lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115

Contents lists avai

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ j rurstud

Putting place on the menu: The negotiation of locality in UK food tourism,from production to consumption

Rebecca Sims*

Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, United Kingdom

Keywords:Local foodRural tourismSustainabilityFood chains

* Tel.: þ44 1524 510261.E-mail address: r.sims@lancaster.ac.uk

0743-0167/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.09.003

a b s t r a c t

This paper uses a case study of tourism in the Lake District and Exmoor to explore the relationshipbetween ‘local food’ and sustainable rural tourism in the UK. Drawing on qualitative interviews withtourists, food producers and cafe, pub and restaurant owners, I use an approach based upon thecommodity chain to trace the shifts in the discursive and material understandings of the ‘local’ that takeplace throughout the tourist food chain. These shifts are shown to occur in response to the need tonegotiate the tensions between the ideals and the practicalities of food production and consumptionwhich occur as a result of the relationships that exist throughout the food chain. Such conclusions areshown to be important for our understanding of the links between ‘local food’ and sustainable ruraltourism because they indicate that we must attend to the values, as well as the practicalities, that drivethe contemporary food sector at all stages of the food chain, from production to consumption.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years, attempts to boost the economic sustainability ofrural areas have focused increasingly upon tourism as a possiblemeans of achieving these goals (Clark and Chabrel, 2007; Eastham,2003; Ilbery et al., 2007; Woodland and Acott, 2007). As Urry (1990,1995) has noted, tourism is an activity that involves theconsumption of place, with visual, cultural and historical aspects ofdestinations proving particularly important to visitors (Bessiere,1998; Hodges, 2001; McIntosh and Prentice, 1999). Rural land-scapes, traditions and cultural practices can therefore be packagedand constructed for tourist consumption in the hope thatincreasing numbers of visitors will result in the generation ofa multiplier effect that will benefit the local economy (Shaw andWilliams, 2004; Torres, 2002).

However, while tourism may bring some form of economicprosperity to a rural region, there is a growing recognition that thismust be balanced against some of the more negative changes thatcan take place when increasing visitor numbers place pressure ona destination (Picard, 1995; Shaw and Williams, 2002). Conse-quently, contemporary efforts to develop a ‘sustainable’ tourismindustry in rural regions acknowledge that the concept ofsustainability must include, not just economic considerations, butalso a concern for the social, cultural and environmental facets of

All rights reserved.

a destination (Clark and Chabrel, 2007; Ilbery et al., 2003). Thisrecognition has led to a renewed focus upon trying to promoteconsumption of the kinds of tourist products and services that willenhance, rather than detract, from the quality of the rural region inquestion.

One example of this process at work is the recent drive topromote locally-sourced food products to tourists, with manyresearchers claiming a host of benefits for such products, rangingfrom environmental advantages as a result of reduced food milesthrough to the social and economic gains that can result fromboosting rural farm incomes and creating ‘iconic’ products thatcan be used to brand a region for further tourism development(Boniface, 2003; Clark and Chabrel, 2007; Enteleca Research andConsultancy, 2001; Ilbery et al., 2003; Torres, 2002; Woodland andAcott, 2007). Similar debates are also taking place in agriculture,where a focus upon local food and drink products sold through‘alternative’ outlets such as farmers’ markets and organic boxschemes form part of a drive to improve the sustainability of‘‘traditional’’ farming – and the landscapes and communitiessustained by those activities – while also overcoming some of thedifficulties faced by food producers in the ‘conventional’ sector,where falling incomes and a loss of consumer confidence arecreating problems for farmers (Boniface, 2003; Ilbery and Kneafsey,2000; Marsden, 2004; National Farmers’ Retail and Markets Asso-ciation, 2007; Parrot et al., 2002; Policy Commission on the Futureof Farming and Food, 2002; Tregear et al., 2007).

In reality, however, the link between sustainable rural tourismand the ‘local food’ sector is problematic in a number of ways. Firstly,

1 The Herdwick is a traditional breed of sheep which is renowned for itshardiness. It comes from the county of Cumbria and can be used for its meat orwool. http://www.herdwick-sheep.com.

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115106

there is debate about how sustainable ‘local food’ really is (Edwards-Jones et al., 2008). Attempts to conduct scientific studies to try andascertain the ‘carbon footprint’ of any one particular food product arefraught with difficulty, not only because it is very hard to decidewhere the system boundaries should be drawn (some studiesinclude factors such as the storage and transportation of particularproducts, while others neglect to include the emissions resultingfrom the production of fertilisers and pesticides used in theproduction process), but also because the carbon footprint of any oneproduct can vary throughout the year – as well as between twodifferent producers in the same area – on account of the differentproduction techniques employed (Edwards-Jones et al., 2008).

Even if we take on board the many social and cultural argumentsthat are made in favour of local food products within tourism, thereare numerous practical barriers to increasing their consumption,many of which stem from the ways in which the global food andtourism sectors are structured. For example, the importation ofcheaper food stuffs from overseas combined with the continueddominance of the major cafe, restaurant and hotel chains (evenwithinrural regions of the UK) can present problems for small producerswho must compete with such actors in order to sell their products totourists (Ilbery et al., 2004; Renting et al., 2003; Ritzer, 2000).

In addition to this, there are conceptual barriers to change whichconcern the meanings, values and goals of local food consumption.As previous studies have highlighted, ‘sustainable tourism’ and ‘localfood’ are both contested concepts which relate, not just to particularagricultural and tourism practices, but also to value judgementsabout how the food and tourism sectors should operate (Hinrichs,2003; Hobson, 2002; Maxey, 2007; Raynolds, 2000). Such judge-ments are intertwined with the ways in which we understand andvalue society, culture and place, and therefore any attempts tochange food consumption habits must first address the morecomplex values which underlie our practices of growing, producingand shopping for food (Morgan et al., 2006; Warde, 1997).

This paper highlights these challenges for sustainable ruraltourism by tracing the discourses and practices relating to ‘local’food as they are negotiated and renegotiated throughout the touristfood chain, from the producers marketing the products, at one end,through the cafes and restaurants supplying them, and finally tothe tourist consumers who buy and eat them, at the other. Theempirical basis for this analysis comes from a study of the role thatfood plays within tourism in the United Kingdom. The research inthis paper is based upon two case study regions of the Lake Districtand Exmoor and, using evidence from qualitative interviews withtourists, food producers and restaurateurs in these regions, I showhow the concept of ‘local food’ is constantly reconfigured, bothdiscursively and materially, in response to the need to negotiate thetensions between the ideals and the practicalities of food produc-tion and consumption which occur as a result of the relationshipsthat exist throughout the food chain. Such transformations in themeaning and practice of ‘local food’ highlight the futility ofsimplistic approaches to promote sustainability within tourismwhich attempt to gloss over the conflicts that lie behind the term.

The following sections provide the foundations for this analysisby reviewing the policy context behind the development of thelocal food and sustainable tourism agenda before exploring whatthe literature has to say about local food and the use of commoditychains in social research. I then outline the methodology used forthe study and highlight the relevance of food tourism for researchin this area, before going on to discuss the results of the research.

2. Local food and sustainable tourism – the policy context

The current changes taking place within the agriculture andtourism sectors can be linked to a series of cultural and political

developments which reflect growing concerns over economic andenvironmental sustainability. Within agriculture, for example, farmincomes and practices have been affected by the continuing reformof the Common Agricultural Policy (Jackson et al., 2006). The CAPreforms have also formed a backdrop to an increasing awareness ofagriculture’s contribution to environmental problems, not onlythrough the application of industrialized production techniques,such as the use of fertilisers and pesticides, but also through carbonemissions resulting from the transportation of food productsaround the world as part of an increasingly globalized foodeconomy (Buller and Morris, 2004; Riley, 2008). At present, food iscalculated to be the average household’s primary impact on climatechange, accounting for 31 per cent of our climate impact(Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, 2006). More recent foodscares such as those concerning BSE, Foot and Mouth Disease andthe safety of genetically modified foods have added further weightto the call for a safer, more sustainable food system (Blay-Palmerand Donald, 2007; Boniface, 2003; Kneafsey et al., 2004). This wasreflected in a report from the government’s Policy Commission onFarming and Food which concluded that: ‘‘One of the greatestopportunities for farmers to add value and retain a bigger slice of retailprices is to build on the public’s enthusiasm for locally-produced food,or food with a clear regional provenance’’ (Policy Commission on theFuture of Farming and Food, 2002, p. 43).

