Master of Science
in Global Sustainability Science

Rethinking local food initiatives: A qualitative exploration of
sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives

Master’s Thesis
Submitted by:
Hannah Trigg
Leuphana matriculation number: 3029332
ASU ID: 1212080231
Hannahtrigg1@gmail.com
Ackermannstrasse 32
22087 Hamburg, Germany
Examined by:
Prof. Dr. Daniel Fischer (Erstprüfer, Co-chair of the committee)
dfischer@leuphana.de
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Universitätsallee 1, C14.111
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Prof. Dr. Christopher Wharton (Zweitprüferin, Co-chair of the committee)
christopher.wharton@asu.edu
College of Health Solutions
Arizona State University, Downtown Phoenix campus
500 N 3rd St
Phoenix, AZ 85044
Prof. Dr. Henrik von Wehrden (Member of the committee)
Henrik.von_wehrden@leuphana.de
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Universitätsallee 1, C11.325
21335 Lüneburg, Germany

Submitted on: June 29th, 2018

II

Table of contents
Table of figures ......................................................................................................... III
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................................................................. 2
Theoretical Background.......................................................................................... 3
Sustainable Materialism ......................................................................................... 4
Conceptual Framework........................................................................................... 5
Methods ....................................................................................................................... 7
Participant and Recruitment Procedure ................................................................... 7
Data Collection....................................................................................................... 7
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 8
Results .......................................................................................................................... 9
Sustainability Values .............................................................................................. 9
Collective Action.................................................................................................. 10
Political Perspective ............................................................................................. 11
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 14
Sustainability Values ............................................................................................ 14
Collective Action.................................................................................................. 14
Political Perspectives ............................................................................................ 15
Discussion of Conceptual Framework................................................................... 16
Conclusion and Outlook............................................................................................ 17
References .................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix.................................................................................................................... 21
Declaration of own work / Erklärung der Selbstständigkeit ................................... 26

III

Table of figures
Figure 1: Framework to characterize local food initiatives which consists of the
dimensions sustainability values, political perspectives and collective action ......... 6

Abstract

1

Abstract
Often characterized by intense commoditization, heavy ecological footprint, and monopolistic governance mechanisms, the present-day industrialized food system has contributed to a growing distrust among citizens around the world. In response to this, local food
initiatives promoting sustainable food and agricultural systems have formed. Little empirical research exists regarding how these local food initiatives think about their experience in relation a relevant conceptual framework. As such, this research entails the development of a conceptual framework based on Schlosberg and Cole’s (2015) sustainable
materialist frame and literature regarding how local food initiatives may be characterized.
This consists of sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives. Thirteen participants from two local food initiatives in Lüneburg, Germany were interviewed
to provide in-depth insights into participant perceptions in relation to the three dimensions. Results indicate that participants exhibit strong values related to sustainability (e.g.
knowledge of food origin, environmental concern, etc.), and appreciate the practical, collective work of the initiative. Additionally, a clash was found between initiative goals and
participants’ perception of a lack of commitment and strong uniformity in the initiatives.
Furthermore, many participants expressed political motivation and even perceived group
actions as counter to the mainstream food system, although both initiatives did not identify as a politically motivated. This research sheds light on opportunities and barriers for
initiative success and indicates the potential for the developed framework to serve as a
lens for understanding other social initiatives aimed toward sustainability transformations.
Keywords: local food initiatives, sustainable materialism, sustainability values, collective action, political perspectives

Introduction

2

Introduction
Over the past several decades, agricultural systems have changed dramatically throughout
the world. As a result of technological advances coupled with growing urban demands
caused by population shift, many food producers have transitioned from small-scale farming to industrialized methods of mass production (Tilman et al. 2002). The resulting present-day mainstream industrial food system, which often includes a heavy ecological
footprint, social inequality and monopolistic governance mechanisms, has been widely
acknowledged as a threat to sustainable development (Gottlieb and Joshi 2011; Vittersø
et al. 2005). Characterized by intense commoditization and an increasing physical and
social distance between food producer and consumer, the industrialized food system has
contributed to a growing distrust among citizens around the world (Lacy 2000; Renting
2003). In response to this growing disconnection between food production and food consumption, grassroots movements for sustainable food and agricultural systems have
formed (Henderson 1998). This has resulted in alternative food and agricultural initiatives
at the local level in numerous countries (Feenstra 2002).
The ideals of such local food systems can be characterized as economically viable, environmentally sound and are considered to be a type of agriculture that does not diminish
the land or its people (Henderson 1998; Berry 1977). Additionally, these systems are
commonly considered to be an attempt to rework power and knowledge relationships between producers and consumers (Anderson and Cook 2000). Recent food movements
have taken many forms including community supported agricultural programs, community gardens, food policy councils, farmers markets and others (Papaoikonomou and
Ginieis 2017; Schlosberg and Cole 2015). Very often these groups are coined as alternative agricultural groups, local food movements, local food systems and/or local food initiatives. For the purpose of this paper, the term ‘local food initiative’ will be primarily
employed.
The work of local food initiatives has been investigated in a number of ways. Research
conceptualizing these initiatives has generally focused on aspects related to justice and
political dimensions (Winter 2003; Allen 2010; Laforge et al. 2017; Mount 2012), the
environmental impact of local food (Cleveland et al. 2014), social embeddedness and
collective action (Trivette 2017), and consumer motivations (Starr et al. 2003; Rainbolt
et al. 2012). Moreover, empirical case studies about local food initiatives have typically
centered on specific motivational factors, demographic characteristics, examination of
general narratives and practices, or comparing specific attributes between local food systems (Papaoikonomou and Ginieis 2017). Furthermore, literature incorporating theoretical frameworks has primarily focused on theorizing food systems as a whole, with few
examples of practical application in real-world settings (Eriksen 2013; Schlosberg and
Cole 2015; McCormack et al. 2010).
Thus, literature centered on local food initiative case studies has concentrated primarily
on specific characterization aspects (e.g. motivational factors, demographics, etc.). However, there is little theoretical progress linking, aggregating and conceptualizing these

