Revista Iberoamericana de

Economía Solidaria e

Innovación Socioecológica

RIESISE

Vol. 3 (2020), pp. 169-187 • ISSN: 2659-5311

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

QUALITY. LOCAL. SOCIAL. WHAT ELSE? – WHICH

FACTORS MOTIVATE CONSUMERS TO PARTICIPATE

IN ALTERNATIVE FOOD NETWORKS IN HUNGARY?*

CALIDAD. LOCAL. SOCIAL. ¿QUÉ MÁS? - ¿QUÉ

FACTORES MOTIVAN A LOS CONSUMIDORES A PARTICIPAR

EN REDES ALIMENTARIAS ALTERNATIVAS EN HUNGRÍA?

Anna Torok**

Universidad Corvinus de Budapest

anna.torok@uni-corvinus.hu

Ágnes Neulinger

Head of Department, Associate professor, Corvinus University of Budapest

agnes.neulinger@uni-corvinus.hu

György Pataki

Senior Researcher, Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG)

pataki.gyorgy@essrg.hu

Fanni Bársony

PhD student, Corvinus University of Budapest

fanni.barsony@uni-corvinus.hu

Orsolya Lazányi

PhD student, Corvinus University of Budapest

orsolya.lazanyi@uni-corvinus.hu

R

Los casos de redes de comida alternativa sur-

gen en muchos países del mundo. También están

creciendo en Hungría, aunque estos movimientos

aún se encuentran en una etapa temprana de de-

sarrollo (Benedek & Balázs, 2014a). El presente

estudio tiene como objetivo profundizar nuestra

comprensión de la experiencia personal de los

participantes en las redes en Hungría al revelar su

motivación para participar. Este artículo presenta la

investigación empírica realizada entre miembros

de diferentes redes ubicadas en Hungría. A partir

del análisis de entrevistas cualitativas, los principa-

A

Alternative food network (AFN) cases are

now reported in many countries worldwide. They

are growing in Hungary as well, though the al-

ternative food movement is still at an early stage

of development (Benedek & Balázs, 2014a). The

current study aims to deepen our understanding

of the personal experience of participants in AFNs

in Hungary by revealing their motivation for par-

ticipation. This paper presents empirical research

carried out among members of different AFNs

located in Hungary. Based on the analysis of qua-

litative interviews, the main motivational factors

*This research was supported by project No. EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00007, titledAspects

on the development of intelligent, sustainable and inclusive society: social, technological,

innovation networks in employment and digital economy. The project has been supported by

the European Union, co-ﬁnanced by the European Social Fund and the budget of Hungary.

**We are grateful to the members of the Corvinus University of Budapest research team on

social innovation for their continuous intellectual support. In particular, we would like to thank

Andrea Toarniczky for her review.

P 

Redes alimentarias alternativas; elección

de comida; motivación del consumidor; Teoría

de las Necesidades de Maslow.

K

Alternative food networks; food choice;

consumer motivation; Maslow’s theory of

needs.

Códigos JEL

: Q00.

Fecha de recepción: 12/2/2019 Fecha de aceptación: 20/7/2020

les factores motivacionales son identiﬁcados por

los diferentes tipos de redes. Se pueden clasiﬁcar

dos tipos de factores motivacionales: factores indi-

viduales y comunitarios. Los factores individuales

van desde factores basados en la seguridad has-

ta factores relacionados con la autorrealización,

en línea con el modelo clásico de la teoría de las

necesidades de Maslow (1943). Los factores de

motivación basados en la comunidad van desde

motivaciones directamente relacionadas con la co-

munidad en torno a la comida hasta ideas abstrac-

tas relacionadas con el sistema alimentario.

are identiﬁed by the different types of AFNs. Two

types of motivational factors can be classiﬁed: in-

dividual and community-based factors. The indivi-

dual factors range from security-based factors to

self-realization-related factors, in line with the clas-

sical model of Maslow’s theory of needs (1943).

The community-based motivational factors range

from motivations directly related to the commu-

nity around food to abstract ideas related to the

food system.

171RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

1. INTRODUCTION

The different types of alternative food networks (AFNs) challenge and

provide an alternative to the conventional industrial model of the food

supply by enabling redeﬁned linkages between actors and by relocalizing

food production in ecologically sustainable ways (Renting et al., 2003).

Alternative or “place-based” food networks are “newly emerging networks

of producers, consumers, and other actors that embody alternatives to the

more standardized industrial mode of food supply” (Renting et al. 2003,

p. 394). AFNs and their activities translate into actual social and ecological

beneﬁts in the local place of food production.

AFNs include a wide variety of practices. The most widespread forms

are short food supply chains, local branding, farmers’ markets, hobby

farming and box schemes (Kamiyama et al., 2016; Plieninger et al., 2018).

Venn et al. (2006) classify four main categories of AFNs based on the nature

of producer-consumer relationships and involvement. The ﬁrst category

consists of “special retailers”. Online groceries and specialist wholesalers

belong to this category and sell high value-added or special foods to certain

customer groups. Venn et al. (2006) identify the second category as “direct

sell initiatives”, where farmers and producers sell directly to consumers

either ofﬂine or online. Typical examples are farmers’ markets, box schemes,

and producer cooperatives. The other subgroup of “producer-consumer

partnerships” includes community-supported agriculture (CSA), where

producers and consumers form partnerships to share the risks and rewards

of farming. The third category, where producers are also consumers,

describes cases where food is produced and consumed by the same group

of people, as in the case of community gardens: gardeners grow vegetables

themselves for their own consumption, spending time and energy on

production. These kinds of producers can be considered “prosumers”

(Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010). In the current study, four main types of AFNs

are investigated (see Table 1): (1) farmers’ markets (traditional and online)

and zero waste stores (offering natural, sustainably sourced, eco-friendly,

plastic-free alternatives), (2) box schemes (ﬂexible and ﬁxed), (3) CSAs and

(4) community gardens.

