Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/when20

How Can Food Hubs Best Serve Their Buyers?

Perspectives from Vermont

David S. Conner, Hannah Harrington, Sarah Heiss & Linda Berlin

To cite this article: David S. Conner, Hannah Harrington, Sarah Heiss & Linda Berlin (2020)
How Can Food Hubs Best Serve Their Buyers? Perspectives from Vermont, Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 15:5, 613-627, DOI: 10.1080/19320248.2019.1683114

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2019.1683114

Published online: 22 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 52

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=when20
JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION
2020, VOL. 15, NO. 5, 613–627
https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2019.1683114

How Can Food Hubs Best Serve Their Buyers? Perspectives

from Vermont
David S. Connera, Hannah Harringtona, Sarah Heissa, and Linda Berlinb
a
Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington,
VT, USA; bDepartment of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Food Hubs (FHs) have been touted for their role in local and Local food; transaction costs;
regional food systems. This study aims to understand the mixed methods; food
perspectives of Food Hub (FH) buyers and identify effective systems
practices for FHs to serve these clients. Drawing on an analysis
of survey and interview data with buyers, we describe how
buyer perceptions of local food and experiences with FHs
shape their purchasing decisions. Specifically, we describe
how purchasing decisions are shaped by buyers’ perceptions
of the shared value of local food and buyers’ perceptions of
the efficacy of food hub operations. Our implications focus on
FH practices that could grow or strengthen their buyer base.

Introduction
Food Hubs (FHs) have been touted for their positive contributions to local and
regional food systems and community development. 1–4 One gap in the extant
literature is the perspective of buyers – the institutions, retailers and others who
purchase from FHs. This research uses a mixed methods approach, a survey and
face-to-face interviews, to understand the perspectives of FH buyers and identify
effective practices for FHs to serve these clients. The literature review emphasizes
a key component of food hub success, the role of strategic partnerships in
helping to manage transaction costs.

Food Hubs
FHs have drawn interest from scholars and practitioners for their potential to
expand market access for locally grown foods. USDA1,4 defines a FH as “a
centrally located facility with a business management structure facilitating
the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of
locally/regionally produced food products.” FHs may differ from distributors
in part due to in their commitment to local and regional food systems goals
like farm viability and food access.3

CONTACT David S. Conner 97dconne@uvm.edu 205H Morrill Hall, 146 University Place, Burlington,
VT 05405
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
614 D. S. CONNER ET AL.

FHs play a crucial role in local food markets by offering a variety of services to
suppliers and buyers. The core components of a food hub include aggregation
and distribution services, active coordination of supply chain logistics, and
permanent facilities for storage and/or processing. Previous research outlines
the services and potential benefits FHs provide to sellers;1,3–5 these include
picking up food on farm or providing a centralized drop off point; space,
facilities and technical assistance for storage, light processing, packing, palletiz-
ing and labeling. In addition, FHs provide branding and market promotion,
which add value to the product by preserving identity and traceability, articulat-
ing product attributes that differentiate these products from similar, conven-
tional products. FHs have created labels that include the farmer’s name, photos
of the farm and the animals, and stories about the farm that goes on the different
products, such as bags, stickers, stamps, twist ties and other packages. FHs
employ marketing strategies and invest time building relationships with various
buyers and wholesalers, something producers may not have the time or staff
capacity to develop.
FHs also provide services and benefits to buyers.1,4,5 By aggregating food
from a variety of local producers, many or all of whom do not produce
enough to do business with traditional wholesalers, FHs compile a selection
of products from which buyers can choose and pay for with a single invoice.
This attracts buyers and wholesalers who would otherwise not have pur-
chased locally due to the high transaction costs of seeking out the variety of
products from individual producers. Identity preservation also benefits
buyers by providing credible information about local products through
packaging and signage.
FHs may also facilitate the transmission of social values. The sense of social
connection, exchange and trust that is associated with the direct marketing
experience can be absorbed into the social mission of the hub.5–7 Food hub
business models with strong social missions and close association with produ-
cers may not need the same high levels of identity preservation, as it is their
brand that carries a high level of legitimacy to its consumers.4