This report was followed by the publication of the SustainableFarming and Food Strategy, in 2002 (Defra, 2002). The strategy setsout how industry, the government and consumers can worktogether to secure a sustainable future for our farming and foodindustries. It also includes a commitment to work with the foodindustry beyond the farm gate in order to develop a Food IndustrySustainability Strategy (Defra, 2006) which is designed to ensurethat all stages of the food chain adhere to best practice standards inorder ‘‘to ensure that improved economic performance is not at theexpense of the exploitation of people or the environment and that theydo not disadvantage future generations’’ (Defra, 2006, p. 7) Thisstrategy, as well as the publications which precede it, is basedfirmly upon a discourse of sustainable development throughout thefood chain – from production to consumption.

Similar developments have also been taking place in the tourismand rural development sectors. At the supranational level, theEU LEADER programme, which is funded by European Unionstructural funds, is about promoting sustainable development inrural areas of Europe in ways which address economic, social andenvironmental concerns (European Commission, 2009a). A key roleof the programme has been to help add value to sustainable localcraft and food products – for example, the Cumbria Fells and DalesLEADER þ project, which operates in the North West of England,has supported initiatives linked to upland farming and theproduction of Herdwick sheep.1

Other policy initiatives to have made the link between food anddrink and sustainable rural tourism include the SPRITE project –a European initiative designed to promote integrated tourism inEurope’s lagging rural regions (European Commission, 2009b).‘Integrated Rural Tourism’ (IRT), which has also been described byresearchers as ‘‘all-round sustainable tourism’’ (Clark and Chabrel,2007; Ilbery et al., 2007), is distinguished by the fact that it is notjust concerned with the sustainability of the rural tourism industryper se. Instead, it aims to enhance the local economy, environmentand culture in order to create a strong rural community in ways thatcan be enjoyed by hosts as well as guests. Local food and drink

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115 107

projects are attractive to the IRT agenda because they claim to beable to address economic, social and environmental concerns at thesame time (Ilbery et al., 2003; Sims, 2009).

2.1. ‘Local’ and ‘alternative’ foods

As described in the preceding section, local food initiatives cantherefore be viewed as a response to the economic, environmentaland social challenges that are currently facing farmers. Indeed,their promotion has often been equated with a ‘quality turn’ inagriculture where nature is celebrated rather than subjugated(Morgan et al., 2006).

However, despite the many arguments in their favour, it is clearthat the concept of local food resists precise definition. For example,even from a purely geographical perspective, there is no singleaccepted definition of what constitutes a local food product in theUK, with different groups choosing to adopt different definitionsaccording to their needs (Working Group on Local Food, 2003). Forapproved farmers’ markets, ‘local’ is generally defined as producethat comes from within 30 miles radius of the market (NationalFarmers’ Retail and Markets Association, 2007). However, Morrisand Buller (2003) explain that ‘local’ can be understood either interms of a bounded region within which products are produced andsold, or in terms of ‘speciality’ or ‘locality’ foods which are intendedas value-added products for export to other countries or regions.Their research also shows that the term ‘local’ is used flexibly bydifferent groups so that ‘local’ may sometimes mean that a productis from the immediate vicinity while, in other cases, it may simplymean ‘from the UK’. Adopting a geographical definition of ‘local’ isalso complicated by the distinction between the origin of theingredients and the place of manufacture (Defra, 2003; WorkingGroup on Local Food, 2003). For example, can gingerbread –a popular local speciality in the county of Cumbria – ever beconsidered a local product in the UK if the sugar and spices used tomake it come from overseas?

Similar conclusions resulted from Smithers et al.’s (2008) workon farmers’ markets in Ontario, Canada, where both consumers andproducers displayed somewhat contradictory attitudes to themeaning of ‘local’. For example, among consumers a popularmotivation for visiting farmers’ markets was the desire to supportlocal agriculture and provide a boost to local farmers. However,when questioned further, it became apparent that the majority ofpeople were not taking any steps to ascertain whether this wasactually the case. Instead, many were simply enjoying the socialatmosphere of interacting with producers and fellow shoppers and,although they experienced a ‘feelgood’ factor that came from theidea of supporting ‘local’, they often had very little idea of if – orhow – this was occurring:

‘‘A significant number of customers even fail to assure themselvesthat the vendor with whom they are dealing is the grower/producerof the food item in question. Instead, our findings suggest thatmany consumers believe or assume a series of (largely unspecified)benefits by virtue of their attendance. Further, most of thesespecified core concerns [buying local, supporting particular desir-able production methods etc.] were somewhat malleable in theirmeaning and amenable to trade-off against other factors –particularly where social capital was concerned’’ (Smithers et al.,2008, p. 348).

Similar contradictions were revealed in conversations withmanagers at the market. On the one hand, they stated that thepresence of truly ‘local’ food and ‘local’ producers was the mostimportant thing about the market. However, they also recognisedthat, in order to be successful, their enterprise was, to a certainextent, reliant on the attendance of other vendors and products

that did not conform to this strict ‘local’ definition, simply becauseconsumers needed and expected to see a good variation in terms ofthe products available there.

Such arguments show that it is doubtful whether any definitionof ‘local food’ could ever be based purely on physical proximitybecause, rightly or wrongly, ‘local’ is often equated with a host ofvalues relating to social, environmental and ‘quality’ criteria.In relation to tourism, this point has been made by authors such asBoniface (2003) and Bessiere (1998). Research carried out byEnteleca Consultancy (2001) has also shown that many tourists optfor local foods because they associate them with certain values – forexample, they are believed to be better for the environment,healthier, and are seen as a way to support the rural economy.Whether this is the case in practice is also questioned, withresearchers casting doubt on the precise nature of the link between‘quality’ and place. Hinrichs (2003) has argued that, in relation tofood and drink, it is dangerous for researchers to adopt a simple‘local¼ good’ and ‘global¼ bad’ dichotomy. She emphasises thatlocalising and globalising processes are intrinsically related andthat, just because a product is considered to be ‘local’, there can beno guarantee that it is automatically tastier, or more socially orenvironmentally beneficial. Therefore local producers may stilltreat staff poorly or choose to export their products all over theworld, thus increasing food miles.

‘‘Local, then, is much more (or perhaps much less) than it seems.Specific social or environmental relations do not always mappredictably and consistently onto the spatial relation’’ (Hinrichs,2003, p. 36).

Food choices can be assessed on a number of criteria – includinghealth benefits, environmental protection and social justice. Theycannot, therefore, be classed as inherently ‘good’ or inherently ‘bad’as these different qualities may contradict each other (Marsden2004, Allen and Hinrichs, 2007). For example, in relation to organicproducts, Guthman (2007) and Goodman and Goodman (2001)argue that, as production is scaled-up, social justice goals may becompromised as the labour-intensive nature of organic productionrequires the input of migrant workers, resulting in a situationwhere those who work on the farms cannot afford to purchase thefoods that they have been labouring to produce.

The lack of a clear distinction between the various forms of foodproduction has resulted in contemporary analysts rejecting thesuggestion that a discrete and coherent ‘alternative’ food sectorexists in opposition to a discrete and coherent ‘conventional’ foodsector (Holloway et al., 2007a; Holloway et al., 2007b; Morris andKirwan, 2007; Watts et al., 2007; Watts et al., 2005). For example,Ilbery and Maye (2005) claim that most producers adopt a hybri-dised approach to production, which is characterised by a tendencyto ‘dip in and out’ of conventional and alternative modes atdifferent times, while Holloway et al. (2007a) argue that alterna-tive/conventional dualisms be abandoned in favour of a relationalapproach which can acknowledge the ‘‘contingency of what isregarded as alternative at any one time and in any one place..’’(Holloway et al., 2007b, p. 5).