Anna Torok · Ágnes Neulinger · György Pataki · Fanni Bársony · Orsolya Lazányi

172RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187 ISSN: 2659-5311

Table 1: Alternative food network types investigated in this article

Traditional and online

farmers’ markets and zero

waste stores

Flexible and ﬁxed

box schemes

Community-

supported

agriculture

Community

gardens

AFNs are intensively studied in all parts of the world (Renting et al., 2003)

from different perspectives, including the motivation to join. McClintock &

Simpson (2018) combine qualitative and quantitative methods to identify

the motivational frames in the setting of urban agriculture organizations and

businesses in the United States and Canada. They emphasize the importance

of conducting more qualitative research to explore the differences between

intentions and outcomes to obtain geographically speciﬁc insights by

investigating other cities and regions in the Global North, Europe or

Oceania.

In the case of Hungary, the ﬁrst pioneering projects of AFNs, namely, CSA,

emerged in the early 2000s (Balázs et al., 2016), and the ﬁrst community

gardens appeared in 2012. Although the alternative food network system

is still at an early stage of development in the country (Benedek & Balázs,

2014a), it is important to mention that in general, home-based family

agriculture and food self-provisioning are still strong in Hungary (Balázs

et al., 2016). In the period of the Common Agricultural Policy 2015-2020,

the EU prioritized strengthening the relationship between producers and

consumers, and for this purpose, it created a thematic subprogram for the

short supply chain as an area. The program also plays an important role

among Hungarian rural development programs, and for this opportunity,

to foster implementation, Hungary was provided ﬁnancial support (Kujáni,

2014). Therefore, as a part of the short supply chain, AFNs are a relevant

topic to analyze in the Hungarian context.

Previous studies conducted in Hungary examined the current situation

and classiﬁcation of AFN types (Kujáni, 2014; Benedek & Balázs, 2014b),

and primary research related to one type of AFN, such as farmers’ markets

(Benedek & Fertő, 2015; Kerényi & Török, 2019; Szabó & Juhász, 2015),

CSAs (Birtalan et al., 2019) and community gardens (Bende & Nagy, 2016),

has been performed. However, in Hungary, no articles to date have paid

special attention to comparing the motivational factors related to consumer

participation by the different types of AFNs. Nonetheless, regarding farmers’

markets, Benedek & Fertő (2015) investigated farmers’ motivation for

participation. Moreover, Kerényi & Török (2019) and Szabó & Juhász (2015)

conducted research on consumer motivations related to farmers’ markets,

but they did not investigate the other types of AFNs.

Therefore, the current study aims to uncover the motivations and values

that customers hold around the ideas of food related to the different types

Quality. Local. Social. What else? – Which factors motivate...

173RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

of AFNs. The personal experience and motivation of AFN participants can

be related to food choice, the consumption and purchase of food and

participation in this type of short supply chain. The central question of this

paper is as follows: “Which factors motivate consumers to participate in

AFNs in Hungary?”

This article makes novel contributions in three ways. First, this article

is the ﬁrst in Hungary to investigate all the main types of AFNs in relation

to motivation. Second, the article joins the literature on the differentiation

between individual and community-based motivations. Third, the results

of the interviews related to individual motivators are analyzed under the

framework of Maslow’s theory of needs (Maslow, 1943), using this classical

categorization in a new context for AFNs. The application of the model is in

line with recent literature regarding the measurement and categorization

of food consumption motivations in general (e.g., Van Lenthe et al. 2015;

Satter, 2007; Blades & Tikkanen, 2009; Perianova, 2013).

This article is structured as follows: The ﬁrst section is concerned with the

analysis of food consumption motivations, including the main types of AFNs

and the well-known theory and model of motivation by Maslow (1943).

Next, the research methodology and ﬁndings are discussed. Finally, in the

conclusion, we summarize both the theoretical and empirical contributions

of the article.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.2. THE MOTIVATIONS OF FOOD CHOICE AND PARTICIPATION

The motivations of AFN participants can be related to food choice, the

consumption and purchase of food, and participation in this type of short

supply chain. Food choice is more relevant for farmers’ markets and box

schemes, as the commitment to producers or distributors is only occasional

or weekly. In contrast, participation refers more to CSAs and community

gardens, as the commitment is for a year and contains some formal

agreements.

Food choice refers to everyday human behavior, but it can be

inﬂuenced by many complex factors. Köster (2009) argues that instead

of psychological constructs such as attitudes and intentions, actual

food choices can be better predicted by habits, past behavior, and

hedonic appreciation. Different forms of learning, including imprinting

and conditioning (pre- and perinatal), praise, reward and punishment

(early childhood: parents or others), imitation (childhood and puberty:

parents, peers, idols), cognitive learning (adulthood: advice, labeling,

risk perception) and sensory learning (lifelong: complexity, boredom,

exposure), are involved in food habit formation. Food product choice is

also determined by the complexity of sensory and nonsensory factors

Anna Torok · Ágnes Neulinger · György Pataki · Fanni Bársony · Orsolya Lazányi

174RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187 ISSN: 2659-5311

(Eertmans et al., 2001). The latter incorporate, for instance, food-related

health claims, expectations and attitudes, as well as mood, price and

ethical concerns. Moreover, social, cultural and economic factors can

inﬂuence dietary patterns. Intraindividual determinants should also be

mentioned, including knowledge, physiological and psychological factors

and acquired preferences, which can be differentiated by interpersonal or

social factors, such as family and group inﬂuences (Prescott et al., 2002).