Introduction

3

micro-insights. A better understanding of how these entities work together may provide
valuable insights into how local food initiatives across different practices can be understood as broader social movements in the context of sustainability transitions.
As a means of investigating this research gap, an overarching conceptual framework combined with empirical research involving contrasting case studies is necessary and piloted
in this study. For this investigation, a conceptual framework has been developed. The
conceptual framework is based on the sustainable materialist frame by Schlosberg and
Cole (2015) and supported by fundamental aspects of local food initiatives found in further literature. It includes the following dimensions: Sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives. Using this developed conceptual framework as a base, the
objective of this study is to explore how participants think about their experience in their
respective local food initiative. Thus, the research is guided by the following question:
“How do participants in local food initiatives characterize their experience in relation to
sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives?”
In order to apply the conceptual framework to a practical setting while addressing the
research question, a qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews was employed. This entailed thirteen semi-structured interviews with participants from two local
food initiatives in Lüneburg, Germany. This paper summarizes the findings and is outlined as follows. First, a theoretical background is provided, incorporating literature regarding the main characteristics of local food initiatives. Second, an overview of sustainable materialism followed by the development of a new conceptual framework will be
presented. Third, methods employed for the study’s qualitative approach will be examined. Next, the interview findings will be presented, followed by a discussion of the findings in relation to the paper’s research objectives. Finally, a conclusion of the study will
be presented, accompanied by suggestions for further research.

Theoretical Background
Local food initiatives have historically been studied as an expression of values centered
on sustainability and concern for the local (Feenstra 2002; Laforge et al. 2017). Some of
these initiatives are especially concerned about the environmental impact of high food
miles and therefore focus on regional production (Pratt 2007). Common negative external
factors noted include greenhouse gas emissions, changes in land use, deforestation, and
biodiversity losses (Papaoikonomou and Giniesis 2017). Another argument commonly
emphasized regarding local food movements and sustainability lies in the importance of
connecting (or ‘re-connecting’) people to their food. This includes the value placed on
the connection between producers and consumers, as well as between consumers and their
food source. Mount (2012) posits local food as an alternative to the disconnected relationships often found in conventional food systems. Renting et al. (2003, p. 398) extend
this argument by offering that the changed agricultural practices associated with local
food systems are “a ‘shortening’ of relations between food production and locality, [..]
potentially configuring a reembedding of farming towards more environmentally sustainable modes of production.” All aspects considered, many participants within these local

Introduction

4

food initiatives perceive local control of food production as being basic to sustainability,
as it facilitates greater care for the environment and reconnects people to where their food
comes from (Henderson 1998; Renting et al. 2003).
Another defining feature of local food initiatives lies in their collective nature. The aspect
of collectiveness can be thought of as a type of social embeddedness – often involving
“principles of connectivity, reciprocity and trust” (Sage 2003, p. 47) in addition to healthy
social relationships, cooperation and civic engagement (Feenstra 1997). In other words,
local food initiatives can be thought of as social networks often embedded in the ‘local’
concerning knowledge and understanding of certain places (Eriksen 2013). Integration of
aims, beliefs and strategic decisions is also often central to these initiatives (Hassanein
2003).
The collective action exuded by local food initiatives is often characterized as political or
embodying social justice (Feenstra 1997). Scholars argue that local food initiatives offer
a counter-pressure to the challenges in the large conventional food system, increasingly
portrayed as a form of food activism and political resistance (Eriksen 2013; Papaoikonomou and Gineise 2017). Moreover, local control of food has been argued as
central to the survival of democracy, offering an opportunity for participatory democracy
(Henderson 1998; Feenstra 1997; Hassanein 2003). Contrary to concepts such as
locavore, which privilege the individual and have been criticized for lack of real impact
on implementing change, local food initiatives are thought to have great potential for implementing change as a result of the inherent participatory democracy (DeLind 2011; Lyson 2004).
Although specific characteristics of local food initiatives are highly contextual and dependent on participants, discussions centered on sustainability, collective action, and politics are ubiquitous throughout the literature. However, theoretical frameworks characterizing local food initiatives are scarce.

Sustainable Materialism
One promising framework for conceptualizing local food initiatives is the sustainable
materialist frame proposed by Schlosberg and Cole (2015). Alongside movements centered on renewable energy and making (e.g. crafting, upcycling, etc.), Schlosberg and
Cole (2015) suggest local food-focused initiatives as an illustrative example operating
within the sustainable materialist frame. The creation of these local food-focused initiatives can be seen as a response to a “concern with the flow of what and how people eat”
(Schlosberg and Cole 2015, p. 4). Schlosberg and Cole (2015) suggest that not only are
these groups resisting the mainstream system in which they typically reside, they are restructuring the system in terms of the flows of material relationships between humans
and the non-human realm. This phenomenon can be understood as a new ethos centered
around sustainable materialism. This shift to sustainable materialism can be considered
within three analytical frameworks: 1) acknowledgement of the human immersion and
connection to the material flows of the non-human realm, 2) greater focus on collective
practices and institutions of material flows and; 3) resistance to problematic practices and

Introduction

5

circulations of power. These movements can be comprehended as alternative structures
to the mainstream. Thus, they replace detrimental material flows that are often problematic for human health and the environment with “new, local and engaged systems of community production and consumption” (Schlosberg and Cole 2015, p. 18).
Sustainable materialism can be thought of as an extension of the cultural theory new materialism coined by DeLanda and Braidotti in the 1990’s, which considers human’s place
in the world and the ways we produce, reproduce and consume our material environment
(Van der Tuin and Dolphijn 2010). Although much literature exists on the concept of new
materialism (Coole and Frost 2010; Van der Tuin and Dolphijn 2012), the sustainable
materialism concept proposed by Schlosberg and Cole remains relatively novel. Perhaps
the most distinguishing element of sustainable materialism lies in its discussion around
the way in which these movements (such as local food initiatives) interact with politics.
Traditionally, an individual’s values have been contained in existing political practice
(e.g. voting, etc.), whereas now, within these movements they are being incorporated into
everyday practices of material sustainability seen as a kind of radical democracy. The
assumption is that these movements are working to challenge power and shift to what
Schlosberg and Cole (2015, p. 2) call “new politics of sustainable materialism, an environmentalism of every day.” In this sense, these environmental movements become outlets for political frustration through the practices that the group takes part in.
Sustainable materialism provides a novel framework for thinking about key characteristics within contemporary environmental activism movements. However, peculiarities of
local food initiatives as described in the literature review, are not fully addressed. Therefore, in order to explore local food initiative perspectives through a theoretical lens, a new
conceptual framework has been developed by the researcher in the next section.

