selected examples of Polish voivodeships. Stud. Ind. Geogr. Comm. Pol. Geogr. Soc. 2012, 19, 130–141. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  5. Hoang, V. Modern Short Food Supply Chain, Good Agricultural Practices, and Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and Case Study in Vietnam. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Nsamzinshuti, A.; Janjevic, M.; Rigo, N.; Ndiaye, A.B. Logistics collaboration solutions to improve short food supply chain solution performance. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Supply Chain Management, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 17–19 May 2017; Volume 2, pp. 57–69. [Google Scholar]
  7. Soroka, A.; Wojciechowska-Solis, J. Consumer Awareness of the Regional Food Market: The Case of Eastern European Border Regions. Foods 2019, 8, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Fernández-Ferrín, P.; Calvo-Turrientes, A.; Bande, B.; Artaraz-Miñón, M.; Galán-Ladero, M.M. The valuation and purchase of food products that combine local, regional and traditional features: The influence of consumer ethnocentrism. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Balieva, G.N.; Huliyan, M. Production and Supply of Regional Food Products—Incentives and Challenges for the Small Holdings in Bulgaria. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2015, 4, 576–580. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kawecka, A.; Gębarowski, M. Short food supply chains—Benefits for consumers and food producers. J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 2015, 3, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Majewski, E.; Wąs, 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, 4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Paciarotti, C.; Torregiani, F. The logistics of the short food supply chain: A literature review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Marusak, A.; Sadeghiamirshahidi, N.; Krejci, C.C.; Mittal, A.; Beckwith, S.; Cantu, J.; Morris, M.; Grimm, J. Resilient regional food supply chains and rethinking the way forward: Key takeaways from the COVID-19 pandemic. Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Canfora, I. Is the short food supply chain an efficient solution for sustainability in food market? Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 402–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Borsotto, P.; Cagliero, R.; Giarè, F.; Giordani, G.; Iacono, R.; Manetti, I.; Sardone, R. Measuring Short Food Supply Chain Sustainability: A Selection of Attributes and Indicators through a Qualitative Approach. Agriculture 2023, 13, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. da Conceição Aguiar, L.; DelGrossi, M.E.; Thomé, K.M. Short food supply chain: Characteristics of a family farm. Ciência Rural 2018, 48, e20170775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Thilmany, B.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Jad’ud’ová, J.; Marková, I.; Hroncová, E.; Hroncová Vicianová, J. An Assessment of Regional Sustainability through Quality Labels for Small Farmers’ Products: A Slovak Case Study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Borowska, A. The Role of Traditional and Regional Food Products in Rural Development in Poland. Soc. Res. 2010, 1, 40–52. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sołdaczuk, K. Traditional and regional products as a method of cultivating tradition in the business aspect. Contemp. Econ. 2024, 18, 87–96. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  22. Adiasih, P.; Tanuwidjaja, G.; Maria, M.; Silvani, G.; Gontha, E.; Wibowo, A. Documenting Family Businesses Typology in Traditional Food Sector in Surabaya: Architecture Design and Business Principles. In Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Service-Learning (APRCSL 2017), Surabaya, Indonesia, 1 June 2017; Volume 59, p. 01025. [Google Scholar]
  23. Azman, A.B.; Majid, M.A.A. Role of Family and Survival Strategies of Micro-Family Food Business during COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Tour. Serv. 2023, 26, 153–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Minarelli, F.; Raggi, M.; Viaggi, D. Innovation in European Food SMEs: Determinants and Links between Types. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 2015, 4, 33–53. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nordhagen, S.; Igbeka, U.; Rowlands, H.; Shine, R.S.; Heneghan, E.; Tench, J. COVID-19 and small enterprises in the food supply chain: Early impacts and implications for longer-term food system resilience in low- and middle-income countries. World Dev. 2021, 141, 105405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Ding, H.; Vorobjovas-Pinta, O.; Grimmer, L. Identifying firm resources and capabilities for successful export: The case of regional SME premium food producers. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2021, 33, 374–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Lee, C.; Lee, C. SME Innovation in the Malaysian Manufacturing Sector. Econ. Bull. 2007, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  28. Saunila, M. Innovation Capability in SMEs: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Gebresenbet, G.; Ljungberg, D.; Nordmark, I.; Cardoso, M. Local food producers and their supply and marketing channels in Sweden. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Transport Research WCTR, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 15–18 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kobeszko, A. Access to finance as a factor in the development of small businesses in the euro area. Econ. Sci. 2015, XXII, 393–401. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  31. Fila, J.; Grzegorczyk, E.; Paduszyńska, M. Selected Sources of Financing for Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Poland; University of Lodz Publishing House: Łódź, Poland, 2022; p. 26. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  32. Oum, S.; Narjoko, D.; Harvie, C. Constraints, Determinants of SME Innovation, and the Role of Government Support. ERIA Discuss. Pap. Ser. 2014, 10, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sadat, S.H.; Nasrat, S. The Practice of Open Innovation by SMEs in the Food Industry. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 8, 26–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Lankauskiene, R.; Vidickiene, D.; Gedminaite-Raudone, Ž. Evolution of Short Food Supply Chain Theory and Practice: Two-Sided Networks and Platforms. Energies 2022, 15, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. O’Connor, G.; Reis, K.; Desha, C.; Burkett, I. Valuing farmers in transitions to more sustainable food systems: A systematic literature review of local food producers’ experiences and contributions in short food supply chains. Agric. Hum. Values 2025, 42, 565–592. [Google Scholar]
  36. V´asquez Neyra, J.M.; Cequea, M.M.; Schmitt, V.G.H. Current practices and key challenges associated with the adoption of resilient, circular, and sustainable food supply chain for smallholder farmers to mitigate food loss. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 9, 1484933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Bandi, E.; Bavagnoli, F.; Tettamanzi, P. Circular Economy, Short Food Supply Chain and Digitalisation Drive the Agri-Food Sector Transition Towards Environmental and Social Sustainability: A Literature Review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Mengoni, M.; Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A. Short Food Supply Chains. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395441071_Short_food_supply_chains (accessed on 22 November 2025).
