THE	
  ROLE	
  OF	
  VALUES	
  	
  
IN	
  FOOD	
  HUB	
  SOURCING	
  AND	
  DISTRIBUTING	
  PRACTICES	
  
	
  
By	
  
	
  
Kaitlin	
  Koch	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
A	
  THESIS	
  
	
  
Submitted	
  to	
  	
  
Michigan	
  State	
  University	
  
In	
  partial	
  fulfillment	
  of	
  the	
  requirements	
  
	
  for	
  the	
  degree	
  of	
  
	
  
Community	
  Sustainability	
  –	
  Master	
  of	
  Science	
  
	
  
2014	
  

ABSTRACT	
  
	
  
THE	
  ROLE	
  OF	
  VALUES	
  	
  
IN	
  FOOD	
  HUB	
  SOURCING	
  AND	
  DISTRIBUTING	
  PRACTICES	
  
	
  
By	
  
	
  
Kaitlin	
  Koch	
  
	
  
There	
  has	
  been	
  rapid	
  growth	
  of	
  interest	
  in	
  planning	
  and	
  operationalizing	
  food	
  hub	
  
enterprises	
  across	
  the	
  country.	
  	
  These	
  entities	
  aggregate	
  food	
  products	
  primarily	
  from	
  local	
  
and	
  regional	
  producers.	
  	
  They	
  may	
  have	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  additional	
  social	
  goals.	
  	
  These	
  
enterprises	
  may	
  have	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  help	
  scale-­‐up	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  food	
  systems	
  by	
  
providing	
  an	
  entry	
  point	
  into	
  stable,	
  institutional	
  and	
  retail	
  markets.	
  	
  This	
  thesis	
  focuses	
  on	
  
values	
  employed	
  by	
  food	
  hub	
  operators	
  in	
  their	
  sourcing	
  and	
  distributing	
  practices.	
  	
  Using	
  
a	
  qualitative	
  approach,	
  we	
  interviewed	
  representatives	
  from	
  eleven	
  Midwest	
  food	
  hubs	
  to	
  
investigate	
  their	
  conceptions	
  of	
  values-­‐based	
  products,	
  strategies	
  used	
  to	
  source	
  products	
  
and	
  their	
  intersection	
  with	
  underserved	
  consumers.	
  	
  We	
  find	
  that	
  most	
  operators	
  view	
  
flexible	
  sourcing	
  preferences	
  as	
  a	
  prerequisite	
  to	
  a	
  viable	
  business	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  geographic	
  
region,	
  farm	
  size	
  and	
  product	
  attributes	
  (e.g.	
  production	
  methods).	
  	
  We	
  also	
  find	
  that	
  
serving	
  underserved	
  markets	
  is	
  a	
  secondary	
  priority,	
  often	
  taking	
  place	
  through	
  
partnership	
  with	
  other	
  community	
  organizations	
  and	
  through	
  acceptance	
  of	
  EBT	
  at	
  
farmer’s	
  market	
  or	
  donations	
  to	
  food	
  banks.	
  	
  We	
  did	
  not	
  find	
  any	
  explicit	
  intention	
  of	
  
developing	
  business	
  plans	
  to	
  service	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  completion	
  of	
  this	
  thesis	
  and	
  my	
  degree	
  program	
  would	
  not	
  have	
  been	
  possible	
  
without	
  the	
  support	
  and	
  guidance	
  of	
  numerous	
  individuals.	
  	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  extend	
  my	
  deep	
  
gratitude	
  to	
  my	
  advisor,	
  Mike	
  Hamm,	
  for	
  his	
  continuous	
  support	
  by	
  working	
  with	
  me	
  to	
  
develop	
  a	
  research	
  project	
  that	
  met	
  my	
  needs,	
  would	
  be	
  beneficial	
  to	
  practitioners,	
  and	
  
pushing	
  me	
  to	
  progress	
  in	
  my	
  research,	
  writing	
  and	
  critical	
  thinking	
  skills.	
  	
  I	
  would	
  also	
  like	
  
to	
  recognize	
  and	
  thank	
  him	
  for	
  his	
  funding	
  support	
  as	
  the	
  C.S.	
  Mott	
  Chair	
  of	
  Sustainable	
  
Agriculture.	
  	
  Thank	
  you	
  to	
  the	
  other	
  members	
  of	
  my	
  committee,	
  Rich	
  Pirog	
  and	
  Phil	
  
Howard.	
  	
  Rich,	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  personal	
  and	
  professional	
  support,	
  your	
  presence	
  at	
  
CRFS	
  has	
  made	
  my	
  experience	
  infinitely	
  more	
  valuable.	
  	
  Phil,	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  guidance	
  
and	
  insight.	
  	
  The	
  support	
  of	
  the	
  staff	
  at	
  CRFS	
  has	
  been	
  so	
  valuable,	
  I	
  have	
  learned	
  
something	
  from	
  each	
  of	
  you	
  and	
  I	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  that.	
  	
  Thank	
  you	
  especially	
  to	
  Colleen	
  
Matts,	
  for	
  being	
  a	
  teacher,	
  friend	
  and	
  role	
  model	
  of	
  a	
  food	
  systems	
  practitioner.	
  	
  Mark	
  Lelle,	
  
Chad	
  and	
  Marty	
  Gerencer,	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  assistance	
  with	
  this	
  project	
  and	
  your	
  ongoing	
  
enthusiasm	
  and	
  interest.	
  	
  Thank	
  you	
  to	
  Kim	
  Chung,	
  on	
  a	
  practical	
  level,	
  your	
  teachings	
  gave	
  
me	
  the	
  tools	
  I	
  need	
  to	
  complete	
  this	
  thesis,	
  and	
  on	
  a	
  personal	
  level,	
  you	
  helped	
  me	
  to	
  see	
  
the	
  research	
  process	
  and	
  world	
  with	
  new	
  eyes.	
  	
  The	
  support	
  and	
  friendship	
  of	
  my	
  
colleagues	
  in	
  CSUS	
  has	
  kept	
  this	
  chapter	
  of	
  life	
  in	
  perspective.	
  	
  In	
  particular	
  thank	
  you	
  to	
  
Michaela	
  Oldfield,	
  for	
  your	
  words	
  of	
  wisdom,	
  to	
  Micaela	
  Fischer	
  for	
  your	
  assistance	
  and	
  
camaraderie,	
  and	
  to	
  Stephanie	
  Rustem	
  for	
  your	
  generous	
  assistance	
  in	
  developing	
  a	
  code	
  
system.	
  
To	
  my	
  friends	
  and	
  family,	
  your	
  support	
  has	
  made	
  this	
  adventure	
  possible.	
  	
  Thank	
  
you	
  to	
  my	
  teacher,	
  Chuck,	
  for	
  your	
  flexibility	
  and	
  understanding.	
  	
  Your	
  teachings	
  gave	
  me	
  
	
  

iii	
  

	
  

the	
  personal	
  tools	
  to	
  make	
  it	
  through	
  this.	
  	
  Thank	
  you	
  to	
  my	
  parents,	
  whose	
  love	
  and	
  
encouragement	
  along	
  my	
  path	
  has	
  put	
  me	
  in	
  the	
  position	
  to	
  pursue	
  my	
  dreams.	
  	
  I	
  have	
  
learned	
  so	
  much	
  from	
  both	
  of	
  you	
  and	
  am	
  grateful	
  for	
  your	
  presence	
  every	
  day.	
  	
  To	
  Justin,	
  
your	
  daily	
  patient	
  and	
  kind	
  support	
  has	
  kept	
  me	
  grounded.	
  Thank	
  you	
  for	
  being	
  there	
  for	
  
me	
  through	
  your	
  willingness	
  to	
  review	
  my	
  drafts,	
  be	
  a	
  sounding	
  board,	
  and	
  allowing	
  me	
  to	
  
decorate	
  our	
  house	
  with	
  concept	
  maps.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

iv	
  

	
  

TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  
	
  
	
  
KEY	
  TO	
  ABBREVIATIONS	
   	
  
	
  
CHAPTER	
  1.	
  	
  Introduction	
  	
  	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  vi	
  

	
  
Food	
  hub	
  emergence	
  and	
  attention	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

1	
  

	
  
	
  

2	
  
6	
  

	
  

7	
  

	
  
	
  

10	
  
13	
  

Values	
  based	
  value	
  chains:	
  	
  Background	
  context	
  
for	
  emergence	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  concept	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Food	
  hubs	
  as	
  a	
  model	
  of	
  a	
  VBVC	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Underserved	
  populations	
  in	
  the	
  value	
  chain:	
  
The	
  motivation	
  behind	
  food	
  hubs’	
  	
  
social	
  mission	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Differentiated	
  and	
  values-­‐based	
  products:	
  	
  	
  
Economic	
  and	
  social	
  considerations	
  in	
  a	
  growing	
  market	
  
Conclusion	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

CHAPTER	
  2.	
  The	
  role	
  of	
  values	
  in	
  food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  and	
  
distributing	
  practices	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Introduction	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Values	
  based	
  value	
  chain	
  (VBVCs):	
  
	
  
A	
  theoretical	
  framework	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Product	
  differentiation	
  and	
  values-­‐based	
  products	
  
	
  
Underserved	
  populations	
  in	
  the	
  value	
  chain:	
  
	
  
Health	
  and	
  access	
  disparities	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Methods	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Research	
  design	
  and	
  data	
  collection	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Data	
  analysis	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Results	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  practices	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Food	
  hub	
  distribution	
  practices	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
Discussion	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Conclusion	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

Reflections	
  on	
  research	
  results	
  	
  
Limitations	
  and	
  future	
  research	
  

CHAPTER	
  3.	
  	
  Conclusions	
  

APPENDIX	
   	
  
	
  
REFERENCES	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

1	
  

14	
  
14	
  

	
  
	
  

15	
  
17	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

17	
  
19	
  
19	
  
21	
  
21	
  
22	
  
26	
  
29	
  
34	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

35	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

35	
  
38	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

40	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

44	
  

	
  

v	
  

	
  

KEY	
  TO	
  ABBREVIATIONS	
  
	
  
	
  
EBT	
  –	
  Electronic	
  Benefits	
  Transfer	
  
	
  
GAP	
  –	
  Good	
  Agricultural	
  Practices	
  
	
  
LLC	
  –	
  Limited	
  Liability	
  Company	
  
	
  
SFSC	
  –	
  Short	
  Food	
  Supply	
  Chain	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
USDA	
  –	
  United	
  States	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  
	
  
VBP	
  –	
  Values	
  Based	
  Product	
  
	
  
VBSC	
  –	
  Values	
  Based	
  Supply	
  Chain	
  
	
  
VBVC	
  –	
  Values	
  Based	
  Value	
  Chain	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

vi	
  

	
  

	
  

CHAPTER	
  1.	
  	
  Introduction	
  	
  
	
  
Food	
  hub	
  emergence	
  and	
  attention	
  
	
  
The	
  recent	
  emergence	
  of	
  the	
  food	
  hub	
  concept	
  and	
  their	
  development	
  across	
  the	
  
country	
  has	
  garnered	
  much	
  attention	
  from	
  the	
  local	
  food	
  systems	
  advocacy	
  community.	
  
Nationally,	
  the	
  USDA	
  has	
  supported	
  the	
  concept	
  by	
  forming	
  a	
  regional	
  food	
  hub	
  
subcommittee	
  within	
  the	
  Know	
  Your	
  Farmer,	
  Know	
  Your	
  Food	
  Initiative.	
  	
  In	
  partnership,	
  
the	
  USDA	
  and	
  National	
  Food	
  Hub	
  Collaboration	
  define	
  food	
  hubs	
  as:	
  	
  “a	
  business	
  or	
  
organization	
  that	
  actively	
  manages	
  the	
  aggregation,	
  distribution,	
  and	
  marketing	
  of	
  source-­‐
identified	
  food	
  products	
  primarily	
  from	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  producers	
  to	
  strengthen	
  their	
  
ability	
  to	
  satisfy	
  wholesale,	
  retail,	
  and	
  institutional	
  demand”	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012,	
  p.	
  4).	
  	
  
Their	
  most	
  recent	
  food	
  hub	
  resource	
  guide	
  reports	
  that	
  food	
  hubs	
  have	
  many	
  self-­‐
determined	
  goals,	
  which	
  often	
  include:	
  increased	
  institutional	
  market	
  access	
  for	
  small	
  and	
  
mid-­‐size	
  farmers;	
  making	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  food	
  purchasing	
  more	
  efficient	
  for	
  institutional	
  
buyers;	
  increasing	
  the	
  regional	
  food	
  economy	
  in	
  their	
  community;	
  and	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  
additional	
  socially-­‐driven	
  missions	
  and	
  goals	
  (Ibid.).	
  	
  	
  
The	
  formation	
  and	
  operationalizing	
  of	
  food	
  hubs	
  is	
  also	
  generating	
  excitement	
  
within	
  the	
  local	
  food	
  systems	
  community.	
  	
  A	
  range	
  of	
  entrepreneurs,	
  community	
  
organizations	
  and	
  cooperatives	
  are	
  looking	
  for	
  ways	
  to	
  start	
  food	
  hubs.	
  	
  Feasibility	
  studies	
  
abound	
  assessing	
  the	
  food	
  hub	
  potential	
  in	
  various	
  regions	
  	
  (Aubrey,	
  2012;	
  Dane	
  County	
  
Planning	
  and	
  Development	
  Department,	
  2011,	
  Market	
  Ventures,	
  Inc.,	
  2012;	
  Ryan	
  &	
  Mailler,	
  
n.d.).	
  	
  The	
  number	
  of	
  case	
  studies	
  and	
  resource	
  guides	
  regarding	
  business	
  models,	
  
operational	
  scale	
  and	
  best	
  practices	
  are	
  increasing	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Desai,	
  2012;	
  
Lerman,	
  Feenstra,	
  &	
  Visher,	
  2012a;	
  Matson,	
  Sullins,	
  &	
  Cook,	
  2013).	
  Efforts	
  to	
  build,	
  

	
  

1	
  

	
  

operationalize	
  and	
  sustain	
  these	
  hubs	
  have	
  caught	
  the	
  attention	
  of	
  the	
  popular	
  media	
  and	
  
the	
  greater	
  food	
  community	
  (for	
  example,	
  see:	
  	
  Brown,	
  2013;	
  Holdman,	
  2014;	
  Johnson,	
  
2014;	
  “Tahoe	
  Food	
  Hub	
  raises	
  more	
  than	
  $28K	
  in	
  crowdfund	
  campaign,”	
  2014).	
  	
  	
  
As	
  resources	
  and	
  energy	
  are	
  allocated	
  to	
  the	
  formation,	
  growth,	
  and	
  maintenance	
  of	
  
food	
  hubs,	
  it	
  becomes	
  important	
  that	
  we	
  study	
  how	
  food	
  hub	
  businesses	
  are	
  operating,	
  
what	
  motivates	
  them,	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  intersect	
  with	
  the	
  food	
  system.	
  	
  	
  
This	
  thesis	
  will	
  contribute	
  to	
  this	
  emerging	
  body	
  of	
  knowledge	
  by	
  studying	
  the	
  
values	
  a	
  selection	
  of	
  Midwest	
  region	
  food	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  are	
  employing	
  in	
  their	
  sourcing	
  
and	
  distribution	
  practices.	
  	
  The	
  following	
  literature	
  review	
  examines	
  the	
  context	
  from	
  
which	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  food	
  hubs	
  has	
  emerged.	
  	
  	
  I	
  will	
  first	
  examine	
  values	
  based	
  value	
  chain	
  
literature,	
  an	
  idea	
  that	
  originates	
  in	
  the	
  business	
  literature.	
  	
  Through	
  reviewing	
  the	
  
literature	
  on	
  food	
  access	
  and	
  diet-­‐related	
  disease	
  health	
  disparities,	
  I	
  will	
  frame	
  why	
  it	
  is	
  
relevant	
  that	
  food	
  hubs	
  are	
  interested	
  in	
  interacting	
  with	
  underserved	
  populations	
  and	
  
who	
  is	
  included	
  in	
  this	
  designation.	
  	
  Lastly,	
  I	
  will	
  review	
  the	
  growing	
  literature	
  on	
  the	
  
relevance	
  of	
  differentiated	
  and	
  values-­‐based	
  products,	
  to	
  better	
  understand	
  the	
  current	
  
attitudes	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  about	
  sourcing	
  these	
  products.	
  	
  Due	
  to	
  the	
  recent	
  
emergence	
  of	
  the	
  food	
  hub	
  concept	
  and	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  supporting	
  scholarship	
  to	
  frame	
  it,	
  this	
  
review,	
  by	
  necessity,	
  will	
  include	
  sources	
  from	
  the	
  gray	
  literature.	
  	
  
	
  
Values	
  Based	
  Value	
  Chains	
  (VBVC):	
  	
  Background	
  context	
  for	
  emergence	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  
concept	
  	
  
	
  
Authors	
  often	
  frame	
  food	
  hubs	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  Values	
  Based	
  Value	
  Chain	
  (VBVC)	
  (J.	
  
Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013;	
  Stevenson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2011),	
  an	
  idea	
  developed	
  in	
  the	
  
business	
  literature.	
  	
  Stevenson	
  &	
  Pirog	
  (2008)	
  adapted	
  this	
  idea	
  within	
  the	
  food	
  system	
  to	
  

	
  

2	
  

	
  

articulate	
  supply	
  chains	
  that	
  embody	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  shared	
  values,	
  both	
  economic	
  and	
  social.	
  The	
  
characteristics	
  of	
  a	
  VBVC	
  that	
  set	
  them	
  apart	
  from	
  conventional	
  supply	
  chains,	
  as	
  described	
  
by	
  Stevenson	
  and	
  Pirog	
  (2008),	
  include:	
  	
  
•

Considering	
  participants	
  in	
  the	
  value	
  chain	
  as	
  “strategic	
  partners”,	
  where	
  
decisions	
  are	
  made	
  transparently	
  and	
  collaboratively	
  

•

Products	
  exchanged	
  are	
  often	
  differentiated	
  in	
  some	
  way	
  

•

The	
  well-­‐being	
  of	
  all	
  chain	
  participants	
  is	
  prioritized	
  

•

The	
  model	
  is	
  effective	
  on	
  all	
  scales,	
  including	
  local,	
  whereas	
  conventional	
  
supply	
  chains	
  are	
  increasingly	
  only	
  national	
  and/or	
  international	
  in	
  scale	
  

There	
  is	
  a	
  developing	
  literature	
  investigating	
  various	
  elements	
  of	
  VBVCs	
  across	
  the	
  
country	
  and	
  around	
  the	
  world	
  (see,	
  for	
  example:	
  	
  S.	
  Baker,	
  Thompson,	
  &	
  Engelken,	
  2004;	
  
Bloom	
  &	
  Hinrichs,	
  2011;	
  Conner,	
  Campbell-­‐Arvai,	
  &	
  Hamm,	
  2008;	
  Hendrickson	
  &	
  
Heffernan,	
  2002;	
  Kirschenmann,	
  Stevenson,	
  Buttel,	
  Lyson,	
  &	
  Duffy,	
  2008;	
  Lyson,	
  Stevenson,	
  
&	
  Welsh,	
  2008;	
  Marsden,	
  Banks,	
  &	
  Bristow,	
  2002;	
  Pullman	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  2010).	
  	
  This	
  literature	
  
points	
  to	
  VBVCs	
  as	
  one	
  model	
  that	
  could	
  stimulate	
  and	
  sustain	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  food	
  
system	
  growth,	
  and	
  has	
  the	
  potential	
  to	
  address	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  challenges	
  that	
  producers	
  face	
  
in	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  markets	
  (Conner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008).	
  
One	
  of	
  the	
  widely	
  recognized	
  gaps	
  that	
  VBVCs	
  fill	
  is	
  providing	
  a	
  market	
  for	
  small	
  and	
  
mid-­‐sized	
  producers.	
  Scholars	
  have	
  noted	
  a	
  significant	
  decline	
  in	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  
(Kirschenmann	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Lyson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Stevenson	
  &	
  Pirog,	
  2008),	
  which	
  they	
  
attribute	
  to	
  the	
  polarized	
  markets	
  between	
  small-­‐scale	
  niche	
  producers	
  that	
  largely	
  sell	
  in	
  
direct	
  markets	
  and	
  large-­‐scale	
  commodity	
  producers	
  that	
  sell	
  in	
  the	
  global	
  marketplace,	
  
neither	
  of	
  which	
  are	
  appropriately	
  scaled	
  for	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farmers.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

3	
  

	
  

Some	
  scholars	
  have	
  expressed	
  concern	
  about	
  the	
  disappearance	
  of	
  these	
  mid-­‐sized	
  
farms,	
  in	
  part	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  consequences	
  of	
  increasing	
  corporate	
  consolidation	
  in	
  the	
  food	
  
sector	
  (Carstensen,	
  2008;	
  Lyson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008)	
  and	
  in	
  part	
  because	
  these	
  farms	
  offer	
  a	
  
number	
  of	
  environmental,	
  social	
  and	
  economic	
  services	
  that	
  contribute	
  to	
  the	
  vibrancy	
  of	
  
their	
  rural	
  communities.	
  Kirschenmann	
  et	
  al.	
  (2008,	
  pp.	
  4–5)	
  comment	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  
mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  have	
  been	
  family	
  owned	
  for	
  many	
  generations,	
  demonstrating	
  that	
  	
  “good	
  
land	
  stewardship	
  is	
  a	
  high	
  priority	
  since	
  they	
  regard	
  their	
  land	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  family’s	
  
heritage	
  and	
  local	
  ecological	
  knowledge	
  has	
  been	
  handed	
  down	
  from	
  one	
  generation	
  to	
  the	
  
next.”	
  Lyson	
  (2008)	
  points	
  out	
  that	
  products	
  purchased	
  from	
  a	
  mid-­‐level	
  farm	
  in	
  a	
  
community	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  high	
  “economic	
  multiplier”,	
  meaning	
  that	
  the	
  money	
  used	
  in	
  that	
  
transaction	
  is	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  benefit	
  a	
  greater	
  portion	
  of	
  that	
  community,	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  
purchasing	
  products	
  that	
  are	
  produced	
  by	
  a	
  farm	
  or	
  company	
  that	
  is	
  based	
  elsewhere.	
  