Transaction Costs
Transaction cost theory is an important analytical tool to understand food
markets and the services provided by supply chain actors A buyer seeking
a differentiated product must incur transaction costs to find and purchase the
desired item. There are three main types (i) search and information costs to
determine the availability of the good on the market, (ii) bargaining costs to
establish the price and (iii) enforcement costs to ensure the seller delivers the
product under the agreed to terms and specifications.8 The more differentiated –
in a sense, the rarer or more unusual the product – the higher the transaction
costs. Commodities have very low transaction costs as they have many sellers
 JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION 615

providing essentially indistinguishable products, at established and easily dis-

covered prices, and well-defined product specifications and terms of exchange.
Hobbs8 presents a model of three options buyers face; for an applica-
tion of this model to food procurement see Conner et al.9 Buyers can
purchase readily available items like commodities on spot markets. If it is
highly specialized, with few or no suppliers, they may need to make it in-
house. The third option is to form a partnership. For a buyer like an
institution (school, hospital, college) or independent grocer who wants to
purchase and promote locally grown foods, the first two options do not
work well. Local produce (with the grower identity preserved) is not
widely available in commodity markets. The institutions and stores do
not have the capacity to produce sufficient quantities themselves. To
source products from multiple farmers is logistically untenable.
Therefore, they need a distributor like the aforementioned value chain
strategic partner, who can source from multiple farmers and vendors. The
distributor procures the desired product (locally produced and often
identity preserved) and minimizes the transaction costs for the buyer by
(i) locating suppliers, (ii) negotiating prices and (ii) ensuring terms of
delivery.
Values-based supply chains or value chains (VC) are strategic partner-
ships among supply chain actors which facilitate the sales of differentiated
products to local and regional markets and increase mass market access for
small and medium sized farms.9–11 VC partnerships are based on relation-
ships driven by shared values that foster the kinds of communication and
co-learning needed to address complex issues within food supply
chains.9,12,13
The extant research shows that FHs can play an important role in expand-
ing local food systems and increasing food access by managing transaction
costs for buyers interested in identity preserved locally produced foods. One
important research gap is how FH buyers perceive the value of the services
FHs provide. We utilize results from two Vermont FHs’ buyers. To address
this gap, we pose the following questions: How do FHs create value for
buyers? What actions and services provided by the food hub are seen as
most effective? What future opportunities exist?

Materials and Methods

A mixed methods approach, including a survey and face-to-face interviews,
was used to explore the research questions. The authors worked closely with
two Vermont FHs, one in northern and one in southern Vermont, to develop
the interview and survey instruments, as well as a sampling plan. The inter-
views and surveys occurred concurrently at the request of the FHs, so as to
provide useful and actionable information as rapidly as possible.
616 D. S. CONNER ET AL.

According to UVM Extension, there are five FHs in Vermont.14 Comparing

the two FHs in this study with results of the 2017 National Food Hubs Survey,15
the FHs in our study have been in operation for 6–10 years (like 31% of FHs
nationally), emphasize wholesale markets (like 35% of FHs nationally) and are
best described as Social Enterprises (like 32% of FHs nationally).

Survey
A survey consisting of 23 open- and closed-ended questions was developed
using LimeSurvey (a survey software), piloted by the researchers and FH
managers, then distributed by the FH managers to their network of buyers.
38 buyers responded to the survey. (Fig. 1). Questions asked buyers about
their current purchasing habits, experiences with materials and services
provided by the hub, and challenges and opportunities buyers face in
increasing their local food purchasing. The survey instrument is available
upon request.

Buyer Sector
Buying Club
16% Restaurant
2%

Inn or Hotel
3%

Senior Care
3%

Farm
5% School
42%

Camp
5%

CSA
3%

College or
University
3%
Correction Facility
5%
Hospital N=38
13%

Figure 1. Survey respondents.

 JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION 617

Interviews
To develop a more holistic understanding of buyer beliefs and practices, the second
author conducted interviews with buyers during the same time frame that the
survey was active. Interview questions focused on buyer motivations, perceptions
of FH practices and services provided, and their efficacy and value.
In addition to sending the online survey link to their buyers, the partner-
ing FHs provided a list of potential interviewees, using maximum variability
sampling to select a sample of 18 that represented diversity in sector, size,
business structure, geography, and place within the supply chain.16 Of the 18
buyers that were invited to participate, six agreed to participate. These six
interviewees were likely a subset of the survey sample. Table 1 describes the
interview sample.
The interviews lasted approximately one hour. In addition to taking hand-
written notes, all interviews were recorded to assist in the accuracy of
representing interviewee experience and comments. The interviews were
transcribed verbatim.

Analysis Process
A quantitative analysis of the close-ended survey questions occurred concur-
rently with a qualitative analysis of the interviews and open-ended survey
responses. The survey quantitative responses were uploaded into SPSS for
analysis of frequencies.
The qualitative interviews and open-ended survey responses were analyzed
using thematic analysis17Thematic analysis is a qualitative technique used to
identify, analyze, and report patterns or themes within data. Following the
practices of emergent thematic analysis, the first two authors individually read
the interview transcripts to develop a holistic understanding of the data. In our
initial analysis, two authors used HyperResearch to read and code the transcripts
multiple times independently until strong and recurring themes began to
emerge from the data. The coders discussed their codes and collapsed related
codes into each other while dividing other codes to offer more detail as patterns
began to emerge. The authors then re-read and re-coded the data independently
before meeting to discuss the data again. This iterative process continued until

Table 1. Interview sample characteristics.

Date Method Sector
February 4, 2017 Phone interview Restaurant
January 27, 2017 Face-to-face interview Hospital
January 25, 2017 Phone interview Corrections
January 25, 2017 Phone interview School
April 7, 2017 Phone interview Retail
April 5, 2017 Phone interview School
618 D. S. CONNER ET AL.

no new codes or themes emerged. We used representative quotes from the

interviews to represent the interviews’ unique voices.18

Results
This study aimed to understand the perspectives of Food Hub (FH) buyers
and identify effective practices for FHs to serve these clients. Drawing on an
analysis of survey and interview data with buyers, we describe how buyer
perceptions of local food and experiences with FHs shape their purchasing
decisions. Specifically, we describe how purchasing decisions are shaped by
buyers’ perceptions of the value of local food, the shared value of local foods,
and the efficiency of FH operations.

Survey Results
Survey questioned focused on overall satisfaction, effective practices, motiva-
tions and barriers. The first question focused on overall buyer satisfaction with
the Food Hub: the vast majority were very satisfied (31%) or satisfied (57%). The
Food Hub practices rated most effective (measured by the percentage of respon-
dents rating them as “very effective”) were providing a list of locally sourced
products (70%); year-round availability (62%); sharing farmer stories (60%) and
farmer names (54%) (Table 2).
Buyers are motivated to buy from the FH in order to support local vendors,
acquire fresh, high quality food and the freshness and flavor of local foods the
FHs provide. (Table 3). The highest percentage (87%) of buyers are motivated to
purchase local through the food hub in order to support local vendors (Table 3).
More than half (56%) of survey respondents indicated that they buy from local
FH because of product quality. Other reasons included Environmental Reasons

Table 2. Effectiveness of food hub practices.