Conceptual Framework
Assembling the more general sustainable materialist frame with the peculiarities of local
food initiatives as described in the literature offers a promising framework for understanding present-day local food initiatives. The three analytical frames proposed by
Schlosberg and Cole (2015) have been extended to encapsulate local food initiative literature, resulting in three new dimensions. These dimensions include sustainability values,
collective action, and political perspectives. The conceptual framework is depicted below
in Figure 1.

Introduction

6

Figure 1: Framework to characterize local food initiatives which consists of the dimensions sustainability values, political perspectives and collective action

This study’s exploration of local food initiatives through a lens of sustainability values,
collective action and political perspectives has several useful facets. First, it allows for
the exploration of characteristics of local food initiatives on a broader level as many multifaceted aspects previously noted in research are taken into account. Second, it may serve
as a structure for categorizing local food initiatives’ goals, motivations and perspectives.
The knowledge gained from employing this framework may yield important feedback
when considering opportunities and barriers to success within these initiatives. Furthermore, as the sustainable materialist frame is a more general theoretical perspective of
local food initiatives as social initiatives, findings may provide insight into how these
initiatives may be understood in comparison to other social initiatives.
In the following section, a description of the methods will take place. First, the selected
participants and recruitment procedure will be described. Next, the semi-structured interviews will be explained, followed by a discussion regarding the thematic content analysis
conducted.

Methods

7

Methods
Participant and Recruitment Procedure
The city of Lüneburg (population ca. 75,000) is located in northern Germany and part of
the Hamburg metropolitan area. This city was selected for the area of study as it has an
officially recognized sustainability vision for 2030 with numerous active local food initiatives. The two local food initiatives chosen for this study were WirGarten and Essbarer
Campus.
WirGarten, translated in English as ‘WeGarden,’ was created as a vegetable cooperative
in 2017. WirGarten consists of about 300 Lüneburg citizens who have joined forces to
create a cooperative that leases 8.23 hectares of agricultural land within the city limits of
Lüneburg. The goal of the cooperative is to have a diverse, healthy and transparent vegetable supply in the hands of the citizens. The cultivation includes over 30 different vegetable crops and herbs according to certified organic farming criteria. Interested citizens
and companies can become members of the cooperative by investing between 100 and
1000 Euros in cooperative shares for the duration of their membership. The vegetables
are delivered by bike each week to central locations, where members pick up their crops
and get matching cooking recipes for the season. All members can visit the WirGarten
fields, volunteer, and participate in events such as garden tours, harvest or canning and
cooking events.
Essbarer Campus, translated in English as ‘Edible Campus,’ is an initiative established in
2014 at Leuphana University in Lüneburg. Essbarer Campus is a neighborhood garden
consisting of university students and neighbors of the university (e.g. community centers,
kindergartens, and other interested individuals). The idea is to join together to garden and
shape the neighborhood, exchange ideas, host conferences on the topics of agricultural
coordination, and to learn from one other. Furthermore, the initiative’s aim is to sustainably cultivate the green spaces of the university in order to provide vegetables and fruits
to the students and the surrounding community. Essbarer Campus currently has around
twelve active members.
The study sample consisted of thirteen participants, five from WirGarten and eight from
Essbarer Campus. Initially, participants were recruited through online research of the
groups, followed by correspondence through email. Interview participants were then
identified through a snowball sampling approach. This method allowed for participants
to identify other potential participants to gain targeted access to additional representatives
(Bryan 2012). The study welcomed any participant who had been a part of the local food
initiative within the past year. The participants represent a heterogenous group of individuals from a variety of professions, aging from 21 to 59.

Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews were chosen to provide greater understanding of local food
initiatives’ perceptions and experience on specific topics related to sustainability values,

Methods

8

collective action and political perspectives (Newing 2011; Bryan 2012; Yin 2011). A
semi-structured question guide was used to conduct the interviews (see Appendix A). As
few studies exist regarding perceived experience in local food initiatives, a novel question
guide was created using the aforementioned conceptual framework. The question guide
consisted of sixteen main questions and a series of follow-up questions if the main questions were unclear. The question guide was pilot-tested for clarity among graduate student
colleagues and adapted accordingly. Interviews were guided by the semi-structured question guide. However, additional questions were sometimes added to follow a thoughtprovoking topic and allow for conversation flow. Participants were encouraged to share
their honest thoughts and opinions in an attempt to evoke greater understanding of the
topics. As the study took place in Germany, interviews were conducted with individuals
whose native language is German. Twelve interviews were conducted in English because
the participants felt comfortable in the language. One interview was conducted in German
with a translator present. Translation between researcher and participant occurred during
the interview as needed. Each interview took between 45 and 90 minutes and was audio
recorded. All participants signed consent forms prior to participation.

Data Analysis
A thematic content analysis was employed in order to identify, analyze, and report patterns within the data set (Braun and Clarke 2006). Interviews were transcribed verbatim,
translating where necessary and proofread for accuracy, resulting in thirteen interview
transcripts (see Appendix C). The interviews were then organized and coded using the
qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA (Mayring 2000). The data was categorized
into various codes and themes, both deductively and inductively. The initial data analysis
took a deductive top-down approach based on the developed conceptual framework built
off sustainable materialism. This allowed for the exploration of how local food initiatives
think about themselves in relation to sustainability values, collective action and political
perspectives. These themes were employed as a basis for coding the data, while still allowing for the development of inductive themes. Generating initial codes entailed coding
interesting features and patterns across the data systematically, and collating data relevant
to each code inductively. Next, the gathered codes were sorted in relation to the deductively developed themes or collated into new categories. All data within themes cohere
together meaningfully, with clear and identifiable distinctions between each theme. Data
coding was an iterative process to allow for restructuring and formulating codes and definitions as needed. In order to organize the findings, a codebook was created (see Appendix B) consisting of the code name, definition/description, rules, and an anchor example
(Braun and Clarke 2006).
The data analysis resulted in thirteen codes, all of which could be categorized into the
three themes of sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives. Appropriate quotes that convey the identified codes and themes were noted and have been incorporated in the following section.

Results

9

Results
In this section, a summary of the thirteen developed codes within the three themes of
sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives is provided. Direct
quotes from participants followed by the initials of the initiative and fabricated numbers
(to ensure anonymity) are shown.