A	
  major	
  benefit	
  that	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  have	
  in	
  the	
  market	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  have	
  the	
  ability	
  
to	
  be	
  more	
  nimble	
  (in	
  comparison	
  to	
  large	
  commodity	
  producers)	
  in	
  providing	
  
differentiated	
  or	
  values-­‐based	
  goods,	
  paired	
  with	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  inform	
  the	
  consumer	
  of	
  this	
  
differentiation	
  (Hoshide,	
  n.d.;	
  Kirschenmann	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Stevenson	
  &	
  Pirog,	
  2008).	
  	
  This	
  is	
  
particularly	
  salient	
  because	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  scholars	
  are	
  suggesting	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  growing	
  
consumer	
  interest	
  in	
  purchasing	
  products	
  based	
  on	
  values-­‐based,	
  non-­‐monetized	
  
attributes	
  (E.	
  Barham,	
  2002;	
  Hendrickson	
  &	
  Heffernan,	
  2002).	
  	
  These	
  can	
  include	
  
production	
  methods	
  such	
  as	
  organic	
  certified,	
  or	
  pasture-­‐raised	
  meat	
  (S.	
  Baker	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  
Conner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Marsden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Pullman	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  2010);	
  location,	
  such	
  as	
  local	
  
or	
  regionally	
  produced	
  (Bloom	
  &	
  Hinrichs,	
  2011);	
  or	
  socially	
  motivated,	
  such	
  as	
  fair	
  trade	
  
(Jaffee,	
  Kloppenburg,	
  &	
  Monroy,	
  2004).	
  

	
  

4	
  

	
  

One	
  VBVC	
  member	
  often	
  aggregates	
  products	
  from	
  mid	
  and	
  small-­‐sized	
  farms	
  
allowing	
  access	
  to	
  institutional	
  markets	
  that	
  require	
  larger,	
  more	
  consistent	
  volumes	
  
(Clark,	
  Inwood,	
  &	
  Sharp,	
  2011;	
  Hoshide,	
  n.d.;	
  Izumi,	
  Wright,	
  &	
  Hamm,	
  2010;	
  Kirschenmann	
  
et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  Stevenson	
  et	
  al.	
  (2011)	
  point	
  out	
  that	
  some	
  institutional	
  
markets	
  are	
  interested	
  in	
  carrying	
  more	
  differentiated	
  products,	
  which	
  could	
  provide	
  a	
  
steady	
  outlet	
  for	
  mid-­‐sized	
  producers.	
  
VBVCs	
  may	
  also	
  have	
  a	
  distinct	
  advantage	
  in	
  helping	
  create	
  meaningful,	
  trusting	
  
relationships	
  among	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  supply	
  chain.	
  	
  Hendrickson	
  &	
  Heffernan	
  (2002)	
  
speculate	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  weaknesses	
  of	
  firms	
  that	
  operate	
  in	
  the	
  global	
  system	
  is	
  their	
  inability	
  
to	
  form	
  trusting	
  relationships	
  with	
  customers	
  that	
  desire	
  transparent	
  information.	
  	
  They	
  
offer	
  that	
  alternative	
  structures,	
  such	
  as	
  VBVCs,	
  have	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  create,	
  foster	
  and	
  
maintain	
  trusting	
  relationships	
  among	
  the	
  participants	
  in	
  the	
  chain.	
  	
  Others	
  echo	
  these	
  
sentiments.	
  	
  Scholars	
  report	
  that	
  trust	
  is	
  a	
  prerequisite	
  for	
  the	
  formation	
  of	
  successful,	
  
collaborative	
  relationships	
  in	
  organic	
  food	
  VBVCs	
  (Kottila	
  &	
  Rönni,	
  2008;	
  Pirog	
  &	
  
Bregendahl,	
  2012).	
  	
  Another	
  noted	
  that	
  creating	
  trust	
  in	
  inter-­‐organizational	
  relationships	
  
and	
  sharing	
  common	
  values	
  were	
  defining	
  characteristics	
  of	
  a	
  VBVC	
  community	
  of	
  practice	
  
(Campbell	
  &	
  MacRae,	
  2013).	
  	
  Framing	
  a	
  case	
  study	
  that	
  investigated	
  a	
  short	
  food	
  supply	
  
chain	
  (SFSC),	
  a	
  model	
  that	
  is	
  closely	
  related	
  to	
  VBVCs,	
  Marsden	
  et	
  al.	
  (2002)	
  note	
  that	
  
building	
  trusting	
  relationships	
  is	
  a	
  defining	
  factor	
  of	
  these	
  chains.	
  	
  Stevenson	
  and	
  Pirog’s	
  
(2013)	
  articulation	
  of	
  food	
  VBVCs	
  frame	
  the	
  relationships	
  that	
  exist	
  within	
  these	
  chains	
  as	
  
“strategic	
  partnerships”	
  that	
  are	
  outlined	
  in	
  “win-­‐win	
  terms”	
  for	
  all	
  parties	
  involved.	
  	
  These	
  
relationships	
  have	
  a	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  collaborative	
  decision-­‐making,	
  transparency	
  and	
  trust.	
  	
  
Lastly,	
  they	
  show	
  a	
  commitment	
  to	
  the	
  well-­‐being	
  of	
  all	
  members	
  in	
  the	
  VBVC.	
  

	
  

5	
  

	
  

	
  
Food	
  hubs	
  as	
  a	
  model	
  of	
  a	
  VBVC	
  
	
  
This	
  foundation	
  of	
  research	
  and	
  inquiry	
  into	
  VBVCs	
  sets	
  a	
  backdrop	
  for	
  
development	
  of	
  the	
  food	
  hub	
  concept.	
  	
  These	
  two	
  concepts	
  overlap,	
  as	
  food	
  hubs	
  are	
  often	
  
thought	
  to	
  be	
  part	
  of	
  value	
  chains,	
  or	
  that	
  they	
  can	
  operationalize	
  attributes	
  of	
  VBVCs	
  
(Stevenson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2011).	
  	
  One	
  report	
  highlights	
  the	
  capability	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  businesses	
  to	
  
maintain	
  product	
  differentiation,	
  build	
  capacity	
  of	
  producers	
  and	
  embody	
  transparent	
  
relationships	
  and	
  communications	
  (Day-­‐Farnsworth,	
  McCown,	
  Miller,	
  &	
  Pfeiffer,	
  2009).	
  An	
  
early	
  piece	
  on	
  food	
  hubs	
  speculates	
  that	
  they	
  may	
  be	
  the	
  “missing	
  middle”	
  necessary	
  for	
  
scaling	
  up	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  food	
  systems,	
  given	
  a	
  supportive	
  policy	
  environment	
  (Morley,	
  
Morgan,	
  &	
  Morgan,	
  2008).	
  	
  A	
  USDA	
  report	
  shares	
  the	
  realization	
  of	
  this	
  potential	
  through	
  a	
  
number	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  case	
  studies	
  that	
  are	
  increasing	
  local	
  food	
  distribution	
  through	
  a	
  
variety	
  of	
  business	
  models	
  (Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  	
  
Currently,	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  food	
  hub	
  resources	
  are	
  gray	
  literature,	
  or	
  literature	
  that	
  is	
  not	
  
peer-­‐reviewed,	
  and	
  focus	
  on	
  practitioner	
  interests.	
  	
  Lerman	
  et	
  al.	
  (2012b,	
  pp.	
  2–3)	
  review	
  
thirty	
  food	
  hub	
  and	
  values	
  based	
  supply	
  chain	
  (VBSC)	
  reports	
  and	
  identified	
  several	
  
themes.	
  These	
  themes	
  include:	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  food	
  hubs	
  and	
  VBSCs,	
  descriptions	
  of	
  VBSCs	
  
and	
  food	
  hubs,	
  benefits	
  of	
  VBSCs	
  and	
  food	
  hubs,	
  challenges	
  of	
  VBSCs	
  and	
  food	
  hubs,	
  and	
  
best	
  practices	
  for	
  stakeholders	
  involved	
  in	
  VBSCs	
  and	
  food	
  hubs.	
  	
  
The	
  two	
  national	
  food	
  hub	
  surveys	
  are	
  notable	
  exceptions	
  to	
  resources	
  that	
  typically	
  
target	
  practitioners.	
  	
  These	
  surveys	
  document	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  information	
  about	
  food	
  hubs	
  in	
  
the	
  U.S.	
  including:	
  	
  location,	
  legal	
  status,	
  age,	
  funding,	
  revenue,	
  products	
  offered,	
  activities,	
  
services,	
  and	
  employee	
  demographics	
  (J.	
  Barham,	
  2011;	
  Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  Barham’s	
  
	
  

6	
  

	
  

survey	
  (2011)	
  included	
  responses	
  from	
  45	
  food	
  hubs	
  across	
  the	
  country.	
  The	
  reported	
  
results	
  mainly	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  food	
  hubs	
  at	
  that	
  time	
  and	
  were	
  intended	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  guide	
  
for	
  developing	
  food	
  hub	
  resources,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  to	
  inform	
  funding	
  possibilities	
  for	
  food	
  hub	
  
development.	
  
The	
  second	
  survey	
  was	
  both	
  a	
  follow-­‐up	
  to	
  the	
  2011	
  survey	
  and	
  expanded	
  to	
  
examine	
  the	
  characteristics	
  of	
  “successful”	
  food	
  hubs	
  and	
  identify	
  barriers	
  to	
  growth	
  and	
  
development	
  (Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  This	
  survey	
  included	
  data	
  from	
  107	
  respondents,	
  more	
  
than	
  doubling	
  the	
  number	
  from	
  the	
  2011	
  survey.	
  	
  	
  
A	
  food	
  hub	
  resource	
  guide,	
  informed	
  by	
  the	
  first	
  national	
  food	
  hub	
  survey,	
  was	
  
published	
  by	
  the	
  USDA	
  Agricultural	
  Marketing	
  Service	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012).	
  It	
  was	
  
intended	
  that	
  this	
  guide	
  also	
  appeal	
  to	
  funders	
  by	
  clarifying	
  the	
  food	
  hub	
  concept,	
  their	
  
current	
  impacts	
  among	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  in	
  their	
  communities.	
  	
  In	
  addition	
  to	
  providing	
  
information	
  about	
  the	
  potential	
  impacts	
  of	
  food	
  hubs,	
  and	
  applied	
  topics	
  for	
  practitioners,	
  
this	
  guide	
  expands	
  on	
  socially	
  driven	
  missions	
  and	
  values	
  that	
  food	
  hubs	
  often	
  incorporate.	
  	
  
Of	
  specific	
  interest	
  to	
  this	
  research	
  project	
  is	
  the	
  notion	
  that	
  food	
  hubs	
  may	
  often	
  take	
  an	
  
interest	
  in	
  increasing	
  food	
  access	
  to	
  underserved	
  populations.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Underserved	
  Populations	
  in	
  the	
  Value	
  Chain:	
  	
  The	
  motivation	
  behind	
  food	
  hubs’	
  
social	
  mission	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  most	
  recent	
  reports	
  and	
  food	
  hub	
  guides	
  have	
  indicated	
  that	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  hubs	
  
have	
  a	
  social	
  mission	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access	
  for	
  underserved	
  populations	
  in	
  their	
  
communities	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  This	
  thesis	
  will	
  further	
  examine	
  
how	
  and	
  why	
  hubs	
  are	
  motivated	
  to	
  work	
  on	
  issues	
  of	
  food	
  access	
  by	
  situating	
  this	
  desire	
  
to	
  work	
  with	
  underserved	
  markets	
  within	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  VBVCs.	
  	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  growing	
  body	
  of	
  

	
  

7	
  

	
  

evidence	
  in	
  the	
  literature	
  related	
  to	
  food	
  access,	
  and	
  the	
  correlation	
  between	
  access	
  and	
  
diet-­‐related	
  disease	
  within	
  underserved	
  populations.	
  	
  	
  
It	
  is	
  well	
  established	
  that	
  food	
  access	
  is	
  not	
  equal	
  among	
  all	
  residents	
  of	
  the	
  U.S.,	
  
where	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  access	
  is	
  measured	
  by	
  living	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  mile	
  from	
  a	
  grocery	
  store	
  in	
  an	
  
urban	
  area	
  and	
  more	
  than	
  ten	
  miles	
  in	
  a	
  rural	
  area	
  (ERS,	
  USDA,	
  2013).	
  	
  Reduced	
  or	
  limited	
  
access	
  to	
  healthy	
  food	
  has	
  been	
  shown	
  to	
  correlate	
  with	
  lower	
  income	
  levels	
  (Morland,	
  
Wing,	
  Diez	
  Roux,	
  &	
  Poole,	
  2002;	
  Ver	
  Ploeg	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012).	
  	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  a	
  study	
  examined	
  
data	
  from	
  across	
  the	
  U.S.	
  and	
  reported	
  that	
  low-­‐income	
  neighborhoods	
  have	
  75%	
  less	
  
access	
  to	
  supermarkets	
  than	
  middle-­‐income	
  neighborhoods	
  (Powell,	
  Slater,	
  Mirtcheva,	
  Bao,	
  
&	
  Chaloupka,	
  2007).	
  	
  	
  
Race	
  and	
  ethnicity	
  are	
  also	
  significant	
  factors	
  determining	
  access	
  to	
  healthy	
  food,	
  
often	
  more	
  significant	
  than	
  income	
  level.	
  	
  A	
  multitude	
  of	
  studies	
  have	
  shown	
  that	
  
communities	
  of	
  color,	
  in	
  particular	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  communities,	
  have	
  lower	
  access	
  to	
  
healthy	
  food	
  than	
  white	
  communities	
  (E.	
  A.	
  Baker,	
  Schootman,	
  Barnidge,	
  &	
  Kelly,	
  2006;	
  Bell	
  
&	
  Standish,	
  2009;	
  Galvez	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Morland	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Powell	
  et	
  al.,	
  2007;	
  Seligman,	
  
Laraia,	
  &	
  Kushel,	
  2010;	
  Shaffer,	
  2002;	
  Stuff	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004).	
  	
  	
  	
  In	
  Morland	
  et	
  al.’s	
  (2002)	
  study	
  
supermarkets	
  were	
  reported	
  four	
  times	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  predominantly	
  white	
  
neighborhoods	
  than	
  in	
  predominantly	
  Black	
  neighborhoods	
  and	
  that	
  convenience	
  stores	
  
were	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  located	
  in	
  Black	
  communities.	
  Culturally	
  appropriate	
  fruits	
  and	
  
vegetables	
  for	
  Latino	
  and	
  African	
  American	
  populations	
  in	
  Southwest	
  Chicago	
  were	
  much	
  
less	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  found	
  than	
  commonly	
  consumed	
  fruits	
  and	
  vegetables	
  (Grigsby-­‐Toussaint,	
  
Zenk,	
  Odoms-­‐Young,	
  Ruggiero,	
  &	
  Moise,	
  2010).	
  

	
  

8	
  

	
  

Other	
  studies	
  have	
  shown	
  that	
  access	
  to	
  healthy	
  food	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  consumption	
  of	
  a	
  
healthier	
  diet	
  (Bodor,	
  Rose,	
  Farley,	
  Swalm,	
  &	
  Scott,	
  2008;	
  Moore,	
  Roux,	
  Nettleton,	
  &	
  Jacobs,	
  
2008).	
  	
  Consumption	
  of	
  a	
  healthy	
  diet	
  was	
  25-­‐46%	
  less	
  likely	
  by	
  residents	
  who	
  did	
  not	
  live	
  
in	
  close	
  supermarket	
  proximity	
  than	
  those	
  residents	
  living	
  in	
  areas	
  with	
  the	
  densest	
  
incidence	
  of	
  supermarkets,	
  even	
  after	
  controlling	
  for	
  age,	
  gender,	
  race,	
  ethnicity	
  and	
  
income	
  (Moore	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008).	
  	
  A	
  New	
  Orleans	
  study	
  reported	
  that	
  increased	
  vegetable	
  
consumption	
  was	
  related	
  to	
  more	
  shelf	
  space	
  allocated	
  to	
  vegetables	
  in	
  food	
  stores	
  that	
  
were	
  close	
  to	
  the	
  respondents’	
  homes	
  (Bodor	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008).	
  	
  	
  
The	
  food	
  access	
  literature	
  has	
  noticeably	
  expanded	
  in	
  recent	
  years.	
  	
  A	
  number	
  of	
  
more	
  recent	
  reviews	
  of	
  this	
  literature	
  have	
  pointed	
  out	
  important	
  critiques	
  and	
  
weaknesses	
  in	
  this	
  body	
  of	
  work.	
  	
  Systematic	
  review	
  of	
  this	
  literature	
  has	
  been	
  cited	
  as	
  
difficult	
  due	
  to	
  diverse	
  definitions	
  and	
  access	
  measurement	
  methodologies	
  (Beaulac,	
  
Kristjansson,	
  &	
  Cummins,	
  2009;	
  Black,	
  Moon,	
  &	
  Baird,	
  2013;	
  Walker,	
  Keane,	
  &	
  Burke,	
  
2010).	
  	
  More	
  than	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  studies	
  in	
  one	
  review	
  found	
  no	
  relationship	
  between	
  
proximity	
  to	
  healthy	
  food	
  outlets	
  and	
  diet	
  (Black	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  	
  
More	
  recent	
  articles	
  on	
  this	
  topic	
  report	
  results	
  that	
  broaden	
  this	
  discussion.	
  	
  The	
  
assumption	
  that	
  food	
  shopping	
  generally	
  takes	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  neighborhood	
  of	
  residence	
  is	
  in	
  
question	
  (Aggarwal	
  et	
  al.,	
  2014;	
  Zenk	
  et	
  al.,	
  2011).	
  	
  Zenk	
  et	
  al.	
  (2011)	
  found	
  no	
  relationship	
  
between	
  dietary	
  behavior	
  and	
  supermarket	
  presence	
  in	
  the	
  neighborhood.	
  	
  The	
  authors	
  
speculate	
  that	
  this	
  may	
  be	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  participants	
  engaging	
  in	
  daily	
  activities	
  
outside	
  of	
  their	
  neighborhoods.	
  	
  Similarly,	
  Aggarwal	
  et	
  al.	
  (2014)	
  found	
  that	
  consumption	
  
of	
  fruits	
  and	
  vegetables	
  was	
  not	
  related	
  to	
  proximity	
  of	
  food	
  outlets,	
  and	
  that	
  many	
  
participants	
  would	
  travel	
  farther	
  to	
  reach	
  low-­‐cost	
  grocery	
  stores.	
  	
  A	
  recent	
  pilot	
  study	
  

	
  

9	
  

	
  

examined	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  supermarket	
  located	
  in	
  a	
  predominantly	
  African	
  American,	
  
low-­‐income	
  community,	
  and	
  found	
  no	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  newly	
  created	
  access	
  and	
  
consumption	
  of	
  fruits	
  and	
  vegetables	
  (Cummins,	
  Flint,	
  &	
  Matthews,	
  2014).	
  
Despite	
  the	
  diversity	
  of	
  methodologies	
  and	
  questionable	
  assumptions	
  present	
  in	
  
some	
  of	
  these	
  studies,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  growing	
  consensus	
  that	
  healthy	
  food	
  access	
  is	
  
disproportionately	
  lower	
  for	
  low-­‐income	
  communities	
  of	
  color	
  (Beaulac	
  et	
  al.,	
  2009;	
  Black	
  
et	
  al.,	
  2013;	
  Walker	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010).	
  	
  This	
  access	
  deficit	
  is	
  disconcerting	
  because	
  a	
  diet	
  low	
  in	
  
fruits	
  and	
  vegetables	
  has	
  been	
  shown	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  risk	
  for	
  developing	
  diet	
  related	
  
diseases	
  including	
  Type	
  II	
  diabetes	
  and	
  cardiovascular	
  disease	
  (Ogden,	
  Carroll,	
  &	
  Flegal,	
  
2008;	
  Seligman	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010;	
  USDA,	
  2009).	
  	
  	
  These	
  diet	
  related	
  diseases	
  are	
  more	
  prevalent	
  
in	
  low-­‐income	
  communities,	
  and	
  Latino	
  and	
  African	
  American	
  populations,	
  as	
  compared	
  to	
  
white	
  populations	
  (Bell	
  &	
  Standish,	
  2009;	
  Narayan,	
  Boyle,	
  Thompson,	
  Sorensen,	
  &	
  
Williamson,	
  2003;	
  Ogden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Seligman	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010;	
  USDHHS,	
  2001).	
  
Set	
  within	
  this	
  context	
  of	
  healthy	
  food	
  access,	
  diet-­‐related	
  disease	
  and	
  racial	
  
disparity,	
  this	
  thesis	
  attempts	
  to	
  situate	
  the	
  consideration	
  of	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  
within	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  VBVCs	
  and	
  food	
  hubs.	
  	
  This	
  research	
  investigates	
  the	
  motivation	
  of	
  food	
  
hubs	
  to	
  serve	
  these	
  populations,	
  and	
  if	
  hubs	
  do	
  attempt	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  this	
  service,	
  how	
  they	
  
are	
  doing	
  it.	
  
	
  
Differentiated	
  and	
  values-­‐based	
  products:	
  	
  Economic	
  and	
  social	
  considerations	
  in	
  a	
  
growing	
  market	
  
	
  
Generally,	
  regional	
  food	
  hubs	
  provide	
  product	
  differentiation	
  services,	
  so	
  that	
  
producers	
  can	
  take	
  home	
  larger	
  revenue	
  (i.e.	
  a	
  larger	
  share	
  of	
  the	
  consumer	
  food	
  dollar).	
  	
  
Food	
  hubs	
  accomplish	
  this	
  by	
  providing	
  services	
  identifying	
  the	
  farm	
  or	
  producer,	
  group	
  

	
  

10	
  

	
  

branding,	
  carrying	
  specialty	
  products	
  like	
  heirloom	
  varieties,	
  and/or	
  carrying	
  products	
  
that	
  use	
  specific	
  production	
  practices,	
  like	
  organic	
  or	
  “naturally	
  grown”	
  (Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  
2012,	
  p.	
  4).	
  	