Neither
Very Somewhat Effective or Somewhat Very Not
Marketing Strategy Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Applicable
List of Locally Sourced 69.6% 17.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 0% N = 23
Products
Consistency – Ability to 61.9% 23.8% 14.3% 0% 0% 0% N = 21
Serve a Local Product
All Year
Sharing Stories from the 60% 25% 10% 0% 5% 0% N = 20
Farm or Producer
Sharing the Name of 54.2% 29.2% 8.3% 8.3% 0% 0% N = 24
the Farm or Producer
Highlighting Dishes that 47.8% 34.8% 17.4% 0% 0% 0% N = 23
Use Local Products
Your Percentage of 29.4% 35.3% 0% 17.6% 11.8% 5.9% N = 17
Local Purchasing
 JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION 619

Table 3. Reasons for purchasing through

food hub (choose all that apply).
Motivation %
Supporting Local Vendors 87.2%
Product Quality 56.4%
Environmental Reasons 43.6%
Source Identification 39.5%
Ease of Purchasing 30.8%
Product Access 28.2%
Marketing Potential 15.4%
Affordability 12.8%
N = 39

(44%), Source Identification (40%) and Ease of Purchasing (31%). The least
common response was Affordability (13%).
The major barriers to buying are price (76%), delivery days (55%), availability
(55%), seasonality (52%) and storage space (38%).

Interview Results
Interview results echo and add nuance to the survey results. The major themes
we identified are: the perceived high quality of local food, the wish to support
local farms and businesses, the value of information and managing transaction
costs; and barriers around logistics and availability. A related theme was the
value of FHs’ efforts to adjust to and accommodate buyers’ needs.

The High Quality of Local Food

High quality food is a major motivation of interviewed buyers as well. During
interviews, buyers reported basing these decisions on their experience with and
perception of the quality of the food for sale, especially when the prices did not
differ drastically from that of commodities. In addition to taste and presentation
of local FH purchases, buyers said there are other benefits of buying local food
through FHs. One retailer explained, “We can add time to the produce we
purchase locally, it has just been picked and washed. And, so, we can add another
week to the life of that item, it lasts longer for us and our customers.” For this
buyer, longer shelf life was beneficial to the vendor and the end consumer.
While the overall quality and longevity of food was important, buyers
reported additional strategies for incorporating local foods. Recognizing
a need to balance increased costs and value of buying local foods, buyers who
served the food purchased from FHs, such as restaurant and school chefs,
preferred local foods that would be apparent in the final product. For example,
one elementary school buyer said. “I look at if it’s something I really want to use;
and how I’m going to use it; and if the quality is going to be there.” This buyer
620 D. S. CONNER ET AL.

went on to explain that “the beef is a great example. It is more expensive, but we
justify it because we make our own burger patties and those compared to other
beef is just night and day. It is well worth the expense. “For this buyer, the beef
burger was the key component of the dish. It was important that the main items
was high-quality. It was also important that the main item, the showcased item,
was the local item. For instance, this buyer didn’t think consumers would know
or care if the seasoning added to the burger was local.

Sharing the Value of Local Food

Buyers said that FHs are valuable when they support their missions to
support local agriculture. Buyers are motivated to purchase through the
food hub in order to fulfill various pillars of their business mission, particu-
larly supporting farmers with sound production methods, building and
sustaining the local and regional economy and building local networks. For
example, one buyer said, “We like the fact that it’s right from our community –
from people who live and work here.”
Wanting to secure food products from a local farm reflected more than
geography. One high school buyer said that through work with FHs, “we are
trying to build and keep the local economy growing.” For this buyer, it was
important that they purchased from people in their community and FHs were
a way of bolstering the local farmers and businesses. The restaurant buyer
explained that they “often see those farmers in the dining room once or twice
a week and morally it just makes a lot more sense.” This buyer’s practices were
governed by a norm of reciprocity within their community. For them, it was
important to purchase products from the very farmers that were frequenting
their venues.
Like the survey respondents, the interviewees said it was important that
they share information about the source of their FH purchases with con-
sumer. Transparency played a role in the motivation behind buyers’ FH
purchasing. Buyers are interested in receiving information about where the
food was produced, who produced it, and production methods. They
reported that it is effective when the FH provided this information and
used a variety of information streams. For example, buyers found it useful
to see information about where and how the food was produced on the FHs’
ordering webpages. The restaurant buyer said,