2.2. Commodity chains

A relational understanding of ‘alternativeness’ is also helpfulwhen attempting to assess the changing meanings that are attrib-uted to products as they pass through the commodity chain fromproducer to distributor and final consumer. Leslie and Reimerdescribe the commodity chain as a concept that ‘‘examinesconsumption from the vantage point of one commodity and traces thereworking of meaning along different sites in the chain. Commoditychain analyses provide a means of thinking more precisely about the

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115108

specific practices which shape the flow of goods’’ (Leslie and Reimer,1999, p. 402). A commodity chain analysis can therefore containboth discursive and material elements as a product is tracked alongits journey from production to consumption.

According to Jackson et al. (2006), commodity chains havegained popularity within analyses of the food sector on account ofa number of factors. Firstly, they provide scope to explore a newinterest in consumption within food studies which, according toGoodman (2003), has been neglected in favour of production-basedaccounts. Second – and of equal importance – is the fact that theycan address not just mechanistic issues of supply chain manage-ment but also the more cultural aspects that are concerned with themeanings and narratives around food, thus reflecting the argu-ments of Appadurai (1986) and Watts (2005) which attempt toshed light on the ‘social lives’ or ‘biographies’ of particular objects.One example of this commodity chain approach in action is Cookand Harrison’s (2007) study of West Indian hot pepper sauce wherethe authors trace the lives of the people who are connected by thiscommodity across time and space. However, as Cook (2006) pointsout in relation to a study of the lifecycle of a chicken, this process isnot as simple as it might first appear because ‘‘anything andeverything that’s in and around it (throughout its conception, birth,life, death and travels) could become part of that story. But whereexactly are the beginnings and ends of such a story? And where are theedges? Do we want or need to delimit them? How ‘(un)disciplined’should these geographies be?’’ (Cook, 2006, p. 657).

As Leslie and Reimer (1999) highlight, academics have taken thecommodity chain approach forward in a number of directionswhich range in terms of their approaches to causality and thedirection of enquiry pursued (from linear approaches to thosewhich view production and consumption as linked via the notion of‘circuits or ‘networks’). Examples range from Fine and Leopold’sanalysis of ‘systems of provision’ (Fine, 2004; Fine and Leopold,1993) to Whatmore and Thorne’s (1997) work on ‘nourishingnetworks’, Cook and Crang’s concept of ‘commodity circuits’ (Cookand Crang, 1996) and Raynolds’ study of fair trade initiatives usinga commodity network approach (Raynolds, 2002).

Those arguing in favour of an approach based upon networks orcircuits argue that the idea of a chain is too linear and mechanistic,with production and consumption appearing as abstracted entitiesoccupying either end of the chain (Jackson, 2002). Critics also pointout that commodity chains do not allow enough space for the roleof non-human intermediaries within the chain (Acre and Marsden,1993) and that, in relation to food, they tend to suggest that it ispossible to uncover the ‘authenticity’ of particular local products ifwe follow the chain back far enough (Cook and Crang, 2003).By contrast, circuits and networks have no clear beginning or endpoint to which authenticity can be traced. They also provide a muchmore nuanced view of where power might be located within thenetwork. This contrasts with the traditional idea of the commoditychain where the objective is often to make consumers aware of theexploitative and unsustainable practices that go into producingtheir food (Jackson et al., 2006).

Despite these problems, the idea of a chain still has much tooffer food studies, as demonstrated by the fact that the concept isflexible enough to be used in different ways and for differentpolitical purposes. Jackson et al. (2006) provide three examples ofthe food chain in action, from the government’s Food Chain Group –which operated a very mechanistic notion of the commodity chainwith the aim of improving efficiency and integration – to the workof Sustain’s ‘Sustainable Food Chains’ project which ‘‘encompassesthe wider social and ecological costs of food production, includingenergy, transportation, pollution, packaging, biodiversity and humannutrition’’ (Jackson et al., 2006, p. 137). As the preceding sectiondemonstrated, the concept of the food chain is also very popular in

both political and activist circles because of the ways in which itpromises to ‘reconnect’ consumers with the social, physical andeconomic processes that lie behind the production of some of theirfavourite products. By contrast, it is sometimes argued thatapproaches based upon circuits or networks introduce an addedlevel of complexity that can have the effect of obscuring some of thepower relations behind these linkages (Jackson et al., 2006). LikeJackson, Leslie and Reimer (1999) argue that the commodity chainis a useful concept for research. Crucially, they emphasise theimportance of flexibility when using the concept and argue that themetaphor of the chain ‘‘need not rest on a reification and fixing ofconnections into a unidirectional chain. Rather, commodity chainanalyses can (and should) be employed to consider the complexand shifting power dynamics between sites: to open up tensions andanxieties in the multiple sets of relationships between producers andconsumers’’ (Leslie and Reimer, 1999, p. 416). In short, then, chainsdo not have to be linear in nature or unidirectional in terms of theinteractions that take place between the various linkages. Adoptingsuch an approach is vital in the context of this paper which seeksto bridge the gap between the largely producer-focussed alterna-tive food literature (Buller and Morris, 2004; Ilbery et al., 2004;Watts et al., 2007) and the consumer-focussed sustainable tourismliterature (Hobson, 2002; Lockie et al., 2002; Seyfang, 2006).The following section outlines how this was achieved in a study ofthe relationships between local food and tourism in the LakeDistrict and Exmoor.

3. Study methods: local food and tourism

The research undertaken for this study took place within twonational parks – the Lake District and Exmoor. Located in the NorthWest and South West of England respectively, both are populartourist destinations where the attraction is the beauty of the uplandlandscape and the chance to take part in outdoor activities, withCumbria receiving 5 million overnight visitors in 2007 (CumbriaTourism, 2006), while equivalent figures for Exmoor show that1.1 million visitor nights were spent in the park in 2003 (ExmoorNational Park Authority, 2003). Both destinations also havea thriving local food industry that is based around a number oficonic food products, with the Lake District being famous forspecialities such as Cumberland sausage, Kendal Mint Cake andGrasmere Gingerbread, while Exmoor is part of a region well-known for cream teas, cider and Cheddar cheese. In recent years,both regions have launched extensive promotional campaignsdesigned to highlight local food as a key part of the tourism offeringwithin their areas, with the Lake District launching the ‘TasteDistrict’ campaign and Exmoor benefitting from work undertakenby Exmoor and Quantocks Food Links which is designed to fosterlinks between local food producers and tourism businesses in thearea (Exmoor and Quantocks Food Links, 2006). Both regions arealso home to very active regional food groups which providemarketing advice and business support to local food producers,such as ‘Made in Cumbria’ in the Lake District and ‘Taste of theWest’ and the ‘Exmoor Producers’ Association’ on Exmoor.

As highlighted in Section 2.1, the concept of local food is far fromstraightforward and a key objective of this research project was totrace how – and why – understandings of the ‘local’ in food tourismcan change. Consequently, rather than using an approach basedupon commodity chains to follow a particular food product, thisstudy follows the evolution of a discourse – the concept of what islocal – along the journey from production to consumption. In orderto explore these shifts of meaning, semi-structured interviewswere conducted throughout the tourist food chain, from thoseproducing and processing local food products, at one end, to thoseinvolved in their marketing and consumption, at the other.

Table 1Cafe, pub and restaurant interviewees by type and study area.

Type of establishment Number of LakeDistrictinterviewees

Number ofExmoorinterviewees

Traditional English country houserestaurant offering luxury fine dining

1 1

Mid to upper price range restaurant thatwas innovative (as opposed to traditional)in style, but which was passionate aboutlocal sourcing

2 1

Mid to upper price range restaurant that wasinnovative but which did not appear tomake a feature of local sourcing

1 1

Foreign or speciality restaurant 1 1Cafe/tearoom that was passionate

about local sourcing1 1

Upmarket modern cafe that did not appearto make a feature of local sourcing

1 1

Inexpensive tourist cafe 1 1Cafe attached to popular visitor

attraction2 1

Fish and chip takeaway 1 1‘Gastro-pub’ with a reputation for

good-quality food and beer1 1

Standard pub offering typical pubfare at accessible prices

1 1

Totals 13 11

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115 109

By exploring the interactions between food producers, suppliersand consumers within the study regions it was possible to explorehow the contested meanings and values attached to particular foodproducts were developed, promoted and, finally, consumed.