Sustainability Values
Local food, nature connectedness and definition of “good food”
Evident in participant responses were sustainability values related to personal and group
goals as well as action. The most frequent value mentioned was that of local food (e.g.
regional and seasonal) with particular focus on the importance of knowledge regarding
food origin. The subject of humans connecting to nature (nature connectedness) for food
in a non-violent, harmonic way such as giving nature a voice, was also emphasized. Furthermore, when asked to describe “good food” many participants noted their preference
for organic and ecologically sourced food, less packaging, and the significance of fair
treatment for workers. Many participants also stressed the importance of sharing food
with others.
"I would describe it [good food] as the person who grew it had a relation to it and knew the food.
[..] And that the person knew that they didn’t harm any other part of nature by growing the food
and he does not only know it, but it’s also the truth." (E.C. 6)
“In terms of sustainability and so on topics, I definitely would like to have most food organic and
locally produced [..] I definitely like to have food in a community.” (E.C. 4)

Practical experience/experimentation
Practical experience/experimentation within both initiatives was viewed as a way to live
out the previously mentioned sustainability values. Several participants described the
group as an “experimental social project [..] or a real laboratory” (E.C. 11), with opportunities for hands-on experience in the garden. These statements were often linked to how
participants felt connected to nature, thus appealing to their value of nature connectedness.
“It’s kind of an experience thing to have this connection to food like that you can touch and do
things with the hands, like a physical thing. […] It’s really kind of a cool thing that everyone has
a different knowledge and we bring together that thing in our initiative.” (E.C. 12)

WirGarten members highlighted the use of bicycles as a means for environmentally
friendly transportation of the harvested vegetables to a pick-up location, thus operating
in line with their definition of “good food”. Both initiatives expressed the wish to incorporate sustainability values in a fully comprehensive way. The following quote demonstrates this particular ambitious attitude:
“And now they also have this like huge plastic tubes for growing the food faster which I also
don’t enjoy the idea because there’s so much plastic that they say also from farms that is… when
it somehow breaks sometime and then it just flies around and ends up in the nature and um yeah.

Results

10
I would want the whole WirGarten system to be more ah more, really good. But, probably it is not
possible on that kind of scale.” (W.G. 3)

All in all, participants from both initiatives expressed an unwavering desire to live more
sustainably individually and collectively. Furthermore, gratitude for opportunity to learn
through their group involvement in a practical and experiential manner was widespread.

Collective Action
Building coalitions
Expressed in both initiatives was the desire to build coalitions (building coalitions) with
individuals and communities outside of the initiative. Collaboration with kindergartens,
local farms, neighborhood communities, the university cafeteria and local supermarkets
were noted (e.g. WirGarten vegetable pick-up hub).
“I also want to show people in here (the university) and coming from outside. […] It’s at university
but also for people in the neighborhood. And everyone coming together from all the directions.”
(E.C. 11)
“They (WirGarten) […] look at other farmers and build a network […] Kindergartens will be
invited, […] and educational projects or implementation of a forest kindergarten there.” (W.G. 13)

Social connectivity
Participants emphasized their positive experience related to social connectivity, community, reciprocity and trust within the initiatives. Though work in the garden and initiative
promotion was seen as the primary objective of the initiatives, socializing with one another in informal settings was also noted as important.
“I also like that the atmosphere is very informal and friendly. The way we talk with each other is
on eye level. [..] You always feel that the others know what you’re doing, and they appreciate
what you’re doing. [...] The whole dynamic is just very warm I guess.” (W.G. 5)

Initiative growth and impact
Inquiry into group goals led many participants to mention their wish for the initiative to
grow in number of participants and land used for growing vegetables (initiative growth
and impact). Positively influencing friends and family to adopt gardening or more sustainable behaviors (e.g. eating less meat) through speaking about their experience was
also exhibited. General societal spin-off effects were also revealed related to inspiring
other groups with their concept.
“And they (WirGarten) want to inspire people with the same kind of setup they can use their
software, their ideas, their experience and then set up their own garden. So, I think it could have
very big spin off effects.” (W.G. 7)
“I think it could be described as a grassroots initiative which tries to contribute their part to a
bigger social-ecological transformation […] And yeah, maybe this gives inspiration to other people to think about, oh that’s actually nice coming together and growing your own food.” (E.C. 11)

Results

11

Initiative uniformity
Widely prevalent was the perception that the initiative is comprised of very like-minded
people. Very often this like-mindedness was described as a ‘bubble’ connected to shared
values and similar mindset. Many recognized that the group shares an identity and similar
values, but that these values are not prevalent throughout society. These shared values
were both expressed as an observation as well as a hinderance to potentially connecting
or positively impacting others outside of the group. One participant even noted how the
concern of the group regarding the environment could be seen as an “upper class problem,” (E.C. 8) further exasperating the ‘bubble’.
“I want to believe that we may do some changes in society, but I feel like the truth is we are very
much in our bubble, both in our Essbarer Campus bubble where we are people who share a very
similar mindset about food and sustainability [..] I also very strongly believe that that is also an
upper-class problem kinda. We are, or I come from an environment where I’m privileged enough
to actually have the resources to think about that sort of thing. And I know there’s enough people
that don’t.” (E.C. 8)

Another example was mentioned regarding, stigma around the university “bubble.” It was
described as impeding the possibility for collaboration with farmers demonstrated in the
quote below.
“The farmers say ‘okay it has a context with the university and things and that’s why I won’t
come, yeah because they are just living in another space. And it’s not interesting for me to hear
this.’ And yeah that’s why I think we contribute more to university because it’s a little difficult to
involve the others from ‘real life.’” (E.C. 6)

Participation and commitment
While flexibility in terms of attending meetings and choosing the level of responsibility
was often mentioned as positive, lack of participation and commitment was perceived by
all as a major barrier for group success. Lack of motivation, time and vacations were
reasons highlighted for lack of participation. This lack of commitment from others often
led to some feeling overburdened with responsibility, sometimes resulting in individuals
leaving the group.
“Whoever joins the WirGarten can say, ‘I can do this, or I can do that’ [..], or there is an email
group of 30 people who I was able to write to whenever I needed someone helping me. But there
were like three people that responded, and those three people didn’t always have time to help.”
(W.G. 3)
“If it hadn’t been for me going (to the event), nobody would have been there and that would not
have bothered anybody I think. Which I think is a bit scary because that is like the one day where
you can actually show yourself and say, ‘hey, we exist.’” (E.C. 8)

Political Perspectives
Problem identification
Almost all of the participants expressed concern, frustration and/or distrust in the current
conventional food system. This problem identification entailed critique of availability of

