Food and Gastronomy for Sustainable Place [617828]

sustainability
Review
Food and Gastronomy for Sustainable Place
Development: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of
Different Theoretical Approaches
Chiara Rinaldi
Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg,
Vasagatan 1, PO Box 100, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden; [anonimizat]
Received: 18 August 2017; Accepted: 25 September 2017; Published: 28 September 2017
Abstract: Food and gastronomy (F&G) are increasingly recognized as potentially determinant
elements for the sustainable development of places. A commonly held theory in many research
fields is that F&G can contribute to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of places
while potentially representing elements that increase those places’ attractiveness and competitiveness.
This literature review investigates three main research streams: agriculture and rural studies, place
branding and place marketing and food tourism. The aim is to reduce the research fragmentation
by offering a more holistic perspective on how F&G are understood in different research areas to
identify common and transversal elements that might represent the core of F&G’s potential for place
development. These areas have been analysed to identify common, recurrent and significative local
F&G resources. Significance in this context indicates that the identified local F&G resources have
emerged as meaningful at the local and global levels; that is, they are embedded in the place (spatially
and culturally) and are able to identify and differentiate the place in global competition. The analysis
reveals that all local F&G resources that support place distinctiveness and attractiveness should also
address and strengthen the link between the place (territorial/geographical dimensions) and the
people (cultural dimensions).
Keywords: food; gastronomy; sustainable development; place development; literature review;
sustainability; policy
1. Introduction
Food and gastronomy (F&G) are increasingly recognized as potentially determinant elements
for the sustainable development of places. The theory that F&G might contribute to the economic,
social and environmental sustainability of places while potentially representing factors that increase
the attractiveness and the competitiveness of those places is widely held in many research fields.
Given these premises, this literature review draws from multiple disciplines and research
streams to reveal how different areas understand F&G resources as elements that might support
sustainable place development. The overall objective of this review article is to reduce research
fragmentation by providing an understanding of the main elements underlying F&G as factors
that may support place development and by identifying common dimensions that may support
sustainability principles and sustainable development goals. Indeed, fragmentation is one of the
major issues that a sustainable development approach must overcome. The disciplines underlying
these concepts have often developed separately. Therefore, many of the sustainable development
challenges being confronted by academics and policymakers are rooted in the sectorial fragmentation
of responsibility [ 1]. To address this topic, this article offers a more holistic framework by selecting and
analysing academic discourses relating F&G to sustainable place development, which is understood as
economic growth at the local level with respect to natural, social, human and manufactured capital [ 2].
Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748; doi:10.3390/su9101748 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 2 of 25
The identification of common and transversal elements that might represent the core of F&G’s potential
for place development is within the scope of this study.
Thus, this study disentangles the complexity of the role of F&G by emphasizing favourable
elements that academia identifies as contributing to the sustainable development of places, providing
relevance for policymakers.
The investigated research areas were agriculture and rural studies, place branding and place
marketing and food tourism. These areas have been analysed to identify common, recurrent and
significative local F&G resources. Significance in this context indicates that the identified local F&G
resources emerged as meaningful at both the local and global levels, that is, they are not only embedded
in the place (spatially and culturally) but are also able to identify and differentiate the place in global
competition. When these three areas were analysed through the lens of sustainable local development,
they revealed some common features. In particular, to be sustainable, all local F&G resources that have
the ability to support place distinctiveness and attractiveness should also address and strengthen the
link between the place (territorial/geographical dimensions) and the people (cultural dimensions) [ 3].
Therefore, this article aims to identify recurrent local F&G resources, which are understood as a
potential competitive advantage for sustainable growth; to understand how they interrelate; and to
apply common dimensions that appear to give significance to these resources, namely, geographical
embeddedness (place) and the meaning with which local culture imbues them (people).
The literature streams analysed adopt a common approach to sustainable development through
governance. Accordingly, multi-stakeholder networks that include local actors and communities are
considered essential tools for approaching sustainability challenges. An improved categorization of
knowledge may be both relevant to future research attempts in the field and useful for policymakers
and F&G stakeholders in gaining an understanding of the aspects that might contribute to sustainable
place development through F&G. The article concludes by identifying potential benefits that F&G
might bring to local sustainable development when approached from a holistic perspective.
The article is organized as follows: (1) primary issues related to sustainable development and a
methodological note; (2) areas of academic research addressing F&G for sustainable place development;
(3) policymakers’ perspectives on F&G’s potential for sustainable place development; (4) findings
regarding the main elements that recur throughout the analysed streams, framed according to place
and people dimensions; (5) discussion and conclusions; and (6) policy implications.
2. Addressing Sustainable Development
“Sustainability is the capacity to create, test and maintain adaptive capability. Development
is the process of creating, testing, and maintaining opportunity. The phrase that combines the
two, “sustainable development”, therefore refers to the goal of fostering adaptive capabilities while
simultaneously creating opportunities. It is therefore not an oxymoron but a term that describes
a logical partnership” [4].
Sustainable development has been a frequently debated concept since the 1987 publication of the
Brundtland Report titled “Our Common Future” [ 1]. Since then, one of the most accepted perspectives
on sustainable development maintains that it is based on three pillars (or the triple bottom line),
consisting of economic, environmental and societal challenges and disciplines. However, as noted by
Ciegis, Ramanauskiene and Martinkus [ 5], these disciplines (economics, sociology, and ecology) define
sustainable development differently, making it difficult to integrate their findings [ 6] and determine
whether they shared the same goals [ 7]. Additionally, drawing from Camagni’s [ 8] definition of
sustainable urban development, this study interprets sustainable place development as the following:
“a process of synergetic integration and co-evolution among the great subsystems making
up a city (economic, social, physical and environmental), which guarantees the local
population a non-decreasing level of wellbeing in the long term, without compromising
the possibilities of development of surrounding areas and contributing by this towards
reducing the harmful effects of development on the biosphere”.

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 3 of 25
The focus here is wider in that it considers not only urban environments but also (and in
a prevalent manner) rural areas as the places where food is generally produced. Based on these
considerations, this review will concentrate on how sustainable place development is interpreted in
different literature streams to grasp how local F&G resources are understood by different research
streams as significative elements that contribute to sustainable place development. This approach
is expected to contribute to overcoming the problem of conceptually integrating the three pillars to
obtain a more holistic understanding of how various issues are interconnected. This approach appears
necessary to improve our “social ecology” [ 9], by conceptualizing in a systemic, contextual and holistic
manner able to address sustainability issues [10].
Therefore, this study investigates how F&G addresses sustainability goals in place development,
such as reducing poverty, supporting sustainable cities and communities, supporting climate action
and avoiding biodiversity loss, and supporting multi-stakeholder governance, in accordance with the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=
1300). This study may contribute towards generating scientific knowledge to help us understand and
potentially engage with real-world sustainability challenges [11].
Moreover, addressing sustainable places is becoming a priority of the broader movement towards
sustainability science, which recognizes that effective adaptation to environmental and resource
vulnerabilities will increasingly need to be “place-based”. As suggested by Marsden [ 12] (p. 215),
a need exists “to re-establish a combined relational and bounded notion of place that centrally
incorporates three spheres: ecology, economy and community” because places are the expression of
how these interconnected and interrelated spheres interact.
3. A Note on Methods
Following Webster and Watson [ 13], this literature review aims to be concept-centric; therefore,
concepts will determine the organizational framework of the review. The various concepts identified
in the analysis will be grouped, synthesized and presented to obtain an improved understanding of
their relationship and to contribute to future research.
The author has reviewed the most representative studies that not only address F&G and
sustainable development but that also consider the “place” dimension (rural areas, cities, regions, and
destinations). To ensure that the main issues related to each research area were included, this study
draws from systematic literature reviews in each field (e.g., Bazzani and Canavari [ 14], on alternative
food networks and short food supply chains; Vuignier [ 15], on place marketing and place branding;
Berg and Sev ón [16], on food in place branding; and Henderson [ 17], for a review on food tourism).
Based on these systematic literature reviews, the main elements that define each research stream have
been identified, and relevant articles examining such topics have been retrieved from the reference
lists. Following this course, major online databases such as Google Scholar, Business Source Premier,
Scopus, and JSTOR were searched. Included in the review are articles and books that address F&G
in the context of place development as elements that foster sustainable growth by maintaining and
leveraging the natural, cultural and human capital available in a place.
Therefore, streams of literature such as sustainable/organic agriculture production systems, food
security, food democracy and food citizenship, food safety, and health and diet have not been included
unless they have been used as the basis for place differentiation/attraction/promotion. The main
research areas investigated are agriculture/rural studies, place branding/marketing, and food tourism.
This review focuses on recent literature and current issues [ 18] related to this wide
multidisciplinary field in an attempt to identify main concepts, trends and patterns that foster
a more holistic view of recurrent and determinant F&G elements that might support sustainable place
development (leverage). Current issues have been chosen because it is essential to understand how
local economies develop sustainably in today’s globalized world. Thus, sustainable place development
is operationalized by understanding how local physical and social resources not only are maintained
but also can represent determinant growth assets in global competition (leverage).