In total, 78 tourists were interviewed across the Lake District(42) and Exmoor (36) during a four-month period in 2005 from Julyto October. Previous research has shown that characteristics such asincome and cultural capital can have an impact on consumptiondecisions within tourism (Bourdieu, 1984; Urry, 1990, 1995) and,consequently, it was important to select visitors from a variety ofsocial and economic backgrounds. In the case of the present study,the best way of accounting for social and financial variation in thefield was found to be using people’s holiday accommodation typeas a surrogate for these measures. Interviews were thereforecarried out across the following categories:

� Those choosing inexpensive forms of accommodation;e.g. youth hostels or holiday camps, such as Butlins.� Those choosing forms of accommodation associated with

average prices; e.g. those staying in two-star hotels or bed andbreakfast accommodation.2

� Visitors choosing more expensive forms of accommodationi.e. three-star hotels offering a wide range of facilities anda high level of comfort.� For the Lake District only, a fourth category of ‘luxury hotels’

was added which was defined as those that were listed as four-star and above.3

At least 10 interviewees were included from the above cate-gories in each study location (with the exception of the ‘luxuryhotels’ category, which was found only in the Lake District). Clearly,accommodation type is not a perfect way of accounting for a per-son’s financial or cultural resources because tourists may choose tostay somewhere that is above or below their ‘normal’ choice ofprovider. However, this approach provided a useful means ofaccessing some of the main differences in tourists’ financial andcultural resources within the field.

During interviews, respondents were asked to describe thekinds of foods and drinks that they had encountered on theircurrent holiday, and to explain why they had – or had not – chosento eat them. They were also asked what they considered to be ‘localfood’ and which foods or drinks – if any – they associated withbeing ‘typical’ of their destination. In this way it was possible toinvestigate how they were conceptualising local food and toexplore both the practical and ideological reasons for their foodchoices.

These conversations with tourists were supplemented byinterviews with 24 cafe, pub and restaurant owners (13 from theLake District and 11 from Exmoor) and 17 local food and drinksproducers (8 from the Lake District and 9 from Exmoor). Cafe, puband restaurant owners were selected according to price andapparent policy on local sourcing (see Table 1), while foodproducers were selected to represent the principal types of productavailable in each region (see Tables 2 and 3). In both cases, the aimwas not to produce a statistically representative sample but toreflect the range of businesses encountered in both regions. Again,interviews focused on the question of ‘what is local?’ while also

2 Campers or caravaners were also included in this group on the grounds that themajority of people choosing such accommodation within the study areas werefamilies who described staying on well-equipped sites that offered relatively goodlevels of comfort and privacy.

3 This category could not be replicated on Exmoor because, at the time ofconducting the research, Exmoor’s smaller tourist industry did not support anyfour-star establishments.

exploring how this concept related to practices of ingredientsourcing, production, processing, marketing and sales. Theseinterviews were conducted by the original researcher and werecarried out during a three-month period from January–March2006. This time of year was chosen as it ensured access toproducers at a ‘quiet’ time of year when tourists were not around inany significant numbers.

The following sections discuss the results of this research.Although some small differences were identified between theresults obtained in the two study regions these were very minordifferences of scale rather than character (resulting from the muchsmaller size of Exmoor’s tourism industry). Consequently, ratherthan presenting the results as a comparative case study, data fromboth regions have been combined in order to explore the biggerissue of how the concept of ‘local food’ is negotiated throughout thefood chain.

4. Interpretations of locality: food producers

When it came to defining what was local, the producers inter-viewed for the study had the broadest range of viewpoints. Thiswas in direct contrast to the tourists and restaurateurs, whoseunderstandings of ‘local’ tended to coalesce around a relativelylimited range of factors, as described in subsequent sections of thispaper. Definitions offered by producers ranged from largelygeographical understandings of products ‘made’ in the region,through to more complex understandings based upon economic,social and cultural factors, such as where the product was to besold, where the value was added during its production and who itwas made by. Unsurprisingly, the definitions posited by

Table 2Lake District food producer interviewees.

Product type Number of interviewees

Bakery products 2Meat and dairy products 2Drinks 2Jams and preserves 2

Table 3Exmoor food producer interviewees.

Product type Number of interviewees

Confectionery 1Meat and dairy products 3Drinks 2Jams, preserves and honey 2Fish 1

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115110

interviewees also tended to reflect – and justify – the productionprocesses used to create their own products, so that, for Emily,4

who handpicked the fruit for her jams and preserves from gardensand hedgerows in the Exmoor area, a ‘local’ product was one thatused local ingredients, and not just something that was manufac-tured in the region.

‘‘This is my biggest bugbear of all time. You can make a productlocally, so it’s called local. There is a fruit preserve maker who hasstamped all the way across them ‘local, local, local, local, local’.But their whortleberry jam, the fruit comes from America .personally I think that’s mis-selling, because everybody thinks theyare eating Exmoor whortleberries and they’re not . An awful lot ofproduct comes from abroad and yet, because they are processedhere, it’s called a local product. And, in my view, that isn’t a localproduct. It’s a local product if it’s grown here’’.

Rebecca, a cider producer from Exmoor, went further by statingthat, in her mind, a local product should also have some form ofhistorical and symbolic association with the region.

‘‘I think that locally produced food is rooted in people’s minds withan element of tradition as well, which has got to go back to localproduce, hasn’t it? Local growing.’’

Her views act as a reminder that foods have important repre-sentational, as well as material qualities, which can have an influ-ence on the ways in which they are produced and used (Bessiere,1998; Zadek et al., 1998). The cider farm run by Rebecca’s husbandwas, in itself, a tourist attraction which promoted local place,culture and tradition to its visitors, who could walk in the orchardswhere the apples were grown, see how the cider was made, andtake a tour of the old cider press which had served the family’s cidermaking business for much of it’s 200-year history. There was thusa temporal and cultural element to the understanding of local thatwas employed by the business.

However, other producers had different circumstances thatwere reflected in alternative understandings of the local.For example, local manufacture was a key criterion for Tom, whoseLake District business produced a wide range of preserves,including apricot chutney and chilli jam. Tom considered his busi-ness to be local because he was ‘‘adding value’’ to the productwithin the region and supporting the Cumbrian economy byemploying local people. His example shows how the constructionof ‘local’ had evolved to reflect the practicalities of productionbecause, although he had started out using a local supplier, thisbecame impractical when his business expanded.

‘‘We used to use a local fruit and veg guy in Kendal, and everythingcame from him, apart from damsons, which came from a local farm.But now, because we’re getting a bit too big to sort of cope with – Imean, the red onion marmalade that we made this morning had80 kilos of sliced red onion in it. so we’ve got a [national] frozenfruit and vegetable supplier that we use, and we get off hima pallet-full of frozen fruit and veg.’’

4 All names are pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the participants.

Tom’s story illustrates the trade-offs that get made around thedefinition of local in order to accommodate the practical issues thatresult from the inter-relationships between producers, suppliersand consumers in the food chain. However, upon closer inspection,his definition of ‘local’ transcended the spatial dimensions ofmanufacture and ingredient sourcing to encompass value judge-ments about how local products should be made.

‘‘You get the money-conscious people that just want to buyeverything from the supermarket, and then you get the people thatjust want to get something that they know is produced locally andthat’s a bit more real than mass produced, pumped out and filled upwith whatever preservatives and additives to make it bulky andmake it cheap to make. And so I think there’s definitely a marketthere for people who want locally hand-made, hand crafted.It’sthe whole thing, really. It’s not just saying ‘well it’s locally made’ –it’s locally made but it’s made in a small pan and not in a bigfactory. Because, if you’re in the middle of Birmingham and there’sa chutney factory next door, well it’s locally made, but it’s mass-produced locally made.’’

This quote illustrates the multi-dimensional, detailed andcontextual invocations of local which were used by producers. Suchdefinitions reflect, not just geographical boundaries but also thepracticalities of food supply chain relationships and – crucially –questions of value which relate to normative judgements abouthow the food sector should operate. For Tom, this is reflected in thefact that the ‘local’ is equated with small-scale, handmade, qualityproduction and – implicitly – with ‘good’ consumers who arewilling to recognise (and pay for) this quality. Other examples ofthe centrality of values within definitions of the local include Erica,a Cumbrian cheese producer whose definition of the local wasbound-up in the importance of safeguarding health and the localenvironment – ‘‘I don’t think of myself as a specialist cheesemaker,I think of myself as providing good, nourishing food. And I think thatanybody who produces food – that should actually be their criteria’’ –as well as Samantha, an Exmoor meat producer whose primaryconcern was for animal welfare:

‘‘The concept of buying two chickens for a fiver – you know, God,what sort of a life have they had? Somebody said something to melast year, and it’s something I’ll always repeat – they said ‘if youthink your meat is a bit more expensive than somebody else’s. say‘yes, it might be a bit more expensive. But you are paying for thequality of that animal’s life.’’’