  	
  
The	
  literature	
  provides	
  some	
  grounding	
  for	
  the	
  motivation	
  behind	
  sourcing	
  and	
  
selling	
  differentiated,	
  values-­‐based	
  products	
  (VBPs).	
  	
  While	
  this	
  thesis	
  focuses	
  more	
  on	
  
social,	
  rather	
  than	
  economic	
  considerations	
  of	
  food	
  hub’s	
  interaction	
  with	
  VBPs,	
  it	
  must	
  be	
  
recognized	
  that	
  economic	
  sustainability	
  is	
  crucial	
  for	
  farms	
  and	
  producers	
  that	
  are	
  selling	
  
VBPs	
  in	
  the	
  marketplace.	
  	
  Therefore,	
  we	
  will	
  begin	
  by	
  briefly	
  looking	
  at	
  a	
  portion	
  of	
  the	
  
literature	
  relevant	
  to	
  the	
  economic	
  impacts	
  for	
  VBP	
  producers.	
  
While	
  describing	
  characteristics	
  of	
  successful	
  value	
  chains,	
  Diamond	
  and	
  Barham	
  
(2011,	
  p.	
  3)	
  claim	
  that	
  product	
  differentiation	
  is	
  critical,	
  because	
  producers	
  are	
  gaining	
  
economic	
  value	
  through	
  this	
  strategy.	
  	
  Other	
  studies	
  have	
  complementary	
  conclusions.	
  	
  
Conner	
  et	
  al.	
  (2008)	
  note	
  that	
  VBVCs	
  bring	
  a	
  premium	
  price	
  to	
  the	
  producer	
  through	
  
product	
  differentiation,	
  which	
  can	
  increase	
  farm	
  viability.	
  	
  Three	
  case	
  studies	
  look	
  at	
  value	
  
chains	
  that	
  are	
  marketing	
  pasture-­‐raised	
  beef	
  (Ibid.;	
  Marsden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Pullman	
  &	
  
Dillard,	
  2010),	
  and	
  all	
  three	
  note	
  that	
  differentiating	
  this	
  product	
  from	
  conventional	
  beef	
  
leads	
  to	
  the	
  producer	
  capturing	
  a	
  higher	
  price.	
  
In	
  addition	
  to	
  the	
  economic	
  benefits	
  that	
  producers	
  can	
  capture	
  from	
  product	
  
differentiation,	
  this	
  strategy	
  may	
  provide	
  social	
  benefits	
  for	
  value	
  chain	
  members	
  when	
  
products	
  are	
  identified	
  as	
  having	
  additional	
  attributes	
  that	
  represent	
  a	
  larger	
  goal	
  or	
  
perspective.	
  	
  In	
  this	
  case	
  the	
  attributes	
  are	
  not	
  valued	
  in	
  dollars,	
  but	
  as	
  a	
  social	
  or	
  
environmental	
  goal	
  (Diamond	
  &	
  Barham,	
  2011;	
  Stevenson	
  &	
  Pirog,	
  2008).	
  	
  	
  

	
  

11	
  

	
  

Barham	
  (2002)	
  writes	
  that	
  labeling	
  and	
  communication	
  of	
  values	
  can	
  be	
  thought	
  of	
  
as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  “re-­‐humanize”	
  the	
  market,	
  by	
  allowing	
  food-­‐purchasing	
  choices	
  to	
  be	
  based	
  on	
  
traditionally	
  non-­‐monetized	
  attributes.	
  	
  She	
  also	
  speculates	
  that	
  these	
  choices	
  can	
  be	
  
explicitly	
  political	
  and	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  social	
  movement	
  based	
  on	
  common	
  goals	
  and	
  values.	
  In	
  a	
  
case	
  study	
  of	
  two	
  farmer’s	
  markets	
  in	
  Northern	
  California,	
  Alkon	
  (2008)	
  found	
  that	
  
customers	
  at	
  these	
  markets	
  were	
  purchasing	
  food	
  based	
  partly	
  on	
  political	
  and	
  moral	
  
considerations.	
  	
  Coff	
  et	
  al.	
  (2008)	
  write	
  that	
  labeling	
  values-­‐based	
  products	
  facilitates	
  more	
  
informed	
  consumer	
  purchasing	
  choices	
  by	
  allowing	
  transparent	
  insight	
  into	
  the	
  production	
  
methods	
  that	
  were	
  used	
  in	
  making	
  a	
  particular	
  product.	
  
A	
  number	
  of	
  researchers	
  comment	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  growing	
  consumer	
  interest	
  and	
  
demand	
  for	
  differentiated	
  products	
  (S.	
  Baker	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  Connell,	
  Smithers,	
  &	
  Joseph,	
  
2008;	
  Conner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Marsden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Painter,	
  2007;	
  Pullman	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  2010).	
  	
  
While	
  values-­‐based	
  labels	
  may	
  represent	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  values,	
  many	
  of	
  them	
  connect	
  with	
  
environmental	
  consciousness	
  via	
  production	
  methods,	
  such	
  as	
  organic	
  (S.	
  Baker	
  et	
  al.,	
  
2004),	
  or	
  pasture-­‐raised	
  animals	
  and	
  their	
  humane	
  treatment	
  (Conner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  
Marsden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Pullman	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  2010).	
  	
  Other	
  labels	
  signify	
  a	
  socially	
  motivated	
  
goal,	
  such	
  as	
  preservation	
  of	
  small	
  to	
  mid-­‐size	
  family	
  farms	
  culture	
  (Alkon,	
  2008;	
  Conner	
  et	
  
al.,	
  2008;	
  Pullman	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  2010),	
  or	
  impact	
  of	
  authentic	
  and	
  fair	
  relationships	
  along	
  the	
  
value	
  chain	
  (Hendrickson	
  &	
  Heffernan,	
  2002;	
  Jaffee	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004).	
  	
  	
  
With	
  growing	
  consumer	
  interest	
  in	
  product	
  differentiation,	
  and	
  a	
  multitude	
  of	
  potential	
  
environmental,	
  social,	
  and	
  cultural	
  impacts	
  that	
  these	
  products	
  may	
  supply,	
  this	
  movement	
  
towards	
  product	
  differentiation	
  becomes	
  increasingly	
  important	
  to	
  examine.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
12	
  

	
  

Conclusion	
  
	
  
Within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  current	
  regional	
  food	
  hub	
  operations	
  and	
  what	
  informs	
  their	
  
social,	
  environmental	
  and	
  economic	
  goals,	
  this	
  thesis	
  will	
  focus	
  on	
  two	
  aspects	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  
operation.	
  	
  First	
  I	
  will	
  examine	
  how	
  food	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  are	
  currently	
  conceptualizing	
  
niche	
  markets,	
  differentiated	
  and	
  values-­‐based	
  products,	
  and	
  what,	
  if	
  anything,	
  their	
  
operations	
  are	
  doing	
  to	
  source	
  these	
  products.	
  	
  Second,	
  I	
  will	
  investigate	
  how	
  food	
  hubs	
  are	
  
interacting	
  with	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  as	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  VBVC.	
  	
  These	
  questions	
  will	
  be	
  
examined	
  through	
  a	
  qualitative	
  study	
  of	
  food	
  hubs	
  in	
  Michigan,	
  Ohio,	
  Indiana	
  and	
  
Wisconsin	
  that	
  ranged	
  in	
  their	
  stage	
  of	
  development	
  from	
  planning	
  to	
  operational.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

13	
  

	
  

CHAPTER	
  2.	
  	
  The	
  role	
  of	
  values	
  in	
  food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  and	
  distributing	
  practices	
  
Introduction	
  
	
  
The	
  recent	
  emergence	
  of	
  the	
  food	
  hub	
  concept	
  and	
  its	
  development	
  across	
  the	
  
country	
  has	
  garnered	
  much	
  attention.	
  	
  Food	
  hub	
  operations	
  have	
  been	
  framed	
  as	
  a	
  strategy	
  
to	
  scale-­‐up	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  food	
  systems,	
  specifically	
  by	
  increasing	
  market	
  access	
  to	
  
small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Kirschenmann	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Stevenson	
  et	
  
al.,	
  2011).	
  	
  	
  
	
  

In	
  partnership,	
  the	
  USDA	
  and	
  National	
  Food	
  Hub	
  Collaboration	
  define	
  a	
  regional	
  

food	
  hub	
  as	
  “a	
  business	
  or	
  organization	
  that	
  actively	
  manages	
  the	
  aggregation,	
  distribution,	
  
and	
  marketing	
  of	
  source-­‐identified	
  food	
  products	
  primarily	
  from	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  
producers	
  to	
  strengthen	
  their	
  ability	
  to	
  satisfy	
  wholesale,	
  retail,	
  and	
  institutional	
  demand”	
  
(J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012,	
  p.	
  4).	
  	
  The	
  self-­‐identified,	
  intended	
  goals	
  of	
  food	
  hubs	
  are	
  many:	
  	
  
increased	
  institutional	
  market	
  access	
  for	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐size	
  farmers;	
  strengthening	
  the	
  
regional	
  food	
  economy	
  in	
  their	
  community;	
  and	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  additional	
  social	
  goals,	
  
including	
  increasing	
  food	
  access	
  for	
  underserved	
  populations	
  (Ibid.).	
  	
  Results	
  from	
  a	
  recent	
  
national	
  food	
  hub	
  survey	
  reinforce	
  that	
  many	
  hubs	
  have	
  mission	
  driven	
  goals	
  (Fischer	
  et	
  
al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  Their	
  results	
  also	
  show	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  businesses	
  are	
  financially	
  
profitable.	
  	
  These	
  findings	
  indicate	
  that	
  food	
  hubs	
  may	
  provide	
  examples	
  of	
  solvent,	
  values-­‐
based	
  businesses.	
  
Despite	
  the	
  attention	
  the	
  food	
  hub	
  concept	
  is	
  generating,	
  research	
  on	
  the	
  collective	
  
impact,	
  characteristics	
  and	
  motivations	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  businesses	
  has	
  only	
  recently	
  begun.	
  	
  
Much	
  of	
  the	
  existing	
  research	
  targets	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  and	
  appears	
  in	
  case	
  studies,	
  reports	
  
and	
  resource	
  guides	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Cohen	
  &	
  Derryck,	
  2011;	
  Day-­‐Farnsworth	
  et	
  al.,	
  

	
  

14	
  

	
  

2009;	
  Greenberg,	
  2007;	
  Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  With	
  the	
  notable	
  exception	
  of	
  the	
  two	
  
national	
  food	
  hub	
  surveys	
  (J.	
  Barham,	
  2011;	
  Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013),	
  we	
  are	
  not	
  aware	
  of	
  
research	
  examining	
  the	
  motivations	
  and	
  operations	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  and	
  distributing	
  
practices.	
  	
  
Several	
  case	
  studies	
  have	
  commented	
  on	
  intended	
  and	
  observed	
  food	
  hub	
  
operational	
  characteristics,	
  including:	
  	
  hubs’	
  ability	
  to	
  maintain	
  product	
  differentiation	
  
(Day-­‐Farnsworth	
  et	
  al.,	
  2009;	
  Greenberg,	
  2007;	
  Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013)	
  and	
  their	
  potential	
  to	
  
engage	
  in	
  transparent	
  and	
  collaborative	
  relationships	
  with	
  other	
  business	
  partners	
  and	
  
stakeholders	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  Fischer	
  et	
  al	
  (2013)	
  confirm	
  that	
  
food	
  hubs	
  nationwide	
  differentiate	
  products.	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  60%	
  of	
  the	
  107	
  hubs	
  surveyed	
  
branded	
  or	
  labeled	
  products	
  (Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013,	
  p.	
  37).	
  	
  The	
  results	
  also	
  indicated	
  a	
  
majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  prefer	
  to	
  carry	
  products	
  which	
  either	
  use	
  particular	
  growing	
  methods	
  or	
  
have	
  specific	
  certifications.	
  	
  
While	
  the	
  national	
  survey	
  and	
  case	
  studies	
  provide	
  a	
  useful	
  baseline	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  
information,	
  there	
  is	
  still	
  much	
  to	
  be	
  learned	
  about	
  the	
  values,	
  characteristics	
  and	
  
motivations	
  of	
  food	
  hub	
  operations.	
  	
  	
  
Values	
  based	
  value	
  chains	
  (VBVCs):	
  	
  A	
  theoretical	
  framework	
  	
  
Researchers	
  often	
  frame	
  food	
  hubs	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  VBVC	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Matson	
  
et	
  al.,	
  2013;	
  Stevenson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2011),	
  an	
  idea	
  developed	
  in	
  the	
  business	
  literature.	
  	
  Stevenson	
  
&	
  Pirog	
  (2008)	
  adapted	
  this	
  idea	
  to	
  articulate	
  supply	
  chains	
  within	
  the	
  food	
  system	
  by	
  
including	
  explicit	
  encouragement	
  of	
  equitable	
  relationships	
  among	
  food	
  supply	
  chain	
  
members	
  along	
  with	
  more	
  traditional	
  supply	
  chain	
  management	
  strategies	
  (Bloom	
  &	
  

	
  

15	
  

	
  

Hinrichs,	
  2011).	
  They	
  describe	
  the	
  VBVC	
  characteristics	
  that	
  set	
  them	
  apart	
  from	
  
conventional	
  supply	
  chains	
  as:	
  	
  
•

Considering	
  value	
  chain	
  participants	
  as	
  “strategic	
  partners”,	
  where	
  decisions	
  
are	
  made	
  transparently	
  and	
  collaboratively	
  

•

Products	
  exchanged	
  are	
  often	
  differentiated	
  

•

The	
  well-­‐being	
  of	
  all	
  chain	
  participants	
  is	
  prioritized	
  

•

The	
  model	
  is	
  effective	
  on	
  all	
  scales,	
  including	
  local,	
  whereas	
  conventional	
  
supply	
  chains	
  are	
  increasingly	
  nationally	
  or	
  internationally	
  scaled	
  

VBVCs	
  may	
  also	
  be	
  a	
  model	
  to	
  address	
  concern	
  about	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms’	
  
disappearance	
  in	
  the	
  U.S.	
  (Carstensen,	
  2008;	
  Lyson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Stevenson	
  &	
  Pirog,	
  2008).	
  
This	
  concern	
  is	
  due	
  in	
  part	
  because	
  these	
  farms	
  offer	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  environmental,	
  social	
  
and	
  economic	
  services	
  that	
  contribute	
  to	
  the	
  vibrancy	
  of	
  their	
  rural	
  communities.	
  	
  
Kirschenmann	
  et	
  al.	
  (2008)	
  note	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  are	
  often	
  family	
  owned	
  for	
  multiple	
  
generations	
  which	
  increases	
  their	
  practice	
  of	
  sound	
  land	
  stewardship.	
  	
  Mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  
also	
  have	
  the	
  comparative	
  advantage	
  of	
  being	
  more	
  able	
  to	
  meet	
  growing	
  consumer	
  needs	
  
for	
  differentiated	
  or	
  values-­‐based	
  goods,	
  compared	
  to	
  large	
  scale	
  commodity	
  farms	
  (E.	
  
Barham,	
  2002;	
  Diamond	
  &	
  Barham,	
  2011;	
  Hoshide,	
  n.d.;	
  Stevenson	
  &	
  Pirog,	
  2008).	
  	
  	
  
VBVCs	
  may	
  provide	
  increased	
  market	
  access	
  for	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farmers	
  by	
  
aggregating	
  products.	
  	
  This	
  allows	
  them	
  to	
  move	
  into	
  institutional	
  and	
  retail	
  markets	
  that	
  
require	
  larger,	
  consistent	
  volumes	
  (Clark	
  et	
  al.,	
  2011;	
  Hoshide,	
  n.d.;	
  Izumi	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010;	
  
Kirschenmann	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  
This	
  study	
  explores	
  food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  and	
  distributing	
  practices	
  through	
  a	
  values-­‐
based	
  perspective.	
  	
  To	
  further	
  contextualize	
  the	
  study,	
  we	
  will	
  look	
  at	
  product	
  

	
  

16	
  

	
  

differentiation	
  and	
  values-­‐based	
  products	
  (VBPs)	
  and	
  the	
  relevance	
  of	
  including	
  
underserved	
  populations	
  in	
  the	
  VBVC.	
  
Product	
  differentiation	
  and	
  values-­‐based	
  products	
  
A	
  suite	
  of	
  benefits	
  from	
  the	
  VBVC	
  strategy	
  of	
  selling	
  differentiated	
  goods	
  or	
  VBPs	
  
can	
  result	
  for	
  producers.	
  	
  Economically,	
  sales	
  of	
  differentiated	
  goods	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  
premium	
  price	
  (Conner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Marsden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Painter,	
  2007;	
  Pullman	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  
2010),	
  often	
  crucial	
  for	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farm	
  financial	
  stability.	
  	
  	
  
Environmental	
  or	
  social	
  goals	
  may	
  also	
  be	
  accomplished	
  via	
  VBPs.	
  	
  Consumers	
  are	
  
increasingly	
  interested	
  in	
  purchasing	
  products	
  that	
  use	
  practices	
  such	
  as	
  organic	
  
production	
  (S.	
  Baker	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004),	
  pasture	
  raising	
  of	
  animals,	
  and/or	
  their	
  humane	
  
treatment	
  (Conner	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Marsden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Pullman	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  2010).	
  	
  Consumers	
  
are	
  also	
  interested	
  in	
  social	
  goals,	
  such	
  preserving	
  family	
  farm	
  culture	
  (Alkon,	
  2008;	
  
Pullman	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  2010)	
  or	
  promoting	
  authentic	
  and	
  fair	
  relationships	
  throughout	
  the	
  
supply	
  chain	
  (Jaffee	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004).	
  	
  Finally,	
  Fischer	
  et	
  al.	
  reported	
  that	
  22%	
  of	
  hub	
  
respondents	
  included	
  food	
  access	
  as	
  a	
  value	
  in	
  their	
  mission	
  statement	
  (Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013,	
  
p.	
  31).	
  
Underserved	
  populations	
  in	
  the	
  value	
  chain:	
  health	
  and	
  access	
  disparities	
  

	
  

There	
  is	
  a	
  growing	
  body	
  of	
  literature	
  investigating	
  a	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  
food	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  occurrence	
  of	
  diet	
  related	
  diseases	
  in	
  underserved	
  populations.	
  	
  Multiple	
  
studies	
  show	
  that	
  decreased	
  access	
  to	
  healthy	
  food	
  is	
  related	
  to	
  lower	
  income	
  levels	
  
(Morland	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Powell	
  et	
  al.,	
  2007;,	
  2009).	
  	
  The	
  availability	
  of	
  healthy	
  food	
  is	
  lower	
  in	
  
communities	
  of	
  color	
  that	
  are	
  predominantly	
  Black	
  or	
  Latino,	
  as	
  compared	
  to	
  access	
  in	
  
predominantly	
  white	
  communities	
  (E.	
  A.	
  Baker	
  et	
  al.,	
  2006;	
  Bell	
  &	
  Standish,	
  2009;	
  Galvez	
  et	
  

	
  

17	
  

	
  

al.,	
  2008;	
  Morland	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002;	
  Powell	
  et	
  al.,	
  2007;	
  Seligman	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010;	
  Shaffer,	
  2002;	
  Stuff	
  
et	
  al.,	
  2004).	
  
	
  A	
  number	
  of	
  more	
  recent	
  reviews	
  of	
  this	
  literature	
  have	
  pointed	
  out	
  important	
  
critiques	
  of	
  this	
  body	
  of	
  work.	
  	
  Systematic	
  review	
  of	
  this	
  literature	
  has	
  been	
  cited	
  as	
  
difficult	
  due	
  to	
  diverse	
  definitions	
  and	
  access	
  measurement	
  methodologies	
  (Beaulac,	
  
Kristjansson,	
  &	
  Cummins,	
  2009;	
  Black,	
  Moon,	
  &	
  Baird,	
  2013;	
  Walker,	
  Keane,	
  &	
  Burke,	
  
2010).	
  	
  More	
  than	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  studies	
  in	
  one	
  review	
  found	
  no	
  relationship	
  between	
  
proximity	
  to	
  healthy	
  food	
  outlets	
  and	
  diet	
  (Black	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  	
  
More	
  recent	
  articles	
  on	
  this	
  topic	
  report	
  results	
  that	
  broaden	
  this	
  discussion.	
  	
  The	
  
assumption	
  that	
  food	
  shopping	
  generally	
  takes	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  neighborhood	
  of	
  residence	
  is	
  in	
  
question	
  (Aggarwal	
  et	
  al.,	
  2014;	
  Zenk	
  et	
  al.,	
  2011).	
  	
  No	
  relationship	
  between	
  a	
  new	
  
supermarket	
  and	
  consumption	
  of	
  fruits	
  and	
  vegetables	
  was	
  found	
  by	
  a	
  pilot	
  study	
  
examining	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  newly	
  created	
  access	
  point	
  located	
  in	
  a	
  predominantly	
  African	
  
American,	
  low-­‐income	
  community	
  (Cummins,	
  Flint,	
  &	
  Matthews,	
  2014).	
  
Despite	
  the	
  diversity	
  of	
  methodologies	
  and	
  questionable	
  assumptions	
  present	
  in	
  
some	
  of	
  these	
  studies,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  growing	
  consensus	
  that	
  healthy	
  food	
  access	
  is	
  
disproportionately	
  lower	
  for	
  low-­‐income	
  communities	
  of	
  color	
  (Beaulac	
  et	
  al.,	
  2009;	
  Black	
  
et	
  al.,	
  2013;	
  Walker	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010).	
  	
  This	
  access	
  deficit	
  is	
  disconcerting	
  because	
  a	
  diet	
  low	
  in	
  
fruits	
  and	
  vegetables	
  has	
  been	
  shown	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  risk	
  for	
  developing	
  diet	
  related	
  
diseases	
  including	
  Type	
  II	
  diabetes	
  and	
  cardiovascular	
  disease	
  (Ogden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  
Seligman	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010;	
  USDA,	
  2009).	
  These	
  diseases	
  have	
  been	
  shown	
  to	
  be	
  more	
  prevalent	
  
in	
  low-­‐income	
  communities	
  or	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  populations,	
  as	
  compared	
  to	
  higher	
  income	
  

	
  

18	
  

	
  

or	
  white	
  populations	
  (Bell	
  &	
  Standish,	
  2009;	
  Narayan	
  et	
  al.,	
  2003;	
  Ogden	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  
Seligman	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010;	
  USDHHS,	
  2001).	
  	