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 4 of 25
This study was not intended to be a thorough review. Rather, its goal is to offer a more holistic
view of how local F&G resources are understood in the academic literature in relation to sustainable
place development. An analysis of this multidisciplinary field has been performed to reduce the
complexity and fragmentation of various contributions and to identify a common transversal basis
on which to build a fruitful discussion among various audiences (academicians, practitioners and
policymakers). This review article was generated by the need to offer a theoretical contribution that
is both relevant to academia and useful to practitioners and policymakers in the field addressing
real-world problems [19].
Therefore, an analytical approach [ 20,21] has been followed to present, analyse and synthesize
materials from various sources. A select but representative body of literature for each stream has been
targeted to focus on different concepts and their relationships. Following the approach of Saraniemi
and Kylänen [ 22], the discussion is therefore more subjective, because it aims both to summarize
various perspectives on how F&G might contribute to the sustainable development of places and to
support an understanding of future research directions.
4. Academic Perspectives
Various perspectives consider F&G as elements that favour the sustainable development of places.
The research areas analysed may be categorized as follows: agriculture/rural studies,
place branding/marketing, destination branding/marketing (food events/festivals), food tourism,
and sustainability science.
4.1. Agriculture and Rural Studies (Agri-Food Systems, Supply Chains and Rural Development)
Discourses on agri-food systems, rural development and their role in sustainable place
development have attracted substantial attention recently.
4.1.1. The Rural Development Paradigm
The industrialization and globalization of agri-food supply chains have gradually increased
the distance between producers and suppliers and, alternatively, that between consumers and
customers [ 23]. This disconnection is reflected in the relations between producers and consumers,
which are characterized by anonymity [ 24]. In this context, Wiskerke [ 23] (p. 374) identifies two main
paradigms: (1) the agri-industrial paradigm (hypermodern food geography), which is characterized
by industrialization, globalization, the placelessness of the agri-food production chain, and the
“standardization of food production and processing”; and (2) the integrated and territorial agri-food
paradigm (the alternative food geography), in which the food-producing region provides products
with specific features and distinctive qualities and where food production is often integrated into
other rural entrepreneurial activities. According to this paradigm, attention focuses on food quality,
shorter geographical distances between producers and consumers through localized/regionalized
food networks, local biodiversity and sociocultural traditions as elements that ensure quality and
increase consumers’ trust.
This second approach, which is in accord with the objectives of sustainable development,
might also be defined as a new “rural development paradigm” [ 25]: a multi-level, multi-actor and
multifaceted process evidencing the global interrelation of agriculture and society in which a new
developmental model for the agricultural sector emerges based on synergy. In this context, rural
development experiences may create connections between local and regional ecosystems of goods and
services, alternative supply chains and the diversification of agricultural activities, particularly at the
level of the countryside and its actors, resulting in a reconfiguration of “the way rural resources are
used within the farm and between agriculture and other rural activities” [26] (p. 513).
This latter paradigm focuses on local resources, particularly local food, geographical indication
(GI) food products, and local actors organized in new, alternative or short food supply chains,
representing a key dimension in the new rural development pattern [27].

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 5 of 25
4.1.2. Local Food and GI Products
One topic concerns the ambiguity surrounding the concept of “local” food because local may be
understood both in terms of a bounded region in which products are produced and sold and/or in
terms of “specialty” foods that might be valuable for export to other countries [ 28]. Some producers
define food as local even when some ingredients are imported; they consider it local because it is
manufactured locally and its production employs local people; others consider local products to be
those that contain only local ingredients.
Martinez et al. [ 29] (p. 3) define local food as “food produced, processed and distributed within
a geographical boundary that consumers associate with their own community”. Brunori [ 30] identifies
five categories and related meanings that might be attributed to local food: functional (health and
taste); ecological (food miles, biodiversity and landscape); aesthetic (diversity versus standardization,
distinction); ethical (authenticity, identity and solidarity), and political (to change the balance of power
in the food chain, to orient production and consumption patterns).
Origin-linked products associated with GIs typically represent a specific category of local food;
they are inseparably linked to the place in which they are produced and bear unique quality attributes
related to their GI, which facilitates their identification. Typical products are then defined by their
geographical origin, their history and their culture. As stated by D’Amico [ 31] (p. 794), “The historical
dimension concerns cognitive content, which is knowledge and know-how consolidated over time”.
This dimension entails customs related to how typical products are produced, processed and consumed,
making them part of both a local heritage and a place’s history. The cultural dimension involves the
manner in which typical products express the mentality and life of the people living in a certain area.
Clearly, geographical, historical and cultural dimensions are strictly interrelated. Eriksen [ 32] (p. 52)
interprets different perceptions related to local food in terms of proximity: geographical proximity,
referring to the specific territorial/geographical distance “within which food is produced (originates),
retailed, consumed and/or distributed”; relational proximity, in terms of relations between actors;
and value proximity, in terms of values that diverse actors attribute to local food.
Typical products link food to place through “terroir”, which is defined as “an area or terrain,
usually rather small, whose soil and microclimate impart distinctive qualities to food products” [ 33]
(p. 131). GIs provide the most forthright examples of this link between food, place, quality and
tradition, including the following (https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality_en):
 Protected Designation of Origin (PDO ) identifies products that are produced, processed and prepared
in a specific geographical area using the expertise of local producers and ingredients from the
region concerned. Characteristics of these products are linked to their geographical origin.
 Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) identifies products whose quality or reputation is linked
to the place or region in which they are produced, processed or prepared even if the ingredients
used do not necessarily come from that geographical area.
 Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG ) identifies products of a traditional character, either in the
composition or means of production, without having a link to a specific geographical area.
Qualification labels act as information signals that producers might adopt to encourage favourable
consumer responses by facilitating consumer choice among different products of the same category [ 34].
Tregear [ 35] underlines that typical products might be understood at the intersection of the production
and consumption dimensions: the former relating to physical elements, such as ingredients and
production processes, the latter relating to symbolic aspects, such as branding or identity.
Regional products represent both a form of cultural capital and potentially useful resources
for rural development because they have the capacity to leverage social and economic benefits for
local rural areas [ 34]. From this perspective, local food embedded in alternative agri-food networks
may represent a niche for rural entrepreneurs who are willing to establish a closer relationship
with customers [ 36], who usually interpret local food as food that is produced in a socially and

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 6 of 25
environmentally sustainable way [ 37], which contributes to the re-establishment of trust between
producers and consumers [38].
4.1.3. Short Food Supply Chains and Alternative Food Networks
Short food supply chains (SFSCs) are increasingly important to sustainable development through
F&G. SFSCs are also often defined as either alternative food networks (AFNs) or new food supply
chains (NFSCs) and are considered important elements in creating links between agriculture, society,
producers and consumers [ 27]. As aforementioned, the term “short” not only relates to the distance
travelled by food [ 39], but also to small producers engaged in shortening distances between them and
their final consumers through personal relationships [ 39–42], a connection that might also represent
a powerful aspect of an integrated tourism experience [28].
Moreover, SFSCs are characterized by specific quality definitions and conventions, spatial
dimensions, and relational dimensions. This occurs because “food markets are becoming more
differentiated on the basis of a range of socially constructed food quality criteria” [ 43] (p. 107),
resulting in newly emerging quality food markets parallel to mass food markets. As Brunori [ 30]
recognized, the food sector has recently helped give rise to a quality turnaround in the concepts of
trust, embeddedness and place [ 44]. Quality characteristics of local food products therefore need to be
properly communicated to consumers to encourage them to pay premium prices [27].
Bazzani and Canavari’s [ 14] literature review on AFN identifies their two main characteristics:
embeddedness and food localization.
SFSCs and local food systems (LFSs) involve a respatialization of food systems in contrast to
the conventional, industrial and globalized food system. This respatialization implies a connection
between “place”, “community” and “local” [ 45]. Renting et al. [ 27] added to the respatialization of
SFSCs and the resocialization capacity of food by allowing these concepts to draw upon the image of
place/region as a source of quality. The concept of embeddedness is indeed related to the geographical
dimension and to the social context of the territory [14,36].
As Born and Purcell [ 46] indicate, avoidance of what they term “the local trap” is necessary,
i.e., the simplistic assumption that local scales are good and global scales are bad. As the authors argue,
“scale” is socially constructed; therefore, it should not be considered an ontological entity but rather
a strategy to achieve a particular goal [ 47]. However, from a place development perspective, local food
as well as SFSC or AFN are relevant because they represent resources that are able to differentiate the
place in global competition and increase place visibility; in addition, they represent an attraction for
tourists interested in F&G.
The concept that foods in SFSCs might contribute to rural development and cultural sustainability
is supported by the effort to reconnect with consumers via personalization of the selling channel.
This effort supports a cultural relocalization of food in accord with current demand for environmental
friendliness and sustainability [ 37]. Sims [ 28] shared this view by emphasizing how local foods
sold through alternative outlets might represent approaches to boost the sustainability of traditional
farming, the landscape and farming communities. Supporting local producers enables a virtuous circle
for both community and territory by improving producer remuneration [ 38], adding value to sales [ 28],
building a relationship with the local community and supporting the preservation of local landscapes.
Moreover, this type of support protects existing jobs and creates employment [ 39] by stimulating
agrarian economies and favouring local farming communities and small-scale businesses. Ultimately,
these changes are a tool for rural development [ 17]. In this context, valorisation of place through food
is tied to the local community, territory and economy [45].
4.2. Place/Destination Marketing and Place/Destination Branding
Place marketing refers to the “application of marketing instruments to geographical locations” [ 15]
(p. 9). Place branding represents a set of theories, managerial practices and efforts made by
governments (either at the country, region, or city level) and industry groups [ 48] aimed at enhancing

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 7 of 25
the visibility and reputational capital of places [ 49]. Place branding strategies are used to differentiate
places in global competition and attract various targeted groups: visitors/tourists, residents and
workers, and business and industry [ 50]. When considering the visitors/tourist target group,
destination branding, which represents the most developed stream of literature linking branding
to F&G, warrants discussion.
A place brand is generally defined as:
“a network of associations in the consumers’ mind based on the visual, verbal, and
behavioural expression of a place, which is embodied through the aims, communication,
values, behaviour and the general culture of the place’s stakeholders and the overall place
design”. [51] (p. 7)
In recent decades, F&G have been widely used as an attraction by various places and destinations;
indeed, food characteristics may easily be linked to certain places or regions, and they are easily
perceived as a form of brand identity [52].
The following sections outline how F&G are addressed within the place branding and place
marketing disciplines as elements that contribute to sustainable place development.
4.2.1. Local Resources and Actors for Place Branding Based on F&G
Place branding is relevant to sustainable development in F&G because globalization entails
a process of glocalization [ 53]. In this process, local resources—both geographical and
cultural—available in the place may represent a “unique perceived value” to consumers and tourists
essential to differentiating the place and transforming locally available resources into a form of
competitive advantage [54].
Richards [ 55] underlines how F&G may be an essential element in the branding and marketing of
places because F&G involve and connect many aspects of the destination experience. The destination’s
overall food culture might provide a foundation for branding and marketing because food culture
involves many different branding elements, including products (food and beverages), practices (eating
and meals), the art and customs of preparing and eating (gastronomy), sensory elements (taste, smell,
touch, visual), origins (organic food, ethical cuisine, locally produced food, etc.), preparation (ways of
cooking), serving (fast food, slow food, street food, etc.) and the context in which food is served and
consumed (restaurants, bars, markets, food quarters, streets, etc.).
Berg and Sev ón’s [16] (p. 6) study of food branding found that cities have three main motivating
categories for becoming associated with F&G: supporting the food industry; protecting and amplifying
their identity; and changing the places.
The first category is particularly important for food and wine countries and regions that
have important food industries and clusters and in which place of origin is a distinctive feature.
The European Union’s (EU) quality schemes for food and beverage products (i.e., PDO, PGI, TSG)
serve this purpose and contribute to strengthening the position of places through these protected
markers of origin. Food is particularly relevant in branding attempts because the quality of food
products may contribute to extending positive associations with the place, becoming an essential
component of the overall place brand image. Country-of-Origin (COO) and Product-Country-Image
(PCI) refer to “the image of the country (or place) with which a product is associated by sellers
and/or buyers” [ 56] (p. 37). This image may have significant effects on both the market’s view of
the product and consumers’ willingness to consider purchasing it. These two concepts have a strict
relationship: both are concerned with how place images may be used to market the places and
products associated with them. A product’s COO acts as a signal of product quality, whereas branding
enables consumers to distinguish between offerings, influencing the perceived quality of products or
services [ 57]. Foods with specific geographical origins may convey regional images to support rural
tourism development through branding. This association would not only benefit promotional and