In marketing-related research, food safety or food security seems to play

the most important role in food choice. The concept of food security, which

refers to measurable supply and demand and increases in production,

can be found in many discourses. Hwang’s study (2016) concerns the

most important motivational factors related to the organic food purchase

intention of older consumers. Among meaningful motives, self-presentation

and food safety concerns are the most important. Michaelidou & Hassan’s

(2008) research is about attitude and purchase intention within the context

of organic produce. They also ﬁnd that food safety is the most important

predictor of attitude. In contrast, health consciousness turns out to be the

least important motive. Furthermore, ethical self-identity has been proven to

affect both attitude and intention to purchase organic produce. Fotopoulos

et al. (2009) include 1000 Greek households in their research. Based on their

ﬁndings, the ‘’natural content’’ of foods is the highest among all motives for

Greek consumers. In addition, Greek consumers tend to attach a high level

of importance to almost the same motivational dimensions (for instance,

‘’price’’, ‘’convenience’’, ‘’health’’ and ‘’sensory appeal’’). Additionally, AFN

consumers and urban agriculture practitioners often mention the reduction

in the distance that food needs to travel, also known as food miles (Weber

& Matthews, 2008), from producer to consumer as an important beneﬁt

(McClintock & Simpson, 2018).

It is necessary to mention that there are certain barriers to buying from

and participating in alternative food supply chains. The main barrier may be

related to the perceived higher price and expensiveness of local organic

food, which cause such food to be considered inaccessible to lower-

income groups and to be the preserve of the elite (Seyfang, 2008). The

results of Ares et al. (2017) show a strong inﬂuence of income level on the

motives underlying food choice and the barriers to the adoption of healthy

eating. Moreover, there can be other disadvantages related to AFNs, such

as inconvenience related to seasonality, problems with payment (only

cash), relatively small choices and poor quality (Benedek & Balázs, 2014b;

Neulinger et al., 2020; Ostrom, 2007).

AFN participants can be distinguished by their motivation for food

choice and participation. Zoll et al. (2018) deﬁne three different types of AFN

participants based on qualitative research conducted in Germany. Their ﬁrst

Quality. Local. Social. What else? – Which factors motivate...

175RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

category of consumers consists of lifestyle-oriented pragmatists, who focus

on their own well-being, the quality of food and health-related outcomes.

Second, community-oriented conscious consumers are identiﬁed; such

consumers tend to emphasize shared risks and solidarity with farmers. The

third category is composed of convinced practitioners, who have a high

degree of awareness of social-environmental problems and are committed

to a sustainable lifestyle.

The different types of motivations can also be investigated by AFN

types. In the case of farmers’ markets, Feagan & Morris (2009) identify

the following main food-related concerns in Canada: health (43% of

respondents), community (41%), and the environment (41%). Kerényi

& Török (2019) examine farmers’ markets in Hungary, and their results

are almost entirely in line with international trends. Consumers identify

supporting local economies as the most important motivation: Although

shopping is not cheaper, they say that the price premium is in good hands

and raises the income level of local producers. They also emphasize the

reliability and quality of products and the fact that they think that products

purchased locally are more environmentally friendly. In another study

carried out in Hungary, consumers mention the freshness, reliable origin,

appropriate price of produces and a wide range of goods as the most

important factors for purchase (Szabó & Juhász, 2015). Seyfang (2008)

examines consumer purchasing motivations related to a local producer

cooperative based in East Anglia called Eostre. It consists of nine local

organic growers who sell their produces through farmers’ markets and box

schemes. The most important issues for consumers are the environment

(94%) and the reduction in packaging waste (85%) and food miles (84%),

but they also mention aspects related to localism, such as the importance

of supporting local farmers (84%) and cooperative businesses (70%),

keeping money in the local economy (65%) and preserving local heritage

and traditions (36%). In addition, it is important for consumers to know

where their food comes from and how it was produced (76%); 77% claim

that organic food is safer, and face-to-face contact with growers (25%) is

also highlighted. Finally, 80% of consumers claim that organic food tastes

better and is more nutritious than products from a supermarket. Ostrom’s

(2007) research shows the following top motivations for joining a CSA:

obtaining fresh, nutritious produce; buying local produce; supporting

small-scale farmers; obtaining a source of organic produce; and caring

for the environment. Lang (2010) identiﬁes that the most important factors

underlying people’s membership in CSAs are obtaining locally grown

(86%) and organic (84%) produce, supporting local farmers (78%) and

environmental reasons (73%). In their qualitative research in Hungary,

Birtalan et al. (2019) identify ﬁve different factors for joining CSAs: (1) active

Anna Torok · Ágnes Neulinger · György Pataki · Fanni Bársony · Orsolya Lazányi

176RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187 ISSN: 2659-5311

action for themselves (an internal driving force to control health, focus

on socioecological principles and the presence of factors that facilitate

connection); (2) the inﬂuence of speciﬁc life and household management;

(3) active leisure time (learning and source of joy); (4) self-reﬂection-

projection (identity) and (5) spiritual factors (spirituality, including

mental and physical health, connection to nature). Community garden

participants claim to have several different motivations: consuming fresh

foods, community building, culture exchange, improving health among

members, making or saving money by consuming from the community

garden or selling the food produced, enjoying nature, environmental

sustainability and enhancing spiritual practice (Guitart et al., 2012; Venn et

al., 2006). Spilková’s (2017) research shows a slightly different pattern, as

the main motivational factor turns out to be community, followed by self-

realization and healthy and quality food, which have the same weights.