  
Thus,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  understand	
  strategies	
  that	
  can	
  simultaneously	
  address	
  
viability	
  of	
  small	
  and	
  medium-­‐scale	
  farms	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  improve	
  healthy	
  food	
  access	
  in	
  
underserved	
  communities.	
  	
  Within	
  this	
  context,	
  we	
  further	
  examine	
  food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  and	
  
distributing	
  practices	
  by	
  sharing	
  results	
  on	
  two	
  topics.	
  	
  	
  The	
  first	
  is	
  how	
  food	
  hub	
  
practitioners	
  are	
  conceptualizing	
  differentiated	
  and	
  VBPs,	
  and	
  what,	
  if	
  anything,	
  their	
  
operations	
  are	
  doing	
  to	
  source	
  these	
  products.	
  	
  Secondly,	
  we	
  investigate	
  how	
  food	
  hubs	
  are	
  
interacting	
  with	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  as	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  VBVC.	
  	
  
	
  
Methods	
  
Research	
  design	
  and	
  data	
  collection	
  
This	
  research	
  was	
  approved	
  by	
  the	
  Michigan	
  State	
  University	
  Institutional	
  Review	
  
Board	
  for	
  Human	
  Subjects	
  (IRB#x13-504e)	
  and	
  was	
  classified	
  as	
  ‘exempt.’	
  	
  This	
  research	
  
utilizes	
  a	
  qualitative	
  approach	
  to	
  explore	
  our	
  research	
  questions.	
  	
  Ideally,	
  qualitative	
  
inquiry	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  themes,	
  patterns,	
  insights	
  or	
  understanding	
  within	
  the	
  diverse	
  terrain	
  
that	
  comprises	
  food	
  hub	
  business	
  models,	
  values	
  and	
  priorities	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  
Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013;	
  Patton,	
  2002).	
  	
  This	
  study	
  used	
  Maxwell’s	
  (2012)	
  qualitative	
  research	
  
design	
  model	
  -­‐	
  a	
  reflexive	
  and	
  adaptable	
  model	
  that	
  requires	
  constant	
  evaluation	
  as	
  it	
  
develops	
  and	
  changes.	
  	
  
The	
  sample	
  for	
  this	
  study	
  included	
  representatives	
  of	
  11	
  food	
  hubs	
  from	
  the	
  
following	
  states:	
  	
  Michigan	
  (8),	
  Ohio	
  (1),	
  Indiana	
  (1)	
  and	
  Wisconsin	
  (1).	
  Maximum	
  variation	
  
sampling	
  was	
  used	
  to	
  identify	
  candidates	
  for	
  participation	
  (Patton,	
  2002).	
  	
  Our	
  criteria	
  

	
  

19	
  

	
  

were	
  that	
  the	
  hubs	
  were	
  geographically	
  spread	
  and	
  were	
  ranging	
  from	
  ‘in	
  planning’,	
  to	
  ‘in	
  
development’,	
  to	
  ‘operational’	
  in	
  their	
  business	
  development.	
  	
  	
  
The	
  steering	
  team	
  of	
  the	
  Michigan	
  Food	
  Hub	
  Learning	
  and	
  Innovation	
  Network	
  
provided	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  potential	
  candidates	
  and	
  their	
  contact	
  information.	
  	
  Those	
  identified	
  had	
  
been	
  actively	
  participating	
  in	
  the	
  network.	
  	
  Invitations	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  the	
  research	
  were	
  
sent	
  to	
  15	
  food	
  hub	
  organizations	
  in	
  Michigan,	
  eight	
  of	
  which	
  responded.	
  We	
  then	
  
broadened	
  our	
  geographic	
  scope	
  to	
  include	
  neighboring,	
  Midwestern	
  states.	
  The	
  national	
  
food	
  hub	
  survey	
  administrator	
  (M.	
  Fischer,	
  personal	
  communication)	
  provided	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  
organizations	
  in	
  neighboring	
  states	
  that	
  responded	
  to	
  the	
  survey.	
  	
  An	
  additional	
  seven	
  
invitations	
  were	
  sent	
  to	
  food	
  hubs	
  in	
  Ohio,	
  Indiana,	
  Illinois	
  and	
  Wisconsin	
  with	
  three	
  
agreeing	
  to	
  participate.	
  	
  	
  
Participating	
  hubs	
  represent	
  a	
  mixture	
  of	
  legal	
  structures.	
  	
  Four	
  hubs	
  are	
  for-­‐profit	
  
LLCs,	
  four	
  are	
  non-­‐profit	
  organizations,	
  one	
  is	
  a	
  cooperative,	
  one	
  has	
  both	
  LLC	
  and	
  non-­‐
profit	
  components,	
  and	
  one	
  was	
  too	
  early	
  in	
  planning	
  to	
  have	
  determined	
  their	
  structure.	
  	
  
On	
  the	
  spectrum	
  of	
  business	
  development,	
  five	
  hubs	
  were	
  clearly	
  operational,	
  one	
  hub	
  was	
  
clearly	
  in	
  planning,	
  and	
  the	
  remaining	
  five	
  hubs	
  were	
  ranging	
  between	
  in	
  planning/in	
  
development	
  to	
  in	
  development/operational.	
  	
  Although	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  in	
  this	
  sample	
  did	
  
not	
  distinctly	
  fit	
  into	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  business	
  development	
  categories,	
  for	
  analysis	
  purposes,	
  we	
  
placed	
  them	
  in	
  a	
  singular	
  group.	
  	
  This	
  designation	
  was	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  how	
  the	
  
hub	
  operators	
  self-­‐identified	
  and	
  our	
  conception	
  of	
  where	
  they	
  best	
  fit.	
  	
  	
  
The	
  data	
  were	
  primarily	
  collected	
  through	
  semi-­‐structured	
  in-­‐depth	
  interviews	
  
(Rubin	
  &	
  Rubin,	
  2011).	
  	
  Seven	
  interviews	
  were	
  conducted	
  in-­‐person	
  and,	
  due	
  to	
  distance,	
  
four	
  were	
  conducted	
  by	
  telephone.	
  	
  We	
  had	
  access	
  to	
  seven	
  of	
  the	
  hubs’	
  2013	
  national	
  food	
  

	
  

20	
  

	
  

survey	
  responses	
  (MSU	
  IRB#	
  x12-­‐125e	
  )	
  which	
  were	
  reviewed	
  prior	
  to	
  the	
  interview	
  to	
  set	
  
context	
  and	
  to	
  avoid	
  redundancy	
  in	
  the	
  collection	
  of	
  information.	
  	
  All	
  interviews	
  were	
  
recorded	
  and	
  transcribed	
  verbatim.	
  The	
  interviews	
  lasted	
  between	
  60-­‐90	
  minutes	
  and,	
  if	
  
in-­‐person,	
  took	
  place	
  at	
  the	
  food	
  hub.	
  	
  The	
  interview	
  guide	
  had	
  three	
  sections:	
  	
  (1)	
  general	
  
food	
  hub	
  information	
  and	
  business	
  development,	
  (2)	
  sourcing	
  practices	
  and	
  preferences	
  
and	
  (3)	
  distributing	
  practices	
  and	
  interaction	
  with	
  underserved	
  populations.	
  	
  
Data	
  Analysis	
  	
  
We	
  chose	
  the	
  organizational	
  level	
  as	
  our	
  unit	
  of	
  analysis	
  (Patton,	
  2002)	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  
comment	
  on	
  food	
  hub	
  organizational	
  practices.	
  	
  This	
  helped	
  inform	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  information	
  
that	
  was	
  included	
  in	
  our	
  investigation.	
  	
  Early	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  data	
  was	
  conducted	
  by	
  using	
  
contact	
  summary	
  sheets	
  (Miles	
  &	
  Huberman,	
  1994),	
  where	
  a	
  summary	
  and	
  commentary	
  of	
  
each	
  interview	
  was	
  written	
  shortly	
  after	
  the	
  interaction.	
  	
  The	
  remainder	
  of	
  the	
  analysis	
  was	
  
completed	
  using	
  memos,	
  thematic	
  coding	
  (Rubin	
  &	
  Rubin,	
  2011)	
  and	
  data	
  displays	
  (Miles	
  &	
  
Huberman,	
  1994),	
  with	
  the	
  assistance	
  of	
  QSR	
  International’s	
  NVivo	
  10	
  (NVivo,	
  2012).	
  	
  Data	
  
displays	
  were	
  created	
  by	
  hand.	
  
	
  
Results	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  hubs	
  were	
  categorized	
  along	
  a	
  spectrum	
  of	
  	
  ‘in	
  planning’,	
  ‘in	
  development’,	
  and	
  
‘operational’	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  their	
  business	
  development.	
  	
  One	
  hub	
  was	
  ‘in	
  planning’,	
  which	
  
did	
  not	
  have	
  a	
  physical	
  space	
  or	
  paid	
  staff.	
  	
  They	
  had	
  some	
  developed	
  ideas,	
  including	
  a	
  
mission	
  and	
  potential	
  programs,	
  but	
  had	
  not	
  yet	
  formed	
  a	
  legal	
  entity.	
  	
  Five	
  hubs	
  were	
  ‘in	
  
development’	
  all	
  of	
  which	
  had	
  funding.	
  	
  Four	
  of	
  these	
  five	
  had	
  a	
  physical	
  space	
  identified,	
  
all	
  had	
  business	
  plans	
  and	
  staff	
  or	
  volunteers.	
  	
  At	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  this	
  study,	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  hubs	
  

	
  

21	
  

	
  

was	
  already	
  sourcing	
  and	
  distributing	
  food.	
  	
  Three	
  of	
  these	
  hubs	
  had	
  operational	
  programs	
  
outside	
  of	
  food	
  distribution,	
  and	
  the	
  other	
  two	
  were	
  planning	
  programs.	
  	
  Five	
  hubs	
  were	
  
‘operational’	
  –	
  they	
  were	
  sourcing	
  and	
  distributing	
  food.	
  	
  All	
  five	
  had	
  staff,	
  a	
  functional	
  
infrastructure,	
  business	
  plan,	
  mission,	
  vision,	
  sales,	
  expenses	
  and	
  programs.	
  	
  Each	
  of	
  these	
  
hubs	
  had	
  at	
  least	
  one	
  item,	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  program	
  or	
  expansion	
  that	
  was	
  in	
  planning,	
  but	
  not	
  
yet	
  actualized.	
  	
  The	
  business	
  development	
  phase	
  and	
  legal	
  structure	
  (e.g.	
  non-­‐profit,	
  LLC,	
  
co-­‐op)	
  will	
  be	
  highlighted	
  where	
  there	
  are	
  notable	
  differences	
  or	
  nuances	
  among	
  these	
  
categories.	
  	
  
Food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  practices	
  
	
  
There	
  were	
  three	
  main	
  themes	
  that	
  emerged	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  
practices.	
  	
  The	
  first	
  relates	
  to	
  region	
  and	
  type	
  of	
  farm	
  from	
  which	
  food	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  
are	
  sourcing	
  products.	
  	
  Notably,	
  food	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  do	
  not	
  appear	
  to	
  have	
  hard	
  and	
  fast	
  
rules	
  on	
  the	
  region	
  or	
  the	
  size	
  of	
  the	
  farm	
  from	
  which	
  they	
  source.	
  	
  A	
  second	
  theme	
  relates	
  
to	
  product	
  attributes.	
  	
  We	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  product	
  attribute	
  
requirements.	
  	
  Neither	
  did	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  mention	
  attribute	
  preferences,	
  with	
  the	
  
exception	
  of	
  food	
  safety	
  practices	
  or	
  certification.	
  	
  The	
  third	
  and	
  final	
  identified	
  theme	
  
relates	
  to	
  farmer	
  training	
  and	
  education	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  hubs.	
  	
  We	
  found	
  that	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  
hubs	
  provide	
  training	
  for	
  their	
  farmers,	
  primarily	
  focused	
  on	
  food	
  safety	
  practices.	
  
Looking	
  more	
  specifically	
  at	
  the	
  farms	
  and	
  producers	
  for	
  sourcing	
  we	
  found	
  that	
  all	
  
hubs	
  source,	
  or	
  will	
  source,	
  a	
  portion	
  of	
  their	
  products	
  locally	
  or	
  regionally,	
  with	
  varying	
  
delineations	
  of	
  these	
  terms.	
  	
  The	
  smallest	
  geographic	
  range	
  identified	
  is	
  a	
  radius	
  of	
  100	
  
miles,	
  and	
  the	
  largest	
  covers	
  a	
  four	
  state	
  area.	
  	
  Several	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  are	
  sourcing,	
  or	
  are	
  
planning	
  to	
  source,	
  primarily	
  within	
  50	
  miles.	
  	
  Seven	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  are	
  willing	
  to,	
  or	
  already	
  

	
  

22	
  

	
  

do,	
  expand	
  their	
  sourcing	
  area	
  to	
  secure	
  more	
  product	
  over	
  an	
  extended	
  time,	
  
demonstrating	
  that	
  they	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  strict	
  sourcing	
  boundaries.	
  	
  Two	
  practitioners	
  from	
  
different	
  hubs	
  expressed	
  their	
  willingness	
  to	
  source	
  outside	
  of	
  their	
  local	
  area:	
  	
  
“Our	
  range	
  is	
  typically	
  within	
  50,	
  but	
  that	
  doesn’t	
  mean	
  that	
  we	
  can’t	
  reach	
  out	
  
to	
  [other	
  areas]	
  …”	
  
	
  
“The	
  majority	
  of	
  what	
  we	
  are	
  hoping	
  to	
  focus	
  will	
  come	
  locally,	
  um,	
  and	
  
everyone’s	
  definition	
  is	
  different,	
  but	
  you	
  know,	
  within	
  the	
  10	
  county	
  region,	
  …,	
  
around	
  here	
  –	
  is	
  what	
  I	
  am	
  thinking.	
  	
  But,	
  if	
  there’s	
  products	
  that	
  people	
  want	
  
that	
  we	
  can’t	
  get	
  here	
  that	
  are	
  being	
  grown	
  [elsewhere],	
  I	
  don’t	
  really	
  see	
  a	
  
problem	
  working	
  with	
  them.”	
  
	
  
The	
  hubs	
  that	
  hope	
  to	
  expand	
  their	
  future	
  sourcing	
  area	
  acknowledge	
  a	
  need	
  to	
  address	
  
product	
  logistical	
  challenges	
  first.	
  
The	
  other	
  four	
  hubs	
  do	
  have	
  set	
  sourcing	
  boundaries.	
  	
  When	
  asked	
  whether	
  hub	
  
practitioners	
  would	
  compromise	
  their	
  boundaries	
  under	
  certain	
  circumstances,	
  
representatives	
  from	
  two	
  hubs	
  voiced	
  that	
  they	
  would	
  not.	
  	
  An	
  operator	
  from	
  a	
  hub	
  still	
  in	
  
development	
  explains	
  the	
  circumstances	
  that	
  would	
  encourage	
  them	
  to	
  source	
  outside	
  of	
  
their	
  boundaries:	
  
“…there	
  comes	
  a	
  point	
  in	
  time	
  where	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  nice	
  to	
  reach	
  beyond	
  that,	
  say	
  
to	
  [other	
  areas]	
  and	
  get	
  fruit,	
  for	
  example.	
  	
  Things	
  that	
  aren’t	
  as	
  abundant	
  
[here].	
  	
  That	
  may	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  cards,	
  but	
  again,	
  we	
  would	
  let	
  the	
  market	
  determine	
  
that	
  –	
  and	
  if	
  we’re	
  really	
  receiving	
  lots	
  of	
  requests,	
  like	
  –	
  hey,	
  we	
  really	
  want	
  
this,	
  could	
  you	
  do	
  this	
  and	
  integrate	
  it	
  into	
  your	
  site	
  –	
  then	
  we	
  would	
  entertain	
  
that	
  idea.”	
  
	
  
The	
  fourth	
  of	
  these	
  hubs	
  does	
  source	
  outside	
  its’	
  boundaries	
  under	
  special	
  circumstances,	
  
described	
  as	
  follows:	
  
	
  

	
  

“Practitioner	
  1:	
  	
  We	
  try	
  not	
  to	
  go	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  state	
  
Practitioner	
  2:	
  	
  99%	
  of	
  the	
  time	
  we	
  are	
  not	
  leaving	
  the	
  state	
  
Practitioner	
  1:	
  	
  We	
  have	
  specific	
  customers,	
  with	
  specific	
  needs,	
  and	
  we	
  will	
  
help	
  them.	
  	
  But	
  we’re	
  not	
  doing	
  it	
  to	
  bring	
  it	
  into	
  stock”	
  
	
  

23	
  

	
  

	
  

Over	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  are	
  working	
  primarily	
  with	
  farms	
  that	
  they	
  define	
  as	
  small	
  and	
  

medium	
  sized.	
  	
  Only	
  two	
  hubs	
  state	
  an	
  intention	
  of	
  specifically	
  supporting	
  these	
  sized	
  
farms.	
  	
  For	
  e.g.	
  one	
  hub	
  operator	
  commented:	
  
“Those	
  are	
  single	
  family	
  farms	
  um,	
  none	
  of	
  them	
  are	
  larger	
  than	
  mid-­‐size,	
  
okay?	
  	
  And	
  we	
  only	
  have	
  two	
  mid	
  sized,	
  all	
  the	
  rest	
  are	
  small.”	
  
	
  
The	
  other	
  five	
  hubs	
  that	
  source	
  from	
  small	
  and	
  medium	
  sized	
  farms	
  are	
  open	
  to	
  working	
  
with	
  larger	
  farms	
  often	
  expressed	
  through	
  a	
  common	
  theme	
  of	
  having	
  less	
  supply	
  than	
  
demand.	
  	
  This	
  was	
  expressed	
  similarly	
  by	
  operators	
  from	
  two	
  food	
  hubs:	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

“Preference	
  as	
  to	
  size,	
  no,	
  but	
  we	
  do	
  need	
  more	
  larger	
  farms.	
  	
  Uh,	
  larger	
  farms	
  
have	
  economies	
  of	
  scale,	
  and	
  we	
  need	
  their	
  participation.”	
  
	
  
“We	
  have	
  a	
  much	
  greater	
  demand	
  for	
  local	
  product	
  than	
  we	
  can	
  meet.	
  	
  Our	
  
customers	
  are	
  constantly	
  wanting	
  more	
  local	
  production,	
  but	
  quite	
  frankly	
  
there’s	
  –	
  there	
  might	
  be	
  a	
  few	
  products	
  out	
  there	
  where	
  the	
  supply	
  outpaces	
  the	
  
demand,	
  but	
  the	
  vast	
  majority	
  of	
  products	
  –	
  especially	
  on	
  the	
  produce	
  side	
  –	
  we	
  
can’t	
  come	
  anywhere	
  close	
  to	
  meeting	
  the	
  demand	
  with	
  the	
  farmers	
  that	
  we	
  
actually	
  kind	
  of	
  have	
  available	
  here	
  in	
  the	
  Midwest”	
  
In	
  terms	
  of	
  product	
  attributes	
  (e.g.	
  certifications	
  or	
  non-­‐certified	
  production	
  

methods),	
  eight	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  specific	
  requirements.	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  hub	
  
operators	
  interviewed	
  do	
  not	
  explicitly	
  mention	
  attribute	
  preferences,	
  other	
  than	
  food	
  
safety.	
  	
  Seven	
  of	
  the	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  are	
  encouraging	
  their	
  producers	
  to	
  work	
  towards	
  
food	
  safety	
  practices	
  or	
  certifications.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

There	
  are	
  three	
  hubs	
  that	
  do	
  have	
  product	
  requirements	
  or	
  strong	
  preferences.	
  	
  The	
  

operators	
  from	
  these	
  three	
  hubs	
  expressed	
  the	
  thought	
  that	
  these	
  product	
  requirements	
  or	
  
preferences	
  will	
  give	
  them	
  market	
  separation.	
  	
  One	
  hub,	
  the	
  only	
  co-­‐operative	
  in	
  this	
  
sample,	
  has	
  the	
  strictest	
  sourcing	
  requirements	
  and	
  won’t	
  deviate	
  from	
  these	
  guidelines	
  to	
  
secure	
  more	
  food	
  supply.	
  	
  The	
  co-­‐op	
  operator	
  describes	
  the	
  value	
  the	
  co-­‐op	
  places	
  on	
  their	
  
produce	
  attribute	
  requirements,	
  which	
  she	
  describes	
  as	
  ethics:	
  
	
  

24	
  

	
  

“As	
  this	
  co-­‐op	
  was	
  formed	
  the	
  expressed	
  intention	
  was	
  food	
  done	
  right.	
  	
  We	
  are	
  
not	
  becoming	
  part	
  of	
  that	
  big	
  system.	
  	
  We	
  shadow	
  the	
  big	
  system,	
  but	
  we	
  are	
  
not	
  a	
  piece	
  of	
  it.	
  	
  If	
  we	
  wanted	
  another	
  [large	
  corporation],	
  that’s	
  not	
  hard	
  to	
  
do.	
  	
  But	
  we’re	
  not	
  them.	
  So	
  we	
  do	
  have	
  ethics.	
  	
  Somewhere	
  in	
  there,	
  we	
  actually	
  
have	
  rules.	
  	
  So	
  no,	
  we	
  would	
  not	
  eighty-­‐six	
  the	
  ethics	
  to	
  just	
  get	
  the	
  food.	
  	
  That’s	
  
not	
  what	
  we’re	
  in	
  business	
  to	
  do.”	
  	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  two	
  remaining	
  hubs	
  both	
  strongly	
  prefer	
  certified	
  organic	
  or	
  non-­‐certified	
  organically	
  
produced	
  products.	
  	
