JOBR D 23 01047 - Reviewer

Journal of Business Research
Understanding the relevance of farmers' markets: A bibliometric review

--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number: JOBR-D-23-01047
Article Type: Full length article
Section/Category: Research Methods
Keywords: farmer's market; bibliometric review; short food supply chains; performance analysis;
science mapping; network analysis
Abstract: With the appearance of modern food supply chains, there has been a clear decrease in
consumer trust and an increase in information asymmetry. Short food supply chains,
including farmers' markets, can represent a solution to such problems. Today, farmers'
markets mainly exist in the United States and the European Union and unquestionably
impact sustainability. This study reviews the current state of the literature on farmers'
markets using bibliometric techniques applied to 1,765 documents from Scopus and
Web of Science databases from 1955-2022. The paper tracks the research dynamics
associated with farmers' markets by identifying the stages of evolution of major topics,
articles, journals, author citations, and co-citation networks. The results illustrate an
upward trend in the publishing of papers on the topic, identify five areas of related
market research, and pave the way for further work by researchers and politicians by
describing the main and specific research avenues.
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Manuscript (WITHOUT AUTHOR DETAILS) Click here to view linked References
Understanding the relevance of farmers' markets: A bibliometric

review
Abstract
With the appearance of modern food supply chains, there has been a clear decrease in consumer
trust and an increase in information asymmetry. Short food supply chains, including farmers'
markets, can represent a solution to such problems. Today, farmers' markets mainly exist in the
United States and the European Union and unquestionably impact sustainability. This study
reviews the current state of the literature on farmers' markets using bibliometric techniques
applied to 1,765 documents from Scopus and Web of Science databases from 1955-2022. The
paper tracks the research dynamics associated with farmers' markets by identifying the stages
of evolution of major topics, articles, journals, author citations, and co-citation networks. The
results illustrate an upward trend in the publishing of papers on the topic, identify five areas of
related market research, and pave the way for further work by researchers and politicians by
describing the main and specific research avenues.
Keywords: farmer’s market, bibliometric review, short food supply chains, performance
analysis, science mapping, network analysis
1 Introduction
Food safety scandals and scares occurred at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning
of the twenty-first, and consumer commitment to healthier and more sustainable food brought
the topic of so-called short food supply chains (SFSCs) or alternative food networks (AFNs) to
the fore (Luo et al., 2021; Renting et al., 2003). The phenomenon of SFSCs has rapidly
developed and become the subject of active scientific and political debate in recent years
(Giampietri et al., 2016; Luo et al., 2021; Marsden et al., 2000). In addition, with the appearance
of modern supply chains, the relationship and communication between consumers and
producers have clearly decreased, leading to an increase in information asymmetry and a
decrease in consumer trust (Bildtgård, 2008; Meyer et al., 2012; Török et al., 2022).
Local, shorter, and sustainable supply chains can solve this problem, and SFSCs can provide
an alternative to global supply chains (Giampietri et al., 2016; Ilbery & Maye, 2005).
Consumers and politicians play an important role in supporting these initiatives. Both the rural
development initiatives of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the
United States' Farm Bill support the spread of short supply chains (Canfora, 2016; Marsden et
al., 2000). There are many types of SFSCs (Michel-Villarreal et al., 2019; Watts et al., 2005),
including farmers' markets (FMs), community-supported agriculture (CSA), box schemes, farm
shops, farm-based butchers' shops, cooperatives, and other initiatives. While we are aware of
the variety of SFSCs, FMs were chosen for examination in this article as they are currently the
most popular and widespread form of SFSCs (Chiffoleau et al., 2016; Maró et al., 2022; Michel-
Villarreal et al., 2020; Murphy, 2011). FMs are the traditional way of food retailing and, in
some countries (mainly among developing and Mediterranean European countries), have been
an important sales channel for food for centuries (Guthrie et al., 2006). In Anglocentric
countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand),
modern FMs appeared in the 1970s (McEachern et al., 2010), after which they disappeared,
largely due to the advent of supermarkets (Guthrie et al., 2006). However, in many Central and
Eastern European countries (e.g., Hungary and Poland) FMs emerged alongside traditional food
self-provisioning practices (Vittersø et al., 2019).
This study aims to identify major research topics and a research agenda for FMs by describing
a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Reviews of FMs have been published that focus on
aspects such as retail and direct marketing (Brown, 2002), tourism and urban areas (Saili et al.,
2007), the relationship between FMs and nutritional issues and nutrition incentive programs
(Byker et al., 2013; Gusto & Diaz, 2020; Kahin et al., 2017; McCormack et al., 2010; O’Dare
Wilson, 2017; Young et al., 2017), FM customers' characteristics (Byker et al., 2012), and
facilitators of and barriers to FM use among low-income consumers (Freedman et al., 2016).
However, to the best of our knowledge, only one bibliometric review has been published that
focuses on FM actors, dynamics, and attributes (Figueroa-Rodriguez et al., 2019). However,
this study only included items from a single literature database and excluded publications about
state-funded public health initiatives and food assistance programs associated with FMs.
Our bibliometric analysis makes a new contribution to pre-existing studies by considering FMs
from a holistic perspective over the broadest time horizon, including the last few years in which
the number of publications focused on FMs has grown rapidly. First, a descriptive review of
publication trends, major countries and institutions, journal sources, and citations is presented.
After this, we describe a computer-assisted bibliometric analysis that was undertaken to provide
fresh and unique insights into past and present research, highlight the main studies on FMs, and
define a research path for further studies by describing specific avenues for researchers,
decisionmakers, and policymakers. Unlike other SFSCs, FMs are widely supported and funded
by local and regional governments (Carey et al., 2011; Marsden et al., 2000). Accordingly, we
seek to answer the following research questions (RQs):
 RQ1: How has the literature on FMs evolved?
 RQ2: Who are the most impactful authors that have published on this topic?
 RQ3: In which countries and institutions do the most influential authors work? How are
research networks and groups developing?
 RQ4: Which main publications have influenced the topic most?
 RQ5: Which scientific journals generate the most knowledge about FMs? Which
scientific journals have the potential to be publication outlets for such articles?
 RQ6: What were the dominant themes and topics associated with FMs in past years?
 RQ7: What are the limitations of studies on FMs, and which topic(s) associated with
FMs should/will be studied further? What research agendas and patterns related to FMs
are likely to emerge?
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The following section provides an overview of
the theoretical background of FMs. Section 3 describes the materials and the methodology that
were used. Section 4 illustrates the results of bibliometric analysis, including descriptive
statistics and more complex econometric tools. Section 5 concludes, and the last section reflects
on the limitations of the research and specifies research directions for the future.
2 Theoretical background
In the case of FMs, the boundaries associated with small-scale producers (vendors) and
consumers are well defined, although the rebalancing and redistributing of power bases occur,
to make local food more visible to consumers (Brown, 2002; Gillespie et al., 2007). Despite
this, there are many significant differences in the definitions, forms, operations, and product
mix of FMs (Brown, 2001; Coster & Kennon, 2005; Pyle, 1971; Saili et al., 2007). Selling and
buying in FMs is associated with numerous advantages from the perspective of both producers
and consumers, and this type of SFSC may be a solution to social, economic, and – in particular
cases – environmental sustainability challenges.
FMs allow vendors to sell their products directly to consumers through direct contact with them
(Hughes et al., 2008; Malagon-Zaldua et al., 2018; Varner & Otto, 2008). They provide a
profitable alternative to the low prices of commodity markets (e.g., supermarkets) associated
with the industrial agricultural system. Money that remains in the local economy may cover the
wages of local employees, the purchase of local products, or the development of the economy
(Govindasamy et al., 2002; Henneberry et al., 2009). From a social point of view, FMs can
reconstruct rural and urban links and generate further health benefits. Farmers can get to know
their consumers and other producers better, helping share experiences (for example, in the field
of marketing or business) (Gale, 1997; Hinrichs, 2000). FMs often significantly increase
employment and local tax revenue (Ekanem et al., 2016; Hughes et al., 2008). Owing to local
sales, food is not usually transported over long distances (fewer food miles), in contrast to the
logistics systems used by, for example, supermarkets. Furthermore, less use of packaging
material and fertilizers and a reduction in food waste has also been claimed (Gillespie et al.,
2007; Jarzębowski et al., 2020; Migliore et al., 2015).
Consumers can access fresh, high-quality, healthy local products at competitive (often
perceived as lower) prices and partake of the atmosphere and experience of the FM (Baker et
al., 2009; Bullock, 2000; Conner et al., 2010; Coster & Kennon, 2005; Hughes et al., 2008;
Onianwa et al., 2006). Despite the common perception of low prices at FMs, consumers are
often willing to pay a premium for local products (Darby et al., 2008; Kuches et al., 1999). In
addition, transparency and the creation of relationships and trust are valued. FMs allow
customers to build deeper relationships with customers and provide a meeting place for friends
and communities (Charatsari et al., 2018; Conner et al., 2009; Holloway et al., 2007; Zepeda &
Leviten-Reid, 2004). In the United States, there are several state public health initiatives and
food assistance programs related to FMs aimed at helping people, mainly those with a lower
income, to obtain healthy, nutritious food (Bellemare & Nguyen, 2018; Byker et al., 2013;
Gillespie et al., 2007; Larimore, 2018). FMs may also provide an opportunity for consumers to
learn more about local products, production methods, and sustainable growing practices (Gale,
1997; Gillespie et al., 2007; Velasquez et al., 2005).
While food quality, food price, and market atmosphere (mainly social interaction) are the
primary attractions of FMs, customers who are liable to value the factors mentioned above have
well-defined socio-demographic characteristics. Women tend to visit FMs more often than men.
This does not necessarily mean that men do not prefer locally produced food but instead that
women do the shopping in many households (Abelló et al., 2014; Baker et al., 2009; Brown,
2002; Govindasamy & Nayga, 1997; Onianwa et al., 2006). Based on the literature, middle-
aged people are typical customers of FMs. There is relatively wide variation in customer age
among countries and continents, but in general, the typical FM consumer is between 35 and 55
years old (Abelló et al., 2014; Berg & Preston, 2017; Szabó & Juhász, 2015; Varner & Otto,
2008; Wolf et al., 2005). Consumers interested in FMs are more educated than average: this
tendency is characteristic of almost all SFSCs (Alkon, 2008; Elepu & Mazzocco, 2010; Maró
et al., 2022; Wolf et al., 2005). In terms of demographic characteristics, examining the income
situation of FM customers is one of the most challenging tasks, but it is often discussed in the
literature. Most studies identify members of the middle or upper-middle class as typical FM
consumers (Abelló et al., 2014; Baker et al., 2009; Conner et al., 2010; Dodds et al., 2014; Hunt,
2007; Onianwa et al., 2006; Szabó & Juhász, 2015).
The paper now provides an overview of FM-related literature using bibliometric tools and a
holistic perspective to identify relevant publications and classify prominent research topics and
themes. The study also attempts to consolidate the existing knowledge base and structure about
FMs and specify areas for further research.
3 Methodology
Bibliometric reviews are widely used for identifying trends in specific research domains. They
involve applying statistical tools to a large number of publications (Paul & Criado, 2020). The
methods (e.g., trend and network analysis) allow the researcher to measure the impact of
research trends and analyze the structural characteristics of a specific research field (Zupic &
Cater, 2015). The number of publications that have used this methodology in business,
economics, and social sciences is growing (Donthu et al., 2021). However, to our knowledge,
only one bibliometric study has addressed the topic of FMs. Based on a sample (n=438) derived
from Scopus, Figueroa-Rodriguez et al. (2019) investigated the actors, dynamics, and attributes
of FMs by applying performance analysis and science mapping. Therefore, to contribute to the
existing literature, this paper uses a bibliometric analysis to detect the most important research
trends and to understand the research patterns related to FMs, one of the most traditional
marketing channels for agricultural and food products.
Among the bibliometric reviews published recently, there is no consensus about which
bibliometric database to use; however, in many cases, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS),
and/or Scopus have been applied (Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). In our bibliometric analysis,
priority was given to peer-reviewed publications in English; therefore, Google Scholar was not
considered, as this platform includes the most unpublished materials and a large share of non-
English publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2018). Recent bibliometric studies published in the
field of business studies apply the WoS database (e.g., Alonso-Muñoz et al., 2022; Hernández-
Perlines et al., 2022; Martín-Navarro et al., 2022) or Scopus (e.g., Gupta et al., 2021; Krishen
et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2021; Misra & Mention, 2021); however, only a few studies can be
identified that used both databases simultaneously (e.g., Verma & Gustafsson, 2020). For our
study, both WoS and Scopus were included to help identify a wider range of high-quality and
peer-reviewed publications (Verma & Gustafsson, 2020) after consideration of the advantages
and disadvantages of this (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016) and with a view to contributing to the
literature with a more complex approach.
For the study, the authors used several pieces of software and online platforms to build an
accurate and reliable database and analyze it properly. First, to collect and maintain references,
search items were imported into the software EndNote (Bramer et al., 2016). Next, the
Covidence online platform was applied to identify duplicates and non-relevant studies
(Babineau, 2014). Finally, the R programming language and a dedicated Bibliometrix package
were used to undertake the bibliometric analysis (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017; Gupta et al., 2021).
Publications satisfying the search criterion of including "farmer* market" in the title, abstract,
author keywords, or keywords plus (WoS) or title, abstract, or keywords (Scopus) were all
considered. The search was run on August 23, 2022, thus including hits available until this date.
The initial database yielded over 3,020 hits, but after excluding duplicates and removing non-
relevant studies, the final database for the bibliometric analysis consisted of 1,765 items (see
Figure 1).
Our search included both Scopus and WoS databases; therefore, a triple-stage process of
duplicate removal was applied. First, the de-duplication tool of EndNote that focuses on Digital
Object Identifiers (DOI numbers) was used (Bramer et al., 2016), then Covidence's duplicate
detection was applied (Harrison et al., 2020), which screens for matches between titles,
publication years, volumes, and authors. Finally, the duplicated matching function in R was
used to search for duplicates in the bibliometric database. The algorithm matches records as
duplicates if the title, abstract, or identification number are the same.
After removing duplicates, the authors manually screened the remaining database using the
online Covidence platform. Only items published in English and peer-reviewed (research
articles, review articles, books, and book chapters) were included. In addition, to identify non-
relevant studies, the title and abstract screening method of Covidence was run to exclude studies
that fit the mentioned criteria but focused on unrelated topics (e.g., farmers' market access or
farmers' marketing schemes, etc.). Once the dataset was narrowed down to the final selection,
we followed the guidelines of Paul et al. (2021) and applied the bibliometric techniques
suggested by Donthu et al. (2021) and Mukherjee et al. (2022).
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
4 Results
4.1 Summary of quantitative results