Results

12

sustainable food options in addition to criticism of mainstream supermarket operations
(e.g. excess packaging, large scale agriculture, animal welfare, environmental degradation, etc.). Criticism of power distribution in relation to workers’ rights, company control
and the globalization of food were also present.
“Probably most of the food we consume belongs to four or five companies and um... I don’t believe
that that’s a good thing. I believe [..] that globalization isn’t such a good thing because we, the
western world, somehow kills or destroys land and by that also lives of people [..] by us making
profit from their land.” (W.G. 3)

System reconfiguration
Following this critique, many participants offered suggestions for how the conventional
food system might change, thus recommending a system reconfiguration. Participants
suggested the need to change the general level of consciousness around regional food
including greater emphasis on knowing where food comes from. Moreover, the wish for
greater food sovereignty with a focus on people (compared to profit) was stressed. While
many mentioned the value in individual action, the importance of acting within a cooperative frame to create greater power to change was underlined. Thus, many suggested that
the work within their food initiative could be understood in line with their vision for
changing the system.
“And I think these kinds of initiatives are very important, especially if you want to change. And I
think we need lots of different kinds of systems to try and change this huge agricultural, conventional agricultural complex into something else. [..] I think it’s really a lot of small steps like people
gathering for new way of thinking, for a new consciousness for food, for how to deal with business.” (W.G. 2)
“This kind of having a garden is one way to be against something, and also come up with a different idea or, yeah trying to offer an alternative.” (E.C. 1)

Although participants identified a link between their individual and group actions, it was
clear that the initiatives were not designed with a specific political agenda in mind nor
was it a key discussion point within the group.
“I think everybody has their political standpoint from which they’re trying to agree. But the differences haven’t been discussed, to reach a consensus or yeah, agree on a point that the whole
group shares.” (E.C. 1)

Bureaucratic hurdles
Numerous comments reflected frustration with various bureaucratic hurdles. WirGarten
members revealed difficulties around complicated regulations and laws necessary for becoming an official food cooperative. Essbarer Campus members noted similar concerns
related to university administrative barriers and time delays.
“One big struggle is like fulfilling all the regulations we are confronted with. [..] Why is it that
complicated? You just wanted to grow vegetables… but we have to fulfill thousands of contracts
and laws and signing papers. " (W.G. 2)

Results

13
“I think there’s formal restrictions to the group. I know [..] they wrote a plan to transform kind of
the campus to an edible campus. But I mean, there’s people from the university who plan all this,
so I guess they have contrary ideals of a manageable campus.” (E.C. 11)

Initiative power structure
Discussions centered on the initiative’s power structure clearly reflected participant’s
perspectives regarding the need for equal distribution of power within any system. Essbarer Campus participants stated that group consensus amongst all members must be
achieved for all decisions taken. Voting democratically was noted as the main decisionmaking approach for WirGarten, justified by the large number of members. While various
responsibilities within each group were mentioned (e.g. communications manager, logistics specialist, etc.), it was emphasized that no apparent hierarchy between positions exists. Initiative responsibilities were described as open to all and dependent on the amount
members would like to be involved.
“We try to just look on the agenda, okay what shall we do and yeah we have the […] consensus.
Yeah, we want to take our decisions in a consensus way.” (E.C. 6)
“I think it’s really important to have a self-organized and self-responsive organizational structure
so that we don’t have like conventional hierarchy structures… so that people can really become
responsible for their own part of the company and not be controlled or like, um yeah so that they
can unleash their personal potential to really get involved.” (W.G. 2)

Discussion

14

Discussion
This research set out to explore how participants in local food initiatives think about their
experience in relation to the following dimensions: sustainability values, collective action
and political perspectives. In this section, the findings from the interviews will first be
discussed in relation to the conceptual framework’s dimensions. This includes a summary
of the findings in relation to each dimension, a comparison of the findings with previous
research, accompanied by a discussion regarding how the findings may raise new issues
and be applied more generally. Lastly, the conceptual framework’s analytical value in
relation to a broader research context will be considered, followed by several study limitations.
Sustainability Values
As local food initiatives have historically been found to express values centered on sustainability (Feenstra 2002; Laforge et al. 2017; Pratt 2007), it was not unexpected that
participants conveyed values focused on care for the environment, organic standards, and
fair treatment for workers. In particular, knowledge of food origin and connecting to nature stood out as the most prevalent value, thus congruent with the findings of Renting et
al. (2003). Additionally, ability for participants to live and act in accordance with their
values through practical action and experience, was perceived as a major benefit to group
involvement. This relates to Schlosberg and Cole’s (2015) argument that local food
movements focus on action that supports the connection between humans and the nonhuman realm. Considering this, these local food initiatives may be operating in line with
Feagan’s (2007) concept of ecological rationale. This concept calls for the realignment
between “nature, quality, region and local, producers and consumers” in local food systems (Feagan 2007, p. 26). These findings suggest that local food initiatives may serve as
a promising platform of engagement for individuals motivated by sustainability values,
which may provide a framework for practical experimentation centered on locally produced food.
Interestingly, when participants were asked about their values regarding food, twelve out
of the thirteen shared unsolicited past experiences regarding their motivation to join the
food initiative. This included previous experience in sustainability related activities including how they were raised, past volunteer experiences, and/or exposure to gardening
and farming earlier in life. This finding indicates that past experience may be influential
in motivating individuals to join local food initiatives. Considering this, there may be
value in exposing individuals at a young age to garden-related projects, or volunteer opportunities related to sustainability as they may strengthen the development of local food
initiatives.
Collective Action
Findings indicate that local food initiatives foster healthy social relationships and cooperation, thus supporting the work of Feenstra (1997). Although the goal to grow in size
and scale was expressed by both initiatives, a lack of participation and commitment was