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 8 of 25
marketing efforts but also preserve local food culture and traditions, given that food is a cultural object
consumed for its symbolic and aesthetic value [58].
Another reason for using F&G in place branding is not only to protect and amplify the identity
and sense of belonging of an area in which regional/distinctive cuisines are used to amplify the
identity of regions or countries (e.g., French, Italian, Spanish and other cuisines) but also to protect
and safeguard culinary heritage [ 59]. Moreover, using local culture and produce may contribute to
developing a “sense of place”, making the destination more distinctive and attractive because local
food and drinks allow places to capitalize on their assets to both benefit the local economy [ 60] and
contribute to unique visitation experiences [ 41]. A unique sense of place is fostered by a clearly defined
gastronomic identity and heritage, serving the differentiation and the rejuvenation processes alike [ 17].
The last argument in favour of using F&G in place branding is to change the place by creating
dense culinary spaces and redesigning spaces for food markets, food festivals, etc., essentially
contributing to the spatial transformation of places and their atmospheres [16].
Accordingly, food branding may differentiate places and make them more competitive because
food may also represent an attraction for tourists and the creative classes [ 61] and food-related
businesses. A creative food economy might support sustainable place development by forging
synergistic relationships between agriculture (primary sector) and the experience economy (tertiary
sector), both of which are linked with and contribute to a vibrant creative economy (cultural sector) [ 62].
In this relationship, a place-based place branding strategy might play a pivotal role [ 63]. Thus, place
branding may represent a crucial strategy for national and regional governments [ 64] both to coordinate
and align messages directed at major target groups and to increase competitive place identity [65].
A branding strategy based on F&G is considered sustainable if it is built on locally available
resources (such as agricultural and livestock production) and traditional expertise (such as heritage
cooking) that is based on local identity and contributes to its reinforcement [59].
Another consideration that is particularly relevant to places with an established F&G culture
is that food is gradually replacing geographical location as a brand destination. Therefore, place is
increasingly seen as a vehicle for experiencing authentic food in meaningful ways [66].
4.2.2. Celebrating the Local: Food Events and Festivals
Food festivals and food events play an important role in place branding based on F&G [ 67].
They also serve as an attraction for food tourism development. Food-themed activities such as farmers’
markets and food festivals have been recognized as increasingly important for affirming community
identity and values whilst creating relevant tools for regional development [ 40]. Moreover, alongside
food supply chains and AFN, food festivals and food events represent another avenue to establish
closer relationships between producers and consumers [37].
According to Mason and Paggiaro [ 68], people visiting food festivals seek authentic experiences and
connection with the local culture. As stated by Bell and Valentine [ 69] (p. 149), “as regions seek to market
themselves, while simultaneously protecting themselves from the homogenizing forces of globalization,
regional identity becomes enshrined in bottles of wine and hunks of cheese”. Several authors identify links
between local identity and festivals [ 70–72]. Festivals support the development of pride in a place and
contribute to the development or reinforcement of community identity [ 67], the maintenance of community
values [73] and the celebration of the community itself [71].
Food festivals and events contribute to regional development [ 74] and regional destination
branding, benefitting producers and local businesses not only by attracting locals and visitors but also
by increasing awareness of a particular area as a destination by showcasing its local food [75].
4.3. Food Tourism
Hall and Mitchell [ 76] (p. 308) defined food tourism as “visitation to primary and secondary food
producers, food festivals, restaurants and specific locations for which food tasting and/or experiencing
the attributes of a specialist food production region are the motivating factors for travel”. Food tourism

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 9 of 25
is part of the cultural tourism market [ 77] within the experience economy framework and a major area
of interest for regions, particularly rural ones [ 75]. In the experience economy, “while commodities are
fungible, goods tangible and services intangible, experiences are memorable” [78] (p. 11).
According to Du Rand and Heath [ 79], governments, researchers and industry have explicitly
recognized a strong relationship between food culture and tourism only since the mid-1990s, whereas
the number of studies on marketing food to tourists has increased considerably since 2006 [ 63].
Food tourism has gradually been recognized as a potential competitive advantage and a core element
in destination branding. These phenomena occur because the globalization process is viewed as
dialectical, i.e., simultaneously “the universalization of the particular and the particularization of the
universal” [ 53] (p. 25). Therefore, globalization may feature “the critical reconstruction and reinvention
of local cultures in relation to other cultural entities” [ 80] (p. 175). According to this view, globalization
does not necessarily produce only homogenization; it may also support an impetus for transforming
the nature and meaning of the local. Montanari and Staniscia [ 81] emphasized that the excesses of
globalization and negative consequences to human health generated by highly industrialized mass
agriculture have contributed to the reterritorialization of food. Reconstructing and reinventing food
cultures and identities is of paramount importance in gastronomic product development [ 80] and
may support the achievement of competitive advantage [ 82] (p. 19), which “is created and sustained
through a highly localized process”.
Food tourism supports sustainable place development in various ways. It is acknowledged as
including in its discourse both ethical and sustainability values based on territory, landscape and the
local dimension of culture and products [83].
Some of the main themes/discourses within food tourism research are discussed below.
4.3.1. Local Food and GI Products
Local food has gradually been transformed into a lifestyle commodity [ 84,85] that is increasingly
marketed alongside local culture and tradition [ 58]. These factors have strong implications for
destination marketing.
The first discussion concerns local food, which food tourists generally seek when visiting certain
destinations. Local food products originate from a particular area, and it is their origin, based on their
local identity or typicality, which differentiates them from other products [ 86]. Local food is considered
in both of its dimensions: as a material product and as an intangible heritage [87].
As noted by Du Rand and Heath [ 79] (p. 209), “the roots of food tourism lie in agriculture, culture
and tourism” in that agriculture provides the product (food), culture offers the historical setting and
authenticity, and tourism should provide infrastructure and services to combine all three components
into a food tourism experience.
Traditional meals have increasingly become powerful attractors imbued with symbolic value,
considering that they express local culture and reflect regional identities and values [ 77,84]. At the
core of differentiation is “a concept of identity based on a sense of place and representing the bundle
of products and services that make up a tourist experience” [ 88] (p. 17). This concept may be referred
to as “touristic terroir”. Montanari and Staniscia [ 81] stress that the landscape dimension is essential
to understanding relationships between quality food and tourism because the quality of food stems
greatly from the quality of its “terroir”. Indeed, food is considered both a reflection of the culture of
a place and an expression of a society and its people [79].
Typical products may be considered a resource for the local community because typicity relates
not only to the productive process but also to the connections between the different actors in the
territorial systems who give the product a collective dimension [ 89]. Local agricultural production
contributes to the reintroduction and maintenance of local identity and culture as well as to the
reinforcement of community pride and the recovery of local identity and culture [ 81]. Using local food
and drinks allows regions the opportunity “to incorporate cultural distinctiveness within economic
development” [41] (p. 71).

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 10 of 25
The consumption of local food by tourists is considered sustainable because it supports the
local economy [ 85] and reduces the area’s carbon footprint as a result of reduced transportation
distances [ 83,87]. Tourism spending on locally produced goods may stimulate the local economy to
maintain and/or reinvigorate the viability of local primary production and processing sectors [ 74,90].
Using local food as leverage for tourism appears to contribute to the objectives of sustainability.
Food tourism is small-scale, supports agricultural diversification and may spread benefits throughout
the area’s economic sector, increasing employment opportunities [ 91]. It also fosters community
participation [ 90,92], generates a multiplier effect in the local economy [ 28,89], contributes to the
authenticity of a destination and ultimately strengthens the local economy [ 74,79]. Local foods
represent an important means of marketing a destination’s identity and culture whilst enabling food
producers to add value to their products and establish a unique place in global competition.
4.3.2. Place, Food and People: Understanding Authenticity
Local food products involve a relationship between geography, history (tradition) and culture
(expertise and gastronomy) [31]. These aspects relate to another essential dimension: authenticity.
Authenticity is recognized as connecting food and place. The “taste of place” [ 93] implies
that geographic conditions contribute to foods’ characteristics and qualities. Notably, geographical
origin is only one of the dimensions linking foods to place; the others are the specialized knowledge
of the region’s food producers [ 94] and the use of food by the local community. Sidali and
Hemmerling [ 95] propose an authenticity model for food specialties, analysing both subjective and
object-based dimensions of authenticity. Subjective dimensions relate to different meanings that
consumers attribute to “local food” (as discussed in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.3.1), while object-related
dimensions refer to “temporal, spatial and product-specific attributes of food specialties” [ 95] (p. 1696).
The model shows that both object and subjective-based authenticity are essential to understanding
consumers’ perceptions of food product authenticity, and both influence purchase intention. The role
of object-based authenticity seems to be mediated by subjective authenticity. The latter appears to be
affected by consumers’ self-identification with the product and consumer personality “underdog” traits,
such as determination and passion; therefore, emphasising the “underdog” narrative, i.e., producers
with humble origins (compared with larger or more resourceful peers) who achieved success because
of their passion and determination, appears to be important to fostering consumer identification with
product authenticity.
Another essential discourse involves local food as identity; indeed, “gastronomy has become
a significant source of identity formation in post-modern societies” [ 96] (p. 3). Gastronomic tourism
and food festivals may be used as tools to add value to local produce and enhance the local identity of
both the destination and its local community [ 41]. According to Bessi ère [59], local identity represents
one of the conditions necessary for local development to succeed and extend its influence.
Authenticity of Food and Food Experiences
The matter of authenticity in food and food experiences is interpreted from various perspectives.
The work of Hillel, Belhassen and Shani [ 97] is particularly relevant because it explores
considerations related to Israel’s Negev region and its failure to become a food destination.
According to these authors, one of the main aspects underlying successful food destinations relates
to the perception of local food as authentic, with authenticity emanating from the direct and indirect
negotiations between hosts and guests. This perception implies that if hosting communities wish to
successfully market their living cultural identity, they should engage in producing it. The authenticity
of food must therefore include both a geographical component and a cultural component that addresses
the cultural values shared by the members of the local community. Therefore, to be successful,
gastronomic destinations must address gastronomic tourists’ appetite for authenticity “by offering
products and experiences that faithfully communicate an intimate link between food, place and
community” [ 97] (p. 202). Accordingly, the Negev region appears to have failed at becoming a food