Our study covered 1,765 documents (hereinafter referred to as the database) from 796 sources
contributed by 4,539 authors from 1955 to 2022. The vast majority are research articles (1,577),
although we also identified 25 books, 96 book chapters, and 67 reviews. On average, between
three and four authors co-authored each publication, while the proportion of articles with co-
authors from another countries is only 8.1%. The average age of the articles in our database is
eight years, the total number of references is 54,416, while the average number of citations per
article is 15.37, and the average annual growth in the number of articles is 7.31% (see Error!
Reference source not found.).
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
4.2 Number of publications

The increase in the number of FM-connected scientific publications may be related to the
growing number of FMs worldwide. Since the end of the twentieth century, FMs have enjoyed
a worldwide renaissance. The increase in the number of published journal articles indicates that
this research topic has recently been studied using a more scientific approach. Error!
Reference source not found. shows the evolution of publications in the field.
The pattern of FM-related publications can be divided into five stages. The early stage lasted
from 1949 to 1999, when only a few scientific pieces of work were produced. In the USA,
publications date back to the end of the 1940s (Brown, 2002), but in Europe, scientific activity
related to the topic started mainly after the 2000s. FMs have been significant initiatives for the
United States government and Canada since the 1970s (Basil, 2012; Brown, 2002); however,
most studies before the millennium were based on articles in the popular press (Brown, 2002).
In Europe, the number of modern FMs started to grow only at the end of the 1990s (Kirwan,
2006; Spilková et al., 2013).
The second phase spans 2000 to 2008 when the number of publications began to rise. In the
early 2000s, publications were mainly about alternative food networks (DuPuis & Goodman,
2005; Jarosz, 2008; Renting et al., 2003; Whatmore et al., 2003). In this period, an important
event in the USA was the change from food stamps to a debit-card format (the implementation
of the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system), which temporarily negatively affected
money spent on FMs (Briggs et al., 2010; Jones & Bhatia, 2011), resulting in fewer studies in
the USA.
The third stage is identified as 2009 to 2013, after the global financial crisis, when a rise in the
number of publications is observable. This period was affected by the number of Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-related publications in the USA. The effects of the 2008
Farm Bill also unfolded during this period. The 2008 Farm Bill increased funding for
EBT/SNAP access at FMs. From 2011, USDA started providing $4 million/year to support
EBT at FMs (Briggs et al., 2010), also increasing the size of the related literature.
A rapid upward trend can be seen in the fourth stage (2014-2019), when the number of
publications almost reached 150 per year. During this period, short food supply chains received
more and more attention, and the number of publications began to increase rapidly (Luo et al.,
2021; Tsoulfas et al., 2023). Spending on SNAP benefits at FMs also started growing. In 2017,
$24.4 million in SNAP benefits were redeemed at FMs in the USA, an increase of 35.2% over
2012 (Farmers Market Coalition, 2023).
The last stage was from 2020 to nowadays when the number of publications reached its highest
point. A substantial increase occurred from 2020 onwards, reflecting the impact of COVID-19
and its implications for FMs. Based on the development pattern, another increase may be
expected after relief from the COVID-19 crisis.
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
4.3 Number of citations

Among the items identified in our study, the average number of global citations fluctuates
enormously. (Global citation refers to the total number of citations defined in Scopus and WoS,
which includes some citations from outside of our database. In contrast, local citation means
the number of times one publication cites another within our 1,765-document database). The
general citation structure shows that only 11 papers have more than 200 global citations (0.7 %
of the total), and only 39 publications have more than 100 citations (2.2%) (see Table 3). At the
other end of the scale, 349 papers (1.6 %) had no citations, and most papers were cited less than
50 times (72.7 % of the total).
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
4.4 Most productive authors

Error! Reference source not found. shows the top ten most cited and most published authors
in the database. Freedman, D. A. is the most published and cited author, with 18 articles and a
total of 196 citations. In terms of citations, he is followed by Ammerman, A. S. (188), McGuirt,
J. T. (186), Pitts, S. B. J. (146), and Wu, Q. (134). Among them, Ammerman (2006-), Pitts
(2013-), and Freedman (2011-) have the longest publication period. The most productive and
cited authors are almost all active in the USA, except for Joseph, A. E. and Smithers, J., based
in Canada (University of Guelph). The top five authors are researchers from the University of
North Carolina, the University of South Carolina, and East Carolina University.
INSERT TABLE 4 HERE
4.5 Most productive countries