“Bottom line is, they call themselves farm direct and its true, they source directly
from the source. Other companies, short of reading the labels on the box, it’s almost
impossible to know where the food is from. Those companies are sourcing out of
a warehouse, so they are one step removed, or added, already a loss of connection
happens between the source and the warehouse then direct.”
 JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION 621

When the FHs preserved the producer identification for the food it distri-
butes, the FHs were seen as effectively facilitating the relationship between
buyers and local farmers. Buyers did not trust a simple label that a product
was sourced locally. Rather, FHs were seen as transparent and credible
sources for local food purchases because they were able to articulate more
of the story about where the food was produced, who produced it, and
production methods.
Buyers reported wanting more of that information about product attributes
when talking to FHs. The elementary school buyer explained, “You’re putting
trust in the food hub to deliver these products and investing in these products and
you want to work with someone who cares about this and has a stake in this
because if I’m just talking to some executive, they’re just looking at that bottom
line – he’s just going to tell me what I want to hear. A stakeholder vs. a salesman.”
In addition to talking to someone knowledgeable about the food products’
attributes, buyers wanted to be able to trust that the FH representative knew
and cared about the farmer and the vendor’s business needs. When buyers
perceived there to be a close connection between the producers and the FH,
buyers were more likely to purchase the FH products.

Efficiency and FH Operations

Buyers said that working with FHs both increased the efficiency of buying
local foods and sharing information about the food. Overall, though, buyers
perceived FHs to provide superior customer service.

Transaction Costs
By aggregating and brokering product from multiple suppliers, buyers said that
FHs made local foods more accessible. Specifically, buyers perceived FHs to
manage transaction costs by finding suppliers, negotiating prices and ensuring
quality and authenticity. One retail buyer explained, “[it’s] more convenient, the
more you can buy from one place, saves time. Price – it’s cheaper if we buy it direct,
but that hasn’t impacted our decision when purchasing through the hub. You’re
paying for the convenience factor.” Like many others, this buyer decided that the
costs of purchasing local foods through a FH far outweighed the costs of doing
the work to secure the items by himself, eased bookkeeping and budgeting, and
expanded the range of products available for purchase.

Marketing the Local Story

In addition to identifying benefits and opportunities for growth around the
mental and financial transaction costs of buying local, buyers reported that
FHs can make marketing food easier. For instance, many buyers used the
622 D. S. CONNER ET AL.

point-of-sale, education, and promotional materials provided by FH.

According to survey results, buyers said that the most successful FH materi-
als included farms and farm family stories, calendar and recipe cards, harvest
of the month campaign, signage, and promotion through newsletters and
word of mouth. During interviews, buyers said that these materials attracted
consumer attention, prompted further question and inquiry by the consu-
mer, and helped spread general awareness about the business practice. For
example, a corrections buyer explained that “hanging up the farmers picture
and sharing where produce came from them is just good business.” Buyers
perceived FH materials to be more effective that the materials they received
from larger distributors. One hospital buyer compared the materials they
received from large scale distributors to those they receive from FHs:

The bigger distributors do this to an extent, they have a lot of resources and they come
through with a lot of materials but its targeted more for selling the food and getting you
to buy more and less for creating more transparency through the supply chain.”