Discussion

15

pervasive. Surprisingly, this was exhibited in the large group of 300 members in WirGarten, and in the small one of twelve members in Essbarer Campus. These findings relate
to Hassainein’s (2003) argument that outcomes of collective action are not always assured
or predictable. It raises the question of the long-term sustainability of these local food
initiatives.
Moreover, both initiatives noted the desire to involve others (e.g. individuals and various
groups) outside of their group, while at the same time alluding to the sustainability/local
food ‘bubble’ they believe they reside in. The previous discussion regarding how almost
all of the participants were exposed to sustainability related activities in the past (e.g.
childhood farms, volunteering, etc.) highlights one example of the type of ‘bubble’ the
group may consist of. This could be interpreted as a kind of self-selected social exclusiveness, despite it being unintentional. This correlates with research regarding how local
food initiatives may not be accessible for all, instead directed toward local elites (DuPuis
and Good 2005; Born and Purcell 2006). Hinrichs and Kremer (2002) discuss this, positing that local food systems tend to be homogenized and exclusionary, with members who
are often white, middle-class individuals. These findings reveal an apparent clash between initiative goals (e.g. growing as an initiative and desire for others to join) and how
the group perceives itself (e.g. lack of commitment and ‘bubble’).
Political Perspectives
The findings that local food participants crave a degree of control and transparency in
food consumption is in line with the work of DuPuis and Goodman (2005). Additionally,
the findings that participants perceive their values around food to be in opposition to the
industrial, capitalist food system closely relates to the work of Schlosberg and Cole
(2015), and Papaoikonomou and Gineise (2017). Similar to what Schlosberg and Cole
(2015) have already reported, the participants interviewed in this study were keenly selfaware of their own political motivations and how the group’s actions may relate to politics
(e.g. democratic and consensus voting in initiative). However, they did not describe their
initiatives as having a specific political agenda to any degree. In fact, one participant
mentioned that the initiative had never mentioned or discussed the political perspectives
in the group. Considering this, it could be argued that neither of these local food initiatives
operate within what Schlosberg and Cole (2015) call ‘radical democracy’ in food groups
(Schlosberg and Cole 2015, p. 1). Although participants expressed frustration with political hurdles the initiative faced, in the end they complied, possibly indicating the lack of
‘radical’ action which has been argued to exist in other social movements. These findings
demonstrate an intriguing relationship between participant’s strong political identity and
lack of distinct political action. The reasons behind this are unclear from this study. Further research regarding this finding in relation to group uniformity (previously discussed
topic) could be a first step in researching this phenomenon.

Discussion

16

Discussion of Conceptual Framework
Employing a conceptual framework to real-world settings provides a structure when exploring various motivations, goals and values that exist within these local food initiatives.
In comparison to biographical or narrative approaches which focus primarily on individual accounts of life experience and the meanings they attach to them (Roberts 2002), this
framework also considers the impact of these meanings on wider social contexts. This is
the case as the three dimensions chosen for the framework are indicated in literature as
the most prominent aspects of local food initiative participants experience (e.g. sustainability values, collective action, and political perspectives). Notably, all data collected fit
to the deductive themes of sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives. The lack of outliers in the data set may be suggestive of two things. First, it suggests
that this conceptual framework may provide a useful lens for interpreting themes across
seemingly contrasting initiatives. This is the case as sustainable materialism was created
to describe an array of environmental activism groups, thus potentially serving as a starting point for thinking about what these local food initiatives have in common with other
social initiatives. Second, it indicates potential blind spots regarding objectivity in this
study. As the data collection and analysis was approached with this framework initially
in mind, there may have been subjective bias. Additionally, this framework focuses more
on the social and ecological dimensions of sustainability, in turn neglecting the economic
dimension. This may limit the potential for transferability for initiatives centered around
economics. Therefore, this frame could be extended with this fourth dimension in order
to investigate the relevance of the economic dimension. Moreover, this framework does
not explicitly explain how the dimensions operate with one another which could be useful
in research focused on understanding the relationship between the micro, meso and macro
level. Finally, another limitation worth noting is the coding process. Although the data
set was coded in several rounds, this was completed by only one researcher. Thus, in
order to ensure validity of the codes and themes, inter-coder reliability involving other
researchers is recommended (Mayring 2000).

Conclusion and Outlook

17

Conclusion and Outlook
This research provides important insight into how participants in local food initiatives
think about their experience in relation to sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives. Although some of the findings are consistent with previous research
such as participants exhibiting strong sustainability values (e.g. care for the environment,
knowledge of food origin, connection to nature, etc.) and enjoyment of the collective nature of the initiatives, other outcomes showed a degree of complexity and novelty. This
was illustrated in both cases in the clash between the goals of the initiatives and the perception of certain characteristics of the initiatives. This included the wish for the initiative
to grow, despite a lack of participation and commitment. Similarly, this was also seen in
the wish for the initiatives to involve a diverse range of participants, while simultaneously
acknowledging the sustainability ‘bubble’ the participants reside in. Moreover, complexity around political perspectives was demonstrated, thus suggesting that there may not be
a ‘one size fits all’ concerning initiative’s political perspectives. This was highlighted by
the fact that many participants expressed political motivation and even perceived group
actions as counter to the mainstream food system, although both initiatives did not identify as a politically motivated.
By conducting empirical research linking the idiosyncrasies of local food initiatives noted
in research with a broader theoretical framework, a better understanding of how local
food initiatives characterize their experience in relation to specific dimensions was
achieved. This research revealed various values and goals, ultimately shedding light on
potential opportunities and barriers for initiative success, important for several reasons.
First, knowledge regarding how opportunities and barriers play out may be important in
helping grassroots movements create effective strategies for achieving more sustainable
and just food systems. Second, it may serve as a starting framework for researchers to
explore commonalities and differences of other social movements aimed towards sustainability transitions. To facilitate greater understanding and the longevity of local food initiatives, future research focusing on approaches to overcome barriers and strengthen opportunities may prove fruitful. This could include research into how an individual’s motivation may translate into long-lasting group participation, in addition to how initiatives
may be more inclusive for those outside of the initiative. Research related to these topics
could provide necessary and helpful insights for furthering the agenda of local food initiatives.
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank the participants of the study for making the
research possible, my academic advisors Prof. Dr. Daniel Fischer, Prof. Dr. Christopher
Wharton and Prof. Dr. Henrik von Wehrden who provided constructive feedback and
helped structure the research, and PhD student Karoline Pöggel for inspiring the initial
phase of research.