Scientific production associated with FMs is mainly spread over twenty-nine countries, in
which authors have produced at least one article on this topic (Error! Reference source not
found.). In terms of the national affiliations of the corresponding authors, the leading place is
occupied by the USA, with 836 publications (47.4% of all articles in our database), of which
only fifteen publications had co-authors from other countries. The topic's popularity in the USA
is due to legislation that supports establishing and operating FMs and the various health
programs that rely on the benefits of products available at FMs. China is ranked second
(n=93/25), in which country publications were the most likely to be products of collaboration
with authors from other countries. China is followed by Canada (n=75/7) and Australia
(n=60/13). However, the United Kingdom (n=48/9), Italy (n=45/7), and Germany (n=28/7) are
not far behind, especially in terms of multiple co-authored papers (Error! Reference source
not found.).
INSERT TABLE 5 HERE
4.6 Collaboration between countries

FMs have attracted research interest around the world. This promotes global social networks
and generates collaboration among authors from different countries. The co-authorship of
papers determines the network of cooperation between countries. Therefore, collaborative
networks are analyzed according to the origin of the publication's first author. The USA
collaborates most often internationally, mainly with China (16), Australia (6), and the United
Kingdom (5). Next come China and Canada, but Australia and several European countries (Italy
and Germany, in particular) cooperate relatively often (see Error! Reference source not
found.). Interestingly, emerging FMs in Africa are usually investigated through international
cooperation with European (mostly German) co-authors, as Error! Reference source not
found. indicates.
INSERT TABLE 6 HERE
The top three journals with the most citations are Agricultural and Human Values (1,572),
Journal of Rural Studies (1,045), and Journal of the American Dietetic Association (712).
Articles with an American corresponding author received 14,901 citations, followed by the
United Kingdom (2,450 citations) and Canada (1,887 citations), as Error! Reference source
not found. illustrates.
INSERT TABLE 7 HERE
4.7 Most influential journals

Error! Reference source not found. shows the top ten journals in terms of relevancy
(published articles) and the number of local citations. The left part of the table represents 19.5%
of the total sample, which means 345 articles from 1,765 documents. The Journal of Agriculture
Food Systems and Community Development is the most relevant publication outlet, with 60
published articles. There is some overlap among the top ten journals by relevance and citations.
The third and fourth most relevant journals (Agriculture and Human Values, Public Health
Nutrition) also occupy a prominent place in terms of citations (second and third rank,
respectively). The journal with the highest number of local citations is the Journal of Rural
Studies, with 906 local citations.
INSERT TABLE 8 HERE
4.8 Most influential papers

Error! Reference source not found. displays the ten most influential papers in this field based
on the total number of local and global citations. The remarkable difference between LC and
GC values is measured with a t-test (t-value: -5.572; p<0.001) at a 1% significance level and
reveals that FMs have also been actively researched in other disciplines. Generally, it takes time
for a paper to establish citations. Accordingly, most of the highly cited papers in Table 9 are
more than a decade old; the only exception is a systematic review by Freedman et al. (2016).
The most cited article published by Brown (2002) received 78 local and 141 global citations.
The latter literature review summarizes the documents published in the field of FMs between
1940 and 2000. In second place (75 LC and 222 GC) is also a review of specialized literature
between 1980 and 2009, which deals with the nutritional implications of FMs (McCormack et
al., 2010). In this list, the first piece of empirical research (74 LC and 127 GC) written by Hunt
(2007) investigates linkages between producers and consumers at FMs with the help of a
consumer and a producer survey.
INSERT TABLE 9 HERE
4.9 Journal co-citation

Error! Reference source not found. shows the three major clusters of journals in the co-
citation network. The first cluster includes top journals in the field of management and policy.
These journals include Agricultural and Human Values, Journal of Rural Studies, Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, and American Journal of Agricultural Economics and Food
Policy. These multidisciplinary journals are fora for work with diverse theoretical perspectives
and methodological approaches on the economics of agriculture and food systems, natural
resources, sustainability, the environment, and rural and community development and policy
issues worldwide. The second cluster includes journals that focus on nutritional and health-
related issues like the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, American Journal of Public Health, Public Health Nutrition,
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, etc. These journals publish articles on public health,
health policy issues, nutrition-related and ecological problems, prevention research, dietetics,
and practice. Finally, in addition to the two large clusters, there is a third cluster that includes
four journals (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Food Control, International
Committee on Food Microbiology and Hygiene, and Journal of Food Protection), which deal
with all aspects of food microbiology, and genetic and molecular investigations, food safety
and protection. Therefore, the thematic distribution indicated by the journals’ co-citations
nicely illustrates the most relevant research avenues associated with FMs.
4.10 Bibliometric coupling

Using the method of bibliometric coupling, the most relevant journals were identified based on
the keywords. In Error! Reference source not found., the size of nodes refers to the journal’s
importance. The analysis revealed three clusters that suggest the most concentrated research
areas of FMs. The most important group of journals (marked in red) addresses the agricultural
and food aspects of FMs, including topics highlighted by keywords like alternative food
networks, food systems, and food safety. Another relevant set of journals focuses on nutritional
and health issues (blue). This cluster's primary emphasis is on understanding the key drivers of
the food environment, nutrition, and food access. In the third cluster (green), journals focused
on rural and regional topics together with renewable agriculture are collected. This research
stream provides information on FM-related studies associated with sustainability keywords,
willingness to pay, or fresh produce.
4.11 Thematic evolution

Error! Reference source not found. depicts the thematic evolution of FM literature since
1955. The figure illustrates the history of the themes and how they have evolved based on the
keywords. In the first area that was detected (until the millennium), the most frequently used
keyword(s) is farmers' markets, which – not surprisingly – dominates the research agenda all
the time. In the early 2000s, other keywords like food, agriculture, consumer attitudes, and
certification emerged, which served as a basis for the key topics of the next period (food safety,
sustainable agriculture, food consumption, and local food systems). Between 2009 and 2013,
new keywords like food access, vegetables, and food safety (e-coli related) research also
appeared. Between 2014 and 2019, fewer key themes were on the research agenda (farmers'
markets, food access, and smallholder farmers). In contrast, the focus was more diversified
during the last three years, albeit with a focus on specific topics derived from previous ones.
The longitudinal thematic map clearly indicates how sophisticated FM-related studies have
become in recent years, now putting topics like nutrition education, climate change, food
justice, and COVID-19 onto the research agenda.
4.12 Trend topics
Trend topics have evolved over the last two decades. Error! Reference source not found.
illustrates the most frequent keywords and the period they were used in. The size of the node
refers to the frequency. The most common keywords (local food, food access, alternative food
networks, sustainability, etc.) were used between 2015 and 2017, while the most recent
publications tend to cover COVID-19, food waste, and food insecurity-related issues. However,
it should be noted that keywords often used in the early 2000s (consumer attitudes, food
marketing) seem to be released from the research agenda.
4.13 Thematic map

The thematic map classifies topics into four categories represented by the four quadrants
(Error! Reference source not found.). The topics in the upper-right quadrant are represented
at high density with strong centrality, indicating well-developed and central issues in the
research field that play a ‘motor’ role. For example, many of the topics in this category are
related to SNAP in the USA. The latter initiative is designed to improve the American food
environment by providing access to nutritious foods that are available – among other places –
at FMs (fruit and vegetables, first and foremost). Besides nutrition education, this also
contributes to improving public health (e.g., by reducing obesity).
The FM-related research domain's basic themes rely on well-known topics associated with the
short food supply chain concept, like local food, local food systems, alternative food networks,
and direct marketing, complemented by their sustainability measurements. This quadrant also
includes some of the basic terminology, such as keywords (e.g., agriculture, farmers,
consumers, and markets) and the basic concepts of specific dimensions of the short food supply
chains (e.g., health and community development).
Rural development can be considered a niche and standalone theme in relation to FMs. In
addition, other topics like the market access and participation of smallholder farmers, together
with earlier (organic farming) and recent (agroecology) hot topics identified by Error!
Reference source not found. also belong to this quadrant.
Between the emerging or declining themes, food-safety-related issues were identified, such as
whether fresh produce marketed by small farms at FMs is higher risk than that available in
conventional supermarkets. Another theme located in this quadrant is the effects of the COVID-
19 pandemic that emerged in China and affected consumer behavior related to FMs.
In general, as seen on the thematic map, most of the themes that are identified are either basic
or motor themes, indicating that the research field is rather well organized and structured, to
which several niche and peripheral themes are connected.
4.14 Collaboration network