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 11 of 25
destination because of the lack of an association among local food, local culinary practices and
community. Local foods are produced for export and are not used by locals; they do not have
a protected origin and are sold by associating them with foreign territories (e.g., Camembert-style
cheese or Tuscan-style oil) instead of by building associations with the local territory. Additionally,
local foods are not used by local chefs to present innovative culinary experiences. The issue of
authenticity was also reported by Du Rand, Heath and Alberts [ 74], who observed that to enable
destination branding and develop sustainable food tourism, local food must be linked to the area in
which it is produced. Sims [ 28] emphasized the importance of heritage in relation to the authenticity
of food experiences by stressing that tourists value local foods because they are not only seen as
local (belonging to one place) but are also perceived as “traditional” products with a long history
of production in a specific location. Heritage represents the link between past and present and
“a reservoir of meaning necessary to understand the world: a resource to elaborate alterity and
consequently identity” [ 59] (pp. 26–27). Food tourism is considered sustainable when it sustains
activities, persons and institutions in harmony with a place’s other elements, such as natural resources,
history, and sociocultural values [98].
If the origin of foods appears to be a fundamental aspect that enables the proper branding of
products by linking them to their place/region, then local places of consumption are essential in
conveying products to consumers/tourists [ 79]. In this respect, the restaurant sector is one of the most
important elements [ 99,100] to link food, tourism and local development, and the use of local food in
local restaurants might increase the perceived authenticity of the restaurant experience.
Local Food Experience: Attraction or Impediment?
Different authors [ 37,74] emphasize that food should not be changed to suit the taste of foreign
visitors because doing so might result in the loss of traditional regional foods and have wider
implications for the community’s sustainability.
Cohen and Avieli [ 101] adopted a critical sociological/anthropological perspective on the
perception of local food as an attraction in tourism. They emphasized that experiencing unfamiliar
local food may represent a challenge for tourists, highlighting how food may be perceived in two
ways: as an attraction or as an impediment. This concern relates to dimensions of familiarity and
strangeness regarding food. Fischler [ 102] defined these dimensions as neophilia (i.e., the search
for new foods and the love of tasting novel dishes) and neophobia (i.e., the distrust of new foods
and abhorrence of the unknown), both of which may be related to human attitudes towards food.
Cohen and Avieli [ 101] (p. 772) reported that tourist-oriented locales often choose to “mitigate the taste
of local food to suit the tourists, but leave enough of it that it metonymically impresses the tourists
as the ‘real thing’”. The authors mainly refer to Western tourists experiencing developing countries’
cuisines, which have generally been introduced superficially in a manner that adapts the food’s taste
to that of the host country.
Gyim óthy and Mykletun [ 84] (p. 261) discussed the phenomenon of “scary food”, which is
defined through its “sensory otherness” (concerning sight, sound, smell, texture, and taste) compared
to everyday fare as a sociocultural construction. Indeed, eating may be considered a symbolic act in
which tasting local food implies ingesting another culture or geographical location and incorporating
it into our own identity [ 69]. Scary, exotic food may elicit both negative emotions, such as fear or
disgust, and positive ones, such as thrill and enjoyment. To highlight this dynamic, Gyim óthy and
Mykletun [ 84] reported a case study on smalahove. Referring to a Voss sheep’s head meal that
represents West Norwegian culinary heritage and has experienced a renaissance in recent years,
smalahove is currently being marketed as a commercial product. Smalahove also contributes to Voss’s
image as a tourism destination. This case emphasizes how local foods should be marketed according
to both food and place characteristics. Instead of marketing smalahove together with landscape or
environmental conditions, the Norwegian meal is marketed together with the theme of adventure,

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 12 of 25
addressing different consumer/customer segments through a co-branding of extreme sports and
extreme food.
Local people and lifestyles are an essential resource in cultural and heritage tourism products,
and their success is usually dependent on their active engagement [ 103]. Indeed, communities may
be empowered by the proper use of local foods as leverage for tourism through job creation, the
encouragement of entrepreneurship and enhanced pride through branding of the destination’s identity
based on local food and food experiences. Accordingly, to ensure the sustainability of the destination,
food tourism should not be conceived only as an economic activity but also as a way to enhance
culture. The focus should be on coherently promoting both tangible and intangible qualities of food
products [37]. Therefore, the relationship between the economic and cultural aspects of food tourism
is essential to sustainability.
4.3.3. Foodies
Whereas food consumption may generally have a positive (or negative) effect on tourists’
experience of a destination, because all tourists must eat, food can also be the main attraction for
an emerging niche tourism market: foodies [104].
“A foodie is a person who is very, very, very interested in food. Foodies are the ones talking
about food in any gathering—salivating over restaurants, recipes, radicchio. They do not
think they are being trivial—Foodies consider food to be an art, on a level with painting or
drama”. [105] (p. 6)
Being a foodie encompasses several dimensions, including behaviour (shopping, cooking, eating
and travelling for food experiences), self-identity (food and food tourism contribute to shaping people’s
values, attitudes and identity), and social identity (being a foodie in social settings contributes to how
people relate to each other and form/reinforce their identity, including sharing food experiences with
other foodies) [106].
Foodies are an interesting tourism segment because they constitute both the highest-yield and
the most demanding food tourists, as they are willing to spend more for customized experiences.
However, they also contribute to spreading awareness that a destination is worth a visit, enhancing
a destination’s reputation for attractiveness [106].
4.4. Governance
One of the hallmarks of the current approaches to sustainable development is governance.
The definition of governance adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-
education-systems/quality-framework/technical-notes/concept-of-governance/) emphasizes
the need for broad-based participation and engagement in which multi-stakeholder networks,
which include local actors and communities, are considered essential tools with which to engage
sustainability challenges. These challenges are not bounded by disciplines but instead require the
engagement of a different type of knowledge borne by different stakeholders [ 107]. This view is
supported by other authors [ 108], who identified two main dimensions in the analytical framework of
governance for sustainability: multi-actor governance and knowledge integration.
Current approaches to sustainability in relation to agri-food systems, supply chains and
rural development, place branding and place marketing, and food tourism highlight the need for
participation and stakeholder engagement.
A co-creation theme, implemented through multi-stakeholder networks, is gradually becoming
a reference framework. This occurs because collaborating with different actors is essential to
creating societal transformations that enable the materialization of sustainable development [ 109].
Every territory is different; therefore, each strategy for sustainable development needs to consider
both place-specific characteristics and stakeholders because a one-size-fits-all model does not exist.

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 13 of 25
To contribute to sustainability, place-based, multi-stakeholder partnerships able to solve real-world
issues must be engaged [110].
Rural development is the policy field in which multi-stakeholder networks and community-based
bottom-up approaches were first implemented, dating back to 1991 when the LEADER programme
was born. Leader is a French acronym for “Liaison Entre Actions de D éveloppement de l’ Économie
Rurale,” signifying “links between the rural economy and development actions”. LEADER represents
an experimental approach to the EU’s rural development policy and has lasted for more than
20 years [ 111]. LEADER has offered a method for rural communities to involve local partners,
with which they will jointly shape the future development of their areas. LEADER’s success in
rural areas has led other EU programmes to apply this approach to other types of areas, creating what
is now known as “Community-Led Local Development” (CLLD). CLLD is now also implemented
in urban areas to support sustainable urban development [ 112]. Participation is therefore seen as
an essential element in addressing sustainable development issues in both rural and urban areas.
In a similar fashion, an emerging approach in place branding is that of participatory branding,
which highlights the significance of the branding process as a co-creation process through the dialogue
between stakeholders (internal and external audiences) [ 113]. As proposed by Kalandides [ 114],
the concept of co-creation is central to contemporary marketing, place marketing and place branding.
Brand co-creation stresses how brands are actually co-created by multiple stakeholders and the people
who encounter and appropriate them. From this perspective, a place brand might be conceptualized as
a dialogue between multiple co-creators engaged in its co-construction. Accordingly, place branding
interprets cities and destinations as “systems of stakeholder relationships rather than other definitions
of place (such as geo-physical or administrative)” [115] (p. 98).
Waligo, Clarke and Hawkins [ 116] (p. 342) stressed how sustainable tourism should ensure the
realization of effective stakeholder participation because the organizational structure of a destination
may be perceived as “a network of interdependent and multiple stakeholders” upon which the
quality of the tourism experience depends. A stakeholder approach to sustainable tourism entails the
acknowledgement of stakeholders as a core component for the implementation of sustainable tourism,
and engaged stakeholders involved in multi-stakeholder networks may facilitate the achievement of
sustainable tourism objectives.
Essentially, governance issues are primarily related to the need to ensure partnerships between
stakeholders. Stakeholders should establish co-operative actions both to promote local food as an
attraction and to transform tourism opportunities into business activity [58,79].
5. Food and Gastronomy’s Role in Sustainable Place Development Policy
Following the analysis of academic contributions, reporting policymakers’ increasing interest in
F&G and their potential for the sustainable development of places appears important. Notably relevant
is how different agencies of the United Nations have interpreted F&G’s potential in the context of
sustainable place development.
5.1. Food products with Geographical Indication (GI)
The Vandecandelaere et al. [ 3] guide to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) stresses the need to emphasize the link between people, places and products. According
to those authors [3] (p. xix),
“an origin-linked product can become the pivotal point of a specific-quality virtuous circle
within a territorial approach, meaning that its promotion as a GI product can have positive
effects that are reinforced over time, thus allowing preservation of the agrifood system
and related social networks, which in turn contributes to economic, sociocultural and
environmental sustainability”.