Bende & Nagy (2016) ﬁnd that in Hungary, community gardeners aim to

live a rural-like life in cities and to belong to a community.

2.3. THE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF

MOTIVATIONS RELATED TO FOOD CHOICE

On the one hand, studies applying a quantitative approach (e.g.,

Fotopoulos et al., 2009) favor the use of scales, for example, the Food

Choice Questionnaire originally developed by Steptoe et al. (1995). Nine

motivational dimensions are distinguished that address general food

selection determinants: 1. ‘‘health’’, 2. ‘‘mood’’, 3. ‘‘convenience’’, 4. ‘‘sensory

appeal’’, 5. ‘‘natural content’’, 6. ‘‘price’’, 7. ‘‘weight control’’, 8.‘‘familiarity’’,

and 9. ‘‘ethical concern’’.

On the other hand, in qualitative research approaches to food

consumption motivations, one popular theoretical perspective is Maslow’s

(1943) theory of needs (e.g., Van Lenthe et al. 2015; Satter, 2007; Blades &

Tikkanen, 2009; Perianova, 2013). It seems useful to apply Maslow’s concept

to food selection and acquisition (Satter, 2007), as it is a tool for determining

essential human motivations and needs. Moreover, Maslow’s motivators

may be matched to food choice motivators (Perianova, 2013).

Maslow’s original model states that people are motivated by unmet

needs, which are in a hierarchical order. Unless all lower-level needs have

been met, people cannot be motivated based on the next need area. This

statement was later altered by Maslow (1987, p. 68), who concluded that

the order in the hierarchy “is not nearly as rigid” as he suggested before.

Maslow’s theory of needs introduces ﬁve major areas: physiological needs

(air, water, food, shelter, sleep, clothing, reproduction), safety needs

(personal security, employment, resources, health, property), love and

belonging (friendship, intimacy, sense of connection), esteem (respect, self-

Quality. Local. Social. What else? – Which factors motivate...

177RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

esteem, status, recognition, strength, freedom), and self-actualization (the

desire to become the most that one can be) (Maslow, 1943). According to

Van Lenthe et al. (2015), if individuals have higher levels of education or

income, they already satisfy more basic needs; thus, they end up higher

in the hierarchy. Moreover, at higher levels, people tend to have a higher

interest in making healthy food choices instead of only satisfying the need

to consume sufﬁcient energy. However, such choices become prioritized

only when other needs are already satisﬁed. The same holds for people who

are surrounded by an abundance of unhealthy food alternatives. In this case,

making healthy food choices can be seen as a need to reach self-fulﬁllment.

Recent books and studies present exciting results from the perspective

of Maslow’s model in the domain of food choice motivation. Perianova’s

(2013) book uses Maslow’s theory of needs to present how food may

satisfy an entire range of needs. Food not only provides a solution to the

physiological needs of sustenance but also can make people feel safe and

secure and strengthen their social and cultural identity. Moreover, the author

states that food can affect acceptance, esteem, bonding, afﬁliation, and self-

actualization as well. It is important to mention that in line with Maslow’s

later modiﬁcation regarding the speciﬁc attributes of the hierarchy, food

might satisfy both higher- and lower-level needs, and it may be present

across the whole range of motivators. As part of their study, Van Lenthe et al.

(2015) investigate the priorities of healthy food choices of socioeconomic

groups among older adults in the Netherlands who have different material,

living, working and social circumstances by testing whether Maslow’s

pyramid of needs is a useful framework. They ﬁnd that healthier food

choices, including a higher consumption of fruits and vegetables as well

as more healthy than unhealthy bread, snack and dairy consumption, are

related to the higher levels of the hierarchy of Maslow’s pyramid of needs,

not only the physiological needs of sustenance. Satter (2007) also applies

Maslow’s concept of food selection and acquisition. Satter’s hierarchy of

food needs consists of different hierarchical levels, from the experience of

food insecurity at the lowest level as physiological needs, named “enough

food”, to the highest state as self-actualization, called “instrumental food”. In

the latter category, people consider choosing food for instrumental reasons

to achieve a desired physical, cognitive, or spiritual outcome. In line with

the model of Maslow (1943), the motivators—needs—at each level deﬁne the

food management behavior at that level.

3. RESEARCH METHOD

The current study is exploratory qualitative research that aims to

understand the mechanism, features, and characteristics of AFNs in Hungary.