  The	
  developing	
  hub	
  described	
  the	
  production	
  practices	
  of	
  the	
  products	
  
they	
  are	
  hoping	
  to	
  source	
  as	
  follows:	
  
“I	
  think	
  that	
  we	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  feature	
  in	
  -­‐	
  let’s	
  say	
  our	
  portfolio	
  -­‐	
  is	
  sustainably	
  
raised,	
  you	
  know,	
  and	
  some	
  farmers	
  are	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  certified	
  organic…	
  Or,	
  if	
  
not,	
  they	
  are	
  working	
  on	
  it.	
  	
  But,	
  the	
  other	
  growers	
  would	
  follow	
  similar	
  
practices.”	
  
	
  
The	
  other	
  operational	
  hub	
  also	
  carries	
  both	
  certified	
  organic	
  and	
  non-­‐certified	
  organic	
  
produce.	
  	
  They	
  will	
  carry	
  products	
  that	
  do	
  not	
  follow	
  organic	
  growing	
  practices	
  when	
  the	
  
organic	
  is	
  not	
  available,	
  expressed	
  as	
  follows:	
  

	
  

“We	
  do	
  prefer	
  organic…	
  we	
  do	
  have	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  farmers	
  that	
  don’t	
  do	
  organic	
  –	
  
that	
  don’t	
  have	
  their	
  certification	
  but	
  they	
  do	
  sustainably	
  grown,	
  they	
  don’t	
  
grow	
  with	
  pesticides	
  or	
  herbicides.	
  	
  We	
  will	
  source	
  those	
  products	
  as	
  well,	
  in	
  the	
  
event	
  that	
  there’s	
  not	
  an	
  organic	
  or	
  sustainable	
  option	
  on	
  the	
  market	
  for	
  
something	
  that	
  we	
  want	
  to	
  carry,	
  we	
  will	
  source	
  a	
  conventional	
  product.	
  	
  In	
  
kind	
  of	
  a	
  –	
  a	
  next	
  option,	
  you	
  know,	
  there’s	
  some	
  like	
  green	
  beans	
  and	
  sweet	
  
corn	
  that’s	
  really	
  hard	
  to	
  buy	
  regionally	
  that	
  –	
  in	
  an	
  organic	
  fashion.”	
  

When	
  this	
  hub	
  offers	
  non-­‐organic	
  produce,	
  their	
  staff	
  ensures	
  that	
  customers	
  are	
  informed	
  
about	
  the	
  production	
  methods.	
  	
  The	
  other	
  hub,	
  which	
  is	
  in	
  development,	
  anticipates	
  that	
  
they	
  may	
  need	
  to	
  compromise	
  on	
  their	
  preference	
  for	
  organically	
  produced	
  products	
  in	
  
order	
  to	
  have	
  adequate	
  supply.	
  
“It’s	
  going	
  to	
  take	
  a	
  little	
  while	
  to	
  get	
  those	
  processes	
  and	
  to	
  get	
  the	
  food	
  
flowing	
  through	
  here	
  in	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  we	
  envision.	
  	
  But,	
  the	
  first	
  principle	
  of	
  
being	
  sustainable	
  is	
  being	
  sustainable	
  economically,	
  and	
  there	
  are	
  years	
  like	
  
last	
  year	
  when	
  there	
  are	
  no	
  apples.	
  	
  And	
  so,	
  if	
  you	
  are	
  a	
  cider	
  business,	
  and	
  you	
  
have	
  no	
  apples,	
  you…	
  do	
  what	
  it	
  takes	
  to	
  stay	
  in	
  business.”	
  
	
  

25	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  
Half	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  provide	
  training	
  and	
  education	
  to	
  the	
  farmers	
  they	
  work	
  with.	
  	
  The	
  

majority	
  of	
  this	
  training	
  is	
  focused	
  on	
  food	
  safety,	
  with	
  a	
  common	
  motivation	
  of	
  moving	
  
farmers	
  toward	
  certification	
  or	
  acceptable	
  practices	
  to	
  meet	
  safe	
  food	
  market	
  
requirements.	
  	
  Many	
  of	
  the	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  expressed	
  their	
  interactions	
  with	
  food	
  safety	
  
requirements,	
  or	
  the	
  anticipation	
  of	
  needing	
  them.	
  	
  One	
  commented:	
  
“We	
  spend	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  time	
  on	
  that	
  food	
  safety	
  education	
  because	
  if	
  regulation	
  
forces	
  people	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  markets	
  –	
  we’re	
  dead.	
  	
  And,	
  so	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  make	
  sure	
  
that	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  small	
  and	
  medium	
  farms	
  are	
  getting	
  the	
  skill	
  set	
  necessary	
  and	
  
the	
  education	
  to	
  incorporate	
  that	
  in.”	
  	
  

	
  
A	
  second	
  had	
  a	
  similar	
  comment:	
  
	
  
“I	
  mean	
  –	
  sooner	
  or	
  later	
  –	
  no	
  one	
  is	
  asking	
  me	
  yet,	
  but	
  I’m	
  just	
  waiting	
  for	
  the	
  
buyers	
  to	
  ask	
  me	
  –	
  you	
  know,	
  are	
  you	
  GAP	
  certified?	
  	
  Or,	
  are	
  you,	
  you	
  know	
  
what	
  do	
  you	
  have?”	
  
	
  
A	
  third	
  commented	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  school	
  marketing:	
  
	
  
“I’d	
  like	
  to	
  get	
  into,	
  you	
  know,	
  schools	
  are	
  another	
  interesting	
  thing	
  –	
  when	
  I	
  
started	
  [the	
  hub],	
  I	
  was	
  like,	
  oh,	
  we’ll	
  just	
  sell	
  to	
  schools	
  –	
  that’ll	
  be	
  easy.	
  	
  Well,	
  
talk	
  about	
  rules.	
  	
  GAP	
  certification,	
  that’s	
  at	
  the	
  farmer	
  level,	
  that	
  takes	
  a	
  year	
  
or	
  two,	
  and	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  money	
  and	
  inspections.”	
  
	
  
	
  
Two	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  that	
  provide	
  educational	
  resources	
  have	
  intentions	
  of	
  increasing	
  
the	
  skills	
  and	
  knowledge	
  of	
  their	
  farmer	
  partners.	
  	
  Examples	
  include	
  workshops	
  on	
  digital	
  
literacy	
  or	
  technical	
  assistance	
  on	
  growing,	
  specifically	
  through	
  season	
  extension.	
  	
  One	
  hub	
  
operator	
  expressed	
  their	
  perspective	
  on	
  providing	
  additional	
  resources	
  to	
  their	
  producers:	
  
“It’s	
  about	
  increasing	
  the	
  capacity	
  of	
  farmers,	
  not	
  just	
  about	
  their	
  financial	
  
capacity	
  to	
  you	
  know,	
  grow	
  and	
  sell,	
  but	
  capacity	
  in	
  broader	
  terms.”	
  
	
  
Food	
  hub	
  distribution	
  practices	
  
There	
  were	
  three	
  main	
  themes	
  that	
  emerged	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  how	
  food	
  hubs	
  are	
  
interacting	
  with	
  underserved	
  consumers.	
  	
  The	
  first	
  is	
  that	
  food	
  hubs	
  are	
  broadly	
  aware	
  of,	
  
	
  

26	
  

	
  

or	
  stated	
  that	
  they	
  value	
  increasing	
  food	
  access	
  to	
  underserved	
  consumers.	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  
hubs	
  are	
  addressing	
  food	
  access	
  barriers	
  or	
  providing	
  services	
  to	
  underserved	
  populations	
  
by	
  engaging	
  in	
  partnerships.	
  	
  The	
  second	
  theme	
  includes	
  the	
  main	
  identified	
  activities	
  that	
  
food	
  hubs	
  use	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access.	
  	
  The	
  two	
  most	
  common	
  activities	
  are	
  supporting	
  or	
  
hosting	
  farmer’s	
  markets	
  that	
  accept	
  Electronic	
  Benefits	
  Transfer	
  (EBT)	
  and/or	
  donating	
  
leftover	
  produce	
  and	
  products	
  to	
  food	
  banks.	
  	
  The	
  final	
  theme	
  consists	
  of	
  the	
  various	
  
challenges	
  that	
  food	
  hubs	
  face	
  in	
  working	
  with	
  and	
  reaching	
  underserved	
  populations.	
  
Seven	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  engage	
  directly	
  in	
  activities	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access	
  by	
  
underserved	
  populations.	
  	
  The	
  following	
  are	
  two	
  examples	
  of	
  hub	
  operators	
  discussing	
  
how	
  food	
  access	
  is	
  included	
  in	
  their	
  mission:	
  
“Our	
  particular	
  one	
  is	
  an	
  aggregation	
  point,	
  and	
  also	
  that	
  it’s	
  satisfying	
  out	
  –	
  
where	
  it’s	
  located	
  –	
  it	
  is	
  helping	
  to	
  minimize	
  its’	
  status	
  as	
  a	
  food	
  desert.	
  	
  
Because,	
  I	
  mean,	
  twice	
  a	
  week	
  we	
  are	
  out	
  there,	
  making	
  that	
  available	
  to	
  the	
  
community”	
  
	
  
“We	
  manage	
  market	
  operations,	
  develop	
  programs,	
  build	
  facilities	
  and	
  provide	
  
infrastructure	
  to	
  strengthen	
  the	
  [hub]	
  district,	
  improve	
  access	
  to	
  good	
  food	
  
choices	
  in	
  [our	
  city],	
  fortify	
  the	
  food	
  sector	
  as	
  a	
  regional	
  economic	
  driver.”	
  
	
  
	
  
Two	
  additional	
  hubs	
  consider	
  themselves	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  network	
  engaging	
  in	
  activities	
  to	
  
increase	
  food	
  access.	
  	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  that	
  are	
  actively	
  pursuing	
  increased	
  food	
  access	
  are	
  at	
  
least	
  partially	
  attempting	
  to	
  accomplish	
  this	
  via	
  partnerships	
  with	
  other	
  organizations.	
  	
  The	
  
‘in	
  planning’	
  hub	
  hopes	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  a	
  partnership	
  providing	
  job	
  training	
  to	
  area	
  residents.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Seven	
  hubs	
  are	
  operating	
  or	
  supporting	
  farmer’s	
  markets	
  in	
  their	
  area.	
  	
  Six	
  of	
  these	
  

markets	
  accept	
  EBT	
  (the	
  ability	
  of	
  the	
  seventh	
  is	
  unknown)	
  and	
  five	
  are	
  explicitly	
  operated	
  
to	
  increase	
  food	
  access.	
  	
  Two	
  hubs,	
  one	
  a	
  non-­‐profit	
  and	
  one	
  a	
  for-­‐profit,	
  partner	
  with	
  
community	
  organizations	
  to	
  operate	
  mobile	
  markets.	
  	
  Another	
  non-­‐profit	
  hub	
  operates	
  an	
  

	
  

27	
  

	
  

in-­‐house	
  mobile	
  market.	
  	
  Two	
  of	
  the	
  non-­‐profit	
  hubs	
  operate	
  their	
  own	
  farmer’s	
  markets	
  
on	
  site.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  donate,	
  or	
  plan	
  to	
  donate,	
  leftover	
  produce	
  or	
  products	
  to	
  food	
  

banks.	
  	
  One	
  developing	
  hub	
  operates	
  a	
  food	
  pantry.	
  	
  They	
  would	
  like	
  producers	
  to	
  donate	
  
to	
  the	
  pantry,	
  but	
  have	
  not	
  yet	
  established	
  how	
  or	
  if	
  this	
  will	
  happen.	
  	
  Donations	
  of	
  product	
  
are	
  the	
  only	
  way	
  that	
  two	
  food	
  hubs	
  interact,	
  or	
  plan	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  underserved	
  
populations.	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  this	
  hub	
  operator	
  commented:	
  
“We	
  do	
  provide	
  space	
  for	
  gleaning	
  in	
  the	
  region.	
  	
  We	
  give	
  them	
  three	
  pallet	
  
spots	
  in	
  a	
  very	
  crowded	
  cooler,	
  so	
  they	
  can	
  glean	
  and	
  store….	
  But	
  that’s	
  as	
  far	
  
as	
  we	
  go.”	
  
	
  
Other	
  strategies	
  hubs	
  use	
  to	
  reach	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  include	
  providing	
  
resources	
  or	
  programs,	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  farmer’s	
  markets.	
  	
  Seven	
  hubs	
  either	
  already	
  do	
  
provide	
  programs	
  or	
  resources,	
  or	
  plan	
  to	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  	
  Of	
  these	
  seven	
  hubs,	
  four	
  are	
  non-­‐
profit	
  organizations,	
  which	
  offer	
  the	
  widest	
  range	
  of	
  services	
  and	
  programming	
  to	
  
underserved	
  populations.	
  	
  Two	
  hub	
  operators	
  describe	
  the	
  programs	
  and	
  focus	
  of	
  their	
  
respective	
  hub	
  activities:	
  
“Whether	
  we	
  are	
  talking	
  about	
  our	
  health	
  programs,	
  or	
  our	
  housing	
  programs,	
  
or	
  our	
  food	
  programs,	
  you	
  can	
  array	
  those	
  on	
  a	
  continuum	
  –	
  ranging	
  from	
  
straight	
  up	
  social	
  services	
  at	
  one	
  end,	
  right?	
  	
  To	
  something	
  that	
  is	
  really	
  about	
  
empowerment	
  and	
  capacity	
  building	
  at	
  the	
  other	
  end.”	
  	
  
	
  
“The	
  majority	
  of	
  what	
  our	
  food	
  hub	
  actually	
  does	
  right	
  now	
  is	
  much	
  more	
  of	
  the	
  
education,	
  access,	
  and	
  working	
  with	
  people	
  of	
  lower	
  income	
  and	
  just	
  the	
  
general	
  population,	
  than	
  the	
  wholesale	
  piece.”	
  
	
  
All	
  four	
  of	
  these	
  non-­‐profit	
  hubs	
  offer	
  business	
  development	
  or	
  job	
  training.	
  	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  for-­‐
profit	
  hubs	
  partners	
  with	
  a	
  community	
  organization	
  to	
  offer	
  job	
  training	
  to	
  low-­‐income	
  
residents.	
  	
  Another	
  partners	
  on	
  an	
  initiative	
  to	
  get	
  more	
  fresh	
  produce	
  into	
  corner	
  stores,	
  
which	
  was	
  the	
  only	
  hub	
  working	
  on	
  this	
  type	
  of	
  program	
  with	
  the	
  retail	
  sector.	
  
	
  

28	
  

	
  

	
  

Many	
  hubs	
  identified	
  challenges	
  to	
  providing	
  services	
  or	
  reaching	
  underserved	
  

consumers,	
  none	
  of	
  which	
  were	
  experienced	
  by	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs.	
  	
  Three	
  hubs	
  do	
  not	
  
have	
  ample	
  time	
  or	
  resources	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  these	
  activities,	
  at	
  least	
  without	
  partnering.	
  	
  
Two	
  hubs	
  identified	
  low-­‐income	
  customers’	
  lack	
  of	
  access	
  to	
  transportation	
  to	
  their	
  
farmer’s	
  markets	
  as	
  a	
  barrier.	
  	
  A	
  challenge	
  mentioned	
  by	
  two	
  hubs	
  is	
  the	
  perception	
  that	
  
healthy	
  food	
  is	
  too	
  expensive.	
  
	
  

In	
  summary,	
  we	
  have	
  identified	
  fluidity	
  to	
  food	
  hub	
  sourcing	
  practices	
  as	
  a	
  seeming	
  

prerequisite	
  to	
  a	
  viable	
  business	
  model.	
  	
  The	
  sourcing	
  practices	
  in	
  geographic	
  distance,	
  
farm	
  size	
  and	
  product	
  attributes	
  are	
  malleable,	
  with	
  a	
  few	
  exceptions,	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  secure	
  
enough	
  supply.	
  	
  We	
  have	
  also	
  identified	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  are	
  working	
  in	
  
partnership	
  with	
  other	
  organizations	
  to	
  reach	
  underserved	
  consumers,	
  mainly	
  through	
  
food	
  bank	
  donations	
  or	
  hosting/supporting	
  farmer’s	
  markets.	
  	
  For	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs,	
  we	
  
did	
  not	
  find	
  intentions	
  to	
  develop	
  a	
  business	
  plan	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  servicing	
  low-­‐income	
  or	
  
underserved	
  markets	
  via	
  corner	
  grocery	
  stores	
  or	
  other	
  market-­‐based	
  entities	
  within	
  these	
  
communities.	
  
	
  
Discussion	
  
	
  

By	
  definition,	
  food	
  hubs	
  source	
  primarily	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  products	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  

al.,	
  2012)	
  –	
  however	
  the	
  boundary	
  conditions	
  for	
  this	
  are	
  very	
  unclear.	
  	
  Our	
  findings	
  show	
  
that	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  are	
  sourcing	
  some	
  portion	
  of	
  their	
  products	
  locally	
  or	
  regionally	
  while	
  
most	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  established	
  sourcing	
  boundaries.	
  	
  Of	
  the	
  hubs	
  with	
  established	
  
boundaries,	
  all	
  but	
  two	
  compromise,	
  or	
  are	
  willing	
  to,	
  based	
  on	
  market	
  demand	
  and	
  
availability.	
  	
  We	
  found	
  the	
  hub	
  administrators	
  interviewed	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  willing	
  to	
  go	
  

	
  

29	
  

	
  

beyond	
  their	
  current	
  or	
  desired	
  boundaries	
  based	
  on	
  supply	
  and	
  demand.	
  	
  Fischer	
  et.	
  al’s	
  
(2013)	
  survey	
  support	
  our	
  findings	
  by	
  reporting	
  that	
  securing	
  more	
  product	
  supply	
  was	
  a	
  
barrier	
  to	
  growth	
  experienced	
  by	
  47%	
  of	
  hubs	
  –	
  indicating	
  that	
  until	
  local	
  production	
  
expands	
  both	
  in-­‐season	
  and	
  out-­‐of-­‐season	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  continuing	
  need	
  to	
  bound	
  a	
  
region	
  or	
  locale	
  while	
  moving	
  outside	
  it	
  to	
  secure	
  product	
  .	
  This	
  sourcing	
  approach	
  
demonstrates	
  that	
  hubs	
  do	
  value	
  and	
  attempt	
  to	
  source	
  products	
  from	
  their	
  region,	
  but	
  the	
  
majority	
  are	
  not	
  willing	
  to	
  be	
  tied	
  to	
  strict	
  sourcing	
  boundaries	
  at	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  gross	
  revenue.	
  
	
  

Food	
  hubs	
  have	
  been	
  identified	
  as	
  a	
  potential	
  business	
  model	
  to	
  increase	
  

institutional	
  market	
  access	
  to	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  
Kirschenmann	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008;	
  Stevenson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2011).	
  	
  Two	
  hubs	
  in	
  our	
  sample	
  are	
  exclusively	
  
working	
  with	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  and	
  half	
  are	
  sourcing	
  some	
  of	
  their	
  products	
  from	
  
these	
  farms,	
  which	
  was	
  a	
  smaller	
  percentage	
  than	
  was	
  reported	
  nationally.	
  	
  Fischer	
  et.	
  al	
  
(2013)	
  found	
  that	
  32%	
  of	
  hubs	
  are	
  sourcing	
  all	
  of	
  their	
  products	
  from	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  
farms	
  and	
  that	
  44%	
  of	
  hubs	
  are	
  sourcing	
  some	
  products	
  from	
  these	
  farms.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  clear	
  
why	
  our	
  data	
  is	
  divergent	
  from	
  the	
  national	
  sample-­‐	
  although	
  it	
  could	
  be	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  
geographical	
  region	
  from	
  which	
  we	
  sampled.	
  	
  
	
  

Two	
  operational	
  hubs	
  provide	
  greater	
  insight	
  into	
  the	
  motivation	
  and	
  willingness	
  to	
  

work	
  with	
  larger	
  farms.	
  	
  Both	
  of	
  these	
  hubs	
  have	
  developed	
  sourcing	
  systems	
  to	
  obtain	
  
products	
  with	
  the	
  needed	
  qualities	
  to	
  operate	
  their	
  business	
  and	
  to	
  expand	
  their	
  customer	
  
base.	
  	
  The	
  first	
  hub	
  focuses	
  primarily	
  on	
  quality	
  and	
  volume.	
  	
  Securing	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  
these	
  attributes	
  often	
  requires	
  them	
  to	
  source	
  from	
  larger,	
  more	
  distant	
  farms.	
  	
  The	
  second	
  
hub	
  focuses	
  primarily	
  on	
  volume	
  and	
  price.	
  	
  They	
  require	
  low	
  price	
  points	
  to	
  reach	
  new	
  

	
  

30	
  

	
  

customers	
  that	
  are	
  accustomed	
  to	
  lower	
  prices	
  from	
  large	
  distribution	
  companies.	
  	
  These	
  
prices	
  are	
  most	
  often	
  obtainable	
  from	
  larger	
  scale	
  farms.	
  
	
  

The	
  majority	
  of	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  did	
  not	
  mention	
  organizational	
  preferences	
  or	
  

requirements	
  for	
  product	
  attributes	
  (e.g.	
  certifications	
  or	
  non-­‐certified	
  growing	
  practices).	
  
Our	
  findings	
  indicated	
  that	
  many	
  hubs	
  were	
  hesitant	
  to	
  define	
  product	
  preferences	
  or	
  
requirements	
  but	
  were	
  inclined	
  to	
  carry	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  products	
  with	
  various	
  attributes,	
  
allowing	
  their	
  customers	
  to	
  choose	
  the	
  desired	
  products.	
  	
  Essentially,	
  hub	
  operators	
  were	
  
allowing	
  	
  “voting	
  with	
  your	
  dollar”,	
  or	
  political	
  consumerism;	
  that	
  is,	
  actions	
  by	
  their	
  
customers	
  to	
  make	
  choices	
  among	
  producers	
  and	
  products	
  to	
  change	
  objectionable	
  market	
  
practices	
  (Micheletti,	
  2003,	
  p.	
  2).	
  	
  
	
  

There	
  were	
  several	
  exceptions	
  of	
  hubs	
  that	
  had	
  requirements	
  or	
  strong	
  preferences.	
  	
  

It	
  isn’t	
  clear	
  if	
  this	
  is	
  particular	
  to	
  these	
  hubs	
  or	
  more	
  related	
  to	
  their	
  stage	
  of	
  development.	
  	