References

18

References
Allen, P. 2010. Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society. 3(2) 295-308.
Anderson, M., and J. Cook. 1999. Community food security: Practice in need of theory?
Agriculture and Human Values 16: 141–150.
Berry, Wendell. 1977. The Agriculture Crisis: A crisis of culture. Myrin Institute.
Born, B. and M. Purcell. 2006. Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in
Planning Research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 195-207.
Braun, V. and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77-101.
Bryan, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods. Fourth edition. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cleveland, D., A. Carruth and D. Mazaroli. 2014. Operationalizing local food: goals,
actions, and indicators for alternative food systems. Agriculture and Human Values
32: 281-297.
Coole, D. H., & S. Frost. 2010. New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics.
Durham & London: Duke University Press.
DeLind, L.B. 2011. Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we
want to go? Or are we hitching our wagons to the wrong stars? Agriculture and
Human Values 28: 273–283.
Dolphijn, R., & I.V. Tuin. 2012. New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies. 1-200.
University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press.
DuPuis, E.M., and D. Goodman. 2005. Should we go home to eat? Toward a reflexive
politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 359–371.
Eriksen, N. Safania. 2013. Defining local food: constructing a new taxonomy – three
domains of proximity, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B - Soil & Plant
Science, 63(sup1): 47-55.
Feagan, R. 2007. The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems.
Progress in Human Geography 31(1): 23–42.
Feenstra, Gail. 1997. Local food systems and sustainable communities. American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12(01): 28.
Feenstra, Gail. 2002. Creating space for sustainable food systems. Lessons from the
field. Agriculture and Human Values 19(2): 99–106.
Gottlieb, R. and A. Joshi. 2010. Food Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hassanein, N. 2003. Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation.
Journal of Rural Studies 19: 77-86.
Henderson, E. 1998. Rebuilding Local Food Systems From the Grassroots Up. Monthly
Review 50(3): 112-124.

References

19

Lacy, William B. 2000. Empowering Communities Through Public Work, Science, and
Local Food Systems: Revisiting Democracy and Globalization. Rural Sociology 65
(1): 3-26.
Laforge, J., C. Anderson and S. McLachlan. 2017. Governments, grassroots, and the
struggle for local food systems: containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating.
Agriculture and Human Values 34: 663-681.
Lyson, Thomas A. 2004. Civic Agriculture Reconnecting Farm, Food and Community.
Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.
Mayring, Philipp. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social
Research. 1(2): Art 20.
McCormack, L.A., M.N. Laska. N.I. Larson and M. Story. 2010. Review of the
nutrition implications of farmers’ markets and community gardens: A call for
evaluation and research efforts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 110:
339-408.
Mount, Phil. 2012. Growing local food: scale and local food systems governance.
Agriculture and Human Values 29: 107-121.
Newing, H. 2011. Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and
practice. New York: Routledge.
Papaoikonomo, Eleni, M. Ginieis. 2017. Putting the farmer’s face on food: governance
and the producer–consumer relationship in local food systems. Agriculture and
Human Values 34: 53-67.
Rainbolt, G. N., Y. Onozaka and D.T. Mcfadden. 2012. Consumer Motivations and
Buying Behavior: The Case of the Local Food System Movement. Journal of Food
Products Marketing 18(5): 385-396.
Renting, H., T.K. Marsden and J. Banks. 2003. Understanding Alternative Food
Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural
Development. Environment and Planning A 35(3): 393-411.
Roberts, B. 2002. Biographical research. Phildelphia, PA: Open university press.
Pratt, J. 2007. Food Values. Critique of Anthropology, 27(3): 285-300.
Sage, C. 2003. Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’
networks in south-west Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 47-60.
Schlosberg, D. and R. Coles. 2015. The new environmentalism of everyday life:
Sustainability, material flows and movements. Contemporary Political Theory.
15(2): 160-181.
Starr, A. et al. 2003. Sustaining local agriculture: Barriers and opportunities to direct
marketing between farms and restaurants in Colorado. Agriculture and Human
Values 20: 301-321.
Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson. R. Naylor. S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural
sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671–677.
Trivette, S. 2017. Invoices of scraps of paper: trust and reciprocity in local food
systems. Agriculture and Human Values 34: 529-542.
Van der Tuin, I. and R. Dolphijn. 2010. The Transversality of New Materialism.
Women: A Cultural

References

20

Van der Tuin, I. and Dolphijn, R. 2012. New materialism: Interviews & cartographies.
Ann Arbor: Open humanities Press.
Vittersø et al. 2005. Local, organic food initiatives and their potentials for transforming
the conventional food system. Anthropology of food 4:1-13.
Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism.
Journal of Rural Studies 19: 23–32.
Yin, R. K. 2011. Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford
Press.

Appendix

21

Appendix
Appendix A – Interview Guide
Key
Italicized questions Main question
Non-italicized
Follow-up questions
questions
(if main was unclear)

Sustainability Values
How would you describe a typical day
for you in relation to food?
- Where do you get your food
(e.g. supermarkets, markets,
garden)?
- Do you cook alone or with
others?
What ideas are important to you regarding your food choices?
- What are you aware of when
you purchase and consume
food?

Collective Action
Have you been a part of any community group in the past besides
the one you are in now?
- What group/why were
you involved?

How would you describe “good
food”?
- What is important to you regarding food?

How would you describe a typical group meeting?
- How does the group organize itself?

You mentioned that you value ______
when it comes to food. Is there is anything that prevents you from buying/eating this way?

Can you tell me the story of how
you became involved in the local
food group?
- What is your role in the
group?
- What motivated you to
join this group?
How do you think being part of
this group has influenced your
perspective on food?
- Any positive or negative implications?
Are there any opportunities for
the group to grow/is this something that the group desires?
- Why does (or doesn’t)
the group want to
grow?

What is important for the group?
- What ideas does the group
share and what do most people agree on?
How would you describe your experience with the group?
- Have any of your habits (i.e.
food consumption, activism,
perspectives, etc.) evolved or
changed since joining the
group?

How would you describe your
group to someone curious about
what you are doing?
- Have you received any
interesting reactions?

Political Perspectives
How would you describe
what you do in relation to
society at large?
- Do you think
there is a political dimension of
food?
How would you describe
what your group does in
relation to society at
large?
- Does your group
ever speak about
politics?

Appendix

22

Appendix B – Codebook
Theme

Code
Local food

Definition/description
Discussion of local
(i.e. regional) and
seasonal food

Rules

Including: 1)Discussion
of local food and seasonality (i.e. regional,
food miles, food origin
etc.) 2)Value of individual and group Excluding: 1)Specific reference
to connection to nature
Nature con- Description of the
Including: 1)Specific
nectedness group or individual's mention of nature 2)Deperspective regardscription of the individing the connection
ual or group value of
between food and
connection to nature innature
cluding the needs and
limits of nature

Anchor example
"We definitely
have shared values
about that, about eating
locally, knowing where
your food comes from"
(W.G. 7).