  39. Luo, J.; Ji, C.; Qiu, C.; Jia, F. Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: Bibliometric and Content Analyses. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Mustapa, M.A.C.; Kallas, Z. Meta-Analysis of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Short Food Supply Chain Products. Glob. Chall. 2025, 9, 2400154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Grębowiec, M. Regional and traditional products and their role in creation of the national heritage. Tour. Recreat. 2012, 9, 129–138. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fontefrancesco, M.F. Traditional food for a sustainable future? exploring vulnerabilities and strengths in Italy’s foodscape and short agrifood chains. Sustain. Earth Rev. 2023, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Drejerska, N.; Sobczak-Malitka, W. Nurturing Sustainability and Health: Exploring the Role of Short Supply Chains in the Evolution of Food Systems-The Case of Poland. Foods 2023, 12, 4171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  44. Granvik, M.; Joosse, S.; Hunt, A.; Hallberg, I. Confusion and Misunderstanding—Interpretations and Definitions of Local Food. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Haid, M.; Albrecht, J.N.; Tangl, P.; Plaikner, A. Regional Products and Sustainability. Sustainability 2024, 16, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Raftowicz, M.; Solarz, K.; Dradrach, A. Short Food Supply Chains as a Practical Implication of Sustainable Development Ideas. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Denk, E. Challenges and opportunities in geographical indication registered gastronomic products: Erzurum Rosette. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1460663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Cappelli, L.; D’Ascenzo, F.; Ruggieri, R.; Gorelova, I. Is Buying Local Food a Sustainable Practice? A Scoping Review of Consumers’ Preference for Local Food. Sustainability 2022, 14, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Printezis, I.; Grebitus, C.; Hirsch, S. The Price is Right! A Meta-Regression Analysis on Willingness to Pay for Local Food. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. Arenas-Gaitán, J.; Peral-Peral, B.; Reina-Arroyo, J. Local Fresh Food Products and Plant-Based Diets: An Analysis of the Relation Between Them. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Regional and Traditional Products—Learn More. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/rolnictwo/produkty-regionalne-i-tradycyjne1 (accessed on 30 October 2025). (In Polish)
  52. Crespo-Moncada, B.; Posada-Izquierdo, G.D.; Velásquez-Rivera, J.; Molina-Villamar, J.; García-Gimeno, R.M. Geographical Indication Labels for Food Products: A Literature Review. Encyclopedia 2025, 5, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Bosona, T.; Gebresenbet, G.; Nordmark, I.; Ljungberg, D. Integrated Logistics Network for the Supply Chain of Locally Produced Food, Part I: Location and Route Optimization Analyses. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2011, 4, 174–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wallgren, C.; Höjer, M. Eating Energy—Identifying Possibilities for Reduced Energy Use in the Future Food Supply System. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 5803–5813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Crescenzi, R.; De Filippis, F.; Giua, M.; Vaquero-Piñeiro, C. Geographical Indications and local development: The strength of territorial embeddedness. Reg. Stud. 2021, 56, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Feenstra, G. Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field. Agric. Hum. Values 2002, 19, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Barlagne, C.; Bazoche, P.; Thomas, A.; Ozier-Lafontaine, H.; Causeret, F.; Blazy, J. Promoting local foods in small island states: The role of information policies. Food Policy 2015, 57, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Hashem, S.; Migliore, G.; Schifani, G.; Schimmenti, E.; Padel, S. Motives for buying local, organic food through English box schemes. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1600–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Kneafsey, M.; Venn, L.; Schmutz, U.; Balázs, B.; Trenchard, L.; Eyden-Wood, T.; Bos, E.; Sutton, G.; Blacket, M. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of Their Socio-Economic Characteristics; EU Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
  60. Kacz, K. Local products within short food supply chains in Hungary. Annals PAAAE 2019, XXI, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Marsden, T.; Banks, J.; Bristow, G. Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring their Role in Rural Development. Sociol. Rural. 2000, 40, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Renting, H.; Marsden, T.; Banks, J. Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural Development. Environ. Plan. 2003, 35, 393–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Christopher, M. Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 5th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2016; p. 325. [Google Scholar]