Based on the co-authored articles, seven collaborative groups of authors with a determinative
research focus can be identified (Error! Reference source not found.). Food safety-related
issues at FMs have been frequently investigated, both in the USA (Gibson, Neal and Sirsat) and
in China (Zhang, Chen and co-authors). The other research groups identified by our study all
focus on the symbiotic relationship between the initiatives of the SNAP and FMs. The
collaboration network identified by Ammerman, McGuirt and Pitts mainly assessed SNAP
participants' shopping and dietary behaviors at FMs, while the fruit and vegetable intake of
women (Affuso and Singleton) and children (Saxe-Custack, LaChance and Hanna-Attisha)
were the focus of many other FM studies. Sikorskij, Monica and Di Noia also investigated the
effect of nutritional education on FM-related attitudes, in addition to fruit and vegetable
consumption. Finally, the research group of Friedman, Brandt and Freedman specifically
focused on assessments of the impact of establishing FMs at community health centers.
4.15 Historiogram
Based on the local and global citations of the most relevant publications that were identified, a
historiogram clearly illustrates the evolution of the FM-related research domain in the
exponentially expanding period of 2000-2016 (Error! Reference source not found.). The path
analysis identified four research streams: one separate and three similar outlets. The earliest and
most distinct sub-branch identified in our study was started by Holloway and Kneafsey (2000)
with their examination of the emergence of FMs in the United Kingdom and was expanded by
the review of Tregear (2011), which critically reflected on the research agenda of alternative
and local food networks, including FMs. However, all three other sub-branches originate
mainly from the seminal work of Brown (2001), who "counted" the FMs in the USA, and
Anderson et al. (2001), who investigated the effects of SNAP on fruit and vegetable
consumption behavior. The upper research streams indicated in Error! Reference source not
found. are thus all related to FM research in an American context, including the impacts of FM
incentives on access to fruit and vegetables (Olsho et al., 2015) and on food security (Savoie-
Roskos et al., 2016), while the concluding work of (Freedman et al., 2016) identified the
facilitators of and barriers to FM use, particularly among low-income consumers in the USA.
The historiogram therefore clearly illustrates the thematic distribution and evolution of global
FM research.
5 Conclusions and contribution
This paper describes a bibliometric analysis applied to FMs to analyze the evolution of research
trends and the current research dynamics. FMs have a centuries-long history, while their
renaissance started in the second half of the twentieth century (Basil, 2012; Brown, 2002;
Kirwan, 2006). After the 2000s, FMs became an increasingly popular initiative worldwide, as
can be seen in the increase in the number of related publications, yielding an average annual
growth rate of 7.31% in the analyzed period. The modern FM literature is largely defined by
studies related to the American SNAP. In Europe, it is examined more in the context of SFSCs
and in relation to the three pillars of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental). In
contrast, food safety is the research focus in China and developing countries. The scientific
production associated with FM is spread over 29 countries. The USA is clearly the most
prominent country in terms of the number of papers, followed by China and Canada. The most
productive and most cited authors are also affiliated with North America. The average citation
per publication is 15.37; however, only 2.2% of the sample items have more than 100 citations.
Articles on FM are published mainly by journals related to food; even within this category,
journals with a rural or nutrition focus dominate. In terms of the number of articles, the Journal
of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development, while in terms of the number of
citations, the Journal of Rural Studies are the most relevant publication outlets. The two most-
cited articles are literature reviews (Brown, 2002; McCormack et al., 2010). Brown (2002)
summarized activity in the period from 1940 to 2000, focusing mainly on consumers and their
characteristics. McCormack et al. (2010) deal with the implications of FM programs and
community gardens on adult-nutrition-related outcomes. Third in terms of citations is an article
by Hunt (2007), which deals with both the producer and consumer side; however, a consumer
focus is typical among the articles with the most citations. Seven of the top-cited ten articles
deal with US-related issues (Freedman et al., 2016; Herman et al., 2008; Hunt, 2007; Larsen &
Gilliland, 2009; McCormack et al., 2010; Racine et al., 2010; Smithers et al., 2008)
Using bibliometric coupling applied to the most relevant journals based on the keywords, three
clusters were identified that show the focal areas of research on FMs: (1) agricultural and food
aspects of FMs (keywords: alternative food networks, food systems, and food safety), (2)
nutritional and health issues (keywords: food environment, nutrition, and food access), and (3)
rural and regional topics together with renewable agriculture (keywords: sustainability,
willingness to pay, fresh produce). The main areas and topics can also be differentiated in time
(see Error! Reference source not found.).
During the early stage, from 1949 until the millennium, the research agenda of FMs was
established. Not many scientific publications were published then (Abel et al., 1999; Lockeretz,
1986; Lyson et al., 1995; McGrath et al., 1993; Park & Sanders, 1992; Sommer et al., 1981;
Sommer et al., 1980), and those mainly dealt with the basics of FMs. In the early 2000s (second
phase), the number of publications began to increase. Significant publications were published
not only in the field of FM (Brown, 2001, 2002; Holloway & Kneafsey, 2000; Hunt, 2007;
Kirwan, 2004) but also on SFSC from a broader perspective (Marsden et al., 2000; Renting et
al., 2003). The third stage began after the global world economic crisis. FMs received more and
more attention. The motivations and characteristics of consumer purchases at FM (Byker et al.,
2012; Colasanti et al., 2010; Feagan & Morris, 2009; Zepeda, 2009), the effects of the opening
of FM in food deserts (Evans et al., 2012; Freedman et al., 2013; Larsen & Gilliland, 2009), the
impact and participation of SNAP (McCormack et al., 2010; Racine et al., 2010), and alternative
agrifood movements (Alkon & McCullen, 2011) received more and more emphasis. In the
fourth stage (2014-2019), the number of publications grew exponentially (150 per year), but
fewer key themes were on the research agenda: the facilitators of and barriers to FM use and
food access (Bryce et al., 2017; Dimitri et al., 2015; Freedman et al., 2016; Pitts et al., 2014;
Savoie-Roskos et al., 2016; Saxe-Custack et al., 2018) were popular topics, particularly with
regard to low-income consumers. In the last stage, the average number of publications per year
peaked, and the focus was more diversified: developing countries (Cavite et al., 2022; Hansika
& Wijerathna, 2021; Richter et al., 2021), food justice (Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Qi et al., 2022;
Rummo et al., 2021; Vericker et al., 2021), climate change (Hansika & Wijerathna, 2021;
Torres, 2020), and direct marketing (Plakias et al., 2020) or COVID-19 (Li et al., 2020; Taylor
et al., 2022).
INSERT TABLE 10 HERE
Using a holistic approach, our bibliometric analysis offers insight into interdisciplinary and
globally relevant FM-related publications. An initial finding is that FMs can be considered a
source of nutritious foods mainly due to locally (regionally) produced fruit and vegetables.
Also, in some countries (the USA and Canada in particular), FMs are highlighted as a special
food marketing channel. In contrast, in developing countries and some parts of Europe (first
and foremost, in Southern and Central-Eastern countries), FMs always were and still are part
of everyday food supply. However, the FM studies that focus on cases in developing countries
are rather limited in number and mainly cover food safety issues (e.g., whether food products
bought from FMs are reliable compared to those purchased at conventional chains like
supermarkets).
Based on our analysis, we can state that the literature on FMs has three main pillars. First,
assessment of the policy tool of providing fresh, healthy, and nutritious food to vulnerable
American consumer groups, mainly those living in food deserts, via FMs is inescapably
important in the research agenda. Second, in Europe, research on the contribution of FMs (as
part of the SFSC concept) to sustainability measures associated with dedicated EU policies
(including, among others, Farm to Fork and Green Deal) remains highly important. Third, the
safety of foods purchased at FMs is still on the agenda in many developing and some developed
countries.
6 Limitations and further research
Some limitations of the study should be highlighted. First, although most bibliometric reviews
use one database (e.g., Alonso-Muñoz et al., 2022; Figueroa-Rodriguez et al., 2019; Hernández-
Perlines et al., 2022; Secinaro et al., 2022), in our research, relying on two databases (Scopus
and WoS) still implies the exclusion of some important FM-related papers. Even though we
examined a narrow area of SFSCs, our final database contained 1,765 items; the large number
of publications may have created information and knowledge overload. Only the most-cited
articles written in English were analysed (non-English language publications were excluded).
It would be possible to examine non-English publications more comprehensively. Another
limitation is the application of bibliometric techniques. First, subjectivity cannot be ignored in
the case of some analytical tools (e.g., visualization maps). The second is that the number of
times a paper is cited does not necessarily indicate the importance and the quality of the work
(since the analysed publications may be recently published and the issue of self-citation may
occur). Third, the authors' affiliations or home country can change over time; the analysis is
only valid at the time of publication. Fourth, bibliometric analysis emphasizes past and present
trends, limiting the possibility of identifying or determining future directions. This problem
could be solved to some extent by including grey literature (e.g., policy reports, blog posts) and
documents in the initial publication phase.
With the help of the thematic map, we divided the topics into four categories: motor themes,
basic themes, niche and standalone themes, and emerging or declining themes. Based on this,
it is possible to suggest future research directions. A well-developed and central topic (motor
theme) in the field of FM is SNAP, which has been dominant since the 2000s. The main goal
of SNAP is to put healthy and nutritious food (mainly fruit and vegetables) on the tables of
mostly low-income American households (Karpyn et al., 2022; Karpyn et al., 2021; Larimore,
2018; Lyson et al., 1995; McCormack et al., 2010; Racine et al., 2010; Vargo et al., 2022;
Wetherill & Gray, 2015; Young et al., 2011). The basic themes of FM are related to local food,
local food systems, and alternative food networks (Brown, 2003; Brown & Miller, 2008;
Conner et al., 2010; Feagan et al., 2004; Lyson et al., 1995; Printezis & Grebitus, 2018;
Wetherill & Gray, 2015). The role of FMs in rural development (Garner & Ayala, 2019; Ripoll
González et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 2016; Vasco et al., 2018) can be considered a niche area.
The other niche topic is smallholder farmers – mainly their market access and participation
(Chen et al., 2021; Schoolman et al., 2021) and role in organic farming (Pamela & Pablo, 2021;
Vazquez & del Moral, 2022). Both niche topics may start to grow in importance in the future
since the publications of recent years have mainly focused on consumers. Furthermore, we
identify two main emerging themes about which many papers may be published in the coming
years: namely, the effects of the pandemic and post-COVID food supply chains (Huang et al.,
2021; Li et al., 2020; O'Hara et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2022; Vecchi et al., 2022) and Chinese
food safety issues (Lv et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Zhuang & Ho, 2021).
By using a big-picture perspective, employing bibliometric tools, and summarizing the current