This buyer’s story demonstrates that buyers are seeking materials that pro-
mote local agricultural and transparency in supply chains. They are not
simply seeking materials to promote consumption.
In addition to shaping their purchasing behaviors due to limited storage,
buyers said that limited space influenced the usefulness of FH materials. For
example, a retail buyer said, “it’s the huge displays that really stop people and
grab attention. That’s harder for us in smaller spaces. We have limited space so
that is a challenge for stores our size trying to promote these foods.” For this
buyer, the messaging style that worked the best with consumers did not meet
the demands of his physical space. Buyers have to adapt these strategies to
work effectively in their unique environment. Strategies are not one-size-fit-
all. They sought a greater diversity of messaging. Elements that must be
considered when adapting these strategies are: space and size of building, age
of audience, and nature of the venue.
In addition to the physical size of a message, buyers said that they wanted FHs to
help them improve on their ability to articulate their own value in the local food
system. In addition to sharing the farmers’ stories, buyers wanted to share their
stories. The restaurant buyer said, “This is actually one thing that we fail to
monopolize on – it’s hard to put the word about how much we buy and use, part
of that is being a new business and not realizing the potential that could create
for us.”
Buyers perceived there to be varied levels of customer awareness based on
these different practices. Much of the material geared for schools solicited
enthusiastic responses from students as well as school staff. Buyers are
skeptical as to whether or not these materials actually increase student and
staff participation in lunch; however, there are many claims that these
promotions are key in starting conversations and increasing awareness.
 JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION 623

Looking forward, buyers expressed the desire to make local food more
accessible through partnership and collaboration – a rich opportunity for the
food hub. Communicating and reinforcing the value of local food through
product sales accompanied by promotional materials, more physical expo-
sure to the farms and farmers for students (i.e. field trips, farmer visits,
farmers markets in schools), and more creative labeling for store settings
were a few of the ideas expressed by buyers.

Buyer Support
Overall, regardless of the level of ease or extra work that came with FH
purchasing and the fit of promotional materials, buyers said that they
continued to work with FH because they provided superior customer service.
Buyers based purchasing local food through FHs on their perception of
positive FH customer service interactions. The retail buyer showcased the
exceptional service of a FH in a story:
“We buy berries through the hub. We use them a lot in the kitchen but they’re in
these big zip lock bags and we didn’t have a frozen local berry. I didn’t want to have
to put these huge bags that I have to sell at a high price in the freezer and I didn’t
want to have to bag them myself so I was able to call and say, “hey is there a way
they can do a smaller packaging” and they were like, “yeah, okay, no problem.” It
was a quick, easy conversation and totally solved the problem.

Buyers were able to put in requests for certain products or quantities and
have flexibility around their ordering schedule, which is especially accom-
modating for those buyers operating around a school schedule. Depending
on their storage capacity, processing facilities, and menu variability, buyers
need a variety of different accommodations in order to incorporate local
foods into their buying practices. FHs try to understand buyers’ problems
and barriers and work to develop unique solutions.
In addition to addressing buyer purchasing needs, FHs were perceived to
reply quickly and used a variety of methods for communication. A high
school buyer explained, “I am able to communicate my needs/feedback with
the hub. I can just email the coordinator about something I am looking for. For
example, what I did yesterday was just email the coordinator and they are
right on it.” In-person communication, via phone or e-mail, and a quick
response rate is reassuring for buyers.

Barriers
One concern was that FH purchasing limit their capacity to increase order
size. One hospital buyer said that, “I don’t buy as much as I think we should.
I think I would buy more if the delivery was more than once a week”. The
624 D. S. CONNER ET AL.

buyer explained that “I don’t have the storage space to keep things and then
space it out over the week. Storage for us is tight.” A disconnection between
FH timelines and buyer’s space hindered their purchasing behaviors.
Buyers are also limited by elements such as the diversity and seasonality of
the product selection and labor needed to process the produce. Many buyers
are operating on tight budgets, which doesn’t allow for much flexibility on
price point. Buyers identified these challenges; however, each had found ways
to work with the food hub to create a relationship that made buying local
feasible and increasingly more convenient.