Twenty-three in-depth interviews were conducted between July and

Anna Torok · Ágnes Neulinger · György Pataki · Fanni Bársony · Orsolya Lazányi

178RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187 ISSN: 2659-5311

December 2018 in Hungary, mainly in the capital, Budapest, and surrounding

towns. The interviewees were selected based on their participation in the four

main types of AFNs and the level of experience of the members, meaning

new members (maximum 1 year in the network) and experienced members

(minimum 3 years in the network) (see Table 2). Eight interviews were with

community garden users, 11 interviews were conducted with members of

CSAs, 4 interviews were conducted with members of box schemes, and 5

respondents associated with farmers’ markets and zero waste stores were

interviewees having multiple experiences with another type of AFN (box

schemes, CSAs or community gardens). The community gardens indicated

in the current research are located in Budapest. These gardens consist of 30

to 80 individual parcels that are cultivated mainly by families. The CSAs in the

current study are located in the countryside but with delivery to Budapest.

There are between 13 and 50 participants in these networks. The box schemes

mentioned in this study serve as hubs and have delivery points in Budapest.

Farmers’ markets remarked in the study are mainly located in Budapest.

The interview guideline included an introduction section, lifestyle and

shopping habits, AFN participation and the motivation for joining, passion

and problems related to the AFN, and demographic questions. For the data

analysis of the transcribed in-depth interviews, qualitative content analysis

(QCA) was used (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). A combination of inductive

and deductive codings was applied (Berg, 2001; Patton, 2002). Initial coding

followed an inductive logic, and all motivators were collected from the

interviews, with the type of AFN always being marked in parentheses. In this

way, categories emerged through the researchers’ careful examination and

continuous comparison. Second, the categories were reviewed, compared

and modiﬁed based on the existing theoretical constructs (deductive phase

Table 2: Sample – interviews based on the different types of AFNs

Type of AFN Number

of AFNs Commitment Experience Number of

interviews

Traditional and online

farmers’ markets and

zero waste stores

3 Occasional Experienced 5

Flexible and ﬁxed box

schemes 2 Weekly New member 2

Experienced 2

Community-supported

agriculture 3 Yearly New member 5

Experienced 6

Community gardens 3 Yearly New member 2

Experienced 6

Quality. Local. Social. What else? – Which factors motivate...

179RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

of coding). The analytical procedures and interpretations were based on the

guidelines of Zhang & Wildemuth (2009).

4. RESULTS

4.1. THE MAIN MOTIVATIONS BY AFN TYPES

The ﬁnal subcategories from the analysis were divided into individual

and community-related motives by AFN types (see Table 3). It is important

to mention that motivations can be present in different categories at the

same time. However, in Table 3, the most important categories mentioned

by the participants are indicated. In the case of farmers’ markets, the most

important motivational factors were easy access to quality, healthy and safe

local food (individual motivation) and personal relationships with farmers

and sellers (community-based motivation). Participants in box schemes and

community-supported agriculture considered having quality, safety and

healthy local food (individual motivation) and supporting local economies

by supporting local farmers (community-based motivation) to be the

most meaningful motivations. The most important motivational factors for

members of community gardens were self-fulﬁllment (individual motivation)

and sustainability (community-based motivation).

Farmers’ markets

The dominant individual motivational factor among participants in

farmers’ markets was easy access to quality, healthy and safe local food

while supporting local economies, preferably in a sustainable way (zero

waste stores, short supply chains). For example, “I go to the farmers’ market

on Saturday early morning when the family is still sleeping, as I can buy

most of the things there”. This aspect is closely related to the quality and

health factor, which was mentioned more times than easy access in other

studies (Feagan & Morris, 2009; Szabó & Juhász, 2015). The most relevant

community-related motivator was personal relationships with farmers and

sellers, the formation of interpersonal ties within the producer-consumer

partnerships and strengthening solidarity, trust and participation: “When I

go to the market and package-free shops, I enjoy chatting with the sellers”,

and “I love to join producers at the market, and I want to support these local

producers”. However, this aspect also shows a very close relationship with

supporting local economies, which tends to be a more dominant factor in

the previous literature (Kerényi & Török, 2019; Feagan & Morris, 2009).

Box schemes and CSAs

Having quality, safe and healthy local food was a dominant individual

motivational factor among most of the participants, especially those who

participate in short supply chains such as box schemes and CSAs. Other

Anna Torok · Ágnes Neulinger · György Pataki · Fanni Bársony · Orsolya Lazányi

180RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187 ISSN: 2659-5311

indicators that the participators mentioned were “bio, organic, fresh, tasty

food, without chemicals, the source of which is known”, giving healthy food

to children, and having a diet due to diseases (for instance, autoimmune

illness): “My motivation for joining was curiosity, and I was seeking quality and

bio goods”. Another participant stated that “I am environmentally conscious.

I prefer organic food and other locally produced products. Besides, I like to

know where the products come from. This is my main motivation, and it is

especially important for me since my child was born”. In the case of ﬁxed

box schemes and CSAs, creativity was also mentioned as an advantage:

“I need to learn to ‘deal’ with all sorts of vegetables and discover ways to

cook them. I think it is a combination of experience doing it and enjoying

doing it and knowing that it’s a good thing to do”. Motivation can be harmed

by negative effects and inconvenience related to orders and deliveries: “I

would be happy if there would be more options for deliveries during the

week or if they would have a pick-up point closer to me. Furthermore, I

don’t like keeping the empty boxes at home until the next delivery when the

courier ﬁnally takes them away”. Another interviewee commented, “I don’t

like the rule that we need to do online ordering before Tuesday 8:00 am. It is

very difﬁcult for me due to my busy life”. The main community-related factor

was supporting local economies by supporting local farmers and being a

patron: “I like to know where my money goes. I know the founders of the bio

village called ‘Biofalu’, and we became friends, and I fully trust them”. Others

mentioned the following: “I am price conscious, and I prefer local products;

besides, I would like to support locally grown products”, and “I would like to

support sustainable production and the community”. These ﬁndings were in

line with the previous literature (Seyfang 2008; Ostrom, 2007; Lang, 2010;

Birtalan et al., 2019).