research output and trends in this field, this study contributes to the discourse on FMs. The key
rationale behind the present research was to uncover how the field of research of FMs has
developed. The results of the study can help policymakers and researchers who are looking to
explore this topic further obtain a better understanding of the authors, universities (with which
they can form collaborative networks), countries, publications, and journals that have a strong
influence on FM, as well as major research gaps and future research directions.
References
Abel, J., Thomson, J., & Maretzki, A. (1999). Extension's role with farmers' markets: Working with
farmers, consumers, and communities. Journal of Extension, 37(5), 47-58.
Abelló, F. J., Palma, M. A., Waller, M. L., & Anderson, D. P. (2014). Evaluating the factors influencing
the number of visits to farmers’ markets. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 20(1), 17-35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2013.807406
Alkon, A. H. (2008). From value to values: Sustainable consumption at farmers markets. Agriculture
and Human Values, 25(4), 487-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9136-y
Alkon, A. H., & McCullen, C. G. (2011). Whiteness and farmers markets: Performances, perpetuations...
contestations? Antipode, 43(4), 937-959. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00818.x
Alonso-Muñoz, S., García-Muiña, F. E., Medina-Salgado, M.-S., & González-Sánchez, R. (2022).
Towards circular economy practices in food waste management: a retrospective overview and
a research agenda. British Food Journal, 124(13), 478-500. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-01-
2022-0072
Anderson, J. V., Bybee, D. I., Browm, R. M., McLean, D. F., Garcia, E. M., Breer, M. L., & Schillo, B.
A. (2001). 5 A Day fruit and vegetable intervention improves consumption in a low income
population. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101(2), 195-202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8223(01)00052-9
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping
analysis. Journal of informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Babineau, J. (2014). Product Review: Covidence (Systematic Review Software). Journal of the
Canadian Health Libraries Association, 35(2), 68-71. https://doi.org/10.5596/c14-016
Baker, D., Hamshaw, K., & Kolodinsky, J. (2009). Who shops at the market? Using consumer surveys
to grow farmers’ markets: Findings from a regional market in northwestern Vermont. Journal
of Extension, 47(6), 1-9.
Basil, M. (2012). A history of farmers' markets in Canada. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing,
4(3), 387-407. https://doi.org/10.1108/17557501211252952
Bellemare, M. F., & Nguyen, N. (2018). Farmers markets and Food‐ Borne illness. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 100(3), 676-690. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay011
Berg, N., & Preston, K. L. (2017). Willingness to pay for local food?: Consumer preferences and
shopping behavior at Otago Farmers Market. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 103, 343-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.07.001
Bildtgård, T. (2008). Trust in food in modern and late-modern societies. Social Science Information,
47(1), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018407085751
Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., de Jonge, G. B., Holland, L., & Bekhuis, T. (2016). De-duplication of
database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library
Association, 104(3), 240-243. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014
Briggs, S., Andy, F., Lott, M., Miller, S., & Tessman, S. (2010). Real food, real choice. Connecting
SNAP recipients with farmers markets.
Brown, A. (2001). Counting farmers markets. Geographical Review, 91(4), 655-674.
Brown, A. (2002). Farmers' market research 1940–2000: An inventory and review. American Journal
of Alternative Agriculture, 17(4), 167-176.
Brown, C. (2003). Consumers' preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast Missouri.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 18(4), 213-224.
https://doi.org/10.1079/AJAA200353
Brown, C., & Miller, S. (2008). The Impacts of Local Markets: A Review of Research on Farmers
Markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 90(5), 1298-1302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01220.x
Bryce, R., Guajardo, C., Ilarraza, D., Milgrom, N., Pike, D., Savoie, K., Valbuena, F., & Miller-Matero,
L. R. (2017). Participation in a farmers' market fruit and vegetable prescription program at a
federally qualified health center improves hemoglobin A1C in low income uncontrolled
diabetics. Preventive Medicine Reports, 7, 176-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.06.006
Bullock, S. (2000). The economic benefits of farmers’ markets. Friends of the Earth, London.
Byker, C., Misyak, S., Shanks, J., & Serrano, E. (2013). Do farmers’ markets improve diet of participants
using federal nutrition assistance programs? A literature review. Journal of Extension, 51(6).
Byker, C., Shanks, J., Misyak, S., & Serrano, E. (2012). Characterizing farmers' market shoppers: a
literature review. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 7(1), 38-52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2012.650074
Canfora, I. (2016). Is the short food supply chain an efficient solution for sustainability in food market?
Agriculture and agricultural science procedia, 8, 402-407.
Carey, L., Bell, P., Duff, A., Sheridan, M., & Shields, M. (2011). Farmers' Market consumers: a Scottish
perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(3), 300-306.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00940.x
Cavite, H. J., Mankeb, P., & Suwanmaneepong, S. (2022). Community enterprise consumers’ intention
to purchase organic rice in Thailand: the moderating role of product traceability knowledge.
British Food Journal, 124(4), 1124-1148. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2021-0148
Charatsari, C., Kitsios, F., Stafyla, A., Aidonis, D., & Lioutas, E. (2018). Antecedents of farmers’
willingness to participate in short food supply chains. British Food Journal, 120(10), 2317-
2333. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_6
Chen, C. J. R., Yu, T. H. E., & Fu, R. J. C. (2021). Strategic Management for Community-Based
Markets: From Consumers' Perspectives and Experiences. Sustainability, 13(10), 18, Article
5469. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105469
Chiffoleau, Y., Millet-Amrani, S., & Canard, A. (2016). From Short Food Supply Chains to Sustainable
Agriculture in Urban Food Systems: Food Democracy as a Vector of Transition. Agriculture-
Basel, 6(4), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6040057
Colasanti, K. J. A., Conner, D. S., & Smalley, S. B. (2010). Understanding barriers to farmers' market
patronage in michigan: Perspectives from marginalized populations. Journal of Hunger and
Environmental Nutrition, 5(3), 316-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2010.504097
Conner, D. S., Colasanti, K., Ross, R. B., & Smalley, S. B. (2010). Locally grown foods and farmers
markets: Consumer attitudes and behaviors. Sustainability, 2(3), 742-756.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su2030742
Conner, D. S., Montri, A. D., Montri, D. N., & Hamm, M. W. (2009). Consumer demand for local
produce at extended season farmers' markets: guiding farmer marketing strategies. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(4), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170509990044
Coster, M., & Kennon, N. (2005). New generation’farmers’ markets in rural communities. Kingston:
Rural industries research and development corporation.
Darby, K., Batte, M. T., Ernst, S., & Roe, B. (2008). Decomposing local: A conjoint analysis of locally
produced foods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(2), 476-486.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01111.x
Dimitri, C., Oberholtzer, L., Zive, M., & Sandolo, C. (2015). Enhancing food security of low-income
consumers: An investigation of financial incentives for use at farmers markets. Food Policy, 52,
64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.06.002
Dodds, R., Holmes, M., Arunsopha, V., Chin, N., Le, T., Maung, S., & Shum, M. (2014). Consumer
choice and farmers’ markets. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(3), 397-
416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9469-4
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric
analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
DuPuis, E. M., & Goodman, D. (2005). Should we go “home” to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of
localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(3), 359-371.
Ekanem, E., Mafuyai, M., & Clardy, A. (2016). Economic importance of local food markets: Evidence
from the literature. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 47(856-2016-58209), 57-64.
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.232302
Elepu, G., & Mazzocco, M. A. (2010). Consumer segments in urban and suburban farmers markets.
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 13(1030-2016-82827), 1-18.
Evans, A. E., Jennings, R., Smiley, A. W., Medina, J. L., Sharma, S. V., Rutledge, R., Stigler, M. H., &
Hoelscher, D. M. (2012). Introduction of farm stands in low-income communities increases fruit
and vegetable among community residents. Health and Place, 18(5), 1137-1143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.04.007
Farmers Market Coalition. (2023). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Retrieved
01.24. from https://farmersmarketcoalition.org/advocacy/snap/#_ftn1
Feagan, R., Morris, D., & Krug, K. (2004). Niagara region farmers' markets: Local food systems and
sustainability considerations. Local Environment, 9(3), 235-254.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983042000219351
Feagan, R. B., & Morris, D. (2009). Consumer quest for embeddedness: A case study of the Brantford
Farmers' Market. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3), 235-243.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00745.x
Figueroa-Rodriguez, K. A., Alvarez-Avila, M. D., Castillo, F. H., Rindermann, R. S., & Figueroa-
Sandoval, B. (2019). Farmers' Market Actors, Dynamics, and Attributes: A Bibliometric Study.
Sustainability, 11(3), 15, Article 745. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030745
Freedman, D. A., Choi, S. K., Hurley, T., Anadu, E., & Hébert, J. R. (2013). A farmers' market at a
federally qualified health center improves fruit and vegetable intake among low-income
diabetics. Preventive Medicine, 56(5), 288-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.01.018
Freedman, D. A., Vaudrin, N., Schneider, C., Trapl, E., Ohri-Vachaspati, P., Taggart, M., Cascio, M.
A., Walsh, C., & Flocke, S. (2016). Systematic Review of Factors Influencing Farmers' Market
Use Overall and among Low-Income Populations. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics, 116(7), 1136-1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2016.02.010
Gale, F. (1997). Direct farm marketing as a rural development tool. Rural America/Rural Development
Perspectives, 12(2221-2019-2615), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.289729
Garner, B., & Ayala, C. (2019). Regional tourism at the farmers’ market: consumers’ preferences for
local food products. International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, 13(1),
37-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-07-2018-0095
Giampietri, E., Finco, A., & Del Giudice, T. (2016). Exploring consumers’ behaviour towards short food
supply chains. British Food Journal, 118(3), 618-631. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2015-
0168
Gillespie, G., Hilchey, D. L., Hinrichs, C. C., & Feenstra, G. (2007). Farmers’ markets as keystones in
rebuilding local and regional food systems. Remaking the North American food system:
Strategies for sustainability, 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J038v08n01_01
Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., Zurbriggen, M., & Hossain, F. (2002). Predicting consumer willingness-to-
purchase value-added products at direct agricultural markets. Journal of Food Products
Marketing, 8(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1300/J038v08n01_01
Govindasamy, R., & Nayga, R. M. (1997). Determinants of farmer-to-consumer direct market visits by
type of facility: A logit analysis. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 26(1), 31-38.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500000812