  
Two	
  of	
  the	
  three	
  hubs	
  that	
  stated	
  preferences	
  for	
  product	
  attributes	
  were	
  in	
  development	
  
and	
  had	
  not	
  yet	
  begun	
  sourcing	
  and	
  supplying	
  products	
  to	
  customers.	
  	
  It	
  would	
  be	
  
interesting	
  to	
  track	
  these	
  developing	
  entities	
  longitudinally	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  relationship	
  
between	
  food	
  hub	
  developmental	
  theory	
  and	
  their	
  market	
  practice.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  most	
  notable	
  exception	
  relating	
  to	
  product	
  attribute	
  preference	
  is	
  the	
  majority	
  

of	
  hub	
  operators’	
  desire	
  to	
  encourage	
  food	
  safety	
  certifications	
  and/or	
  practices	
  among	
  
growers.	
  	
  This	
  was	
  often	
  recognized	
  as	
  a	
  challenge	
  for	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  primarily	
  
due	
  to	
  the	
  food	
  safety	
  certification	
  expense.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Authors	
  that	
  classify	
  food	
  hubs	
  as	
  members	
  of	
  VBVCs	
  indicate	
  that	
  they	
  expect	
  hubs	
  

will	
  differentiate	
  their	
  products	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  2012;	
  Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  
in	
  our	
  study	
  carried	
  or	
  brokered	
  some	
  form	
  of	
  differentiated	
  product	
  and	
  many	
  of	
  them	
  

	
  

31	
  

	
  

provided	
  additional	
  information	
  to	
  their	
  customers.	
  	
  Our	
  findings	
  demonstrated	
  that	
  the	
  
specific	
  differentiated	
  attribute	
  was	
  not	
  as	
  important	
  as	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  differentiation	
  itself.	
  
	
  

All	
  the	
  food	
  hubs	
  in	
  our	
  study	
  mentioned	
  awareness	
  of	
  increasing	
  access	
  for	
  limited-­‐

resource	
  residents	
  or	
  stated	
  that	
  their	
  organizations	
  valued	
  this	
  goal.	
  	
  More	
  than	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  
hubs	
  engage	
  in	
  activities	
  to	
  accomplish	
  this.	
  	
  This	
  is	
  consistent	
  with	
  previous	
  findings	
  that	
  
food	
  hubs	
  may	
  value	
  increasing	
  food	
  access	
  to	
  underserved	
  populations	
  (J.	
  Barham	
  et	
  al.,	
  
2012;	
  Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013).	
  	
  Our	
  findings	
  provide	
  new	
  insights	
  into	
  how	
  they	
  are	
  attempting	
  
to	
  accomplish	
  this.	
  	
  There	
  are	
  two	
  types	
  of	
  strategies	
  to	
  consider	
  –	
  the	
  first	
  is	
  through	
  
organizations	
  doing	
  free	
  distribution	
  and	
  the	
  second	
  is	
  via	
  the	
  market	
  economy.	
  	
  The	
  
majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  are	
  partnering	
  with	
  food	
  banks	
  or	
  gleaning	
  organizations	
  to	
  
donate	
  leftover	
  produce.	
  	
  Thus	
  a	
  portion	
  of	
  meeting	
  this	
  goal	
  for	
  them	
  is	
  through	
  
emergency	
  food	
  assistance.	
  
	
  

Our	
  sample	
  includes	
  hubs	
  that	
  engage	
  limited-­‐resource	
  populations	
  through	
  the	
  

market	
  economy	
  as	
  well	
  –	
  although	
  in	
  a	
  limited	
  way.	
  	
  More	
  than	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  host	
  or	
  
support	
  farmer’s	
  markets	
  or	
  mobile	
  markets	
  that	
  accept	
  EBT.	
  Of	
  the	
  three	
  hubs	
  that	
  
operate	
  mobile	
  markets	
  the	
  results	
  to	
  date	
  are	
  mixed:	
  one	
  is	
  considered	
  successful	
  by	
  the	
  
interviewee,	
  another	
  is	
  not	
  as	
  successful	
  as	
  expected	
  and	
  the	
  last	
  did	
  not	
  comment	
  on	
  their	
  
success.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  still	
  unclear	
  whether	
  mobile	
  markets	
  offer	
  a	
  sound	
  market-­‐based	
  solution	
  to	
  
access	
  in	
  communities.	
  	
  
	
  

Food	
  banks	
  and	
  farmer’s	
  markets	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  common	
  way	
  our	
  study’s	
  food	
  hubs	
  

interact	
  with	
  underserved	
  populations	
  –	
  only	
  one	
  of	
  those	
  interviewed	
  interacted	
  via	
  
servicing	
  product	
  to	
  small	
  footprint	
  grocery	
  stores	
  in	
  the	
  neighborhoods.	
  	
  Beyond	
  that,	
  
some	
  food	
  hubs,	
  mainly	
  those	
  that	
  have	
  a	
  non-­‐profit	
  legal	
  structure,	
  offered	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  

	
  

32	
  

	
  

other,	
  mostly	
  educational,	
  services.	
  	
  A	
  minority	
  of	
  hubs	
  offered	
  “capacity	
  building”	
  services	
  
for	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  including	
  business	
  development,	
  job	
  training	
  skills	
  or	
  food	
  
production	
  and	
  preservation	
  education.	
  	
  Many	
  of	
  these	
  programs	
  were	
  operational	
  prior	
  to	
  
the	
  hubs’	
  formation.	
  
	
  

Half	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  in	
  our	
  sample	
  are	
  in	
  early	
  phases	
  of	
  development	
  -­‐	
  either	
  planning	
  

or	
  developing	
  their	
  businesses	
  and	
  currently	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  ample	
  resources	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  
reaching	
  underserved	
  populations.	
  	
  Five	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  are	
  mainly	
  focused	
  on	
  wholesale	
  and	
  
institutional	
  markets	
  and	
  any	
  strategies	
  they	
  use	
  to	
  reach	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  fall	
  
outside	
  of	
  their	
  daily	
  operations	
  as	
  a	
  food	
  hub.	
  	
  This	
  poses	
  another	
  challenge	
  in	
  reaching	
  
limited-­‐resource	
  customers.	
  	
  It	
  appears	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  systemic	
  issues	
  in	
  the	
  ways	
  food	
  
hubs	
  reach	
  out	
  to	
  underserved	
  populations,	
  or	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  challenged	
  in	
  
accomplishing	
  this.	
  	
  	
  This	
  is	
  demonstrated	
  by	
  the	
  challenges	
  hub	
  operators	
  identified,	
  
including:	
  	
  lack	
  of	
  organizational	
  resources,	
  limited	
  access	
  to	
  transportation	
  by	
  those	
  that	
  
the	
  hubs	
  are	
  trying	
  to	
  reach,	
  and	
  a	
  perception	
  that	
  their	
  food	
  products	
  are	
  too	
  expensive.	
  
	
  

It	
  appears	
  that	
  hubs	
  which	
  demonstrate	
  the	
  most	
  success	
  reaching	
  underserved	
  

consumers	
  are	
  those	
  that	
  are	
  either	
  non-­‐profit	
  in	
  structure	
  or	
  have	
  a	
  business	
  model	
  that	
  
includes	
  direct	
  sales	
  to	
  consumers.	
  	
  These	
  hubs	
  were	
  also	
  most	
  likely	
  to	
  include	
  increasing	
  
food	
  access	
  in	
  their	
  mission.	
  	
  The	
  non-­‐profit	
  hubs	
  all	
  have	
  additional	
  streams	
  of	
  funding	
  or	
  
revenue	
  that	
  allow	
  them	
  to	
  run	
  programs	
  outside	
  the	
  realm	
  of	
  their	
  food	
  hub	
  operations.	
  	
  
The	
  hubs	
  that	
  include	
  direct	
  to	
  consumer	
  sales	
  have	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  prospect	
  specific	
  
groups	
  of	
  consumers	
  by	
  doing	
  targeted	
  outreach	
  or	
  by	
  adapting	
  their	
  business	
  models	
  to	
  
accept	
  EBT.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

33	
  

	
  

Conclusion	
  
	
  

Our	
  findings	
  contribute	
  to	
  the	
  relatively	
  young	
  food	
  hub	
  literature	
  by	
  adding	
  depth	
  

and	
  nuance	
  to	
  our	
  current	
  understanding	
  about	
  the	
  sourcing	
  practices	
  of	
  these	
  business	
  
enterprises.	
  	
  This	
  study	
  also	
  provides	
  previously	
  unavailable	
  insights	
  into	
  how	
  food	
  hubs	
  
value	
  and	
  interact	
  with	
  underserved	
  populations.	
  	
  While	
  our	
  regionally	
  based	
  study	
  may	
  
not	
  be	
  generalizable	
  to	
  food	
  hubs	
  across	
  the	
  U.S.,	
  it	
  does	
  provide	
  a	
  deeper,	
  contextualized	
  
understanding	
  of	
  the	
  included	
  organizations’	
  values	
  and	
  motivations	
  relative	
  to	
  product	
  
sourcing	
  and	
  customer	
  development.	
  
	
  

Our	
  findings	
  suggest	
  that	
  food	
  hub	
  operators’	
  main	
  objective	
  is	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  viable	
  

business.	
  	
  With	
  some	
  exceptions,	
  this	
  necessitates	
  the	
  adoption	
  of	
  flexible	
  sourcing	
  
practices.	
  	
  Activities	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access	
  for	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  appeared	
  to	
  
become	
  a	
  secondary	
  priority.	
  	
  Consistent	
  with	
  food	
  hub	
  working	
  definitions,	
  hubs	
  are	
  
sourcing	
  a	
  portion	
  of	
  their	
  products	
  locally	
  and	
  regionally	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  from	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐
sized	
  farms.	
  	
  Interestingly,	
  we	
  found	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  not	
  willing	
  to	
  rigidly	
  enforce	
  
guidelines	
  on	
  sourcing	
  distance,	
  size	
  of	
  farm,	
  or	
  product	
  attributes,	
  motivated	
  mainly	
  by	
  a	
  
lack	
  of	
  supply.	
  	
  We	
  also	
  found	
  that	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  hubs	
  are	
  challenged	
  in	
  reaching	
  limited-­‐
resource	
  customers	
  with	
  the	
  goal	
  of	
  increasing	
  food	
  access.	
  	
  Due	
  to	
  lack	
  of	
  resources,	
  the	
  
majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  work	
  in	
  partnership	
  towards	
  this	
  goal.	
  	
  Hub	
  activities	
  to	
  increase	
  access	
  
mainly	
  fall	
  into	
  two	
  categories:	
  	
  free	
  distribution	
  as	
  donations	
  to	
  food	
  banks	
  and	
  market-­‐
based	
  as	
  on-­‐site	
  or	
  mobile	
  farmer’s	
  markets.	
  	
  Further	
  research	
  is	
  needed	
  to	
  better	
  
understand	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  supply	
  from	
  local/regional	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms,	
  how	
  the	
  hub	
  
business	
  development	
  stage	
  impacts	
  their	
  practices,	
  and	
  viable	
  strategies	
  for	
  serving	
  
limited-­‐resource	
  consumer	
  populations.	
  

	
  

34	
  

	
  

CHAPTER	
  3.	
  	
  Conclusions	
  
Reflections	
  on	
  research	
  results	
  
	
  
	
  
This	
  thesis	
  examined	
  how	
  eleven	
  food	
  hub	
  enterprises	
  employ	
  values	
  in	
  their	
  
sourcing	
  practices	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  interact	
  with	
  underserved	
  consumers.	
  	
  Generally,	
  we	
  
found	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  do	
  state	
  and	
  hold	
  values	
  pertaining	
  to	
  both	
  of	
  these	
  topics.	
  	
  
Looking	
  more	
  closely	
  at	
  these	
  stated	
  values,	
  we	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  have	
  
flexible	
  boundary	
  conditions	
  for	
  their	
  sourcing	
  preferences	
  and	
  requirements	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  
geographic	
  distance,	
  size	
  of	
  farm,	
  and	
  product	
  attributes.	
  	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  hubs’	
  interaction	
  with	
  
underserved	
  consumers,	
  we	
  found	
  that	
  most	
  hubs	
  form	
  partnerships	
  to	
  reach	
  and	
  serve	
  
these	
  consumers,	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  main	
  activities	
  to	
  accomplish	
  these	
  goals	
  are	
  accepting	
  EBT	
  
at	
  farmer’s	
  markets	
  and	
  donating	
  produce	
  to	
  local	
  food	
  banks.	
  	
  For	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs,	
  we	
  
did	
  not	
  find	
  any	
  explicit	
  intention	
  of	
  developing	
  plans	
  to	
  reach	
  local	
  underserved	
  
consumers	
  in,	
  for	
  example,	
  small	
  footprint	
  grocery	
  stores.	
  
	
  

Despite	
  the	
  attention	
  that	
  food	
  hub	
  enterprises	
  receive	
  for	
  focusing	
  on	
  local	
  and	
  

regional	
  produce,	
  and	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  (J.	
  Barham,	
  2010;	
  Fischer	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013;	
  
Matson	
  et	
  al.,	
  2013),	
  we	
  found	
  that	
  a	
  minority	
  of	
  hubs	
  strictly	
  source	
  products	
  with	
  these	
  
descriptors.	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  do	
  source	
  a	
  portion	
  of	
  their	
  products	
  locally/regionally	
  
and	
  from	
  small	
  or	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms,	
  but	
  they	
  also	
  source	
  beyond	
  their	
  preferred	
  boundaries	
  
and	
  from	
  larger	
  farms.	
  	
  This	
  flexibility	
  in	
  preferences	
  and	
  requirements	
  was	
  also	
  true	
  of	
  
product	
  attributes.	
  	
  For	
  the	
  few	
  hubs	
  that	
  did	
  prefer	
  specific	
  production	
  methods,	
  such	
  as	
  
organic,	
  they	
  were	
  open	
  to	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  sourcing	
  non-­‐organic	
  products	
  if	
  an	
  organic	
  
option	
  was	
  not	
  available.	
  

	
  

35	
  

	
  

	
  

The	
  most	
  notable	
  exception	
  to	
  this	
  flexibility	
  was	
  a	
  preference	
  for	
  food	
  safety	
  

certifications	
  and/or	
  practices.	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  hub	
  operators	
  raised	
  concerns	
  about	
  food	
  
safety	
  requirements	
  for	
  their	
  institutional	
  markets,	
  or	
  that	
  they	
  engage	
  in	
  training	
  and	
  
education	
  activities	
  to	
  benefit	
  their	
  producers	
  on	
  these	
  topics.	
  	
  Many	
  hubs	
  cited	
  market	
  
requirements	
  for	
  safe	
  food	
  as	
  a	
  motivation	
  for	
  these	
  concerns	
  and	
  activities.	
  	
  
	
  

These	
  findings	
  of	
  flexible	
  sourcing	
  practices	
  can	
  be	
  partially	
  explained	
  by	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  

supply	
  available	
  locally	
  and	
  regionally	
  from	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms.	
  	
  The	
  root	
  of	
  the	
  
supply	
  issue	
  may	
  connected	
  to	
  the	
  challenges	
  that	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms	
  in	
  the	
  U.S.	
  face.	
  	
  The	
  
literature	
  suggests	
  food	
  hubs	
  as	
  a	
  potential	
  business	
  model	
  appropriately	
  scaled	
  for	
  mid-­‐
sized	
  farm	
  product	
  distribution.	
  	
  Missing	
  from	
  this	
  literature	
  are	
  the	
  additional	
  efforts	
  food	
  
hubs	
  may	
  need	
  to	
  undertake	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  prepare	
  existing	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farm	
  businesses	
  to	
  
interact	
  in	
  this	
  market.	
  	
  Our	
  results	
  indicate	
  that	
  hubs	
  may	
  need	
  to	
  support	
  existing	
  mid-­‐
sized	
  farmers	
  in	
  skill	
  and	
  business	
  development	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  ensure	
  they	
  can	
  secure	
  the	
  
needed	
  supply.	
  	
  They	
  may	
  also	
  need	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  recruitment	
  and	
  skill	
  building	
  of	
  new	
  
farmers	
  to	
  increase	
  local	
  and	
  regional	
  supply.	
  
	
  

Resources	
  available	
  on	
  beginning	
  farmers	
  identify	
  two	
  main	
  barriers	
  to	
  starting	
  a	
  

business.	
  	
  These	
  are	
  high	
  start	
  up	
  costs	
  and	
  access	
  to	
  land	
  (Ahearn	
  &	
  Newton,	
  2009).	
  	
  
Addressing	
  these	
  issues	
  is	
  no	
  small	
  task,	
  especially	
  for	
  a	
  developing	
  food	
  hub	
  business.	
  	
  If	
  
food	
  hub	
  operators	
  are	
  interested	
  in	
  sourcing	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  their	
  products	
  locally	
  or	
  
regionally	
  from	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farms,	
  they	
  may	
  need	
  to	
  include	
  more	
  strategies	
  in	
  
their	
  business	
  plans	
  to	
  develop	
  existing	
  farmer	
  capacity	
  and	
  to	
  recruit	
  new	
  farmers.	
  
	
  

We	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  had	
  awareness	
  of	
  food	
  access	
  disparities	
  in	
  their	
  

communities,	
  or	
  stated	
  that	
  their	
  organization	
  values	
  improving	
  access	
  to	
  underserved	
  

	
  

36	
  

	
  

consumers	
  through	
  various	
  strategies.	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  hubs	
  acting	
  on	
  this	
  goal	
  are	
  
partnering	
  with	
  other	
  community	
  organizations.	
  	
  Many	
  of	
  the	
  hub	
  operators	
  cited	
  lack	
  of	
  
staff,	
  time	
  and	
  monetary	
  resources	
  as	
  a	
  barrier	
  to	
  engaging	
  in	
  these	
  activities	
  as	
  an	
  
individual	
  organization.	
  
	
  

The	
  strategies	
  hubs	
  use	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access	
  fall	
  into	
  two	
  categories:	
  	
  first,	
  

charitable	
  distribution	
  by	
  donating	
  products	
  to	
  local	
  food	
  banks	
  and	
  second,	
  market	
  based	
  
strategies	
  mainly	
  by	
  hosting	
  or	
  supporting	
  farmer’s	
  markets	
  that	
  accept	
  EBT.	
  	
  These	
  were	
  
the	
  most	
  common	
  activities	
  used	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access	
  across	
  the	
  various	
  business	
  
development	
  stages	
  and	
  legal	
  structures	
  of	
  hubs	
  in	
  our	
  sample.	
  	
  A	
  minority	
  of	
  hubs	
  used	
  
mobile	
  markets	
  as	
  another	
  market	
  based	
  strategy	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access.	
  	
  With	
  the	
  
exception	
  of	
  one	
  hub,	
  who	
  partnered	
  on	
  an	
  initiative	
  to	
  distribute	
  produce	
  to	
  corner	
  stores	
  
in	
  limited-­‐resource	
  neighborhoods,	
  we	
  did	
  not	
  find	
  that	
  any	
  other	
  hubs	
  had	
  explicit	
  
intentions	
  of	
  engaging	
  in	
  retail	
  market-­‐based	
  strategies	
  to	
  reach	
  and	
  service	
  underserved	
  
consumers	
  in	
  their	
  areas.	
  	
  
	
  

In	
  contrast	
  to	
  providing	
  farmer’s	
  market	
  access	
  and	
  food	
  bank	
  donations,	
  the	
  non-­‐

profit	
  hubs	
  provided	
  additional	
  services.	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  these	
  hub	
  operators	
  stated	
  a	
  
value	
  of	
  increasing	
  individual	
  community	
  member	
  capacity,	
  mainly	
  by	
  providing	
  
educational	
  services	
  on	
  topics	
  of	
  nutrition,	
  cooking,	
  job	
  training,	
  business	
  development,	
  
food	
  preservation	
  and	
  gardening	
  production	
  skills.	
  	
  These	
  hubs	
  appear	
  to	
  share	
  an	
  
intention	
  of	
  providing	
  services	
  to	
  community	
  members	
  at	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  levels,	
  moving	
  
beyond	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  increasing	
  access	
  by	
  making	
  food	
  available	
  in	
  their	
  communities.	
  
	
  

Most	
  of	
  the	
  hub	
  practitioners	
  identified	
  challenges	
  in	
  either	
  serving	
  limited-­‐

resource	
  customers	
  or	
  reaching	
  them	
  to	
  communicate	
  existing	
  services.	
  	
  For	
  many	
  hubs,	
  

	
  

37	
  

	
  

this	
  may	
  be	
  due	
  to	
  their	
  primary	
  focus	
  of	
  working	
  with	
  institutional	
  markets.	
  	
  For	
  others	
  
that	
  do	
  include	
  direct	
  consumer	
  services,	
  there	
  were	
  challenges	
  of	
  perceptions	
  that	
  healthy	
  
food	
  is	
  too	
  expensive	
  or	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  business	
  model	
  barriers	
  to	
  accepting	
  EBT.	
  	
  Some	
  hub	
  
operators	
  expressed	
  that	
  underserved	
  consumers	
  in	
  their	
  area	
  lack	
  access	
  to	
  
transportation	
  to	
  farmer’s	
  markets,	
  which	
  brings	
  the	
  efficacy	
  of	
  this	
  strategy	
  into	
  question.	
  
	
  

The	
  number	
  of	
  new	
  food	
  hubs	
  has	
  risen	
  dramatically	
  over	
  the	
  last	
  few	
  years.	
  	
  If	
  each	
  

of	
  these	
  new	
  hubs	
  were	
  to	
  distribute	
  healthy	
  food	
  or	
  offer	
  educational	
  services	
  for	
  limited	
  
resource	
  consumers,	
  the	
  potential	
  impact	
  for	
  this	
  population	
  could	
  be	
  significant.	
  	
  This	
  
research	
  did	
  not	
  collect	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  customers	
  served	
  by	
  each	
  hub.	
  	
  Neither	
  is	
  this	
  
information	
  available	
  nationally.	
  	
  Therefore,	
  it	
  is	
  beyond	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  this	
  paper	
  to	
  estimate	
  
the	
  quantitative	
  impact	
  of	
  increasing	
  services	
  that	
  target	
  underserved	
  consumers.	
  	