Table 3: Motivators by alternative food network types

Farmers’

markets

(traditional

and online),

zero waste

stores

Box schemes Community

supported

agriculture

Community

gardens

Flexible Fixed

Motivation

for joining

Individual

Easy access

to quality

and local

food

Quality/safety of the food

consumed

Self-

fulﬁllment,

personal

balance

(interaction

with nature)

Community

Personal

relationships

with the

producer

Support local economies Sustainability

Quality. Local. Social. What else? – Which factors motivate...

181RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

Community gardens

For community gardens, the main individual motivation was self-

fulﬁllment. Gardening was stated to improve quality of life; it can ensure

reconnection and interaction with nature and provide a better life and

meaningful work. It becomes a creative hobby, where people can learn

something new and take an active role in production and consumption.

This activity ensures empowerment by gaining control, leading to personal

growth and spiritual well-being: “I love the experience of producing food

for myself”. Gardening can provide relief from stress as well: “Connecting

to nature, it gives a regenerative feeling”, and “I love digging the earth. I

don’t realize how time passes by”. Farming activity often serves as a nostalgic

hobby for members since many community gardeners are originally from

the countryside or their parents lived in the countryside and practiced

agricultural activities. This is similar to the case of some elderly gardeners

who moved to the city from the suburbs after retiring and who had previously

cultivated a kitchen garden. The main community-based motivational factor

is closely related to sustainability. Community garden participants stated

that taking care of biodiversity, creating an alternative economy, and being

ecological (e.g., reducing the ecological footprint, reducing waste, urban

greening, reducing energy usage, having a sustainable food supply) are

the main aspects of their participation. The interviewees mentioned that

belonging to a community is important; nevertheless, it is usually not the

primary incentive for joining but rather an experience that grows while

being a member of the garden. This remark also suggests that motivations

are not ﬁxed; they might change over time; thus, temporality can have an

important role. “I became conscious of the social and the environmental

impacts of the agricultural style, and I wanted to participate in creating an

alternative and do something beyond just changing shopping habits”. These

ﬁndings were also in line with the literature (Guitart et al., 2012; Venn et al.,

2006; Spilková, 2017; Bende & Nagy, 2016).

4.2. INDIVIDUAL MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS

The individual factors tend to show an arc from security-based factors to

self-realization, which is in line with the classical model of Maslow’s hierarchy

of needs (1943) (see Table 4). However, in parallel with Maslow’s later

modiﬁcation of the hierarchy, the lower-level needs do not necessarily need

to be met, and people can be motivated based on the next need area. In

addition, food might satisfy both higher- and lower-level needs, and it may be

present across the whole range of motivators: “I was looking for healthy food,

especially for the children, so I joined a CSA, and I get to order from there every

second week. Besides, I go shopping every Saturday at the farmers’ market”.

Anna Torok · Ágnes Neulinger · György Pataki · Fanni Bársony · Orsolya Lazányi

182RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187 ISSN: 2659-5311

From the same perspective, another CSA participant stated, “I also go to the

market, which I like as well, where I always search for the small farmers’ section”.

First, as consumers have basic physiological needs (food) and buy in a

place that they know and can easily access quality food, they tend to start

shopping at farmers’ markets and zero waste stores. If they are sensitive

to the topic of AFNs and they become informed about alternative ways,

then they might start ordering box schemes: “I always loved shopping at

farmers’ markets, but 3 months ago, I joined Kiskosár community shopping

in Esztergom and order boxes every second week. I would like to support the

local community”. For them, the most important motivations are physiological

needs (food) and security (safe, healthy local food with an identiﬁable place

of origin). If these needs are met, they might then move to the importance

of belonging somewhere and having a higher degree of commitment by

making a contract with suppliers and engaging in CSA: “I was a bio shopper

ﬁrst. I was open to these ideologies as vegetarian, vegan approaches and

reform eating. Consciousness is important to me. First, I heard about CSAs,

and I Googled them and joined programs as a consumer”. In this way, they

connect with people and might gain status and admiration from others due

to their higher commitment and support for local economies. The ﬁnal stage

mentioned by the interviewees consists of joining community gardens,

which is strongly related to self-realization and personal balance. Since it is

a time-consuming and place-based activity, it is not an option for everyone,

and it highly depends on the available time and the lifestyle of people: “I

am now an observer of the alternative food networks by ordering boxes, but

I am looking forward to being a participant when I am able to take that step”.

Based on the sample, young mothers and retired people tend to participate

more frequently in community gardens.

Table 4: Individual motivational factors based on commitment,

parallel with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943)

Quality. Local. Social. What else? – Which factors motivate...

183RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

4.3. COMMUNITY-BASED MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS

Community-based motivational factors range from motivations directly

related to the community to abstract ideas. These motivational elements

are learned by the participants by interacting with the environment, and

they show a constant development regarding commitment and a deeper

understanding of the existing types of AFNs (ranging from farmers’ markets

to community gardens).

First, most commonly, AFN consumers start shopping at farmers’

markets and zero waste stores and then enter the stage of ordering box

schemes (the same pattern as in the individual-based motivators). At this

stage, the most important motivation is the personal relationship with the

producer, and then, supporting local economies becomes more of a focus.