Gupta, R., Pandey, R., & Sebastian, V. J. (2021). International Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO): A
bibliometric overview of scholarly research. Journal of Business Research, 125, 74-88.
Gusto, C., & Diaz, J. (2020). Toward a framework for assessing managerial intentions: A review of
support for market managers’ engagement with nutrition incentive programs. Journal of
Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 10(1), 151–169-151–169.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.101.026
Guthrie, J., Guthrie, A., Lawson, R., & Cameron, A. (2006). Farmers' markets: the small business
counter-revolution in food production and retailing. British Food Journal, 108(7), 560-573.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700610676370
Hansika, S., & Wijerathna, M. (2021). Evaluation of short organic food supply chains with special
reference to climate smartness-the case of direct farmers’ market, Kurunegala, Sri Lanka.
Journal of Agricultural Sciences - Sri Lanka, 16(2), 352-368.
https://doi.org/10.4038/jas.v16i2.9340
Harrison, H., Griffin, S. J., Kuhn, I., & Usher-Smith, J. A. (2020). Software tools to support title and
abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation. BMC Med Res Methodol,
20(1), 7, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-0897-3
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal
and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787-804.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Henneberry, S. R., Whitacre, B. E., & Agustini, H. N. (2009). An evaluation of the economic impacts
of Oklahoma farmers markets. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 40(856-2016-57815),
64-78. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.99760
Herman, D. R., Harrison, G. G., Afifi, A. A., & Jenks, E. (2008). Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake
of fruits and vegetables among low-income women in the special supplemental nutrition
program for women, infants, and children. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1), 98-105.
https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2005.079418
Hernández-Perlines, F., Ariza-Montes, A., & Blanco-González-Tejero, C. (2022). Intrapreneurship
research: A comprehensive literature review. Journal of Business Research, 153, 428-444.
Hinrichs, C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural
market. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-
0167(99)00063-7
Holloway, L., & Kneafsey, M. (2000). Reading the space of the farmers' market: A preliminary
investigation from the UK. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(3), 285-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9523.00149
Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Cox, R., Dowler, E., & Tuomainen, H. (2007). Possible food
economies: a methodological framework for exploring food production–consumption
relationships. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9523.2007.00427.x
Huang, K. M., Sant’Anna, A. C., & Etienne, X. (2021). How did Covid-19 impact US household foods?
an analysis six months in. Plos One, 16(9 September), Article e0256921.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256921
Hughes, D. W., Brown, C., Miller, S., & McConnell, T. (2008). Evaluating the economic impact of
farmers' markets using an opportunity cost framework. Journal of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, 40(1), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800028091
Hunt, A. R. (2007). Consumer interactions and influences on farmers' market vendors. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(1), 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170507001597
Ilbery, B., & Maye, D. (2005). Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food
producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land use policy, 22(4), 331-344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.06.002
Jarosz, L. (2008). The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas.
Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.10.002
Jarzębowski, S., Bourlakis, M., & Bezat-Jarzębowska, A. (2020). Short food supply chains (SFSC) as
local and sustainable systems. Sustainability, 12(11), 4715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114715
Jones, P., & Bhatia, R. (2011). Supporting Equitable Food Systems Through Food Assistance at
Farmers' Markets. American Journal of Public Health, 101(5), 781-783.
https://doi.org/10.2105/Ajph.2010.300021
Kahin, S. A., Wright, D. S., Pejavara, A., & Kim, S. A. (2017). State-level farmers market activities: A
review of CDC-Funded state public health actions that support farmers markets. Journal of
public health management and practice: JPHMP, 23(2), 96.
Karpyn, A., Pon, J., Grajeda, S. B., Wang, R., Merritt, K. E., Tracy, T., May, H., Sawyer-Morris, G.,
Halverson, M. M., & Hunt, A. (2022). Understanding Impacts of SNAP Fruit and Vegetable
Incentive Program at Farmers' Markets: Findings from a 13 State RCT. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 10, Article 7443.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127443
Karpyn, A., Pon, J., Grajeda, S. B., Wang, R., Merritt, K. E., Tracy, T., May, H., Sawyer-Morris, G.,
Humphrey, D. L., & Hunt, A. (2021). Purchases, Consumption, and BMI of SNAP Farmers’
Market Shoppers. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2021.1997860
Kirwan, J. (2004). Alternative strategies in the UK agro-food system: Interrogating the alterity of
farmers' markets. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(4), 395-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9523.2004.00283.x
Kirwan, J. (2006). The interpersonal world of direct marketing: Examining conventions of quality at
UK farmers' markets. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), 301-312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.09.001
Krishen, A. S., Dwivedi, Y. K., Bindu, N., & Kumar, K. S. (2021). A broad overview of interactive
digital marketing: A bibliometric network analysis. Journal of Business Research, 131, 183-
195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.061
Kuches, K., Toensmeyer, U. C., German, C. L., & Bacon, J. R. (1999). An analysis of consumers’ view
and preferences regarding farmer to consumer direct markets in Deleware. Journal of Food
Distribution Research, 30(1), 124-133.
Larimore, S. (2018). Cultural boundaries to access in farmers markets accepting Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP). Qualitative Sociology, 41(1), 63-87.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-017-9370-y
Larsen, K., & Gilliland, J. (2009). A farmers' market in a food desert: Evaluating impacts on the price
and availability of healthy food. Health & Place, 15(4), 1158-1162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.007
Li, J. X., Hallsworth, A. G., & Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2020). Changing Grocery Shopping Behaviours
Among Chinese Consumers At The Outset Of The COVID-19 Outbreak. Tijdschrift Voor
Economische En Sociale Geografie, 111(3), 574-583. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12420
Lockeretz, W. (1986). Urban consumers’ attitudes towards locally grown produce. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, 1(2), 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300000941
Luo, J., Liang, Y., & Bai, Y. (2021). Mapping the intellectual structure of short food supply chains
research: a bibliometric analysis. British Food Journal, 124(9), 2833-2856.
https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-05-2021-0465
Lv, X., Chang, Q., Li, H., Liang, S., Zhe, Z., Shen, S., & Pang, G. (2022). Risk assessment of carbofuran
residues in fruits and vegetables at the Chinese market: A 7-year survey. Ecotoxicol Environ
Saf, 239, 113667, Article 113667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113667
Lyson, T. A., Gillespie, G. W., Jr., & Hilchey, D. (1995). Farmers’ markets and the local community:
Bridging the formal and informal economy. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 10(3),
108-113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300006251
Malagon-Zaldua, E., Begiristain-Zubillaga, M., & Onederra-Aramendi, A. (2018). Measuring the
economic impact of farmers’ markets on local economies in the basque country. Agriculture,
8(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8010010
Maró, G., Czine, P., Maró, Z. M., & Török, Á. (2022). Eliciting University Students’ Attitudes towards
Farmers’ Markets: The Hungarian Case. Sustainability, 14(24), 16757.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416757
Marsden, T., Banks, J., & Bristow, G. (2000). Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in
rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9523.00158
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar,
Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories.
Journal of informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177.
Martín-Navarro, A., Lechuga Sancho, M. P., & Martínez-Fierro, S. (2022). Evolution of
entrepreneurship research in the food sector: a bibliometric review. British Food Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-04-2022-0388
McCormack, L. A., Laska, M. N., Larson, N. I., & Story, M. (2010). Review of the Nutritional
Implications of Farmers' Markets and Community Gardens: A Call for Evaluation and Research
Efforts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(3), 399-408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.11.023
McEachern, M. G., Warnaby, G., Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (2010). Thinking locally, acting locally?
Conscious consumers and farmers’ markets. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(5-6), 395-
412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672570903512494
McGrath, M. A., Sherry Jr, J. F., & Heisley, D. D. (1993). An ethnographic study of an urban periodic
marketplace: Lessons from the midville farmers' market. Journal of Retailing, 69(3), 280-319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4359(93)90009-8
Meyer, S. B., Coveney, J., Henderson, J., Ward, P. R., & Taylor, A. W. (2012). Reconnecting Australian
consumers and producers: Identifying problems of distrust. Food Policy, 37(6), 634-640.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.005
Michel-Villarreal, R., Hingley, M., Canavari, M., & Bregoli, I. (2019). Sustainability in alternative food
networks: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11(3), 859.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030859
Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E. L., & Hingley, M. (2020). Exploring producers' motivations
and challenges within a farmers' market. British Food Journal, 122(7), 2089-2103.
https://doi.org/10.1108/Bfj-09-2019-0731
Migliore, G., Schifani, G., Romeo, P., Hashem, S., & Cembalo, L. (2015). Are farmers in alternative
food networks social entrepreneurs? Evidence from a behavioral approach. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(5), 885-902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-
9562-y
Misra, A., & Mention, A.-L. (2021). Exploring the food value chain using open innovation:
a bibliometric review of the literature. British Food Journal, 124(6), 1810-1837.
https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-04-2021-0353
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a
comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228.
Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and
practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101-115.
Murphy, A. J. (2011). Farmers' markets as retail spaces. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551111148668
O'Hara, J. K., Woods, T. A., Dutton, N., & Stavely, N. (2021). COVID-19's Impact on Farmers Market
Sales in the Washington, D.C., Area. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 53(1),
94-109. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2020.37
O’Dare Wilson, K. (2017). Community food environments and healthy food access among older adults:
A review of the evidence for the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP). Social
Work in Health Care, 56(4), 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2016.1265631
Olsho, L. E. W., Payne, G. H., Walker, D. K., Baronberg, S., Jernigan, J., & Abrami, A. (2015). Impacts
of a farmers' market incentive programme on fruit and vegetable access, purchase and
consumption. Public Health Nutrition, 18(15), 2712-2721.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980015001056
