| Literature DB >> 35081878 |
C D B Blom1, P Steegeman1, C Voss2, B G J S Sonneveld1,2.
Abstract
Harsh weather patterns that are unpredictable owing to climate change, remoteness, dependence on food imports and limited local food production place Arctic and Subarctic food systems under serious pressure. The model of food sovereignty provides a surprisingly interesting contribution to address the food insecurity in these regions; it promotes long-term stable provision of healthy foods (sustainable) that are accessible to all (equity) and fosters local food production-consumption patterns (localisation). This study aims to deepen the understanding of food insecurity in the Subarctic regions and explores the possibilities for a food sovereignty approach at both individual and regional level. The study focuses on Whitehorse, capital of Yukon, Canada, and uses a cross-sectional online survey among residents of Whitehorse and semi-structured in-depth interviews with food-systems experts in Yukon. The findings indicated a need for affordable year-round local food production. Application of food sovereignty has provided the opportunities for local food procurement, innovation hubs, and several types of greenhouses including hydroponics and vertical farming, to work towards a more localised food system, thereby improving food security and sovereignty in Yukon. The findings constitute the scientific knowledge base for the formulation of prospective scenarios in the spirit of the food sovereignty theory.Entities:
Keywords: Food security; agriculture; food sovereignty; food system; subarctic; yukon
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35081878 PMCID: PMC8797730 DOI: 10.1080/22423982.2022.2025992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health ISSN: 1239-9736 Impact factor: 1.228
Participant profiles (n = 45)
| Sample characteristics | Sample composition |
|---|---|
| Age | 33.3% (n = 15) age group 25–39 |
| Sex | 71.1% (n = 32) Female |
| Household size | 17.8% (n = 8) 1 adult |
| Identity | 84.4% (n = 38) Canadian |
| Education | 11.1% (n = 5) Secondary school |
| Occupational sector | 24.4% (n = 11) Public service |
| Annual household income | 20.0% (n = 9) $15.000 – $40.000 |
| Distance to Whitehorse | 57.8% (n = 26) Living in Whitehorse |
Obtaining household food per item (n and row percentages)
| Local Public Market | Small Family Store | Local Food Box Program | Grocery Store | Food Bank | Online | Self-Provisioning | I do not eat this type of food | Total (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit and Vegetables (%) | 4.4 (n = 2) | 2.2(n = 1) | 0.0 | 82.2 | 2.2(n = 1) | 0.0(n = 0) | 8.9(n = 4) | 0.0(n = 0) | 100.0(n = 45) |
| Legumes (%) | 0.0(n = 0) | 0.0(n = 0) | 4.4(n = 2) | 71.1(n = 32) | 0.0(n = 0) | 4.4(n = 2) | 11.1(n = 5) | 8.9(n = 4) | 100.0(n = 45) |
| Traditional Foods (%) | 8.9(n = 4) | 4.4(n = 2) | 0.0(n = 0) | 13.3(n = 6) | 0.0(n = 0 | 0.0(n = 0) | 40(n = 18) | 33.3(n = 15) | 100.0(n = 45) |
| Bread (%) | 0(n = 0) | 15.6(n = 7) | 0.0(n = 0) | 60(n = 27) | 0.0(n = 0) | 0.0(n = 0) | 22.2(n = 10) | 2.2(n = 1) | 100.0(n = 45) |
| Dairy Products (%) | 4.4(n = 2) | 4.4(n = 2) | 0.0(n = 0) | 84.4(n = 38) | 0.0(n = 0) | 0.0(n = 0) | 0.0(n = 0) | 6.7(n = 3) | 100.0(n = 45) |
| Meat (%) | 13.3(n = 6) | 26.7(n = 12) | 0.0(n = 0) | 37.8(n = 17) | 2.2(n = 1) | 0.0(n = 0) | 13.3(n = 6) | 6.7(n = 3) | 100.0(n = 45) |