Finally, related to high commitment and mainly participation in community

gardens, sustainability is more important to gardeners. Thus, we can

distinguish a learning phase from community-based, simple basic needs

such as relationships and support to abstract ideas that inﬂuence the whole

society: “I heard about the CSA called Birs from friends, and it was just at the

right time because I was looking for options for how to produce less waste”.

However, it should be emphasized again that all motivational types are

present in each state but to different extents.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The current study aimed to explore the main motivational factors by the

four different alternative food network types in the Hungarian market; this

topic has not previously been researched in such depth and variation. A

new classiﬁcation was applied to the presentation of the results: individual

and community-related motivators were separated. Based on the results, we

can distinguish 6 different motivational factors: in farmers’ markets or zero

waste stores, access to quality food was the most dominant individual factor,

while with regard to community-related motivations, personal relationships

with farmers turned out to be the most important. Box schemes and CSAs

showed similar patterns: Undoubtedly, the quality and healthiness of food

was the most important individual factor, while supporting local economies

was the most important community-related factor. Finally, at the individual

level, gardening in community gardens fosters self-fulﬁllment, and

participants belonging to the community may also aspire to carry out some

sort of work in the name of sustainability.

The new classiﬁcations help to capture additional patterns. The results

conﬁrm that food itself can satisfy an entire range of needs, as it can not

only meet the physiological needs of sustenance but can also have an

inﬂuence on how people feel; additionally, it can strengthen social and

cultural identity and improve self-esteem and self-actualization (Perianova,

Anna Torok · Ágnes Neulinger · György Pataki · Fanni Bársony · Orsolya Lazányi

184RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187 ISSN: 2659-5311

2013). During the close examination of the individual factors, we can

distinguish a hierarchy related to the different types of AFNs and the

commitment to them. Parallels can be drawn between this concept and

Maslow’s theory of needs (Maslow, 1943). This study applies Maslow’s

theory for the ﬁrst time to AFNs: farmers’ markets and zero waste stores

incorporate the level of physiological and safety needs, while we can move

towards belonging and esteem when participating in CSAs and reach self-

actualization when gardening in community gardens. However, as food

might satisfy both higher- and lower-level needs at the same time, a whole

range of motivations may be present at the same time. New patterns can

be found regarding community-based motivators as well. The new concept

demonstrates a new relationship between different motivators and

alternative food network types. With low commitment (farmers’ markets),

motivation is directly linked to the community and moves towards higher

commitment to embrace abstract, comprehensive goals related to society

(CSAs, community gardens).

The results are in line with the motivational factors seen in the international

and Hungarian literature (e.g., Venn et al., 2006; Feagan & Morris, 2009;

Seyfang, 2008; Lang, 2010; Spilková, 2017; Birtalan et al., 2019; Szabó &

Juhász, 2015), although the importance of each factor changes in some

cases. The most signiﬁcant difference was related to farmers’ markets.

However, it is still necessary to better understand the motivational

factors of producers as well to have a complete picture of AFN participants.

In addition, it would be useful to conduct further interviews with those

who buy only at farmers’ markets and zero waste stores (and who do not

take part in other AFNs at the same time) and to carry out a cross-cultural

comparison. As motivations are not ﬁxed and might change over time, future

research should pay special attention to temporality. To further investigate

this issue, interviews should be analyzed based on the classiﬁcation of the

interviewees, for example, whether they are new (maximum one year in the

network) or experienced (minimum three years in the network) members.

6. REFERENCES

Ares, G., Machín, L., Girona, A., Curutchet, M. R., & Giménez, A. (2017):

“Comparison of motives underlying food choice and barriers to healthy

eating among low medium-income consumers in Uruguay”, Cadernos

de saude publica, 33, e00213315.

Balázs, B., Pataki, Gy. & Lazányi, O. (2016): “Prospects for the future:

Community supported agriculture in Hungary”, Futures, 83, 100-111.

Bende, Cs. & Nagy, Gy. (2016): “Effects of community gardens on local

society: the case of two community gardens in Szeged”, Belvedere

Meridionale, (28) 3, 89-105.

Quality. Local. Social. What else? – Which factors motivate...

185RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

Benedek, Z. & Balázs, B. (2014a): “Az élelmiszertermelés relokalizációjának

térbeli-társadalmi különbségei Magyarországon”, Tér és Társadalom,

28:4, 63–76.

Benedek, Z., & Balázs, B. (2014b): “A rövid ellátási láncok szocioökonómiai

hatásai”,Külgazdaság,58(5-6), 100-120.

Benedek, Z., & Fertő, I. (2015): “Miért választják a termelők a rövid ellátási

láncokat?”, Statisztikai Szemle, 93(6), 580-597.

Berg, B.L. (2001): Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences,

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Birtalan, I. L., Kis, B., Bárdos, G., Rácz, J., Oláh, A., & Rigó, A. (2019): “Egészség

a közösség által támogatott mezőgazdálkodásban”, Alkalmazott

pszichológia, 19(3), 81-100.

Blades, M., & Tikkanen, I. (2009): Maslow’s hierarchy and pupils’ suggestions

for developing school meals, Nutrition & Food Science.

Eertmans, A., Baeyens, F., & Van Den Bergh, O. (2001): “Food likes and their relative

importance in human eating behavior: review and preliminary suggestions

for health promotion”, Health education research, 16(4), 443-456.