"Yeah, I would describe
it (good food) as that the
person who grew it had
a relation to it and knew
the food. [...]That the
person knew that they
didn’t harm any other
part of nature by growing the food and he does
not only know it, but it’s
also the truth." (E.C. 6)
"Good
Description of what Including: 1)Description "It (the initiative) is
"good food" means of specific qualities par- based on values of orSustainability food"
to the participant
ticipant identifies as
ganic food, regional,
Values
"good" (i.e. organic
seasonal food, it’s based
quality, taste, durability, on the basic line of susfood sharing, buying
tainability, [..] we try
from the market, fair
like of course having no
treatment of farmers,
packaging.” (W.G. 2)
quality of production
standards) Excluding: 1)
'Food/nature connection'
category 2)Other people's perspectives on
"good food"
Practical
Description of the
Including: 1)Naming
"The common ground is
experigroup serving as a
opportunities for hands- that all of the people
ence/experi- platform to learning on experience with
that are interested in the
mentation
through practical ex- group tasks 2)Describ- group like to do someperience and experi- ing knowledge exthing practical outside.
mentation
change within the group […] But that is the main
Excluding: 1)General
thing, that you are outdescription of how the
side and do something
group functions (i.e. ini- with the earth and the
tiative structure)
plants" (E.C. 4)

Appendix
Theme

23
Code
Building
coalitions

Social connectivity

Initiative
uniformity

Collective
Action

Participation and
commitment

Initiative
growth and
impact

Definition/description
Description of the
different types of
people/organizations
that are involved
with the initiative

Rules

Including: 1)Discussion
of collaborations that
the group has with other
groups 2)Expressing
wish to have more collaboration with others
3)Discussion of engagement activities
Highlighting the
Including: 1)Mention of
sense of community the connections participarticipants feel
pants have with one anthrough participation other by recalling attributes such as trust, reciprocity, positive atmosphere, etc. 2)Discussion
of social events outside
of general group meeting
Description of parIncluding 1)Specifically
ticipants being very naming an existing
similar in certain
"bubble" in relation to
ways, residing in a
values 2)Describing
specific social bub- how groups of people
ble
have similar values
(could be including
themselves) 3)Description (and often critique)
of participant or group
bubble in relation to
how others outside
group think about similar topics
Discussion around
Including: 1)Reasons
lack of participant
why group or individual
commitment and
involvement is lacking
participation
(i.e. time constraints,
burnout, graduating, the
way society is structured
etc.) 2)Discussion of the
lack of people participating

Description of the
initiative's wish to
grow/expand

Including: 1)Discussing
the desire for the initiative to expand in scale
and grow in terms of the
number of members
2)Discussion of what
growth/expansion might
mean for group 3)Perceived impact on society

Anchor example
"So we also want to invite the people near the
university, or just in Lüneburg, just who wants
to join us." (E.C. 6)

It’s not just the food, but
actually meeting the
people and having a
group of people that
think similar [..] Yeah, I
think it’s both connecting food with community kind of thing,
yeah." (W.G. 5)
“I want to believe that
we may do some
changes in society, but I
feel like the truth is we
are very much in our
bubble, both in our Essbarer Campus bubble
where we are people
who share a very similar
mindset about food and
sustainability." (W.G. 8)

“If it hadn’t been for me
going (to the tabling),
nobody would have
been there and that
would not have bothered
anybody I think. Which
I think is a bit scary because that is like the one
day where you can actually show yourself and
say, ‘hey, we exist.’”
(E.C. 8)
They (E.C.) are also
giving something into
society in the form of
ideas and inputs about
ways things could work.
And yeah maybe this
gives inspiration to
other people to think
about, oh that’s actually
nice coming together
and growing your own
food.” (E.C., 11)

Appendix
Theme

24
Code
Problem
Identification

System reconfiguration

Political Perspectives

Initiative
Power
Structure

Bureaucratic hurdles

Definition/description
Describing problematic issues within the
current food system

Rules

Including: 1)Noting issues or problems the individual or group perceives within current
food system 2)Description of options (or lack
thereof) within the current food system 3)Criticizing the mainstream,
industrial food system
Recommendations
Including: 1)Offering
regarding how the
solutions to how the
participant/group be- food system should be
lieves the convenstructured (i.e. food sovtional food system
ereignty, independence,
should be changed
increased local emphasis, etc.) 2)Discussing
initiative as part of the
solution to the problem
Discussion regarding Including: 1)Discussion
the initiative's struc- of power dynamics, inture
dividual roles, responsibilities, and decision
making processes
2)Mention of specific
type of initiative structure related to the above
point (e.g. hierarchy,
consensus, etc.) 3)Expression of frustration
related to initiative
structure
Description of buIncluding: 1) Naming
reaucratic/adminis- restrictions/barriers that
trative obstacles the the group faces (i.e. uniinitiative experiversity regulations, city
ences
zoning, etc.) 2) Lack of
action due to administrative obstacles

Anchor example
"I think that the economy design like today, it
will not succeed in this
design because it’s not a
long term. It’s not sustainable for people,
planet… even for profit,
it’s not sustainable"
(W.G. 2)
"It is about the political
side of it. […] This kind
of having a garden is
one way to be against
something, and also
come up with a different
idea, or yeah, trying to
offer an alternative.
(E.C. 1)
"I think it’s really important to have a self-organized and self-responsive organizational
structure so that we
don’t have like conventional hierarchy structures… so that people
can really become responsible for their own
part of the company."
(W.G. 2)
"Also, one big struggle
is like fulfilling all the
regulations we are confronted with. [..] why is
it that complicated? You
just wanted to grow
vegetables… but we
have to fulfill thousands
of contracts and laws
and signing papers. "
(W.G. 2)

Appendix

Appendix C – Interview Transcripts
The interview transcripts can be found on the attached CD.

25

Declaration of own work / Erklärung der Selbstständigkeit

26

Declaration of own work / Erklärung der Selbstständigkeit

„Ich versichere, dass ich diese Master-Arbeit – bei einer Gruppenarbeit den entsprechend
gekennzeichneten Teil der Master-Arbeit – selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als
die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Ich versichere, alle Stellen der
Arbeit, die wortwörtlich oder sinngemäß aus anderen Quellen übernommen wurden, als
solche kenntlich gemacht und die Arbeit in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form noch keiner
Prüfungsbeh.rde vorgelegt zu haben.“

Lüneburg, den 29.06.2018

Hannah Trigg