These examples have a number of implications for sustainablerural tourism and our understanding of ‘local’. Firstly, it is clearthat definitions of the local are not just spatial descriptions.Neither are they formed in the abstract. Instead, they servea particular purpose which is, firstly, to explain and justify theform of production employed by a particular producer. Conse-quently, the practicalities of running a business have a role to playin shaping the construction of the ‘local’. As Tom’s example shows,interrelations throughout the food chain are vital here because thetype of ‘local’ product that it is possible to produce cannot beseparated from the kinds of food that tourists are willing to buy orthe kinds of service offered by suppliers. However, such businesspracticalities are also negotiated alongside the particular valuesheld by producers. This is because, in addition to justifying theform of production used (and thus outlining how the food sectoroperates in practice), definitions of local also serve to illustrate theproducer’s vision of how the food sector should operate, and why itshould operate in this way.

In short, therefore, the definitions of local offered by producersare also normative judgements about the direction that food

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115 111

consumption and production should take. The examples given heresuggest that sustainable rural tourism should be about more thanjust food miles. Instead, it appears that producers are calling fora food and tourism industry that re-values the small-scale, hand-crafted production of healthy, nutritious foods that are producedwith a concern for the environment and animal welfare and soldwith a consideration for the social and economic sustainability ofthe rural community.

4.1. Interpretations of locality: cafe, pub and restaurant owners

While producer perspectives were characterised by specific andcontextual definitions that provide a clear indication of how thingsshould be, cafe, pub and restaurant owners displayed a more flex-ible, pragmatic attitude to the local. This is not to say that theseinterviewees did not also exhibit a strong sense of values – on thecontrary, several interviewees had very clear ideas about how thefood sector should operate and went to considerable lengths toensure that these values were upheld. For example, Leslie, whoowned a tearoom on an organic farm, had strong environmentaland ethical reasons for wanting to support local produce. Althoughher customers included local people as well as visitors, sustainabletourism was a very important element of her business and she hadcomplemented her tearoom with farm trails and a farm shop.She explained that it was sometimes difficult to use local productsbecause they were more expensive to purchase but, instead ofseeing this difficulty as a reason to compromise her understandingof local, she found a creative response that involved changing hermarketing and pricing practices to ensure that she could use theprincipals of sustainability and place distinctiveness to uphold hervision of ‘local’.

‘‘It costs more to use local ingredients – there’s no doubt about that– but what I see is an advantage at the other end in that we’rebusier – that’s the way I’m marketing the business as being what itis and on the fact that local produce and local dishes are an integralpart of who we are and what we do. And people like it, and peoplecome back and return for it so, while costs might be higher, I believethat I’m getting a better return.’’

However, upon further reflection, Leslie admitted that she hadhad to make some trade-offs in her interpretation of the ‘local’ inorder to ensure that she could source enough products.

Interviewer: What do you consider to be local food?Leslie: It’s very hard. I think, well, the way I present it in myliterature is that we sell food from the farm – from Cumbria andbeyond. And beyond is very wide. But I’d say that there’s local andthere’s regional – cheeses from Northumberland aren’t local butthey’re regional, and our ice-cream from Windermere is local. So Iwould think probably 20-mile radius would be local, but it’s veryhazy – I don’t think there is an actual definition, but I thinksometimes it can be stretched, and I don’t really like that.

This ‘stretching’ of the definition can therefore result from theinter-relationships between consumers, producers and supplierstaking place within the food chain. Lee owned a gastro-pub in theLake District and had tried to build a reputation based upon servinghigh quality food by local suppliers. However, maintaining thisposition was difficult as a result of fluctuating relationships withsuppliers and, consequently, he found himself in a situation wherehis definition of ‘local’ had to change on a regular basis in order toaccommodate what was available at any particular time.

‘‘Again, it comes down to the supply issue. We use three or fourdifferent suppliers for our meat and, no matter how hard you try toget a named pork or what have you – again, it’s the seasonal thing

and the ability of the supplier to actually keep a constant. And, ifyou’re going for the named, locally sourced stuff, invariablysomebody else starts ordering it, they run out – you’ve got thatangle to go at and, again, there aren’t a lot of people doing it uphere. You know, a lot of the larger butchers have jumped on thebandwagon and come up with their own version of locally-produced meat. But there are all sorts of ways around it, aren’tthere? They’ve only got to spend two weeks here before they go offto slaughter and it’s ‘locally produced’!’’

Lee’s situation shows how important food chain relationshipsare to the definition of local and the practice of sustainable tourism.As this quotation shows, not only is he grappling with inconsistentproduct availability, he is also having to negotiate the minefield thatis his suppliers’ understandings of local, where meanings can varyfrom pork bred and reared two miles down the road, to importedpork that has only spent two weeks in the county before it isslaughtered and labelled as ‘local’.

To cope with this kind of complexity, cafe, pub and restaurantowners tended to adopt more flexible definitions of local thatacknowledged the many tensions present in the concept.For example, when asked about their use of ‘local’ products, manyinterviewees would acknowledge the existence of a sliding scalefrom local producers through to local manufacturers and, finally, tothe use of local supply companies, as Raphael, who owned a vege-tarian restaurant in the Lake District, explained:

‘‘We’re doing a special high tea and it’s all supposed to be localfood. So we’re doing a Cumbrian rarebit, which is made withCumbrian cheese, homemade bread here, home-grown tomatoes,apple pickle, chutney. And we’re doing scones which are allhomemade with flour from [local business name] in Penrith. Applepie – well, the apples will come from [local business name] organicfarm, but I doubt they’re grown there – they won’t be grown therein April. I was going to do a chocolate cake and use organicchocolate. but there’s no source for local chocolate. And she [theevent organiser] said ‘if you go to the chocolate shop in Kendal, theyget chocolate directly from cocoa land’. And I said ‘well that doesn’tmake it local, does it? All chocolate comes direct!’. So this localthing is hard.’’

Raphael’s understanding of local was further complicated by thefact that he wished to support vegetarian food and – in particular –organic produce for health and sustainability reasons. However, hefound that this principle often conflicted with his attempts tosupport ‘local’, as the temporal constraints of seasonality combinedwith the geographical constraints of his location meant that organicproducts often had to be imported, resulting in the need for yetmore trade-offs between these different kinds of value systems.

However, the nature of supplychain relationships was not the onlyfactor influencing the construction of the local. Many intervieweesexplained that their customers’ attitudes were equally important inshaping how the concept was defined and used. For example, somerespondents felt that tourists interpreted ‘local’ as involving partic-ular speciality products, and this influenced the products theyprovided and the ways in which they were marketed as Kevin, whoowned a bakery and coffee shop in the Lake District, explained:

‘‘We had a product which was a very nice sultana cake. We madethat as Devon Fruit Cake for years, and it did nothing – it just stayedon the shelf knocking around. I changed it to Cumbrian Fruit Cake,and it’s one of our better-selling products. It’s like our DundeeCake – we made a Dundee Cake, and we can’t sell that here. Wenow call our version of the Dundee Cake a Westmorland Cake. Andit’s not a big seller – it’s not like the Cumbrian. But it still does betterthan Dundee.’’