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 14 of 25
5.2. Food Systems
Food systems are addressed by both the FAO and the UNEP (United Nations Environment
Programme). The FAO publication [ 117] addresses the concept of the “city-region food system”,
discussing challenges to place-specific food systems in terms of causes, impacts and governance.
The report emphasizes the interdependence of rural and urban areas and the need for an inclusive,
integrated approach to better food systems and rural-urban linkages. The UNEP report “Food systems
and natural resources” [ 118] emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to food systems and addresses
these systems’ impact on sustainability and environmental issues.
5.3. Food as Cultural Heritage and Creative Sector
UNESCO emphasizes the cultural elements related to F&G. UNESCO’s List of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage of Humanity (https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists) increasingly features food cultures
(such as France’s gastronomic meals, Northern Croatia’s gingerbread craft and Mexico’s traditional
cuisine in 2010; the Mediterranean Diet, Kimjang, making and sharing kimchi in the Republic of
Korea and Japan’s traditional Washoku dietary culture in 2013; the tradition of making kimchi in the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 2015; and Belgium’s beer culture in 2016). The food-related
cultures included in the intangible heritage list emphasize the cultural/social dimension of food;
its relationship to the community and ritual practices; its cooking processes; its set of skills and
knowledge; its practice and traditions related to production; the processing, preparation and
consumption of food; the sharing of food; and the cultural identity and social dimension of food.
UNESCO has also included “gastronomy” as one of the fields of the Creative Cities Network,
which was created in 2004 to promote cooperation with and among cities that have identified creativity
as a strategic factor for sustainable urban development (http://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/).
5.4. Food Tourism
In its “Global Report on Food Tourism” [ 119], the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
acknowledges the increasing importance of F&G as a central part of the tourism experience.
It emphasizes the potential for converting gastronomic heritage into a tourism attraction and the
need for food tourism to be underpinned by sustainability principles and practices and organized
around public-private cooperation systems. The focus should be on the development of strategic
tools to articulate the quality, diversity and uniqueness of local food products and gastronomic dishes.
These strategic elements support both the image and the brand of a destination. Authenticity and
experiences to be lived should be the basis of these offerings, which should reinforce values of cultural
identity and sustainability.
These examples also show how policymakers understand F&G as multifaceted concepts.
Their potential for supporting sustainable place development may be viewed from different
perspectives, reflecting the same complexity that may be found in academic contributions. By merging
policy and academic perspectives, this review identifies significative local resources across various
domains, reducing the complexity of the field and offering policy implications.
6. Results
This study presents an analysis of various policymakers’ accounts and academic research areas
to identify significative F&G local resources, transversal across research areas, representing potential
competitive advantages for sustainable place development.
To address the research question, which asks which F&G elements represent distinctive features
that may be used as leverage for the sustainable development of places, several conclusions may be
drawn from the literature analysis.
The first element to emphasize, which is common to all research streams, concerns the idea that F&G
represent distinctive elements per se because unique F&G stem from unique local natural and cultural

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 15 of 25
conditions contained in the place. In global competition, it is local physical and cultural resources, local
knowledge and expertise and local actors in the food system/culture that produce differentiation and
may be leveraged to retain and attract businesses, tourists and residents. Accordingly , the valorization of
local products and the branding of products and destinations represent effective tools in positioning local
economies in a global world [54] and supporting place development in a sustainable way .
All of the research areas investigated demonstrate that spatial (geography) and cultural/relational
(people) dimensions make local F&G resources meaningful at both the local level and the global
level. Moreover, these two facets appear to warrant strengthening when marketing places to support
sustainable place development. Accordingly, place and people are the key dimensions for making any
F&G local resource significative by contributing to its distinctiveness, quality, and authenticity.
Table 1 shows how various tangible and intangible elements defining the food culture have both
a place/geographical/territorial element and a cultural element stemming from the local people (producers,
processers, restaurant owners, community , etc.) and their traditions. These elements have been selected
from the analysis of the literature as the most recurrent, transversal and significative themes.
These elements all represent aspects of identity for the local stakeholders/community and the
place/region to which they are linked. This relationship between local community identity and the
culture of the place contributes to authenticity [ 79]. Authenticity emerges from the link between
a geographical component (unique food stems from unique natural conditions of territory) and
a cultural component, the latter involving the cultural values and expertise shared by the members of
the local community [97].
Identity and authenticity appear to be transversal elements for all of the analysed streams;
they are essential to making places recognizable in the global arena and to supporting sustainable
territorial development.
The following summarizes the resources reported in Table 1:
 Local agri-food products originate from a particular area, and their origin represents a source of
differentiation resulting from their local identity or typicality. They are considered both material
products and intangible heritage [87].
 GI products represent a specific subset of local food in which the link between the product and the
place (considered both in its geographical and its cultural dimension) is explicit and generally
branded (e.g., PDO, PGI, and TSG). Typicity relates not only to the productive process but also
to the actors that give it a collective dimension [ 89] and imbue it with cultural values shared by
the community.
 Local food systems (e.g., SFSC, AFN, and LFSs) contribute to linking agriculture, society, producers
and consumers and shortening the physical and relational distances between producers and
consumers/tourists [27].
 Landscape (terroir ) may be considered a synthesis between local biodiversity and sociocultural
traditions [23].
 Local gastronomy (culinary practices) is linked to the culture, tradition and identity of the place
and its people [59].
 Local food consumption places (restaurants, agritourism, wineries, bars, etc.) are locations at which
the attributes of specialist food production may be tasted and experienced [76].
 Food events/festivals affirm community identity and values while representing relevant tools for
regional development [40].
However, in any of the place development strategies identified—rural development, place
branding and/or a food tourism strategy—the link between place and people, which involves
sustainable development, should be realized through multi-stakeholder network governance.
Participation and stakeholder involvement and engagement represent essential tools through which
any sustainable development strategy should be enacted because they ensure that territorial and
stakeholder/community characteristics and needs support the shaping of development projects.

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 16 of 25
Table 1. Local resources, framed according to place and people dimensions.
Local ResourcesDimensions
Place People
Local food and GI productsUnique food stems from the unique natural conditions of a territory. Local
agri-food products originate from a particular area, and their origin represents
a source of differentiation in the global arena.
GI products contribute to preserving biodiversity and local landscapes.Local agri-food products also have a cultural component, which implicates
cultural values shared by the members of the local community and their
expertise [97].
GI/typical products can be considered a resource for the local community
because typicalness relates not only to the productive process but also to the
relations between the various actors in the territorial systems who give the
product a collective dimension [89].
Landscape (terroir)Terroir is defined as “an area or terrain, usually rather small, whose soil and
microclimate impart distinctive qualities to food products” [33] (p. 131). The
quality of food stems greatly from the quality of its “terroir”, which
contributes to increasing place attractiveness [81].Landscape is considered both a natural and a cultural asset and is represented by
its sociocultural traditions [23].
Local food consumption placesThe context in which food is served and consumed represents a branding
element; it attracts tourists because it contributes to authenticity.Local consumption places using local food showcase local culture and strengthen
local food identity.
Local gastronomyLocal gastronomy conveys the culture, traditions and identity of the place.
Local gastronomy stems from the use of territorial products, which are valued
through gastronomy because the place offers an opportunity to interpret local
food according to local tradition and expertise, contributing specific flavours
and ways of eating [120].Gastronomy has the ability to convey a sense of heritage and a community’s
cultural identity [121].
A heritage dimension is essential to the authenticity of food experiences; tourists
value local foods because they are seen not only as local (belonging to one place)
but also as “traditional” products with a long history of production in a specific
location [28].
Local food systemsSFSCs contribute to the respatialization of food systems, which contrast with
the conventional, industrial and globalized food system; SFSCs imply a
connection between “place”, “community” and the “local” [45]. This
respatialization also aligns with the concept of the foodshed, conceived as “a
socio-geographic space: human activity embedded in the natural integument
of a particular place” [122] (p. 37).SFSCs contribute to the resocialization of food systems (shorter relational
distances). The relations between the various actors of the territorial systems give
the product a collective dimension [89].
Food events and food festivalsFood events contribute to the preservation and celebration of the local
agri-food system, which is a part of local identity.Food events are a celebration of a community’s local identity, values and pride.
Source: author’s elaboration.