Discussion
This study used surveys and interviews to understand the motivations and
perspectives of FH buyers and to identify effective practices. The two FHs with
whom we partnered in operation for 6–10 years, emphasize wholesale markets
and are best described as Social Enterprises; each of these types comprises about
one-third of FHs nationally.15 These FHs sell to a variety of wholesale customers,
including schools and other institutions, retail stores and restaurants (See Table 1
and Figure 1). Accessing wholesale markets is a vital strategy for achieving the
dual objectives of improved farm viability and food access.4
Overwhelmingly, buyers reported being “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with
the FHs. Both survey and interview results suggest that buyers purchase from
FHs predominantly because they believe in the social missions to support the
local economy and they want to procure high quality, local food. The FHs’
ability to provide credible information on the source and underlying values
of the food is essential. Motivations for buying local that were identified in
this study echo previous results, which found that buyers prioritize support-
ing local farms and businesses and purchasing high quality, local food.19–21
Our results also echo results of a survey of FH vendors in VT which
discussed the importance of communicating the underlying values and
brands of the vendors throughout the supply chain.3
FHs’ aggregation and distribution services enable larger quantities of food
at lower transaction costs by forming partnerships with farmers and buyers.
These partnerships expand the availability of foods beyond those the buyer
would need to grow themselves (“make”) or purchase from commodity spot
markets (“buy”).9 FHs address many of the logistical challenges discussed in
prior research.9,21–23
Finally, these results highlight practices that create value in the partner-
ship. The relationships and familiarity forged between the food hub and its
buyers facilitate co-learning and the development of innovative, collaborative
solutions to complex problems.9,12,13This expands upon the “creative pur-
chasing” (Izumi et al. p. 380)23 efforts developed by farmers and buyers in the
absence of intermediaries and resembles the adaptive problem solving
 JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION 625

discussed by Buckley et al (p.400).12 The partnerships themselves have many

elements of value chain partnerships (relationships, shared values, co-
learning).9,11

Implications
This study has several valuable implications for FHs. A FH could implement or
maintain practices consistent with these implications to develop or strengthen
their relationships with buyers. First, buyers are motivated to work with FHs if
they perceive the FH to be invested in supporting local agriculture. FH’s support
of local agriculture is reflected in their ability to articulate specific details about
where the food was produced, who produced it, and production methods. First
and foremost, it is very important to have this information easily available when
the buyer is making decisions about which products to purchase. For example,
ordering sites should include this information. FH’s should also be sure their
employees know this information and are trained on how to solicit it from
producers and how to share it when talking with buyers.
Second, buyers are also motivated to work with FHs because they find value in
being able to provide consumers with local foods. They agreed that the quality of
the food exceeded that which they could secure through more traditional
distributors. However, that value of local food is limited to the degree to
which buyers can share the story of the food products. Buyers appreciated FH
promotional and informational materials. FHs should continue to offer these
materials with the products they distribute. However, buyers suggested that the
materials could be more helpful. FH can improve their promotional materials by
diversifying the messaging to different buyer needs, including space and size of
the building, age of audience, and nature of the venue. Buyers would also like
help to promote their own business’ “buying local” story.
Third, buyers found FH’s to ease and complicate transactions with local
producers. On one hand, the FHs eased the time and financial costs
associated with buying from a variety of local producers. On the other
hand, buyers found it difficult to work with FHs due to limitations sur-
rounding product availability. Buyers reported delivery schedules and
quantity to be troublesome. While FHs have limited control over the
availability of products, FH may be able to work with their local buyers
to determine more convenient delivery schedules. For most buyers, a more
flexible buying schedule would help them more easily purchase the quantity
of food they need.
Finally, buyers appreciated the customer service they perceived FHs to
provide. To develop or strengthen their relationships with buyer, FHs pro-
vide buyers with a variety of ways to ask questions and provide feedback.
Flexibility and quick response times were also extremely important.
626 D. S. CONNER ET AL.

Funding
This work was supported by Hatch formula funds administered by the Vermont Agricultural
Experiment Station.