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115112

In contrast to Leslie, for whom the use of local food was animportant means of achieving the principals of sustainable tourism,Kevin was less interested in the environmental credentials of theconcept and more focused on using the marketing potential of theterm ‘local’ to boost his business. His decision to rebrand hisfruitcake was based upon his perceptions of the symbolic attributesthat his tourist customers would want to see in a fruitcake that wasbeing sold in Cumbria. This very conscious reconstruction of thelocal shows that meanings of the concept were being constantlyformed and reformed in response to material and symbolic inter-actions with producers, consumers and suppliers operating in otherparts of the food network. Therefore, although values wereimportant in defining the local for cafe, pub and restaurant owners,their more complex position as intermediaries between producersand tourist consumers in the food chain meant that their inter-pretations of the concept were less like the kind of ‘mission state-ments’ favoured by the producers. Instead, the local was more ofa flexible tool that had to be adapted and used to a greater or lesserextent according to circumstances. Such examples are illustrative ofthe varying extent to which different restaurateurs saw theirbusinesses as being part of the sustainable tourism sector – inter-viewees such as Leslie, who saw themselves as having a strongengagement with the principals of sustainable tourism, went togreat lengths to uphold a rigorous definition of the ‘local’ whichwas rooted in particular environmental practices, while others –such as Kevin – did not really associate themselves with havinga part to play in developing sustainable tourism. As a result, theirunderstandings were based more on the concept’s symbolic attri-butes and less on the kinds of practical environmental benefitsassociated with the term ‘local food’.

4.2. Interpretations of locality: tourist consumers

In comparison to the other groups interviewed, the touristinterviewees were the least willing to engage in debates about themeaning of ‘local’, and the definitions they offered tended to bebased either on geographical criteria – such as products madewithin the region or purchased from local shops – or on thesymbolic qualities of particular products that were considered‘typical’ of the places and cultures that produced them.For example, tourists visiting the Lake District tended to equatelocal produce with foods like Kendal Mint Cake, Cumberlandsausage and Grasmere Gingerbread, while visitors to Exmoorfocussed upon cider, cream teas and fudge. However, while manyvisitors did appear to accept the concept of local food withoutquestion, others realised that there was a certain level ofcomplexity involved and were quick to point out where they stoodon the issue. This became apparent when discussing food souvenirswith one Exmoor visitor who was aware that products weresometimes manufactured elsewhere and then repackaged in localpackaging, which she considered unacceptable: ‘‘That’s one of thethings that we look for – whether or not it has been locally made.We do look on it, if we’re buying it for someone, to see where theingredients come from’’. Another visitor to the Lake Districtalso explained that he had deliberately chosen the ‘local’ option of

Table 4Interpretations of ‘localness’ throughout the tourist food chain.

Producers: local as a mission statement Cafe, pub and restau

� Broadest range of definitions of ‘local’� Definitions serve a particular purpose

i.e. to explain and justify their businessethos and strategy� Reflect normative judgements about how the

food sector should operate

� More flexible adefinitions of ‘l� Their values m

what they can� Must be ‘traded

e.g. organic, veg

‘fell-bred beef’ from the hotel menu. However, he remained unsureif there was anything ‘‘authentic’’ behind the term.

In contrast to the food producers and restaurateurs, touristunderstandings tended to focus on why local food was important tothem, rather than what it actually was. In this respect, theirresponses showed a high degree of support for the principles ofsustainable tourism, with over 60 per cent of visitors interviewedclaiming to have consumed something they considered to be localduring their holiday. Their reasons for doing so were both diverseand compelling. In many cases, they reflected concerns for theenvironment, health, food quality and the rural economy putforward by the producers.

‘‘I think it’s very important for us to source local products and forhoteliers and restaurants and whatever to use them. And it’simportant to do that because, well, it’s just going to put people outof business. First of all, supporting our farmers. Secondly, stoppingthe transportation of long food journeys, and thirdly, having it freshinstead of frozen’’ (Exmoor visitor).

However, ‘local’ products were also valued by tourists becausethey were seen to symbolise the region and provide an insight intothe places and cultures that were being visited. At the very least, itwas seen as nice to be able to try something that was ‘different’ tothe kind of products regularly consumed at home. As these LakeDistrict visitors explained:

‘‘You want to try the local food wherever you are, and get a taste ofthe place’’‘‘If you go and stay somewhere, then obviously you could get anItalian meal anywhere – a Chinese meal anywhere – it feels fakeand not quite right. And so it’s nice to have something thatpurports to be local.’’‘‘Very often, when you go to places, it’s. disappointing becauseit’s bland. And that’s one of the reasons why it’s interesting to havedecent food locally sourced if possible. People who take a realpride in their cooking.And it identifies with the area. I mean,that’s what you’re doing – travelling around various differentareas – and by having local food it’s following more with whatyou’ve set out to do.’’

‘Local’ for these visitors, then, was a source of desire that wasprompted, not just by a concern for the environment, but also bya demand for cultural appreciation and place distinctiveness – suchdesires could, of course, be seen as additional reasons for furtheringthe inclusion of local products within the sustainable tourismagenda in the UK. However, as with the food producers and cafe,pub and restaurant owners, tourists reported that relationshipswith other components of the food chain had influenced theirunderstandings of – and engagement with – the local. For example,visitors described situations where they had wanted to seek out‘local’ products, but had been unable to do so because such prod-ucts were either not easily available or were exorbitantly priced.It is therefore important to recognise that tourists’ ability to enjoyand access ‘local’ foods will depend upon the ways in which suchproducts are sold, marketed and promoted to them. In short, thereis a clear difference between availability and accessibility – just

rant owners: local as a flexible tool Tourists: local as ‘typical’

nd pragmaticocal’ust be tempered bysource and sell

off’ against other valuesetarian, etc.

� ‘Local’ products as typicalof place or culture� Focus on why local food

is important to them

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115 113

because local food products are physically available at a destinationdoes not necessarily mean that tourists will be able to access themdue to constraints relating to income and family status.

Lack of time or information can also be a factor as many visitors,though keen to try local products in principle, are unsure where tolook for them and are unwilling to invest large amounts of time oreffort in searching for them. As one visitor put it: ‘‘It’s always got to bean easy find. I wouldn’t work too hard at finding excellent food’’. Yetagain, therefore, we have a trade off between values and practicalitieswhich must be acknowledged in any discussion of the role that localfood can play in the development of sustainable tourism initiatives.

5. Conclusion

In relation to sustainable tourism, the evidence presented in thispaper suggests that local food can have an important role to play insustainable tourism as a result of its ability to satisfy a complex rangeof demands – from producer concerns about the importance ofreducing food miles and promoting animal welfare to tourists’demands for iconic products that appear to say something abouta region’s place and culture (Sims, 2009). In short, it appears thatthere is a real demand from actors throughout the food chain forpractices that place the environment, society and local distinctive-ness at the heart of tourist food production and retailing. However,the focus on commodity chains used in this paper adds weight toarguments which state that sustainable tourism is about more thanjust consumption activities. Those who claim that increasing theconsumption of local foods is a quick route to sustainable tourismrisk glossing over the many conflicts inherent in the concept and areoperating from an overly simplified ‘‘knobs, levers and dials’’ view ofthe world in which the technological quick fix is believed to bepossible (Murphy and Cohen, 2001). By contrast, an analysis basedupon food chains shows that ‘local food’ can take on a variety offorms as a result of the need to negotiate the tensions betweenvalues and practicalities that arise from the relationships betweenthe different actors involved in the tourist food chain. Each of these‘forms’ has different implications for the economic, environmentaland cultural sustainability of the tourism enterprise (EntelecaResearch and Consultancy, 2001). In short, therefore, it is importantto take a more holistic perspective and recognise that the benefits –or otherwise – that local food can offer to tourism relate as much tothe actions of producers, suppliers and restaurateurs as they do tothe behaviour of tourists. This will inevitably involve a considerationof what kinds of local food – and what kinds of sustainability –a destination wishes to promote (Maxey, 2007).

More importantly, however, a commodity chain approach hasfurther benefits for our understanding of ‘local food’. Rather thanfollowing the story of a particular product, this paper has followedthe concept of local food as it is constructed and reconstructedthroughout the tourist food chain. Table 4 summarises the mainpoints of the analysis by characterising the key contrasts betweenhow local food was understood by the three groups of interviewees.

However, although Table 4 is useful in characterising some ofthe main differences that occur in the interpretation of ‘local’throughout the food chain, it does little to answer some of the morefundamental questions that arise about how and why thesedifferences exist and what role the relationships between theseseemingly ‘separate’ groups have to play in this negotiation ofmeaning. This is where the food chain approach adopted in thispaper can prove so useful because, if we start to look across thechain – rather than just at some of the specific sites within it –a more nuanced picture emerges.