Onianwa, O., Mojica, M. N., & Wheelock, G. (2006). Consumer characteristics and views regarding
farmers markets: An examination of on-site survey data of Alabama consumers. Journal of Food
Distribution Research, 37(856-2016-57517), 119-125.
Pamela, P. G., & Pablo, S. R. (2021). Farmer’s markets as a commercialization strategy for organic and
agroecological foods. Two experiences in Valparaiso, Chile. Agroalimentaria, 27(53), 111-129.
Park, C. E., & Sanders, G. W. (1992). Occurrence of thermotolerant campylobacters in fresh vegetables
sold at farmers' outdoor markets and supermarkets. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 38(4),
313-316. https://doi.org/10.1139/m92-052
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we
need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717.
Paul, J., Merchant, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rose, G. (2021). Writing an impactful review article: What
do we know and what do we need to know? Journal of Business Research, 133, 337-340.
Pfeiffer, B. E., Sundar, A., & Deval, H. (2021). Not too ugly to be tasty: Guiding consumer food
inferences for the greater good. Food Quality and Preference, 92, Article 104218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104218
Pitts, S. B. J., Gustafson, A., Wu, Q., Mayo, M. L., Ward, R. K., McGuirt, J. T., Rafferty, A. P.,
Lancaster, M. F., Evenson, K. R., Keyserling, T. C., & Ammerman, A. S. (2014). Farmers'
market use is associated with fruit and vegetable consumption in diverse southern rural
communities. Nutrition Journal, 13, 11, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-13-1
Plakias, Z. T., Demko, I., & Katchova, A. L. (2020). Direct marketing channel choices among US
farmers: Evidence from the Local Food Marketing Practices Survey. Renewable Agriculture
and Food Systems, 35(5), 475-489. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000085
Printezis, I., & Grebitus, C. (2018). Marketing Channels for Local Food. Ecological Economics, 152,
161-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.021
Pyle, J. (1971). Farmers' markets in the United States: Functional anachronisms. Geographical Review,
167-197. https://doi.org/10.2307/213994
Qi, D., Penn, J., Li, R., & Roe, B. E. (2022). Winning ugly: Profit maximizing marketing strategies for
ugly foods. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64, Article 102834.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102834
Racine, E. F., Vaughn, A. S., & Laditka, S. B. (2010). Farmers' Market Use among African-American
Women Participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(3), 441-446.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.11.019
Renting, H., Marsden, T. K., & Banks, J. (2003). Understanding alternative food networks: exploring
the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and planning A, 35(3),
393-411. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3510
Richter, L., Plessis, E. D., Duvenage, S., & Korsten, L. (2021). High prevalence of multidrug resistant
Escherichia coli isolated from fresh vegetables sold by selected formal and informal traders in
the most densely populated Province of South Africa. Journal of Food Science, 86(1), 161-168.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15534
Ripoll González, L., Belén Yanotti, M., & Lehman, K. (2022). Local Focus: Farmers’ Markets as an
Approach to Sustainable Tourism. In Tourism, Hospitality and Event Management (pp. 95-113):
Springer Nature.
Rummo, P. E., Lyerly, R., Rose, J., Malyuta, Y., Cohen, E. D., & Nunn, A. (2021). The impact of
financial incentives on SNAP transactions at mobile produce markets. International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-
021-01093-z
Saili, A., Rola-Rubzen, M. F., & Batt, P. (2007). Review of farmers' markets. Stewart Postharvest
Review, 3(6).
Savoie-Roskos, M., Durward, C., Jeweks, M., & LeBlanc, H. (2016). Reducing Food Insecurity and
Improving Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Farmers' Market Incentive Program Participants.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(1), 70-76.e71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2015.10.003
Saxe-Custack, A., Lofton, H. C., Hanna-Attisha, M., Victor, C., Reyes, G., Ceja, T., & Lachance, J.
(2018). Caregiver perceptions of a fruit and vegetable prescription programme for low-income
paediatric patients. Public Health Nutrition, 21(13), 2497-2506.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018000964
Schneider, S., Salvate, N., & Cassol, A. (2016). Nested Markets, Food Networks, and New Pathways
for Rural Development in Brazil. Agriculture-Basel, 6(4), 19, Article 61.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6040061
Schoolman, E. D., Morton, L. W., Arbuckle, J. G., & Han, G. (2021). Marketing to the foodshed: Why
do farmers participate in local food systems? Journal of Rural Studies, 84, 240-253.
Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., Lanzalonga, F., & Ferraris, A. (2022). Electric vehicles? consumer
behaviours: Mapping the field and providing a research agenda. Journal of Business Research,
150, 399-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.011
Smithers, J., Lamarche, J., & Joseph, A. E. (2008). Unpacking the terms of engagement with local food
at the Farmers’ Market: Insights from Ontario. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 337-350.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.009
Sommer, R., Herrick, J., & Sommer, T. R. (1981). The behavioral ecology of supermarkets and farmers'
markets. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
4944(81)80014-X
Sommer, R., Wing, M., & Aitkens, S. (1980). Price Savings to Consumers at Farmers' Markets. Journal
of Consumer Affairs, 14(2), 452-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1980.tb00681.x
Spilková, J., Fendrychová, L., & Syrovátková, M. (2013). Farmers' markets in Prague: A new challenge
within the urban shoppingscape. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(2), 179-191.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9395-5
Szabó, D., & Juhász, A. (2015). Consumers’ and producers’ perceptions of markets: Service levels of
the most important short food supply chains in Hungary. Studies in Agricultural Economics,
117(2), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.229746
Taylor, D. E., Lusuegro, A., Loong, V., Cambridge, A., Nichols, C., Goode, M., McCoy, E., Daupan,
S. M., Bartlett, M., Noel, E., & Pollvogt, B. (2022). Racial, Gender, and Age Dynamics in
Michigan’s Urban and Rural Farmers Markets: Reducing Food Insecurity, and the Impacts of a
Pandemic. American Behavioral Scientist, 66(7), 894-936.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211013387
Torres, A. (2020). For young consumers farm-to-fork is not organic: A cluster analysis of university
students. Hortscience, 55(9), 1475-1481. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI15228-20
Török, Á., Agárdi, I., Maró, G., & Maró, Z. M. (2022). Business opportunities in short food supply
chains. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 124(1), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.7896/j.2253
Tregear, A. (2011). Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: Critical reflections
and a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(4), 419-430.
Tsoulfas, G. T., Trivellas, P., Reklitis, P., & Anastasopoulou, A. (2023). A Bibliometric Analysis of
Short Supply Chains in the Agri-Food Sector. Sustainability, 15(2), 1089.
Vargo, L., Ciesielski, T. H., Embaye, M., Bird, A., & Freedman, D. A. (2022). Understanding SNAP
Recipient Characteristics to Guide Equitable Expansion of Nutrition Incentive Programs in
Diverse Food Retail Settings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 19(9), Article 4977. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094977
Varner, T., & Otto, D. (2008). Factors affecting sales at farmers' markets: an Iowa study. Applied
Economic Perspectives and Policy, 30(1), 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9353.2007.00398.x
Vasco, C., Sánchez, C., Limaico, K., & Abril, V. H. (2018). Motivations to consume agroecological
food: An analysis of farmers’ markets in quito, ecuador. Journal of Agriculture and Rural
Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 119(2), 1-10.
Vazquez, A. M., & del Moral, J. A. M. (2022). Ethical Values in a Post-Industrial Economy: The Case
of the Organic Farmers' Market in Granada (Spain). Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Ethics, 35(2), 19, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-022-09879-2
Vecchi, M., Jaenicke, E. C., & Schmidt, C. (2022). Local food in times of crisis: The impact of COVID-
19 and two reinforcing primes. Agribusiness. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21754
Velasquez, C., Eastman, C., & Masiunas, J. (2005). An assessment of Illinois farmers' market patrons'
perceptions of locally-grown vegetables. Journal of Vegetable Science, 11(1), 17-26.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J484v11n01_03
Vericker, T., Dixit-Joshi, S., Taylor, J., May, L., Baier, K., & Williams, E. S. (2021). Impact of Food
Insecurity Nutrition Incentives on Household Fruit and Vegetable Expenditures. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, 53(5), 418-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2020.10.022
Verma, S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field
of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. J Bus Res, 118, 253-261.
Vittersø, G., Torjusen, H., Laitala, K., Tocco, B., Biasini, B., Csillag, P., de Labarre, M. D., Lecoeur,
J.-L., Maj, A., Majewski, E., Malak-Rawlikowska, A., Menozzi, D., Török, Á., & Wavresky, P.
(2019). Short Food Supply Chains and Their Contributions to Sustainability: Participants’
Views and Perceptions from 12 European Cases. Sustainability, 11(17), 4800.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174800
Watts, D. C., Ilbery, B., & Maye, D. (2005). Making reconnections in agro-food geography: alternative
systems of food provision. Progress in Human Geography, 1(2005), 22-40.
Wetherill, M. S., & Gray, K. A. (2015). Farmers' Markets and the Local Food Environment: Identifying
Perceived Accessibility Barriers for SNAP Consumers Receiving Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) in an Urban Oklahoma Community. Journal of Nutrition Education
and Behavior, 47(2), 127-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.12.008
Whatmore, S., Stassart, P., & Renting, H. (2003). What's alternative about alternative food networks?
In (Vol. 35, pp. 389-391): SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England.
Wolf, M. M., Spittler, A., & Ahern, J. (2005). A profile of farmers' market consumers and the perceived
advantages of produce sold at farmers' markets. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 36(856-
2016-57429), 192-201. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.26768
Young, C., Karpyn, A., Uy, N., Wich, K., & Glyn, J. (2011). Farmers' markets in low income
communities: impact of community environment, food programs and public policy. Community
Development, 42(2), 208-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2010.551663
Young, I., Thaivalappil, A., Reimer, D., & Greig, J. (2017). Food safety at farmers' markets: A
knowledge synthesis of published research. Journal of Food Protection, 80(12), 2033-2047.
https://doi.org//10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-17-193
Zepeda, L. (2009). Which little piggy goes to market? Characteristics of US farmers' market shoppers.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3), 250-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2009.00771.x
Zepeda, L., & Leviten-Reid, C. (2004). Consumers' views on local food. Journal of Food Distribution
Research, 35(856-2016-56647), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.27554
Zhang, H., Zhou, G. Y., Zhang, S. W., Yang, Y. F., Dev, S., Su, Q., Deng, X. J., Chen, Q., & Niu, B.
(2022). Risk assessment of heavy metals contamination in pork. Food Control, 135, 13, Article
108793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108793
Zhuang, J., & Ho, H. C. (2021). Influence of COVID-19 outbreak on changing buying behaviors:
Chinese consumer's growing concerns over food safety. In New Normal and New Rules in
International Trade, Economics and Marketing (pp. 291-308). Peter Lang AG.
Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational
Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Figures
Search Term:
”Farmer* market*”
(Title, Abstract, Keywords)
Initial Database
(n=3,020)
Scopus (n=1,734)
WoS (n=1,286)
Removing duplicates Removing non-