Feagan, R. B. and Morris, D. (2009): “Consumer quest for embeddedness:

a case study of the Brantford Farmers’ Market”,International Journal of

Consumer Studies,33(3), 235-243.

Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., & Pagiaslis, A. (2009): “Food

Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) revisited. Suggestions for the development

of an enhanced general food motivation model”, Appetite, 52(1), 199-

208.

Guitart, D., Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2012): “Past results and future directions

in urban community gardens research”, Urban forestry & urban greening,

11(4), 364-373.

Hwang, J. (2016): “Organic food as self-presentation: The role of psychological

motivation in older consumers’ purchase intention of organic food“,

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 281-287.

Kamiyama, C., Hashimoto, S., Kohsaka, R., & Saito, O. (2016): “Non-market

food provisioning services via homegardens and communal sharing

in satoyama socio-ecological production landscapes on Japan’s Noto

peninsula”, Ecosystem services, 17, 185-196.

Kerényi, N., & Török, Á. (2019): “The consumers of the farmers’ markets–

global and local outlook”, Köz-gazdaság-Review of Economic Theory and

Policy, 14(4).

Köster, E. P. (2009): “Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A

psychological perspective”, Food quality and preference, 20(2), 70-82.

Kujáni, K. (2014): “Az alternatív élelmiszer-ellátó rendszerek meghatározásának

és csoportosításának tényezői”, Gazdálkodás: Scientiﬁc Journal on

Agricultural Economics,58(80-2016-1016), 30-40.

Anna Torok · Ágnes Neulinger · György Pataki · Fanni Bársony · Orsolya Lazányi

186RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187 ISSN: 2659-5311

Lang, K. B. (2010): “The Changing Face of Community Supported Agricultur”,

Culture & Agriculture, 32(1), 17-26.

Maslow, A. H. (1943): “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological

Review,50.4, 370-396.

Maslow, A. H. (1987): Motivation and personality (3rd ed.), Delhi, India:

Pearson Education.

McClintock, N., & Simpson, M. (2018): “Stacking functions: identifying

motivational frames guiding urban agriculture organizations and

businesses in the United States and Canada”, Agriculture and Human

Values, 35(1), 19–39.

Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008): “The role of health consciousness,

food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions

towards organic food”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2),

163-170.

Neulinger, A., Bársony, F., Gjorevska, N., Lazányi, O., Pataki, G., Takács, S., &

Török, A. (2020): “Engagement and subjective well being in alternative

food networks: The case of Hungary”, International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 00, 1–10.

Ostrom, M. R. (2007): “Community supported agriculture as an agent of

change”, Remaking the North American food system, ed. C. Hinrichs, and

T. Lyson, 99120.

Patton, M. Q. (2002): Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.),

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perianova, I. (2013): The polyphony of food: Food through the prism of

Maslow’s Pyramid, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Plieninger, T., Kohsaka, R., Bieling, C., Hashimoto, S., Kamiyama, C., Kizos, T.,

Saito, O. (2018): “Fostering biocultural diversity in landscapes through

place-based food networks: a “solution scan” of European and Japanese

models”, Sustainability Science, 13(1), 219–233.

Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neil, L., Yau, N. J. N., & Stevens, R. (2002): “Motives

for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia

and New Zealand”, Food Quality and Preference, 13, 489–495.

Renting, H., Marsden, T. K. and Banks, J. (2003): “Understanding alternative

food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural

development”, Environment and Planning, 35(3), 393–411.

Ritzer, G. and Jurgenson, N. (2010): “Production, consumption, presumption”,

Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.

Satter, E. (2007): “Hierarchy of food needs”, Journal of nutrition education

and behavior, 39(5), S187-S188.

Seyfang, G. (2008): “Avoiding Asda? Exploring consumer motivations in

local organic food networks”, Local Environment, 13(3), 187-201.

Quality. Local. Social. What else? – Which factors motivate...

187RIESISE, 3 (2020) pp. 169-187

http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/riesise.v3i1.4543

Spilková, J. (2017): “Producing space, cultivating community: the story

of Prague´ s new community gardens”, Agriculture and Human Values,

34(4), 887-897.

Szabó, D., & Juhász, A. (2015): “Consumers’ and producers’ perceptions of

markets: service levels of the most important short food supply chains in

Hungary”, Studies in Agricultural Economics, 117(2), 111-118.

Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M., & Wardle, J. (1995): “Development of a measure

of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice

questionnaire”, Appetite, 25(3), 267-284.

Van Lenthe, F. J., Jansen, T., & Kamphuis, C. B. (2015): “Understanding socio-

economic inequalities in food choice behaviour: can Maslow’s pyramid

help”, British Journal of Nutrition, 113(7), 1139-1147.

Venn, L., Kneafsey, M., Holloway, L., Cox, R., Dowler, E. and Tuomainen,

H. (2006): “Researching European ‘alternative’ food networks: some

methodological considerations”,Area, 38 (3), 248-258.

Weber, C. L., & Matthews, H. S. (2008): “Food-miles and the relative climate

impacts of food choices in the United States”, Environmental Science and

Technology, 42, 10, 3508–3513.

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009): “Qualitative analysis of content.

Applications of social research methods to questions in information and

library science”, Human Brain Mapping, 30 (7), 2197-2206.

Zoll, F., Specht, K., Opitz, I., Siebert, R., Piorr, A., Zasada, I. (2018): “Individual

choice or collective action? Exploring consumer motives for participating

in alternative food networks”, International Journal of Consumer Studies,

42, 101-110.