  66. Aouinaït, 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Wittman, H.; Beckie, M.; Hergesheimer, C. Linking Local Food Systems and the Social Economy? Future Roles for Farmers’ Markets in Alberta and British Columbia. Rural Sociol. 2012, 77, 36–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Sellitto, M.A.; Machado Vial, L.A.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. León-Bravo, V.; Borrello, B.; Ciccullo, F.; Caniato, F. Unpacking proximity for sustainability in short food supply chains. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2025, 34, 1792–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Dupé, P.; Dedieu, B.; Gasselin, P.; Ollivier, G. The work of farmers in short food supply chains: Systematic literature review and research agenda. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0314175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  72. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Evola, R.S.; Peira, G.; Varese, E.; Bonadonna, A.; Vesce, E. Short Food Supply Chains in Europe: Scientific Research Directions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. European Commission. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System COM(2020) 381 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
  75. Parrag, V.; Szegedyne, A.F.; Sebok, A. Application of digital solutions to improve the operation of short food supply chains. Int. J. Food Stud. 2022, 11, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Struś, M.; Kalisiak-Mędelska, M.; Nadolny, M.; Kachniarz, M.; Raftowicz, M. Community-Supported Agriculture as a Perspective Model for the Development of Small Agricultural Holding in the Region. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Jarzębowski, S.; Bourlakis, M.; Bezat-Jarzębowska, A. Short Food Supply Chains (SFSC) as Local and Sustainable Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Fragomeli, R.; Annunziata, A.; Punzo, G. Promoting the Transition towards Agriculture 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review on Drivers and Barriers. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Aubry, C.; Chiffoleau, Y. Le développement des circuits courts et l’agriculture périurbaine: Histoire, évolution en cours et questions actuelles. Innov. Agron. 2009, 5, 53–67. [Google Scholar]
  80. Gonçalves, A.; Zeroual, T. Logistic Issues and Impacts of Short Food Supply Chains: Case Studies in Nord—Pas de Calais, France. In Toward Sustainable Relations Between Agriculture and the City; Soulard, C.-T., Perrin, C., Valette, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  81. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Bloemhof, J.M.; Soysal, M. Sustainable Food Supply Chain Design. In Sustainable Supply Chains; Bouchery, Y., Corbett, C.J., Fransoo, J.C., Tan, T., Eds.; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wojcieszak-Zbierska, M. Short Supply Chains as an Opportunity for Local Agricultural Entrepreneurs. J. Tour. Reg. Dev. 2021, 15, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Szymańska, E.J.; Lukoszová, X. Short food supply chains. Econ. Organ. Logist. 2019, 4, 91–101. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  85. Jabłońska, K.; Sobieraj, A. Methodology of selecting a research sample in social sciences. BiPT 2013, 32, 31–36. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  86. Kini, S.; Cawi, K.M.; Duluk, D.; Yamazaki, K.; McQueen, M.B. Understanding the use of CATI and web-based data collection methods during the pandemic among digitally challenged groups at FQHCs: Data from the All of Us Research Program. Front. Digit. Health. 2024, 6, 1379290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Rust, J.; Hall, G. Middlemen versus Market Makers: A Theory of Competitive Exchange. J. Polit. Econ. 2003, 111, 353–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  88. Domański, C.; Pekasiewicz, D.; Baszczyńska, A.; Witaszczyk, A. Statistical Tests in the Decision-Making Process; University of Lodz Publishing House: Lodz, Poland, 2014; pp. 45–46. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  89. Fay, M.P.; Malinovsky, Y. Confidence intervals of the Mann-Whitney parameter that are compatible with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Stat. Med. 2018, 37, 3991–4006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  90. Das, D.; Das, T. The “P”-Value: The Primary Alphabet of Research Revisited. J. Prev. Med. 2023, 14, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Computer Simulation as a Tool for Cost and CO2 Emission Analysis in Production Process Simulations
Previous
Constructing a Cradle-to-Gate Carbon Emission Assessment and Analysis Framework Based on Life Cycle Thinking: A Case Study of Bicycle Brake Cable Products
Next