| Fish (%) | 4.4(n = 2) | 24.4(n = 11) | 0.0(n = 0) | 40(n = 18) | 0.0(n = 0) | 0.0(n = 0) | 28.9(n = 13) | 2.2(n = 1) | 100.0(n = 45) |
| All food types combined (%) | 5.1(n = 16) | 11.1 (n = 35) | 0.6(n = 2) | 55.6(n = 175) | 0.6(n = 2) | 0.6(n = 2) | 17.8(n = 56) | 8.6(n = 27) | 100.0(n = 315) |
Local fresh food consumption
| Part of Diet Consisting of Local Fresh Food | None of my diet | Some of my diet | About half of my diet | Most of my diet | All of my diet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.9 (n = 4) | 62.2 (n = 28) | 15.6 (n = 7) | 13.3 (n = 6) | 0 (n = 0) |
Financial accessibility
| Financial accessibility | Never | Rarely | Sometimes (%) | Often | Always |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0(n = 0) | 2.2(n = 1) | 6.7(n = 3) | 22.2(n = 10) | 68.9(n = 31) |
*financial accessibility = I have enough money to buy the food I need
Barriers to obtaining fresh local food
| % | |
|---|---|
| I do not experience any barriers | 42.2 (n = 19) |
| I do not know where fresh local food is sold | 8.9 (n = 4) |
| Fresh local food is too expensive | 42.2 (n = 19) |
| I physically do not have access to places where fresh local food is sold | 6.7 (n = 3) |
Harvesting food from the land
| Variable 10: Harvesting food from the land | (%) |
|---|---|
| Yes, less than 25% of total food consumption: | 55.6 (n = 25) |
| Yes, 25% – 50% of total food consumption: | 11.1 (n = 5) |
| No, not economically accessible | 4.4 (n = 2) |
| No, not physical accessible | 11.1 (n = 5) |
| No, other reason | 17.8 (n = 8) |
Evaluations of initiatives
| Extremely important | Very important | Moderately important | Slightly important | Not important at all | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increasing the availability of local fresh food | 68.9(n = 31) | 24.4(n = 11) | 6.7(n = 3) | 0.0(n = 0) | 0.0(n = 0) |
| Making fresh products more affordable | 57.8(n = 26) | 31.3(n = 14) | 8.9(n = 4) | 2.2(n = 1) | 0.0 |
Valuation of focuses of food security initiatives
| Initiatives. | Extremely important (%) | Very important (%) | Moderately important (%) | Slightly important (%) | Not at all important (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increasing the amount of food available | 22.2 (n = 10) | 33.3 (n = 15) | 33.3 (n = 15) | 11.1 (n = 5) | 0.0 (n = 0) |
| Improving the quality of food available | 37.8 (n = 17) | 37.8 (n = 17) | 13.3 (n = 6) | 8.9 (n = 4) | 2.2 (n = 1) |
| Increasing the diversity of food available | 17.8 (n = 8) | 33.3 (n = 15) | 31.1 (n = 14) | 17.8 (n = 8) | 0.0 (n = 0) |
| Increasing the availability of local fresh produced food | 68.9 (n = 31) | 24.4 (n = 11) | 6.7 (n = 3) | 0.0 (n = 0) | 0.0 (n = 0) |
| Making fresh products more affordable | 57.8 (n = 26) | 31.3 (n = 14) | 8.9 (n = 4) | 2.2 (n = 1) | 0.0 (n = 0) |
| Aimed at overcoming geographical barriers | 28.9 (n = 13) | 28.9 (n = 13) | 28.9 (n = 13) | 11.1 (n = 5) | 2.2 (n = 1) |
| Increasing the social aspects of food | 13.3 (n = 6) | 26.7 (n = 12) | 35.6 (n = 16) | 22.2 (n = 10) | 2.2 (n = 1) |
| Improving knowledge and skills to budget, shop and prepare nutritious food | 33.3 (n = 15) | 35.6 (n = 16) | 22.2 (n = 10) | 8.9 (n = 4) | 0.0 (n = 0) |
| Improving the awareness of food safety and agriculture | 37.8 (n = 17) | 35.6 (n = 16) | 22.2 (n = 10) | 4.4 (n = 2) | 0.0 (n = 0) |
Figure 1.Overview of themes and their reciprocity.