  Food	
  
hubs	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  expected	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  sole	
  solution	
  to	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  food	
  access	
  disparity.	
  
However,	
  as	
  their	
  number	
  and	
  operational	
  scale	
  increases	
  across	
  the	
  country,	
  they	
  should	
  
be	
  able	
  to	
  play	
  a	
  contributory	
  role	
  to	
  more	
  equitable	
  healthy	
  food	
  access.	
  
	
  
Limitations	
  and	
  future	
  research	
  
	
  

Due	
  to	
  the	
  size	
  and	
  geographic	
  region	
  of	
  this	
  study,	
  the	
  findings	
  are	
  limited	
  in	
  their	
  

general	
  applicability	
  to	
  food	
  hub	
  enterprises	
  nationally.	
  	
  However,	
  it	
  should	
  be	
  noted	
  that	
  
many	
  of	
  the	
  findings	
  of	
  the	
  national	
  food	
  hub	
  survey	
  supported	
  the	
  findings	
  presented	
  
here.	
  	
  In	
  either	
  case,	
  it	
  was	
  not	
  the	
  intention	
  of	
  this	
  study	
  to	
  create	
  generalizable	
  findings,	
  
but	
  rather	
  to	
  share	
  food	
  hub	
  activities,	
  values	
  and	
  motivations	
  situated	
  in	
  their	
  specific	
  
context.	
  

	
  

38	
  

	
  

	
  

Our	
  findings	
  prompt	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  additional	
  topics	
  to	
  be	
  further	
  investigated.	
  	
  One	
  of	
  

the	
  main	
  barriers	
  to	
  sourcing	
  products	
  with	
  preferable	
  attributes	
  was	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  supply.	
  	
  
Further	
  research	
  could	
  focus	
  on	
  actual	
  supply	
  levels	
  in	
  food	
  hub	
  regions	
  and	
  whether	
  it	
  is	
  
entirely	
  absent,	
  and/or	
  whether	
  it	
  is	
  being	
  directed	
  into	
  other	
  markets	
  and	
  unavailable	
  to	
  
food	
  hubs.	
  	
  Research	
  of	
  small	
  and	
  mid-­‐sized	
  farmer	
  willingness	
  and	
  barriers	
  to	
  supply	
  food	
  
hub	
  markets	
  would	
  also	
  be	
  instructive	
  on	
  this	
  topic.	
  
	
  

A	
  major	
  question	
  regarding	
  underserved	
  markets	
  that	
  emerged	
  from	
  this	
  study	
  is	
  

the	
  question	
  of	
  whether	
  food	
  hubs	
  have	
  a	
  responsibility	
  to	
  address	
  issues	
  of	
  access	
  and	
  
providing	
  services	
  to	
  this	
  group	
  of	
  consumers.	
  	
  Examples	
  of	
  food	
  hubs	
  that	
  prioritize	
  these	
  
issues,	
  their	
  motivations	
  and	
  business	
  plans	
  that	
  incorporate	
  these	
  goals	
  could	
  elucidate	
  
viable	
  strategies	
  in	
  this	
  realm.	
  	
  In	
  relation	
  to	
  this	
  study,	
  it	
  would	
  likely	
  be	
  helpful	
  to	
  explore	
  
how	
  food	
  banks	
  and	
  food	
  hubs	
  are	
  partnering	
  to	
  increase	
  food	
  access,	
  with	
  the	
  possibility	
  
of	
  expanding	
  or	
  reimagining	
  these	
  relationships.	
  	
  Underserved	
  consumer	
  desires,	
  needs,	
  
motivations	
  and	
  barriers	
  could	
  be	
  researched	
  to	
  better	
  inform	
  food	
  hubs	
  that	
  choose	
  to	
  
pursue	
  serving	
  this	
  market.	
  	
  Strategies	
  for	
  food	
  hubs	
  to	
  effectively	
  reach	
  and	
  market	
  to	
  
underserved	
  consumers	
  would	
  also	
  be	
  practically	
  useful	
  and	
  requires	
  further	
  research.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

39	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
APPENDIX	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

40	
  

	
  

Interview	
  Guide	
  
	
  
Pre-­‐interview	
  
1. Introductions,	
  hellos,	
  express	
  gratitude	
  for	
  taking	
  the	
  time	
  to	
  participate	
  
2. Go	
  over	
  IRB	
  informed	
  consent	
  
3. Ask	
  permission	
  to	
  begin	
  
	
  
Development	
  +	
  Organizational	
  Structure	
  
	
  
1. Let’s	
  start	
  with	
  a	
  general	
  question	
  about	
  food	
  hubs.	
  	
  Would	
  you	
  mind	
  sharing,	
  in	
  one	
  
to	
  two	
  sentences,	
  what	
  you	
  think	
  a	
  food	
  hub	
  is?	
  
• What	
  parts	
  of	
  your	
  organization	
  do	
  you	
  [envision/currently	
  consider]	
  to	
  be	
  
part	
  of	
  your	
  food	
  hub?	
  
	
  
2. Does	
  your	
  organization	
  have	
  a	
  mission	
  and	
  vision?	
  	
  If	
  so,	
  could	
  you	
  share	
  it?	
  
	
  
	
  
3. For	
  this	
  project	
  I	
  have	
  been	
  thinking	
  about	
  food	
  hubs	
  falling	
  along	
  a	
  spectrum	
  of	
  
organizational	
  development.	
  The	
  spectrum	
  ranges	
  from	
  “in	
  planning”,	
  to	
  “in	
  
development”	
  to	
  “operational”.	
  	
  Would	
  you	
  mark	
  where	
  you	
  think	
  that	
  your	
  
organization	
  fits	
  along	
  this	
  spectrum?	
  	
  
[Ask	
  them	
  to	
  mark	
  the	
  spectrum	
  on	
  paper.	
  	
  It’s	
  okay	
  to	
  use	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  mark	
  to	
  
refer	
  to	
  different	
  parts/projects	
  within	
  the	
  organization]	
  
• What	
  reasons	
  lead	
  you	
  to	
  place	
  your	
  organization	
  there?	
  
• [Prompt	
  for	
  in	
  development/in	
  planning]	
  Do	
  you	
  have	
  an	
  idea	
  of	
  what	
  your	
  
developmental	
  plan	
  looks	
  like?	
  	
  A	
  sense	
  of	
  your	
  timeline	
  for	
  this?	
  
	
  
	
  
Transition:	
  That	
  is	
  helpful	
  to	
  set	
  some	
  context.	
  	
  Let’s	
  switch	
  gears	
  into	
  [how	
  you	
  envision	
  
your	
  hub	
  operating/your	
  hub	
  operations].	
  I	
  am	
  curious	
  to	
  learn	
  more	
  about	
  whether	
  your	
  
organization	
  has	
  any	
  preference	
  about	
  what	
  types	
  of	
  food	
  or	
  food	
  products	
  it	
  [would	
  like	
  
to/does]	
  source	
  for	
  the	
  food	
  hub.	
  
	
  
Sourcing	
  
	
  
1. Specifically,	
  does	
  your	
  organization	
  have	
  a	
  preference	
  or	
  requirement	
  for	
  –	
  [have	
  list	
  
of	
  attributes	
  from	
  National	
  Food	
  Hub	
  survey	
  for	
  reference]	
  
• Certifications?	
  	
  Which	
  ones?	
  
• Growing	
  methods	
  [not	
  certified]?	
  
• Scale	
  of	
  production/size	
  of	
  operation?	
  
• Distance	
  traveled?	
  
	
  
• What	
  parts	
  of	
  your	
  mission	
  and	
  vision	
  lead	
  the	
  organization	
  to	
  try	
  and	
  source	
  
these	
  types	
  of	
  products?	
  
o [Prompt]	
  	
  	
  Why	
  are	
  these	
  attributes	
  important	
  to	
  your	
  organization?	
  

	
  

41	
  

	
  

	
  
2. How	
  do	
  you	
  [plan	
  to/already]	
  verify	
  that	
  the	
  products	
  that	
  you	
  are	
  sourcing	
  have	
  
these	
  attributes?	
  [Prompt	
  if	
  necessary]	
  
• Farm/producer	
  visits?	
  
• Audits?	
  
• Proof	
  of	
  certification?	
  
• Anything	
  else?	
  
	
  
3. [Do	
  you	
  anticipate/Have	
  there	
  been]	
  any	
  challenges	
  sourcing	
  products	
  that	
  have	
  
these	
  desired	
  attributes?	
  
• [Do	
  you	
  anticipate/Have	
  you	
  had]	
  any	
  problems	
  with	
  supply	
  of	
  the	
  products	
  
with	
  your	
  desired	
  attributes?	
  
i. [Prompt	
  if	
  they	
  answer	
  no]	
  What	
  leads	
  you	
  to	
  believe	
  this?	
  	
  Have	
  you	
  
done	
  market/supply	
  side	
  research?	
  
• What	
  concessions	
  about	
  these	
  attributes	
  [would	
  you	
  be	
  willing	
  to	
  make/have	
  
you	
  made]	
  if	
  you	
  cannot	
  find	
  adequate	
  supply?	
  	
  
	
  
Transition:	
  	
  	
  Thanks	
  for	
  all	
  that	
  information.	
  	
  I	
  have	
  a	
  much	
  better	
  understanding	
  of	
  your	
  
sourcing	
  now.	
  	
  I’m	
  also	
  interested	
  in	
  the	
  distribution	
  side	
  and	
  your	
  [potential/current]	
  
customers.	
  	
  
	
  
Distribution	
  +	
  Retail	
  
	
  
1. Can	
  you	
  help	
  me	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  geographic	
  area	
  of	
  what	
  your	
  [planned/current]	
  
sales	
  market	
  is?	
  [Prompt	
  if	
  necessary]	
  
• Specific	
  regions?	
  Counties?	
  
• Cities?	
  	
  	
  
• Neighborhoods?	
  
• Distance	
  from	
  your	
  site?	
  
	
  
	
  
2. Does	
  your	
  organization	
  [plan	
  to/already]	
  target	
  any	
  specific	
  groups	
  of	
  consumers?	
  	
  	
  
Specifically,	
  do	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  specific	
  interest	
  in	
  reaching	
  –	
  
• Urban	
  populations?	
  
• Low-­‐income	
  populations?	
  
• Communities	
  of	
  color?	
  
	
  
3. A.	
  	
  [For	
  planning	
  hubs]	
  Do	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  plans	
  to	
  implement	
  strategies	
  to	
  aid	
  in	
  
reaching	
  these	
  groups	
  of	
  customers?	
  	
  What	
  types	
  of	
  strategies	
  have	
  you	
  considered?	
  	
  
[Prompt	
  if	
  necessary]	
  
• Incentive	
  programs?	
  
• Outreach	
  strategies?	
  
• Other	
  strategies?	
  
• What	
  are	
  the	
  pros	
  and	
  cons	
  to	
  the	
  programs	
  you	
  are	
  considering?	
  
	
  

	
  

42	
  

	
  

	
  

B.	
  	
  [For	
  operational	
  hubs]	
  Have	
  you	
  developed	
  or	
  used	
  any	
  strategies	
  that	
  seem	
  to	
  
work	
  well	
  in	
  reaching	
  these	
  groups	
  of	
  customers?	
  [Prompt	
  if	
  necessary]	
  If	
  so	
  what	
  
are	
  they?	
  
• Incentive	
  programs?	
  
• Outreach	
  strategies?	
  
• Other	
  strategies?	
  
• How	
  do	
  you	
  run	
  these	
  programs?	
  	
  	
  
• What	
  seems	
  to	
  be	
  working	
  well?	
  	
  What	
  is	
  challenging?	
  
• Do	
  you	
  have	
  a	
  good	
  sense	
  of	
  your	
  customer	
  base?	
  	
  What	
  impact	
  do	
  these	
  
programs	
  have	
  on	
  your	
  customers?	
  	
  Can	
  you	
  tell	
  whether	
  your	
  customers	
  are	
  
returning	
  to	
  use/due	
  to	
  these	
  programs?	
  
4. What	
  challenges	
  [do	
  you	
  anticipate/have	
  you	
  experienced]	
  in	
  developing	
  a	
  supply	
  
chain	
  for	
  these	
  groups	
  of	
  customers?	
  

	
  
Closing	
  remarks	
  
	
  
1. I	
  want	
  to	
  respect	
  your	
  time,	
  and	
  I	
  am	
  so	
  grateful	
  that	
  you	
  were	
  willing	
  and	
  able	
  to	
  sit	
  
down	
  and	
  share	
  with	
  me.	
  	
  My	
  goal	
  is	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  information	
  from	
  this	
  interview	
  and	
  
interviews	
  with	
  other	
  food	
  hubs	
  around	
  the	
  state	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  sharable	
  document	
  
with	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  best	
  practices	
  and	
  challenges	
  that	
  emerge	
  around	
  food	
  hub	
  
sourcing	
  and	
  distributing.	
  	
  I’ll	
  be	
  sure	
  to	
  keep	
  you	
  in	
  the	
  loop	
  with	
  progress	
  on	
  that.	
  
2. Do	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  questions	
  for	
  me?	
  
3. Express	
  a	
  final	
  thank	
  you.	
  Please	
  feel	
  free	
  to	
  get	
  in	
  touch	
  if	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  more	
  
thoughts	
  or	
  questions	
  that	
  come	
  up.	
  	
  Would	
  you	
  mind	
  if	
  I	
  contact	
  you	
  if	
  I	
  have	
  any	
  
questions	
  that	
  come	
  up	
  in	
  the	
  future?	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

43	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
REFERENCES	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

44	
  

	
  

REFERENCES	
  
	
  
	
  
Aggarwal,	
  A.,	
  Cook,	
  A.	
  J.,	
  Jiao,	
  J.,	
  Seguin,	
  R.	
  A.,	
  Vernez	
  Moudon,	
  A.,	
  Hurvitz,	
  P.	
  M.,	
  &	
  
Drewnowski,	
  A.	
  (2014).	
  Access	
  to	
  Supermarkets	
  and	
  Fruit	
  and	
  Vegetable	
  
Consumption.	
  American	
  Journal	
  of	
  Public	
  Health,	
  104(5),	
  917–923.	
  	
  
	
  
Ahearn,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Newton,	
  D.	
  (2009).	
  Beginning	
  Farmers	
  and	
  Ranchers	
  (No.	
  53).	
  USDA	
  -­‐	
  ERS.	
  	
  15	
  
April	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-­‐economic-­‐
information-­‐bulletin/eib53.aspx#.U0_abeZdWm4.	
  
	
  
Alkon,	
  A.	
  H.	
  (2008).	
  From	
  value	
  to	
  values:	
  sustainable	
  consumption	
  at	
  farmers	
  markets.	
  
Agriculture	
  and	
  Human	
  Values,	
  25(4),	
  487–498.	
  	
  
	
  
Aubrey,	
  S.	
  (2012).	
  Indiana	
  Farms,	
  Indiana	
  Foods,	
  Indiana	
  Success:	
  	
  Central	
  Indiana	
  Food	
  Hub	
  
Feasibility	
  Study.	
  Prosperity	
  Ag	
  and	
  Energy	
  Resources.	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  
from	
  http://www.ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-­‐database/knowledge/8-­‐20-­‐
12%20Central%20IN%20Food%20Hub%20Feasibility%20Study.pdf	
  
	
  
Baker,	
  E.	
  A.,	
  Schootman,	
  M.,	
  Barnidge,	
  E.,	
  &	
  Kelly,	
  C.	
  (2006).	
  The	
  Role	
  of	
  Race	
  and	
  Poverty	
  in	
  
Access	
  to	
  Foods	
  That	
  Enable	
  Individuals	
  to	
  Adhere	
  to	
  Dietary	
  Guidelines.	
  Preventing	
  
Chronic	
  Disease,	
  3(3).	
  	
  
	
  
Baker,	
  S.,	
  Thompson,	
  K.	
  E.,	
  &	
  Engelken,	
  J.	
  (2004).	
  Mapping	
  the	
  values	
  driving	
  organic	
  food	
  
choice:	
  Germany	
  vs	
  the	
  UK.	
  European	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marketing,	
  38(8),	
  995–1012.	
  
	
  
Barham,	
  E.	
  (2002).	
  Towards	
  a	
  theory	
  of	
  values-­‐based	
  labeling.	
  Agriculture	
  and	
  Human	
  
Values,	
  19(4),	
  349.	
  
	
  
Barham,	
  J.	
  (2010,	
  December	
  14).	
  Getting	
  to	
  Scale	
  with	
  Regional	
  Food	
  Hubs.	
  USDA	
  Blog.	
  	
  17	
  
February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  http://blogs.usda.gov/2010/12/14/getting-­‐to-­‐
scale-­‐with-­‐regional-­‐food-­‐hubs/	
  
	
  
Barham,	
  J.,	
  Tropp,	
  D.,	
  Enterline,	
  K.,	
  Farbman,	
  J.,	
  Fisk,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Kiraly,	
  S.	
  (2012).	
  Regional	
  Food	
  
Hub	
  Resource	
  Guide.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture,	
  Agricultural	
  
Marketing	
  Service.	
  
	
  
Barham,	
  J.	
  (2011,	
  March	
  23).	
  Regional	
  Food	
  Hubs:	
  	
  Understanding	
  the	
  scope	
  and	
  scale	
  of	
  food	
  
hub	
  operations.	
  	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-­‐
database/knowledge/Food%20Hub%20Preliminary%20Findings_Mar.22.2011.pdf	
  
	
  
Beaulac,	
  J.,	
  Kristjansson,	
  E.,	
  &	
  Cummins,	
  S.	
  (2009).	
  A	
  systematic	
  review	
  of	
  food	
  deserts,	
  
1966–2007.	
  Prev	
  Chronic	
  Dis,	
  6(3),	
  A105.	
  
	
  

	
  

45	
  

	
  

Bell,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Standish,	
  M.	
  (2009).	
  Building	
  healthy	
  communities	
  through	
  equitable	
  food	
  access.	
  
Community	
  Development	
  Investment	
  Review,	
  5(3),	
  75–87.	
  
	
  
Black,	
  C.,	
  Moon,	
  G.,	
  &	
  Baird,	
  J.	
  (2013).	
  Dietary	
  inequalities:	
  What	
  is	
  the	
  evidence	
  for	
  the	
  
effect	
  of	
  the	
  neighbourhood	
  food	
  environment?	
  Health	
  &	
  place.	
  15	
  April	
  2014.	
  	
  
Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829213001317	
  
	
  
Bloom,	
  J.	
  D.,	
  &	
  Hinrichs,	
  C.	
  C.	
  (2011).	
  Moving	
  local	
  food	
  through	
  conventional	
  food	
  system	
  
infrastructure:	
  Value	
  chain	
  framework	
  comparisons	
  and	
  insights.	
  Renewable	
  
Agriculture	
  and	
  Food	
  Systems,	
  26(1),	
  13–23.	
  
	
  
Bodor,	
  J.	
  N.,	
  Rose,	
  D.,	
  Farley,	
  T.	
  A.,	
  Swalm,	
  C.,	
  &	
  Scott,	
  S.	
  K.	
  (2008).	
  Neighbourhood	
  fruit	
  and	
  
vegetable	
  availability	
  and	
  consumption:	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  small	
  food	
  stores	
  in	
  an	
  urban	
  
environment.	
  Public	
  health	
  nutrition,	
  11(4),	
  413–420.	
  
	
  
Brown,	
  S.	
  (2013,	
  December	
  19).	
  Food	
  hubs	
  structured	
  to	
  remove	
  barriers.	
  Capital	
  Press.	
  20	
  
February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20131219/ARTICLE/131219859/1169	
  
	
  
Campbell,	
  A.	
  M.,	
  &	
  MacRae,	
  R.	
  (2013).	
  Local	
  Food	
  Plus:	
  the	
  connective	
  tissue	
  in	
  
local/sustainable	
  supply	
  chain	
  development.	
  Local	
  environment,	
  18(5),	
  557–566.	
  	
  
	
  
Carstensen,	
  P.	
  (2008).	
  The	
  Prospects	
  and	
  Limits	
  of	
  Antitrust	
  and	
  Competitive-­‐Market	
  
Strategies.	
  Food	
  and	
  the	
  Mid-­‐Level	
  Farm:	
  	
  Renewing	
  an	
  Agriculture	
  of	
  the	
  Middle.	
  
Cambridge,	
  MA:	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Clark,	
  J.	
  K.,	
  Inwood,	
  S.,	
  &	
  Sharp,	
  J.	
  S.	
  (2011).	
  Scaling-­‐up	
  connections	
  between	
  regional	
  Ohio	
  
specialty	
  crop	
  producers	
  and	
  local	
  markets:	
  	
  Distribution	
  as	
  the	
  missing	
  link.	
  
Columbus,	
  OH:	
  Department	
  of	
  Agricultural,	
  Environmental	
  and	
  Development	
  
Economics.	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  http://cffpi.	
  osu.	
  
edu/docs/Scaling_Up.	
  pdf	
  
	
  
Coff,	
  C.,	
  Korthals,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Barling,	
  D.	
  (2008).	
  Ethical	
  traceability	
  and	
  informed	
  food	
  choice.	
  
Ethical	
  traceability	
  and	
  communicating	
  food	
  (pp.	
  1–18).	
  Springer.	
  30	
  January	
  2014.	
  	
  
Retrieved	
  from	
  http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-­‐1-­‐4020-­‐8524-­‐6_1	
  
	
  
Cohen,	
  N.,	
  &	
  Derryck,	
  D.	
  (2011).	
  Corbin	
  Hill	
  Road	
  Farm	
  Share:	
  A	
  Hybrid	
  Food	
  Value	
  Chain	
  in	
  
Practice.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Agriculture,	
  Food	
  Systems,	
  and	
  Community	
  Development,	
  1(4).	
  	
  20	
  
February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.agdevjournal.com/attachments/article/182/JAFSCD_Corbin_Hill_Hybri
d_Food_Value_Chain_July-­‐2011.pdf	
  
	
  
Connell,	
  D.	
  J.,	
  Smithers,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Joseph,	
  A.	
  (2008).	
  Farmers’	
  markets	
  and	
  the	
  “good	
  food”	
  value	
  
chain:	
  A	
  preliminary	
  study.	
  Local	
  Environment,	
  13(3),	
  169–185.	
  