References
1. Barham J. Getting to scale with regional food hubs. USDA-AMS Blogs. Accessed
October 1, 2019. http://blogs.usda.gov/2010/12/14/getting-to-scale-with-regional-food-
hubs/. Published 2010.
2. LeBlanc J, Conner D, MacRae G, Darby H. Building resilience in nonprofit food hubs.
J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2014;In Press. 121–135. doi:10.5304/
jafscd.2014.043.005.
3. Conner DS, Sims K, Berkfield R, Harrington H. Do farmers and other suppliers benefit
from sales to food hubs? Evidence from vermont. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2017.
doi:10.1080/19320248.2017.1378602.
4. Diamond A, Barham J. Moving Food along the Value Chain : Innovations in Regional
Food Distribution. 2012.
5. Matson J, Sullins M, Cook C. The role of food hubs in local Food marketing the role of
food hubs in local food marketing. 2013. Accessed October 1, 2019. https://www.rd.usda.
gov/files/sr73.pdf.
6. Day-Farnsworth L, Busse H, Hahn E Scaling up : meeting the demand for local food.
Madison WI; 2009. Accessed October 1, 2019. https://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp-content
/uploads/2010/01/baldwin_web_final.pdf.
7. Martinez S, Clark S, Lohr L, Low S, Newman C. Local Food Systems : Concepts, Impacts,
and Issues. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service; 2010.
8. Hobbs JE. A transaction cost approach to supply chain management. Supply Chain
Manag An Int J. 1996;1(2):15–27. doi:10.1108/13598549610155260.
9. Conner DS, Izumi BT, Liquori T, Hamm MW. Sustainable school food procurement in
large K-12 districts: prospects for value chain partnerships. Agric Resour Econ Rev.
2012;41(1):100–113. doi:10.1017/S1068280500004226.
10. Feenstra G, Allen P, Hardesty S, Ohmart J, Perez J. Using a supply chain analysis to
assess the sustainability of farm-to-institution programs. J Agric Food Syst Community
Dev. 2011;1(4):69–84. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2011.014.009.
11. Bloom D, Hinrichs CC. Moving local food through conventional food system infra-
structure: value chain framework comparisons and insights. Renew Agric Food Syst.
2011;26(1):13–23. doi:10.1017/S1742170510000384.
12. Buckley J, Conner DS, Matts C, Hamm MW. Social relationships and farm-to-
institution initiatives: complexity and scale in local food systems. J Hunger Environ
Nutr. 2013;8:397–412. doi:10.1080/19320248.2013.816988.
13. Peterson HC. Transformational Supply Chains and the “Wicked problem” of
Sustainability: Aligning Knowledge, Innovating, Entrepreneurship, and Leadership.
Journal on Chain and Network Science.2008;9(2):71 - 82.
14. University of Vermont Extension. Food hub programs relevant to vermont. Accessed
October 1, 2019. https://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/FoodHubs.html.
15. Colasanti K, Hardy J, Farbman J, Pirog R, Fisk J, Hamm MW. Findings of the 2017
National Food Hub Survey. East Lansing M; 2018.
16. Glesne C. Becoming Qualitative Researchers. Boston: Pearson; 2011.
 JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION 627

17. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3
(2):77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
18. Owens WF. Interpretive themes in relational communication. Q J Speech. 1984;70
(3):274–287. doi:10.1080/00335638409383697.
19. Izumi BT, Alaimo K, Hamm MW. Farm-to-school programs: perspectives of school
food service professionals. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2010;42(2):83–91. doi:10.1016/j.
jneb.2008.09.003.
20. Roche E, Conner D, Kolodinsky JM, Buckwalter E, Berlin L, Powers A. Social cognitive
theory as a framework for considering farm to school programming. Child Obes. 2012;8
(4):357–363. doi:10.1089/chi.2012.0035.
21. Vogt RA, Kaiser LL. Still a time to act: a review of institutional marketing of
regionally-grown food. Agric. Human Values. 2008;25:241–255.
22. Conner DS, Abate G, Liquori T, Hamm MW, Peterson HC. Prospects for more
healthful, local, and sustainably produced food in school meals. J Hunger Environ
Nutr. 2010;5:4. doi:10.1080/19320248.2010.527276.
23. Izumi BT, Wright DW, Hamm MW. Market diversification and social benefits: moti-
vations of farmers participating in farm to school programs. J Rural Stud. 2010;26
(4):374–382. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.02.002.