The first, and most obvious, point to make is that the threegroups described in this study do not exist as discrete, separatecategories that can be found somewhere ‘out there’ in the field

(Jackson et al., 2006). Instead, a more detailed look at therelationships that exist between them shows how these groupseffectively co-constitute each other. This is clearly the case at themost basic level – for example, it is not hard to see how someonewho, for the purposes of this study, is described as a food producerwill also be a consumer at other times and in other places – forexample, when shopping for the family in his or her home life.However, this co-constitution also occurs in more subtle andcomplex ways within the tourist food chain. This study illustrateshow the meaning of ‘local’ gets formulated and reformulated byvarious actors in accordance with the nature of their relationshipswith the rest of the tourist food chain. For example, as described inSection 4, preserve and jam manufacturer Tom was faced witha dilemma: as his business grew, his local fruit and vegetablesupplier became unable to cope with the volume of product thatTom required and, consequently, he had to start using a nationalsupplier. However, an element of locality was an important part ofTom’s brand’s identity (he described his customer base as beingpeople who wanted ‘‘locally hand-made, handcrafted’’ products).Tom resolved this issue by widening his definition of local from‘using locally supplied ingredients’ to ‘locally made’ and, in thisway, he was able to retain the loyalty and confidence of hiscustomers while also addressing the supply chain problems that hewas experiencing. In short, therefore, Tom’s decision to reframe theconcept of ‘local food’ was not just a result of his own preferencesbut a response to his position in the food chain as borne outthrough his relationships with his suppliers and consumers.A similar process was also responsible for Kevin’s decision torebrand his ‘Devon fruitcake’ as ‘Cumbrian fruitcake’ – the decisionwas made on the basis of judgements about his tourist consumers’desire for some form of local identity and he felt his assumptionswere proved correct when sales of the product increased.

Such examples tell us three things: firstly, they show howgroups such as ‘producers’, ‘consumers’ and ‘suppliers’ should notbe conceptualised as separate entities. Instead, the examples givenabove show how these groups effectively co-constitute each otheras a result of the close relationships that exist between them.

Secondly, we can see how an approach based upon food chainsallows us to develop a more sophisticated understanding of thediscourses and practices surrounding the issue of ‘local food’.Previous research has shown the difficulty of defining what is ‘local’(Enteleca Research and Consultancy, 2001; Maye et al., 2007;Morris and Buller, 2003) with academics highlighting the manydifferent meanings and values that lie behind the term. However,much less has been written about the reasons for these discrep-ancies. This paper adds to this debate by showing how and why theconcept of ‘local’ comes to be reshaped in various ways. Differentdefinitions of locality arise from the need to negotiate the tensionsbetween the values that people hold about the food sector and thepracticalities involved in producing, shopping and buying foodproducts. What this paper shows, however, is that many of thesetensions arise as a result of the relationships that exist throughoutthe tourist food chain between the various actors involved. Sucha conclusion adds weight to Leslie and Reimer’s (1999) argumentwhich states that commodity chains are not unidirectional innature. In this way, it is possible to see how consumer attitudes andbehaviour can influence what have traditionally been thought of as‘upstream’ activities, such as production and processing, as well asvice versa.

Thirdly, and finally, it is clear that the discourses that exist aroundlocal food cannot be separated from the practicalities of foodproduction, processing and retail. This paper set out to examine theshifts that took place in the meanings of ‘local’ throughout the foodchain. However, the examples used to illustrate this point alsoshowed how practical issues were equally important in giving

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115114

meaning to the concept of local. For example, tearoom owner Lesliewas passionate about the importance of supporting local producersand, as described in Section 4.1, she felt that ‘local’ should meanCumbrian. However, if she had stuck rigidly to this conceptualisationin her business, she would not have been able to source enoughproducts to keep her customers happy and, consequently, she had to‘stretch’ her definition of ‘local’ in order to accommodate what hersuppliers could provide and what her customers expected. Again, ananalytical approach based upon food chains is crucial here because itshows how actors’ understandings of local are formulated not just inrelation to their own desires, but also in accordance with theirconnections to other parts of the food chain.

In addition to displaying the value of commodity chains forresearch and policy arenas, the conclusions drawn in this paper alsopoint to some interesting opportunities for further investigation.Firstly, it is important to highlight that the research on which thispaper is based focuses on the tourist food system in two specificareas of the UK (as opposed to non-tourism based food systemsoperating in these – or other – areas). Clearly there is a high degreeof overlap between different kinds of food chains – for example,none of the producers or restaurateurs interviewed for this studyfocused entirely on selling to tourists. However, it would be inter-esting to examine the extent to which the study’s conclusions aboutthe reworking of ‘localness’ could be applied to different kinds offood systems involving different kinds of actors. For example,would different results be obtained if the study were to include theviews of residents (rather than visitors)? Research could alsoexplore how understandings and practices relating to ‘local food’are influenced by the roles of other actors within the wider foodchain – such as supermarkets, farmers’ markets, regionalfood groups.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Lancaster University 40th Anni-versary Studentship, for which I am very grateful. I would also liketo thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers who providedvaluable comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References

Acre, A., Marsden, T., 1993. The social construction of international food: a newresearch agenda. Economic Geography 69, 293–312.

Allen, P., Hinrichs, C., 2007. Buying into ‘Buy Local’: engagements of United Stateslocal food initiatives. In: Maye, D., Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), AlternativeFood Geographies. Elsevier.

Appadurai, A., 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In:Appadurai, A. (Ed.), The Social Life of Things. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Bessiere, J., 1998. Local development and heritage: traditional food and cuisine astourist attractions in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 21–34.

Blay-Palmer, P., Donald, B., 2007. Manufacturing fear: the role of food processorsand retailers in constructing alternative food geographies in Toronto, Canada.In: Maye, D., Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), Alternative Food Geographies.Elsevier.

Boniface, P., 2003. Tasting Tourism: Travelling for Food and Drink. Ashgate,Burlington.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Buller, H., Morris, C., 2004. Growing goods: the market, state and sustainable foodproduction. Environment and Planning A 36, 1065–1084.

Clark, G., Chabrel, M., 2007. Measuring integrated rural tourism. Tourism Geogra-phies 9, 371–386.

Cook, I., 2006. Geographies of food: following. Progress in Human Geography 30,655–666.

Cook, I., Crang, P., 1996. The world on a plate: culinary culture, displacement andgeographical knowledges. Journal of Material Culture 1, 131–153.

Cook, I., Crang, P., 2003. The world on a plate. In: Clarke, D., Doer, M., Housiaux, K.(Eds.), The Consumption Reader. Routledge, London.

Cook, I., Harrison, M., 2007. Follow the thing: ‘‘West Indian Hot Pepper Sauce’’ Spaceand Culture 10, 40–63.

Cumbria Tourism, 2006. STEAM Model: Tourism Volume and Value 2006.

Defra, 2002. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future.Defra, London.

Defra, 2003. Policy Paper on Local Food.Defra, 2006. Food Industry Sustainability Strategy. Defra, London.Eastham, J., 2003. Valorizing through tourism in rural areas: moving towards

regional partnerships. In: Hall, C. (Ed.), Food Tourism Around the World:Development, Management and Markets. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Edwards-Jones, G., Mila i Canals, L., Hounsome, N., Truninger, M., Koerber, G.,Hounsome, B., Cross, P., York, E., Hospido, A., Plassmann, K., Harris, I.,Edwards, R., Day, G., Tomos, A., Cowell, S., Jones, D., 2008. Testing the assertionthat ‘local is best’: the challenges of an evidence-based approach. Trends inFood Science and Technology 19, 265–274.

Enteleca Research and Consultancy, 2001. Tourist Attitudes Towards Regional andLocal Food Richmond upon Thames Enteleca Research and Consultancy.

European Commission (2009a) Introduction – EU LEADER [August 5, 2009] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/index_en.htm

European Commission (2009b) SPRITE – Supporting and Promoting IntegratedTourism in Europe’s Lagging Rural Regions [August 5, 2009] http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/projects/qlrt_1999_31211_en.htm

Exmoor and Quantocks Food Links, 2006.Exmoor National Park Authority, 2003. The Value of Tourism to Exmoor 2003 [June

9, 2008]. http://64.233.183.104/search?q¼cache:B3ZDXYgRhd8J:www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/the_value_of_tourism_to_exmoor_2003.pdfþtourismþdataþforþexmoor&hl¼en&ct¼clnk&cd¼1&gl¼uk.