	
  
	
  

46	
  

	
  

Conner,	
  D.	
  S.,	
  Campbell-­‐Arvai,	
  V.,	
  &	
  Hamm,	
  M.	
  W.	
  (2008).	
  Value	
  in	
  the	
  values:	
  pasture-­‐raised	
  
livestock	
  products	
  offer	
  opportunities	
  for	
  reconnecting	
  producers	
  and	
  consumers.	
  
Renewable	
  Agriculture	
  and	
  Food	
  Systems,	
  23(01),	
  62–69.	
  
	
  
Cummins,	
  S.,	
  Flint,	
  E.,	
  &	
  Matthews,	
  S.	
  A.	
  (2014).	
  New	
  neighborhood	
  grocery	
  store	
  increased	
  
awareness	
  of	
  food	
  access	
  but	
  did	
  not	
  alter	
  dietary	
  habits	
  or	
  obesity.	
  Health	
  Affairs,	
  
33(2),	
  283–291.	
  
	
  
Dane	
  County	
  Planning	
  and	
  Development	
  Department.	
  (2011).	
  Southern	
  Wisconsin	
  Food	
  Hub	
  
Feasibility	
  Study.	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-­‐database/knowledge/SoWisFoodHubStudy-­‐
HR.pdf	
  
	
  
Day-­‐Farnsworth,	
  L.,	
  McCown,	
  B.,	
  Miller,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Pfeiffer,	
  A.	
  (2009).	
  Scaling	
  Up:	
  	
  Meeting	
  the	
  
Demand	
  for	
  Local	
  Food.	
  UW-­‐Extension	
  Ag	
  Innovation	
  Center	
  and	
  UW-­‐Madison	
  
Center	
  for	
  Integrated	
  Agricultural	
  Systems.	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091489	
  
	
  
Desai,	
  S.	
  (2012).	
  Intervale	
  Food	
  Hub	
  Manual	
  for	
  Farmers,	
  Processors	
  and	
  Vendors.	
  
Intervale	
  Center.	
  20	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-­‐
database/knowledge/Final%20IFH%20Producer%20Manual.pdf	
  
	
  
Diamond,	
  A.,	
  &	
  Barham,	
  J.	
  (2011).	
  Money	
  and	
  mission:	
  	
  Moving	
  food	
  with	
  value	
  and	
  values.	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Agriculture,	
  Food	
  Systems	
  and	
  Community	
  Development,	
  1(4),	
  101–117.	
  
	
  
ERS,	
  USDA.	
  (2013).	
  Food	
  Access	
  Research	
  Atlas.	
  6	
  March	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-­‐products/food-­‐access-­‐research-­‐atlas/about-­‐the-­‐
atlas.aspx#.Uxii3Gjnstt	
  
	
  
Fischer,	
  M.,	
  Hamm,	
  M.,	
  Pirog,	
  R.,	
  Fisk,	
  J.,	
  Farbman,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Kiraly,	
  S.	
  (2013).	
  Findings	
  of	
  the	
  2013	
  
National	
  Food	
  Hub	
  Survey.	
  Michigan	
  State	
  University	
  Center	
  for	
  Regional	
  Food	
  
Systems	
  &	
  The	
  Wallace	
  Center	
  at	
  Winrock	
  International.	
  15	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  
Retrieved	
  from	
  http://foodsystems.msu.edu/activities/food-­‐hub-­‐survey	
  
	
  
Galvez,	
  M.	
  P.,	
  Morland,	
  K.,	
  Raines,	
  C.,	
  Kobil,	
  J.,	
  Siskind,	
  J.,	
  Godbold,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Brenner,	
  B.	
  (2008).	
  
Race	
  and	
  food	
  store	
  availability	
  in	
  an	
  inner-­‐city	
  neighbourhood.	
  Public	
  health	
  
nutrition,	
  11(6),	
  624–631.	
  
	
  
Greenberg,	
  L.	
  S.	
  Z.	
  (2007).	
  Innovative	
  Strategies	
  for	
  Meeting	
  New	
  Markets.	
  
	
  
Grigsby-­‐Toussaint,	
  D.	
  S.,	
  Zenk,	
  S.	
  N.,	
  Odoms-­‐Young,	
  A.,	
  Ruggiero,	
  L.,	
  &	
  Moise,	
  I.	
  (2010).	
  
Availability	
  of	
  commonly	
  consumed	
  and	
  culturally	
  specific	
  fruits	
  and	
  vegetables	
  in	
  
African-­‐American	
  and	
  Latino	
  neighborhoods.	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  Dietetic	
  
Association,	
  110(5),	
  746–752.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

47	
  

	
  

Hendrickson,	
  M.	
  K.,	
  &	
  Heffernan,	
  W.	
  D.	
  (2002).	
  Opening	
  spaces	
  through	
  relocalization:	
  
locating	
  potential	
  resistance	
  in	
  the	
  weaknesses	
  of	
  the	
  global	
  food	
  system.	
  Sociologia	
  
Ruralis,	
  42(4),	
  347–369.	
  
	
  
Holdman,	
  J.	
  (2014,	
  January	
  26).	
  Food	
  hub	
  would	
  open	
  new	
  market	
  for	
  small	
  farmers.	
  
Bismark	
  Tribune.	
  Bismarck,	
  ND.	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-­‐and-­‐regional/food-­‐hub-­‐would-­‐open-­‐new-­‐
market-­‐for-­‐small-­‐farmers/article_fa666bf4-­‐845c-­‐11e3-­‐aa76-­‐001a4bcf887a.html	
  
	
  
Hoshide,	
  A.	
  K.	
  (n.d.).	
  Values-­‐based	
  and	
  Value-­‐added	
  Value	
  Chains	
  in	
  the	
  Northeast,	
  Upper	
  
Midwest,	
  and	
  Pacific	
  Northwest.	
  Orono,	
  ME:	
  University	
  of	
  Maine.	
  
	
  
Izumi,	
  B.	
  T.,	
  Wright,	
  D.	
  W.,	
  &	
  Hamm,	
  M.	
  W.	
  (2010).	
  Farm	
  to	
  school	
  programs:	
  exploring	
  the	
  
role	
  of	
  regionally-­‐based	
  food	
  distributors	
  in	
  alternative	
  agrifood	
  networks.	
  
Agriculture	
  and	
  Human	
  Values,	
  27(3),	
  335–350.	
  	
  
	
  
Jaffee,	
  D.,	
  Kloppenburg,	
  J.	
  R.,	
  &	
  Monroy,	
  M.	
  B.	
  (2004).	
  Bringing	
  the	
  “Moral	
  Charge”	
  Home:	
  
Fair	
  Trade	
  within	
  the	
  North	
  and	
  within	
  the	
  South*.	
  Rural	
  Sociology,	
  69(2),	
  169–196.	
  
	
  
Johnson,	
  N.	
  (2014,	
  February	
  6).	
  Food	
  hubs:	
  	
  Sustainable	
  agriculture’s	
  missing	
  link.	
  Grist.	
  
News.	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  http://grist.org/food/food-­‐hubs-­‐
sustainable-­‐agricultures-­‐missing-­‐link/	
  
	
  
Kirschenmann,	
  F.,	
  Stevenson,	
  G.	
  W.,	
  Buttel,	
  F.,	
  Lyson,	
  T.	
  A.,	
  &	
  Duffy,	
  M.	
  (2008).	
  Why	
  worry	
  
about	
  agriculture	
  of	
  the	
  middle?	
  Food	
  and	
  the	
  Mid-­‐Level	
  Farm:	
  	
  Renewing	
  an	
  
Agriculture	
  of	
  the	
  Middle.	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Kottila,	
  M.-­‐R.,	
  &	
  Rönni,	
  P.	
  (2008).	
  Collaboration	
  and	
  trust	
  in	
  two	
  organic	
  food	
  chains.	
  British	
  
Food	
  Journal,	
  110(4/5),	
  376–394.	
  	
  
	
  
Lerman,	
  T.,	
  Feenstra,	
  G.,	
  &	
  Visher,	
  D.	
  (2012a).	
  Food	
  Hubs	
  and	
  Values	
  Based	
  Supply	
  Chains:	
  	
  A	
  
Toolkit	
  for	
  California	
  Farmers	
  and	
  Ranchers.	
  Davis,	
  CA:	
  Sustainable	
  Agriculture	
  
Research	
  and	
  Education	
  Program,	
  Agricultural	
  Sustainability	
  Institute,	
  University	
  of	
  
California.	
  
	
  
Lerman,	
  T.,	
  Feenstra,	
  G.,	
  &	
  Visher,	
  D.	
  (2012b).	
  A	
  Practitioner’s	
  Guide	
  to	
  Resources	
  and	
  
Publications	
  on	
  Food	
  Hubs	
  and	
  Values-­‐Based	
  Supply	
  Chains:	
  	
  A	
  Literature	
  Review.	
  
Davis,	
  CA:	
  Agricultural	
  Sustainability	
  Institute,	
  University	
  of	
  California.	
  
	
  
Lyson,	
  T.	
  A.	
  (2008).	
  Agriculture	
  of	
  the	
  Middle:	
  	
  Lessons	
  Learned	
  from	
  Civic	
  Agriculture.	
  
Food	
  and	
  the	
  Mid-­‐Level	
  Farm:	
  	
  Renewing	
  an	
  Agriculture	
  of	
  the	
  Middle.	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Lyson,	
  T.	
  A.,	
  Stevenson,	
  G.	
  W.,	
  &	
  Welsh,	
  R.	
  (2008).	
  Food	
  and	
  the	
  mid-­‐level	
  farm:	
  Renewing	
  an	
  
agriculture	
  of	
  the	
  middle.	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

48	
  

	
  

Market	
  Ventures,	
  Inc.	
  (2012).	
  Grand	
  Traverse	
  Regional	
  Market	
  Feasibility	
  Study.	
  Portland,	
  
ME.	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  http://www.ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-­‐
database/knowledge/Feasibility%20Report%20-­‐
%20Grand%20Traverse%20Regional%20Market%20MVI.pdf	
  
	
  
Marsden,	
  T.,	
  Banks,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Bristow,	
  G.	
  (2002).	
  Food	
  supply	
  chain	
  approaches:	
  exploring	
  their	
  
role	
  in	
  rural	
  development.	
  Sociologia	
  ruralis,	
  40(4),	
  424–438.	
  
	
  
Matson,	
  J.,	
  Sullins,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Cook,	
  C.	
  (2013).	
  The	
  Role	
  of	
  Food	
  Hubs	
  in	
  Local	
  Food	
  Marketing	
  (	
  No.	
  
Service	
  Report	
  73).	
  USDA	
  Rural	
  Development.	
  
	
  
Maxwell,	
  J.	
  A.	
  (2012).	
  Qualitative	
  Research	
  Design:	
  An	
  Interactive	
  Approach:	
  An	
  Interactive	
  
Approach.	
  SAGE.	
  
	
  
Micheletti,	
  M.	
  (2003).	
  Political	
  virtue	
  and	
  shopping:	
  Individuals,	
  consumerism,	
  and	
  collective	
  
action.	
  Palgrave	
  Macmillan.	
  
	
  
Miles,	
  M.	
  B.,	
  &	
  Huberman,	
  A.	
  M.	
  (1994).	
  Qualitative	
  Data	
  Analysis:	
  An	
  Expanded	
  Sourcebook.	
  
SAGE.	
  
	
  
Moore,	
  L.	
  V.,	
  Roux,	
  A.	
  V.	
  D.,	
  Nettleton,	
  J.	
  A.,	
  &	
  Jacobs,	
  D.	
  R.	
  (2008).	
  Associations	
  of	
  the	
  Local	
  
Food	
  Environment	
  with	
  Diet	
  Quality—A	
  Comparison	
  of	
  Assessments	
  based	
  on	
  
Surveys	
  and	
  Geographic	
  Information	
  Systems	
  The	
  Multi-­‐Ethnic	
  Study	
  of	
  
Atherosclerosis.	
  American	
  Journal	
  of	
  Epidemiology,	
  167(8),	
  917–924.	
  	
  
	
  
Morland,	
  K.,	
  Wing,	
  S.,	
  Diez	
  Roux,	
  A.,	
  &	
  Poole,	
  C.	
  (2002).	
  Neighborhood	
  characteristics	
  
associated	
  with	
  the	
  location	
  of	
  food	
  stores	
  and	
  food	
  service	
  places.	
  American	
  journal	
  
of	
  preventive	
  medicine,	
  22(1),	
  23–29.	
  
	
  
Morley,	
  A.,	
  Morgan,	
  S.,	
  &	
  Morgan,	
  K.	
  (2008).	
  Food	
  Hubs:	
  	
  The	
  “Missing	
  Middle”	
  of	
  the	
  Local	
  
Food	
  Infrastructure?	
  Cardiff,	
  Wales:	
  BRASS	
  Centre,	
  Cardiff	
  University.	
  
	
  
Narayan,	
  K.	
  V.,	
  Boyle,	
  J.	
  P.,	
  Thompson,	
  T.	
  J.,	
  Sorensen,	
  S.	
  W.,	
  &	
  Williamson,	
  D.	
  F.	
  (2003).	
  
Lifetime	
  risk	
  for	
  diabetes	
  mellitus	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  JAMA:	
  the	
  journal	
  of	
  the	
  
American	
  Medical	
  Association,	
  290(14),	
  1884–1890.	
  
	
  
NVivo.	
  (2012).	
  QSR	
  International.	
  
	
  
Ogden,	
  C.	
  L.,	
  Carroll,	
  M.	
  D.,	
  &	
  Flegal,	
  K.	
  M.	
  (2008).	
  High	
  body	
  mass	
  index	
  for	
  age	
  among	
  US	
  
children	
  and	
  adolescents,	
  2003-­‐2006.	
  JAMA:	
  the	
  journal	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  Medical	
  
Association,	
  299(20),	
  2401–2405.	
  
	
  
Painter,	
  K.	
  (2007).	
  An	
  Analysis	
  of	
  Food-­‐Chain	
  Demand	
  for	
  Differentiated	
  Commodities:	
  	
  
Implications	
  for	
  the	
  Farm	
  Sector.	
  (	
  No.	
  215).	
  Pullman:	
  Washington	
  State	
  University.	
  
	
  
Patton,	
  M.	
  Q.	
  (2002).	
  Qualitative	
  Research	
  &	
  Evaluation	
  Methods.	
  SAGE.	
  
	
  

49	
  

	
  

	
  
Pirog,	
  R.,	
  &	
  Bregendahl,	
  C.	
  (2012).	
  Creating	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  food	
  system:	
  	
  The	
  role	
  of	
  regional	
  
food	
  networks	
  in	
  Iowa.	
  East	
  Lansing:	
  Michigan	
  State	
  University	
  Center	
  for	
  Regional	
  
Food	
  Systems	
  &	
  The	
  Wallace	
  Center	
  at	
  Winrock	
  International.	
  15	
  April	
  2014.	
  	
  
Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://foodsystems.msu.edu/uploads/file/Creating_Change_in_the_Food_System.pd
f	
  
	
  
Powell,	
  L.	
  M.,	
  Slater,	
  S.,	
  Mirtcheva,	
  D.,	
  Bao,	
  Y.,	
  &	
  Chaloupka,	
  F.	
  J.	
  (2007).	
  Food	
  store	
  
availability	
  and	
  neighborhood	
  characteristics	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  Preventive	
  
medicine,	
  44(3),	
  189–195.	
  
	
  
Pullman,	
  M.	
  E.,	
  &	
  Dillard,	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  Values	
  based	
  supply	
  chain	
  management	
  and	
  emergent	
  
organizational	
  structures.	
  International	
  Journal	
  of	
  Operations	
  &	
  Production	
  
Management,	
  30(7),	
  744–771.	
  	
  
	
  
Rubin,	
  H.	
  J.,	
  &	
  Rubin,	
  I.	
  S.	
  (2011).	
  Qualitative	
  Interviewing:	
  The	
  Art	
  of	
  Hearing	
  Data.	
  SAGE	
  
Publications.	
  
	
  
Ryan,	
  J.	
  J.,	
  &	
  Mailler,	
  C.	
  (n.d.).	
  Great	
  Falls	
  Food	
  Hub	
  Feasibility	
  Assessment.	
  VT,	
  USA.	
  
	
  
Seligman,	
  H.	
  K.,	
  Laraia,	
  B.	
  A.,	
  &	
  Kushel,	
  M.	
  B.	
  (2010).	
  Food	
  Insecurity	
  Is	
  Associated	
  with	
  
Chronic	
  Disease	
  among	
  Low-­‐Income	
  NHANES	
  Participants.	
  The	
  Journal	
  of	
  Nutrition,	
  
140(2),	
  304–310.	
  	
  
	
  
Shaffer,	
  A.	
  (2002).	
  The	
  persistence	
  of	
  L.A.’s	
  grocery	
  gap:	
  	
  The	
  need	
  for	
  a	
  new	
  food	
  policy	
  and	
  
approach	
  to	
  market	
  development.	
  UEP	
  Faculty	
  &	
  UEPI	
  Staff	
  Scholarship.	
  30	
  January	
  
2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  http://scholar.oxy.edu/uep_faculty/16	
  
	
  
Stevenson,	
  G.	
  W.,	
  Clancy,	
  K.,	
  King,	
  R.,	
  Lev,	
  L.,	
  Ostrom,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Smith,	
  S.	
  (2011).	
  Midscale	
  food	
  
value	
  chains:	
  An	
  introduction.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Agriculture,	
  Food	
  Systems,	
  and	
  Community	
  
Development,	
  1(4),	
  27–34.	
  
	
  
Stevenson,	
  G.	
  W.,	
  &	
  Pirog,	
  R.	
  (2008).	
  Values-­‐Based	
  Supply	
  Chains:	
  Strategies	
  for	
  agrifood	
  
enterprises	
  of	
  the	
  middle.	
  Food	
  and	
  the	
  Mid-­‐Level	
  Farm:	
  	
  Renewing	
  an	
  Agriculture	
  of	
  
the	
  Middle.	
  The	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Stevenson,	
  G.	
  W.,	
  &	
  Pirog,	
  R.	
  (2013,	
  July).	
  Values-­‐based	
  food	
  supply	
  chains:	
  	
  Strategies	
  for	
  
agri-­‐food	
  enterprises-­‐of-­‐the-­‐middle.	
  The	
  Center	
  for	
  Integrated	
  Agricultural	
  Systems.	
  
17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  http://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp-­‐
content/uploads/2013/04/valuechainstrategiesfinal072513.pdf	
  
	
  
Stuff,	
  J.	
  E.,	
  Casey,	
  P.	
  H.,	
  Szeto,	
  K.	
  L.,	
  Gossett,	
  J.	
  M.,	
  Robbins,	
  J.	
  M.,	
  Simpson,	
  P.	
  M.,	
  Connell,	
  C.,	
  et	
  
al.	
  (2004).	
  Household	
  Food	
  Insecurity	
  Is	
  Associated	
  with	
  Adult	
  Health	
  Status.	
  The	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Nutrition,	
  134(9),	
  2330–2335.	
  
	
  
	
  

50	
  

	
  

Tahoe	
  Food	
  Hub	
  raises	
  more	
  than	
  $28K	
  in	
  crowdfund	
  campaign.	
  (2014,	
  February	
  5).Tahoe	
  
Daily	
  Tribune.	
  Tahoe/Truckee,	
  CA.	
  17	
  February	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/northshore/nnews/9998830-­‐113/tahoe-­‐hub-­‐
local-­‐campaign	
  
	
  
U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Health	
  and	
  Human	
  Services	
  (USDHHS).	
  (2001).	
  The	
  Surgeon	
  General’s	
  
Call	
  to	
  Action	
  to	
  Prevent	
  and	
  Decrease	
  Overweight	
  and	
  Obesity.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  U.S.	
  
30	
  January	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calls/obesity/CalltoAction.pdf.pdf	
  
	
  
USDA.	
  (2009).	
  Access	
  to	
  affordable	
  and	
  nutritious	
  food	
  -­‐	
  measuring	
  and	
  understanding	
  food	
  
deserts	
  and	
  their	
  consequences.	
  (Report	
  to	
  Congress.).	
  USDA	
  Economic	
  Research	
  
Service.	
  30	
  January	
  2014.	
  	
  Retrieved	
  from	
  
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap-­‐administrative-­‐publication/ap-­‐
036.aspx#.UvEPT2ic8ts	
  
	
  
Ver	
  Ploeg,	
  M.,	
  Breneman,	
  V.,	
  Dutko,	
  P.,	
  Williams,	
  R.,	
  Snyder,	
  S.,	
  Dicken,	
  C.,	
  &	
  Kaufman,	
  P.	
  
(2012).	
  Access	
  to	
  Affordable	
  and	
  Nutritious	
  Food:	
  	
  	
  Updated	
  Estimates	
  of	
  Distance	
  to	
  
Supermarkets	
  Using	
  2010	
  Data	
  (	
  No.	
  143).	
  USDA	
  Economic	
  Research	
  Service.	
  
	
  
Walker,	
  R.	
  E.,	
  Keane,	
  C.	
  R.,	
  &	
  Burke,	
  J.	
  G.	
  (2010).	
  Disparities	
  and	
  access	
  to	
  healthy	
  food	
  in	
  the	
  
United	
  States:	
  A	
  review	
  of	
  food	
  deserts	
  literature.	
  Health	
  &	
  Place,	
  16(5),	
  876–884.	
  	
  
	
  
Zenk,	
  S.	
  N.,	
  Schulz,	
  A.	
  J.,	
  Matthews,	
  S.	
  A.,	
  Odoms-­‐Young,	
  A.,	
  Wilbur,	
  J.,	
  Wegrzyn,	
  L.,	
  Gibbs,	
  K.,	
  
et	
  al.	
  (2011).	
  Activity	
  space	
  environment	
  and	
  dietary	
  and	
  physical	
  activity	
  
behaviors:	
  a	
  pilot	
  study.	
  Health	
  &	
  place,	
  17(5),	
  1150–1161.	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

51