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 17 of 25
7. Discussion and Conclusions
This review was an analysis of various areas of study to identify the main academic discourses
that relate F&G to sustainable place development. The aim was to offer a more holistic perspective
on how F&G are understood as making a positive contribution to sustainable place development.
Several elements were identified and reported in Table 1 because they represented the most recurrent
and significative resources targeted by the literature. The identified local resources have two main
dimensions—place and people—that are revealed as the underlying factors that support a sustainable
approach to place development.
Places are increasingly important not only because they are the expression of how economy,
ecology and community interact but also because place-based qualities provide food products with
unique characteristics, foster biodiversity and ensure specific gastronomic traditions, increasing place
recognizability in the global arena. Therefore, the concept of place is central to the path towards
sustainable development, which contrasts with a globalization construct characterized by placelessness
and standardization [123].
People are the local actors; they include farmers, producers and processers, chefs and food service
industry, festival organizers and managers, policymakers and authorities involved in the food system
and the community. These people instil local skills, historical and cultural practices, and traditional
knowledge in producing, processing and transforming products [ 3], all of which contribute to the local
(place) dimension and the “heritage” dimension. Heritage represents a source of identity [ 59] that
supports place distinctiveness, typicality and authenticity.
The importance of linking food, place, and people is also supported by policymakers such as
those of the FAO, who recognize these three dimensions as essential to ensuring sustainable place
development [ 3]. This view is also supported by Pike’s [ 124] approach to geographical studies, which
affirmed that the dichotomy between territorial or relational thinking when addressing space and place
must be overcome to focus instead on their tensions. Pike [ 124] (p. 635) analysed the spatialities of
branding objects and branding processes through the concept of geographical entanglement “evident
in geographical origins, provenance and socio-spatial histories, spatial circuits of value and meaning,
and territorial and relational spaces and places”. Thus, to understand the shift towards sustainability,
consideration must be given to the ways in which change might occur in specific places, which may
be understood as “social and contested objects, embedded in networks of relations” [ 125] (p. 208).
Accordingly, this review demonstrates that, to enable the sustainable development of places based on
F&G, the territorial (place) and relational (people) dimensions should be addressed together.
Dwyer [ 10] emphasized that one of the major shortcomings for the realization of sustainable
development is that, whilst its principles are widely accepted, practices often remain unsustainable.
This occurs because “business as usual” assumptions reflect the neoliberal economic model,
whereas a different approach is required to contend with sustainable futures. Should locales seek
development, attracting tourists and businesses might lead to increased pressures on the places
themselves. From an economic perspective, attracting more people might signify an increased cost
of living and prices for locals, particularly if they are not beneficiaries of economic development.
From an environmental perspective, increased numbers of tourists might lead to the degradation
of landscapes and negatively affect biodiversity, disrupting ecosystems and increasing the carbon
footprint [ 126]. From a social perspective, if a local community is excluded from development actions,
this might precipitate conflicts between residents and tourists. Sustainable development assumes that
all stakeholders should benefit from place development strategies, not merely a few shareholders [ 127];
otherwise, commodification of culture might lead to loss of local identity and values [10].
Therefore, given the local food-related resources identified, the capability of these resources to
allow sustainable place development largely lie within the realm of policymakers, along with the type
of development strategies undertaken. Increasingly, the question of whom to attract to the destination
is crucial. As Dwyer [ 10] (p. 13) emphasized: “Attracting the right type of tourist, with value

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 18 of 25
aligned to those of the host, is more important than attracting large numbers” if development aims to
be sustainable.
An additional challenge is that each of these resources is generally considered within a policy
sector: local food is managed within agriculture for example, whilst the building of restaurants or food
malls (food consumption locales) is managed by planning sectors, and festivals and events might be
managed within tourism policy sectors. Therefore, often, even if a place has many of the identified
resources available, they may not necessarily be addressed through a systemic perspective that might
support an integrated place development strategy.
On the other hand, one of the hallmarks of sustainable development is the blurring of
boundaries between research and policy areas and the acknowledged interdependence of different
actors [ 116], together with the breaking down of modernist dichotomies such as production (economy)-
consumption (culture) and global networks (macro)- local communities (micro) [ 22]. Consequently,
it appears necessary to break down the silos among disciplines and policies. The path towards
sustainability needs to be problem-based and place-based and must involve multiple actors bearing
different types of knowledge that should be coordinated and integrated to address sustainability
challenges [107].
The next step from a policy perspective is to foster an understanding of these resources as different
elements that might support an integrated and self-reinforcing place development strategy that avoids
treating each one of them as individual entities but rather as parts of a puzzle for development based
on F&G.
Another element that warrants emphasis is that policymakers should plan a place development
strategy based on F&G considering all the identified resources systemically; this strategy might support
the emergence of cross-sectorial effects capable of promoting the development of new products, services
and processes.
Finally, F&G’s benefits for local sustainable development should be emphasized; these benefits
were suggested based on a holistic perspective as they emerged from the analysis:
 Local food and GI products may support agricultural differentiation, maintain local resources
(biodiversity and natural and cultural resources) and contribute to the preservation of
local landscapes.
 Local foods sold through alternative outlets may boost the sustainability of traditional farming,
landscapes and farming communities [28].
 Local food networks may contribute to protecting existing jobs and creating employment by
stimulating agrarian economies and favouring local farming communities and small-scale
businesses, ultimately representing a tool for rural development [17].
 Adding value to local food products can improve producers’ remuneration. This can be
realized through certification (PDO, PGI, and TSG), through place branding by strengthening the
associations between food (geographical and heritage components) and place, and through food
tourism, because local foods represent an important means of marketing a destination’s identity
and culture.
 The respatialization and resocialization of food and food systems is important for local
development; moreover, the cultural relocalization of food is aligned with the current demand for
environmental friendliness and sustainability [37].
 Communities may be empowered by the proper use of local foods as leverage for tourism through
job creation, the encouragement of entrepreneurship and enhanced pride [ 81] by branding the
destination’s identity based on food and food experiences in the area.
 Using local food as leverage for tourism can generate a multiplier effect in the local
economy [28,89] , contributing to a destination’s authenticity and ultimately strengthening the
local economy [74,79].

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 19 of 25
The following are the identified policy implications related to using F&G for sustainable
place development.
Policy Implications
 Food is implicated in many policy arenas. Therefore, addressing food’s impact on sustainability
and food’s potential for sustainable development will not be possible if challenges are addressed
only within a single policy sector, such as agriculture. A systemic approach is needed along with
coordination among policy sectors such as education, business, health and others.
 Local stakeholders and local communities must be involved in each of the strategies identified
(i.e., rural development, place branding, and food tourism). The engagement of local actors will
allow them to assume ownership of projects/strategies and will contribute to the authenticity of
food and food experiences.
 A one-size-fits-all solution for sustainable territorial development does not exist; therefore, all
relevant stakeholders must be engaged through a participatory approach that identifies both the
local competitive advantage and potential for sustainable growth.
 Food and food’s potential for development must be considered from a systemic perspective,
which might enable the identification of cross-sectorial opportunities by linking food with other
sectors (e.g., tourism, technology, education, etc.).
Based on this analysis, the identified tangible and intangible elements appear to have the ability
to support sustainable territorial development if it is addressed in a manner that strengthens the place
and people dimensions of F&G and is sustained by participatory approaches to governance.
This article contributes a focused perspective on a highly essential research area and offers
a local resource-based interpretation of F&G potential for sustainable place development that might
support improved policymakers’ understanding and perhaps coherent actions. This study also has
some limitations.
This study was not a systematic literature review, and therefore, some important contributions
were possibly omitted [ 22]. However, this article was not intended to be a thorough review but rather
to offer an overview of the literature [ 20] with the aim of synthesizing different perspectives to provide
improved direction for future research.
Future research should address F&G for place development in a more systemic way,
i.e., by detecting and understanding how the F&G resources available in a place and related
policies support or oppose each other in striving towards sustainable place growth. While the
academic literature widely addresses how each resource identified might support sustainable place
development, it is important to tackle the interrelations among different resources and policies to
determine opportunities and challenges emerging from this potential integration towards sustainable
place development.
Finally, future research should attempt to determine whether the relevant dimensions identified
at the theoretical level are confirmed, challenged or extended through case studies.
Acknowledgments: This study was funded under the FOODEV project (Food and gastronomy as leverage for
local development). This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 707763. The content of this
article does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views
expressed in the article lies entirely with the author.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
AFNs Alternative Food Networks
CLLD Community-Led Local Development
COO Country-of-Origin
EU European Union