Fine, B., 2004. Debating production–consumption linkages in food studies. Socio-logia Ruralis 44, 332–342.

Fine, B., Leopold, E., 1993. The World of Consumption. Routledge, London.Goodman, D., 2003. The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: reflections and

agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 1–7.Goodman, D., Goodman, M., 2001. Sustaining Foods: Organic Consumption and the

Socio-Ecological Imaginary. In: Cohen, M., Murphy, J. (Eds.), ExploringSustainable Consumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences.Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK.

Guthman, J., 2007. From the ground up: California organics and the making of‘Yuppie Chow’. In: Maye, D., Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), Alternative FoodGeographies. Elsevier.

Hinrichs, C., 2003. The practice and politics of food system localisation. Journal ofRural Studies 19, 33–45.

Hobson, K., 2002. Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: does the‘Rationalisation of Lifestyles’ make sense? Environmental Politics 11, 95–120.

Hodges, M., 2001. Food, time and heritage tourism in Languedoc, France. Historyand Anthropology 12, 179–212.

Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M., Cox, R., Venn, L., Dowler, E., Tuomainen, H., 2007a.Beyond the ‘alternative’–‘conventional’ divide? Thinking differently about foodproduction–consumption relationships. In: Maye, D., Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M.(Eds.), Alternative Food Geographies. Elsevier.

Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Cox, R., Dowler, E., Tuomainen, H., 2007b.Possible food economies: a methodological framework for exploring foodproduction–consumption relationships. Sociologia Ruralis 47, 1–19.

Ilbery, B., Kneafsey, M., 2000. Producer constructions of quality in regional speci-ality food production: a case study from South West England. Journal of RuralStudies 16, 217–230.

Ilbery, B., Kneafsey, M., Bowler, I., Clark, G., 2003. Quality products and services inthe lagging rural regions of the European Union: a producer perspective. In:Beesley, K., Millward, H., Ilbery, B., Harrington, L. (Eds.), The New Countryside:Geographic Perspectives on Rural Change. Brandon University, Canada.

Ilbery, B., Maye, D., 2005. Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialistlivestock products in the Scottish–English borders. Environment and Planning A37, 823–844.

Ilbery, B., Maye, D., Kneafsey, M., Jenkins, T., Walkley, C., 2004. Forecasting foodsupply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK.Journal of Rural Studies 20, 331–344.

Ilbery, B., Saxena, G., Kneafsey, M., 2007. Exploring tourists and gatekeepers’ atti-tudes towards integrated rural tourism in the England–Wales border region.Tourism Geographies 9, 441–468.

Jackson, P., 2002. Commercial cultures: transcending the cultural and the economic.Progress in Human Geography 26, 3–18.

Jackson, P., Ward, N., Russell, P., 2006. Mobilising the commodity chain concept inthe politics of food and farming. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 129–141.

Kneafsey, M., Holloway, L., Venn, L., Cox, R., Dowler, E., Tuomainen, H., 2004.Consumers and Producers: Coping with Food Anxieties through ‘Reconnec-tion’? Cultures of Consumption, Working Paper no. 19.

Leslie, D., Reimer, S., 1999. Spatializing commodity chains. Progress in HumanGeography 23, 401–420.

Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., Mummery, K., 2002. Eating ‘Green’: motivationsbehind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis 42, 23–40.

Marsden, T., 2004. Theorising food quality: some key issues in understanding itscompetitive production and regulation. In: Harvey, M., Mcmeekin, A., Warde, A.(Eds.), Qualities of Food. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Maxey, L., 2007. From ‘alternative’ to ‘sustainable’ food. In: Maye, D., Holloway, L.,Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), Alternative Food Geographies. Elsevier.

Maye, D., Kneafsey, M., Holloway, L., 2007. Introduction. In: Maye, D., Holloway, L.,Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), Alternative Food Geographies. Elsevier.

McIntosh, A., Prentice, R., 1999. Affirming authenticity: consuming cultural heritage.Annals of Tourism Research 26, 589–612.

R. Sims / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 105–115 115

Morgan, K., Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., 2006. Worlds of Food. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Morris, C., Buller, H., 2003. The local food sector: a preliminary assessment of itsform and impact in Gloucestershire. British Food Journal 105, 559–566.

Morris, C., Kirwan, J., 2007. Is meat the new militancy? Locating vegetarianismwithin the alternative food economy. In: Maye, D., Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M.(Eds.), Alternative Food Geographies. Elsevier.

Murphy, J., Cohen, M., 2001. Introduction. In: Cohen, M., Murphy, J. (Eds.), ExploringSustainable Consumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences.Emerald Publishing Group, Bingley, UK.

National Farmers’ Retail and Markets Association, 2007.Parrot, N., Wilson, N., Murdoch, J., 2002. Spatializing quality: regional protection

and the alternative geography of food. European Urban and Regional Studies 9,241–261.

Picard, M., 1995. Cultural heritage and tourist capital: cultural tourism in Bali. In:Lanfant, M., Allcock, J., Bruner, E. (Eds.), International Tourism: Identity andChange. Sage, London.

Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, 2002. Farming and Food:a Sustainable Future.

Raynolds, L., 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organic andfair trade movements. Agriculture and Human Values 17, 297–309.

Raynolds, L., 2002. Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee networks. Socio-logia Ruralis 42, 404–424.

Renting, H., Marsden, T., Banks, J., 2003. Understanding alternative food networks:explaining the role of short food supply chains in rural development.Environment and Planning A 35, 393–411.

Riley, M., 2008. Experts in their fields: farmer-expert knowledges and environmen-tally friendly farming practices. Environment and Planning A 40, 1277–1293.

Ritzer, G., 2000. The McDonaldization of Society. Pine Forge Press, Thousand OaksCalifornia.

Seyfang, G., 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examininglocal organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 383–395.

Shaw, G., Williams, A., 2002. Critical Issues in Tourism: a Geographical Perspective.Blackwell, Oxford.

Shaw, G., Williams, A., 2004. Tourism and Tourism Spaces. Sage, London.Sims, R., 2009. Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism

experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17, 321–336.Smithers, J., Lamarche, J., Joseph, A., 2008. Unpacking the terms of engagement with

local food at the Farmers’ market: Insights from Ontario. Journal of RuralStudies 24, 337–350.

Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, 2006. I will If You will: Towards SustainableConsumption [August 15, 2008]. www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/I_Will-Summary.pdf.

Torres, R., 2002. Towards a better understanding of tourism and agriculture linkagesin the Yucatan: tourist food consumption and preferences. Tourism Geogra-phies 4, 282–307.

Tregear, A., Arfini, F., Belletti, G., Marescotti, A., 2007. Regional foods and ruraldevelopment: the role of product qualification. Journal of Rural Studies, 12–22.

Urry, J., 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage,London.

Urry, J., 1995. Consuming Places. Routledge, London.Warde, A., 1997. Consumption, Food and Taste. Sage, London.Watts, D., Ilbery, B., Jones, G., 2007. Networking practices among ‘alternative’ food

producers in England’s West Midlands region. In: Maye, D., Holloway, L.,Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), Alternative Food Geographies. Elsevier.

Watts, D., Ilbery, B., Maye, D., 2005. Making reconnections in agro-food geography:alternative systems of food provision. Progress in Human Geography 29, 22–40.

Watts, M., 2005. Commodities. In: Cloke, P., Crang, P., Goodwin, M. (Eds.), Intro-ducing Human Geographies. Hodder Arnold, London.

Whatmore, S., Thorne, L., 1997. Nourishing networks: alternative geographies offood. In: Goodman, D., Watts, M. (Eds.), Globalising Food: Agrarian Questionsand Global Restructuring. Routledge, London.

Woodland, M., Acott, T., 2007. Sustainability and local tourism branding in Eng-land’s South Downs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15, 715–734.

Working Group on Local Food, 2003. Local Food – a Snapshot of the Sector.Zadek, S., Lingayah, S., Forstater, M., 1998. Social Labels: Tools for Ethical Trade –

Executive Summary [August 15, 2008]. http://www.eciad.ca/welverumd/References/Sustainability%20Assessment%20Readings/social_labels.pdf.