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 20 of 25
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
F&G Food and Gastronomy
GI Geographical Indication
LEADERLiaison Entre Actions de D éveloppement de l’ Économie Rurale (links between the rural economy
and development actions)
LFSs Local Food Systems
NFSCs New Food Supply Chains
PDO Protected Designation of Origin
PCI Product-Country-Image
PGI Protected Geographical Indication
SFSCs Short Food Supply Chains
TSG Traditional Specialty Guaranteed
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNWTO World Tourism Organization
References
1. Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M. Our Common Future ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987;
ISBN 019282080X.
2. Marsden, T.; Smith, E. Ecological entrepreneurship: Sustainable development in local communities through
quality food production and local branding. Geoforum 2005 ,36, 440–451. [CrossRef]
3. Vandecandelaere, E.; Arfini, F.; Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A. Linking People, Places and Products. A Guide for
Promoting Quality Linked to Geographical Origin and Sustainable Geographical Indications ; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009.
Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1760e/i1760e00.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2017).
4. Holling, C.S. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 2001 ,4,
390–405. [CrossRef]
5. Ciegis, R.; Ramanauskiene, J.; Martinkus, B. The concept of sustainable development and its use for
sustainability scenarios. Eng. Econ. 2009 ,62, 28–37.
6. Gibson, R.B. Beyond the pillars: Sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social,
economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2006 ,
8, 259–280. [CrossRef]
7. Dimitrov, D. The Paradox of Sustainability Definitions. (Working Paper No. 100). 2010. Available online:
https://cms.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/Portals/2/WP100%20Dimitrov.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2017).
8. Camagni, R. Sustainable urban development: Definition and reason for a research programme. Int. J.
Environ. Pollut. 1998 ,10, 6–26. [CrossRef]
9. Wheeler, S.M. Climate Change and Social Ecology. A New Perspective on the Climate Challenge ; Routledge:
London, UK, 2012; ISBN 9780415809856.
10. Dwyer, L. Saluting while the ship sinks: The necessity for tourism paradigm change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017 .
[CrossRef]
11. Wuelser, G.; Pohl, C. How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: A typology
based on grounded theory. Sustain. Sci. 2016 ,11, 789–800. [CrossRef]
12. Marsden, T. Sustainable place-making for sustainability science: The contested case of agri-food and
urban-rural relations. Sustain. Sci. 2013 ,8, 213–226. [CrossRef]
13. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q.
2002 ,26, xiii–xxiii.
14. Bazzani, C.; Canavari, M. Alternative agri-food networks and short food supply chains: A review of the
literature. Econ. Agro-Aliment. 2013 ,2, 11–34. [CrossRef]
15. Vuignier, R. Place Marketing and Place Branding: A Systematic (and Tentatively Exhaustive) Literature
Review. (Working Paper d l’IDHEAP , 5/2016). 2016. Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-
01340352/document (accessed on 26 July 2017).
16. Berg, P .O.; Sev ón, G. Food-branding places–A sensory perspective. Place Brand. Public Dipl. 2014 ,10, 289–304.
[CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 21 of 25
17. Henderson, J.C. Food tourism reviewed. Br. Food J. 2009 ,111, 317–326. [CrossRef]
18. Richards, G. Creativity and tourism in the city. Curr. Issues Tour. 2014 ,17, 119–144. [CrossRef]
19. Corley, K.G.; Gioia, D.A. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?
Acad. Manag. Rev. 2011 ,36, 12–32. [CrossRef]
20. Li, X.; Petrick, J.F. Tourism Marketing in an Era of Paradigm Shift. J. Travel Res. 2008 ,46, 235–244. [CrossRef]
21. Ritchie, J.R.B. Beacons of Light in an Expanding Universe: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art in Tourism
Marketing/ Marketing Research. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1996 ,5, 49–84. [CrossRef]
22. Saraniemi, S.; Kylänen, M. Problematizing the concept of tourism destination: An analysis of different
theoretical approaches. J. Travel Res. 2011 ,50, 133–143. [CrossRef]
23. Wiskerke, J.S. On places lost and places regained: Reflections on the alternative food geography and
sustainable regional development. Int. Plan. Stud. 2009 ,14, 369–387. [CrossRef]
24. Philips, L. Food and globalization. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006 ,35, 37–57. [CrossRef]
25. Van der Ploeg, J.D.; Renting, H.; Brunori, G.; Knickel, K.; Mannion, J.; Marsden, T.K.; De Roest, K.;
Sevilla-Guzman, E.; Ventura, F. Rural development: From practices and policies towards theory. Sociol. Rural.
2000 ,40, 391–408. [CrossRef]
26. Knickel, K.; Renting, H. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of multifunctionality and rural
development. Sociol. Rural. 2000 ,40, 512–528. [CrossRef]
27. Renting, H.; Marsden, T.K.; Banks, J. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short
food supply chains in rural development. Environ. Plan. A 2003 ,35, 393–411. [CrossRef]
28. Sims, R. Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience. J. Sustain. Tour.
2009 ,17, 321–336. [CrossRef]
29. Martinez, S.; Hand, M.; Da Pra, M.; Pollack, S.; Ralston, K.; Smith, T.; Vogel, S.; Clark, S.; Lohr, L.; Low, S.;
et al. Local Food Systems Concepts, Impacts, and Issues ; Economic Research Report 97; U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
30. Brunori, G. Local food and alternative food networks: A communication perspective. Anthropol. Food 2007 ,
S2, 1–16.
31. D’Amico, A. The enhancement of the typical products value: From commodity to Experience. The case of
Esperya.com. Br. Food J. 2004 ,106, 793–805. [CrossRef]
32. Eriksen, S.F. Defining local food: Constructing a new taxonomy—Three domains of proximity. Acta Agric.
Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2013 ,63, 47–55. [CrossRef]
33. Barham, E. Translating terroir: The global challenge of French AOC labeling. J. Rural Stud. 2003 ,19, 127–138.
[CrossRef]
34. Tregear, A.; Arfini, F.; Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A. Regional foods and rural development: The role of product
qualification. J. Rural Stud. 2007 ,23, 12–22. [CrossRef]
35. Tregear, A. From Stilton to Vimto: Using food history to re-think typical products in rural development.
Sociol. Rural. 2003 ,43, 91–107. [CrossRef]
36. Forney, J.; Häberli, I. Introducing ‘seeds of change’ into the food system? Localisation strategies in the Swiss
dairy industry. Sociol. Rural. 2016 ,56, 135–156. [CrossRef]
37. Sidali, K.L.; Kastenholz, E.; Bianchi, R. Food tourism, niche markets and products in rural tourism:
Combining the intimacy model and the experience economy as a rural development strategy. J. Sustain. Tour.
2015 ,23, 1179–1197. [CrossRef]
38. Mason, R.; O’Mahony, B. On the Trail of Food and Wine: The tourist search for meaningful experience.
Ann. Leis. Res. 2007 ,10, 498–517. [CrossRef]
39. Paloviita, A. Consumers’ sustainability perceptions of the supply chain of locally produced food.
Sustainability 2010 ,2, 1492–1509. [CrossRef]
40. Everett, S.; Aitchison, C. The role of food tourism in sustaining regional identity: A case study of Cornwall,
South West England. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008 ,16, 150–167. [CrossRef]
41. Haven-Tang, C.; Jones, E. Using local food and drink to differentiate tourism destinations through a sense
of place: A story from Wales-dining at Monmouthshire’s great table. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 2005 ,4, 69–86.
[CrossRef]
42. Seyfang, G. Growing sustainable consumption communities. The case of local organic food Networks. Int. J.
Sociol. Soc. Policy 2007 ,27, 120–134. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 22 of 25
43. Marsden, T.K. New rural territories: Regulating the differentiated rural spaces. J. Rural Stud. 1998 ,14,
107–117. [CrossRef]
44. Smith, J.; Lang, T.; Vorley, B.; Barling, D. Addressing policy challenges for more sustainable local–global
food chains: Policy frameworks and possible food “futures”. Sustainability 2016 ,8, 299. [CrossRef]
45. Feagan, R. The place of food: Mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2007 ,31,
23–42. [CrossRef]
46. Born, B.; Purcell, M. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. J. Plan. Educ. Res.
2006 ,26, 195–207. [CrossRef]
47. Tregear, A. Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: Critical reflections and a research
agenda. J. Rural Stud. 2011 ,27, 419–430. [CrossRef]
48. Rinaldi, C.; Beeton, S. Success in place branding: The case of the Tourism Victoria Jigsaw Campaign. J. Travel
Tour. Mark. 2015 ,32, 622–638. [CrossRef]
49. Giovanardi, M. A multi-scalar approach to place branding: The 150th anniversary of Italian unification in
Turin. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2015 ,23, 597–615. [CrossRef]
50. Kotler, P .; Haider, D.H.; Rein, I. Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States,
and Nations ; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993; ISBN 9780743236362.
51. Zenker, S.; Beckmann, S.C. My place is not your place-different place brand knowledge by different target
groups. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2013 ,6, 6–17. [CrossRef]
52. Lin, Y.C.; Pearson, T.E.; Cai, L.A. Food as a form of destination identity: A tourism destination brand
perspective. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2011 ,11, 30–48. [CrossRef]
53. Robertson, R. Glocalization: Time–space and homogeneity–heterogeneity. In Global Modernities ;
Featherstone, M., Lash, S., Robertson, R., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 1995; pp. 25–44, ISBN 9780803979482.
54. Askegaard, S.; Kjeldgaard, D. Here, there, and everywhere: Place branding and gastronomical globalization
in a macromarketing perspective. J. Macromark. 2007 ,27, 138–147. [CrossRef]
55. Richards, G. Food experience as integrated destination marketing strategy. In Proceedings of the World Food
Tourism Summit, Estoril, Portugal, 8–11 April 2015.
56. Papadopoulos, N. Place Branding: Evolution, Meaning and Implications. Place Brand. 2004 ,1, 36–49.
[CrossRef]
57. Zeugner-Roth, K.P .; Diamantopoulos, A.; Montesinos, A. Home Country Image, Country Brand Equity and
Consumers’ Product Preferences: An Empirical Study. Manag. Int. Rev. 2008 ,48, 577–602. [CrossRef]
58. Alonso, A.D.; Liu, Y. The potential for marrying local gastronomy and wine: The case of the ‘fortunate
islands’. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011 ,30, 974–981. [CrossRef]
59. Bessière, J. Local development and heritage: Traditional food and cuisine as tourist attractions in rural areas.
Sociol. Rural. 1998 ,38, 21–34. [CrossRef]
60. Zeng, G.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, S. Sustainable Development Mechanism of Food Culture’s Translocal Production
Based on Authenticity. Sustainability 2014 ,6, 7030–7047. [CrossRef]
61. Florida, R. The Rise of the Creative Class ; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2002; ISBN 1469281422.
62. Lee, A.; Wall, G. Food Clusters: Towards a Creative Rural Economy. (Working Paper Series, REF.
2012-MPIWP-009). 2012. Available online: http://martinprosperity.org/papers/Lee%20%282012%29%
20Food%20Clusters-formatted-V2.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2017).
63. Lee, K.H.; Scott, N. Food tourism reviewed using the paradigm funnel approach. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 2015 ,
13, 95–115. [CrossRef]
64. Cavicchi, A.; Ciampi Stancova, K. Food and Gastronomy as Elements of Regional Innovation Strategies ; EUR 27757
EN; European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies: Seville,
Spain, 2016.
65. Rivas, M. Innovative Place Brand Management, Re-Learning City Branding ; URBACT-CityLogo Final Report;
URBACT, European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
66. Williams, H.A.; Williams, R.L., Jr.; Omar, M. Gastro-tourism as destination branding in emerging markets.
Int. J. Leis. Tour. Mark. 2014 ,4, 1–18. [CrossRef]
67. Blichfeldt, B.S.; Halkier, H. Mussels, Tourism and Community Development: A Case Study of Place Branding
through Food Festivals in Rural North Jutland, Denmark. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014 ,22, 1587–1603. [CrossRef]
68. Mason, M.C.; Paggiaro, A. Celebrating Local Products: The Role of Food Events. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2009 ,
12, 364–383. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 23 of 25
69. Bell, D.; Valentine, G. Consuming Geographies: We Are Where We Eat ; Routledge: London, UK, 1997;
ISBN 978-0415137683.
70. De Bres, K.; Davis, J. Celebrating group and place identity: A case study of a new regional festival. Tour. Geogr.
2001 ,3, 326–337. [CrossRef]
71. Getz, D. Event Management and Event Tourism ; Cognizant Communication Corporation: New York, NY, USA,
1997; ISBN 9781882345465.
72. Rotherham, I.D. From haggis to high table: A selective story of festivals and feasts as mirrors of British
landscape and culture. In Food and Wine Festivals and Events around the World ; Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Eds.;
Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 47–62. ISBN 9780750683807.
73. O’Sullivan, D.; Jackson, M.J. Festival tourism: A contributor to sustainable local economic development?
J. Sustain. Tour. 2002 ,10, 325–342. [CrossRef]
74. Du Rand, G.E.; Heath, E.; Alberts, N. The role of local and regional food in destination marketing: A South
African situation analysis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2003 ,14, 97–112. [CrossRef]
75. Lee, I.; Arcodia, C. The role of regional food festivals for destination branding. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2011 ,13,
355–367. [CrossRef]
76. Hall, C.M.; Mitchell, R. Wine and food tourism. In Special Interest Tourism: Context and Cases ; Douglas, N.,
Douglas, N., Derrett, R., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: Brisbane, Australia, 2001; pp. 307–329, ISBN 0471421715.
77. Hjalager, A.M.; Richards, G. Tourism and Gastronomy ; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; ISBN 9780203218617.
78. Pine, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage ; Harvard Business
School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1999; ISBN 9781578515240.
79. Du Rand, G.E.; Heath, E. Towards a framework for food tourism as an element of destination marketing.
Curr. Issues Tour. 2006 ,9, 206–234. [CrossRef]
80. Mak, A.H.; Lumbers, M.; Eves, A. Globalisation and food consumption in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012 ,39,
171–196. [CrossRef]
81. Montanari, A.; Staniscia, B. Culinary tourism as a tool for regional re-equilibrium. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2009 ,17,
1463–1483. [CrossRef]
82. Porter, M. The Competitive Advantage of Nations ; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990; ISBN 9780029253618.
83. Viassone, M.; Grimmer, M. Ethical food as a differentiation factor for tourist destinations: The case of “Slow
Food”. J. Invest. Manag. 2015 ,4, 1–9. [CrossRef]
84. Gyim óthy, S.; Mykletun, R.J. Scary food: Commodifying culinary heritage as meal adventures in tourism.
J. Vacat. Mark. 2009 ,15, 259–273. [CrossRef]
85. Jiménez-Beltr án, F.J.; L ópez-Guzm án, T.; Gonz ález Santa Cruz, F. Analysis of the Relationship between
Tourism and Food Culture. Sustainability 2016 ,8, 418. [CrossRef]
86. Madaleno, A.; Eus ébio, C.; Varum, C. The promotion of local agro-food products through tourism:
A segmentation analysis. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017 , 1–21. [CrossRef]
87. Yurtseven, H.R.; Kaya, O. Local food in local menus: The case of Gokceada. Tour. Int. Multidiscip. J. Tour.
2011 ,6, 263–275.
88. Harrington, R.J.; Ottenbacher, M.C. Culinary tourism—A case study of the gastronomic capital. J. Culin.
Sci. Technol. 2010 ,8, 14–32. [CrossRef]
89. De Salvo, P .; Hern ández Mogoll ón, J.M.; Di Clemente, E.; Calzati, V . Territory, tourism and local products.
The extra virgin oil’s enhancement and promotion: A benchmarking Italy-Spain. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2013 ,
19, 23–34.
90. Boyne, S.; Hall, D.; Williams, F. Policy, support and promotion for food-related tourism initiatives:
A marketing approach to regional development. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2003 ,14, 131–154. [CrossRef]
91. Gössling, S.; Garrod, B.; Aall, C.; Hille, J.; Peeters, P . Food management in tourism: Reducing tourism’s
carbon ‘foodprint’. Tour. Manag. 2011 ,32, 534–543. [CrossRef]
92. Björk, P .; Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. Local food: A source for destination attraction. Int. J. Contemp.
Hosp. Manag. 2016 ,28, 177–194. [CrossRef]
93. Trubek, A.B. The Taste of Place: A Cultural Journey into Terroir ; University of California Press:
Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-520-25281-3.
94. DeSoucey, M. Gastronationalism food traditions and authenticity politics in the European Union.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 2010 ,75, 432–455. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 24 of 25
95. Sidali, K.L.; Hemmerling, S. Developing an authenticity model of traditional food specialties: Does the
self-concept of consumers matter? Br. Food J. 2014 ,116, 1692–1709. [CrossRef]
96. Richards, G. Gastronomy: An essential ingredient in tourism production and consumption? In Tourism and
Gastronomy ; Hjalager, A.M., Richards, G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 3–20, ISBN 9780203218617.
97. Hillel, D.; Belhassen, Y.; Shani, A. What makes a gastronomic destination attractive? Evidence from the
Israeli Negev. Tour. Manag. 2013 ,36, 200–209. [CrossRef]
98. Ekinci, M.B. The Cittaslow philosophy in the context of sustainable tourism development; the case of Turkey.
Tour. Manag. 2014 ,41, 178–189. [CrossRef]
99. Björk, P .; Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. Exploring the multi-dimensionality of travellers’ culinary-gastronomic
experiences. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016 ,19, 1260–1280. [CrossRef]
100. Dhora, R.; Dionizi, B. The Role of the Restaurant Sector in Promoting the Local Cuisine. The Case of Shkodra
City. Int. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2014 ,1, 327–332. [CrossRef]
101. Cohen, E.; Avieli, N. Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004 ,31, 755–778.
[CrossRef]
102. Fischler, C. Food, self and identity. Information 1988 ,27, 275–292. [CrossRef]
103. Kneafsey, M. Tourism and Place Identity: A case-study in rural Ireland. Ir. Geogr. 1998 ,31, 111–123.
[CrossRef]
104. Robinson, R.N.S.; Getz, D. Profiling potential food tourists: An Australian study. Br. Food J. 2014 ,116,
690–706. [CrossRef]
105. Barr, A.; Levy, P . The Official Foodie Handbook ; Ebury Press: London, UK, 1984; ISBN 0877957703.
106. Getz, D.; Robinson, R.; Andersson, T.D.; Vujicic, S. Foodies and Food Tourism ; Goodfellow Publishers: Oxford,
UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-91-015801-2.
107. Miller, T.R.; Wiek, A.; Sarewitz, D.; Robinson, J.; Olsson, L.; Kriebel, D.; Loorbach, D. The future of
sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain. Sci. 2014 ,9, 239–246. [CrossRef]
108. Shiroyama, H.; Yarime, M.; Matsuo, M.; Schroeder, H.; Scholz, R.; Ulrich, A.E. Governance for sustainability:
Knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management. Sustain. Sci. 2012 ,7, 45–55.
[CrossRef]
109. Trencher, G.P .; Yarime, M.; Kharrazi, A. Co-creating Sustainability: Cross-sector University Collaborations
for Driving Sustainable Urban Transformations. J. Clean. Prod. 2013 ,50, 40–55. [CrossRef]
110. Trencher, G.; Yarime, M.; McCormick, K.B.; Doll, C.N.; Kraines, S.B. Beyond the third mission: Exploring the
emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Sci. Public Policy 2014 ,41, 151–179. [CrossRef]
111. Dargan, L.; Shucksmith, M. LEADER and innovation. Sociol. Rural. 2008 ,48, 274–291. [CrossRef]
112. Czischke, D.; Pascariu, S. New Concepts and Tools for Sustainable Urban Development in 2014–2020 ; URBACT
Study Synthesis Report; European Union, European Regional Development Fund: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
Available online: http://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/synthesis_report_urbact_study.pdf (accessed on
26 July 2017).
113. Kavaratzis, M.; Hatch, M.J. The dynamics of place brands: An identity-based approach to place branding
theory. Mark. Theory 2013 ,13, 69–86. [CrossRef]
114. Kalandides, A. From “necessary evil” to necessity: Stakeholders’ involvement in place branding. J. Place
Manag. Dev. 2012 ,5, 7–19. [CrossRef]
115. Kavaratzis, M. The Participatory Place Branding Process for Tourism: Linking Visitors and Residents
through the City Brand. In Tourism in the City: Towards an Integrative Agenda on Urban Tourism ;
Bellini, N., Pasquinelli, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 93–107,
ISBN 9783319268767.
116. Waligo, V .M.; Clarke, J.; Hawkins, R. Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement
management framework. Tour. Manag. 2013 ,36, 342–353. [CrossRef]
117. Jennings, S.; Cottee, J.; Curtis, T.; Miller, S. Food in an Urbanised World. The Role of City
Region Food Systems in Resilience and Sustainable Development ; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. Available
online: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/FCIT/documents/Food_in_an_Urbanised_World_
Report_DRAFT_February_2015.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2017).
118. Westhoek, H.; Ingram, J.; Van Berkum, S.; Özay, L.; Hajer, M. Food Systems and Natural Resources ; A Report
of the Working Group on Food Systems of the International Resource Panel; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016.
Available online: www.resourcepanel.org/file/395/download?token=JqcqyisH (accessed on 26 July 2017).

Sustainability 2017 ,9, 1748 25 of 25
119. World Tourism Organization. Global Report on Food Tourism ; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2012. Available online:
http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/amreports4-foodtourism.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2017).
120. Sánchez-Cañizares, S.M.; L ópez-Guzm án, T. Gastronomy as a tourism resource: Profile of the culinary tourist.
Curr. Issues Tour. 2012 ,15, 229–245. [CrossRef]
121. Chaney, S.; Ryan, C. Analyzing the evolution of Singapore’s World Gourmet Summit: An example of
gastronomic tourism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012 ,31, 309–318. [CrossRef]
122. Kloppenburg, J.; Hendrickson, J.; Stevenson, G.W. Coming in to the foodshed. Agric. Hum. Values 1996 ,13,
33–42. [CrossRef]
123. Bramwell, B.; Rawding, L. Tourism Marketing Images of Industrial Cities. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996 ,23, 2201–2221.
[CrossRef]
124. Pike, A. Geographies of brands and branding. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2009 ,33, 619–645. [CrossRef]
125. Santhanam-Martin, M.; Ayre, M.; Nettle, R. Community sustainability and agricultural landscape change:
Insights into the durability and vulnerability of the productivist regime. Sustain. Sci. 2015 ,10, 207–217.
[CrossRef]
126. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. Tourism and Global Environmental Change: Ecological, Social, Economic and Political
Interrelationships ; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; ISBN 9780415361316.
127. Pollock, A. Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism: The Conscious Travel Approach ; Tourism, Innovation Partnership
for Social Entrepreneurship (TIPSE) Tourism: London, UK, 2015. Available online: http://www.travindy.
com/2015/11/free-briefing-social-entrepreneurship-in-tourism-the-conscious-travel-approach/ (accessed
on 26 July 2017).
©2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).