(n=644) relevant studies
(n=611)
Final Database
(n=1,765)
Bibliometric analysis
Performance analysis Science mapping Network analysis
Publication- and citation- Citation analysis Network metrics

related metrics Most influential journals Collaboration network
Number of publications Most influential papers Historiogram
Number of citations
Most productive authors Co-citation analysis
Most productive countries Journal co-citation
Collaboration between
Bibliometric coupling
countries
Bibliometric coupling
Thematic analysis
Thematic evolution
Trend topics
Thematic map
Figure 1 Research design for the study

Note: the database was created on August 23, 2022, therefore, data for 2022 do not cover a full year
Figure 2 Annual scientific production
Figure 3 Most productive and most cooperative countries

Figure 4 Collaboration map
Figure 5 Co-citation network of journals

Figure 6 Bibliometric coupling
Figure 7 Thematic evolution

Figure 8 Trend topics
Figure 9 Thematic map

Figure 10 Author collaboration
Figure 11 Historiogram
Tables
Key Information about Data
Documents 1,765
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 796
Keywords Plus (ID) 3,372
Author Keywords (DE) 3,649
Time Period 1955-2022
Average citations per doc 15.37
Annual Growth Rate % 7.31
Document Average Age 7.95
References 54,416
Authors 4,539
Authors of single-authored docs 315
Single-authored docs 360
Co-Authors per doc 3.48

International co-authorships % 8.102
DOCUMENT TYPES
article 1,577
book 25
book chapter 96
review 67
Table 1 Description of database
Stages Years Stage name

1. 1955-1999 Early stagnation
2. 2000-2008 Initial growth
3. 2009-2013 Post-crisis boom
4. 2014-2019 Blooming stage
5. 2020-2022 Impact of COVID-19
Table 2 Periods based on the volume of publications
Number of % of
Number of citations
papers papers
Over 200 11 0.6%
Between 100 and 200 28 1.6%
Between 50 and 100 93 5.3%
Less than 50 1284 72.7%
0 citations 349 19.8%
Total 1765 100%
Table 3 General citation structure
Number
Number
Institution of Institution
Author Author of
published
citations
articles
University of South University of South
Freedman, D. A. 18 Freedman, D. A. 196
Carolina Carolina
East Carolina University of North
Pitts, S. B. J. 17 Ammerman, A. S. 188
University Carolina
University of North University of North
McGuirt, J. T. 14 McGuirt, J. T. 186
Carolina Carolina
University of North East Carolina
Ammerman, A. S. 13 Pitts, S. B. J. 146
Carolina University
East Carolina East Carolina
Wu, Q. 12 Wu, Q. 134
University University
University of University of the
Morales, A. 11 Alkon, A. H. 126
Wisconsin Pacific
University of
Sommer, T. R. 11 Brown, A. Tufts University 125
California
Southern Illinois University of
Smith, S. 10 Joseph, A. E. 113
University Guelph
East Tennessee University of
Ward, R. K. 10 Smithers, J. 113
State University Guelph
William Patterson University of North
Di Noia, J. 9 Keyserling, T. C. 105
University Carolina
Table 4 Top 10 most published and most cited authors
TP
Country TP (MCP) %TP Country %TP
(MCP)
USA 836 (15) 47.4% Hungary 13 (1) 0.7%
China 93 (25) 5.3% France 12 (2) 0.7%
Canada 75 (7) 4.2% Turkey 11 (1) 0.6%
Australia 60 (13) 3.4% Ireland 11 (2) 0.6%
United Kingdom 48 (9) 2.7% Sweden 9 (0) 0.5%
Italy 45 (7) 2.5% Nigeria 9 (1) 0.5%
Germany 28 (7) 1.6% Colombia 8 (2) 0.5%
Brazil 27 (2) 1.5% Thailand 8 (0) 0.5%
India 21 (1) 1.2% Iran 7 (1) 0.4%
New Zealand 15 (2) 0.8% South Korea 7 (1) 0.4%
South Africa 15 (3) 0.8% Austria 5 (2) 0.3%
Japan 14 (0) 0.8% Indonesia 5 (0) 0.3%
Ethiopia 14 (1) 0.8% Kenya 5 (1) 0.3%
Spain 14 (1) 0.8% Norway 5 (2) 0.3%
Netherlands 13 (6) 0.7% Uganda 5 (4) 0.3%
Note: TP: Total number of Papers; Multiple Co-authored Papers (MCP)
Table 5 Most productive and most cooperative countries

published published
Country 1 Country 2 Country 1 Country 2
articles articles
USA China 16 Canada France 2
USA Australia 6 China Canada 2
USA UK 5 China Italy 2
Australia India 3 China Netherlands 2
Australia South Africa 3 China Thailand 2
Canada Australia 3 China UK 2
Canada New Zealand 3 France Burkina Faso 2
Germany Kenya 3 Germany Denmark 2
Germany Mexico 3 Germany Sweden 2
Germany Netherlands 3 Germany Uganda 2
Italy France 3 Norway Denmark 2
Italy Netherlands 3 UK France 2
Netherlands Ethiopia 3 UK Italy 2
USA Canada 3 UK Norway 2
USA Netherlands 3 UK Poland 2
USA Uganda 3 USA Austria 2
Australia Netherlands 2 USA Italy 2
Table 6 Collaboration between countries
Article
Rank Element Country Article citations
citations
1 Agriculture and Human Values 1,572 USA 14,901
2 Journal of Rural Studies 1,045 United Kingdom 2,450
Journal of the American Dietetic
3 712 Canada 1,887
Association
4 Public Health Nutrition 706 Australia 856
American Journal of Agricultural
5 694 China 799
Economics
6 Preventing Chronic Disease 651 Italy 528
7 Sociologia Ruralis 588 New Zealand 368
International Journal of Consumer
8 574 Germany 365
Studies
American Journal of Alternative
9 550 India 203
Agriculture
Renewable Agriculture and Food
10 497 Czech Republic 198
Systems
Table 7 Performance analysis and article citations of journals and countries
Number of
Number of
Articles
Sources Articles Sources
(local
(published)
citations)
Journal of Agriculture Food Systems
60 Journal of Rural Studies 906
and Community Development
Journal of Hunger & Environmental
47 Agriculture and Human Values 636
Nutrition
Journal of Extension 37 Public Health Nutrition 504
Journal of the American Dietetic
Agriculture and Human Values 35 502
Association
American Journal of Agricultural
Public Health Nutrition 34 429
Economics
Sustainability 34 Sociologia Ruralis 428
American Journal of Preventive
British Food Journal 28 415
Medicine
Preventing Chronic Disease 25 American Journal of Public Health 411
Journal of Nutrition Education and
24 Food Policy 388
Behavior
Journal of Nutrition Education and
Journal of Food Protection 21 382
Behavior
Table 8 Top 10 journals concerning relevancy and citation
Local Global
Rank Author(s) Title Year Journal
citations citations
Farmers' market research 1940–2000: American Journal of
1 Brown, A. 2002 78 141
An inventory and review Alternative Agriculture
Review of the nutritional implications
McCorma
of farmers' markets and community Journal of the American
2 ck, L. A. 2010 75 222
gardens: a call for evaluation and Dietetic Association
et al.
research efforts
Hunt, A. Consumer interactions and influences Renewable Agriculture
3 2007 74 127
R. on farmers' market vendors and Food Systems
Unpacking the terms of engagement
Smithers,
4 with local food at the farmers' market: 2008 Journal of Rural Studies 60 138
J. et al.
Insights from Ontario
Alternative strategies in the UK agro‐
5 Kirwan, J. food system: interrogating the alterity 2004 Sociologia Ruralis 57 193
of farmers' markets
Holloway,
Reading the space of the farmers'
L. &
6 market: a preliminary investigation 2000 Sociologia Ruralis 55 202
Kneafsey,
from the UK
M.
Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake of
fruits and vegetables among low-
Herman, American Journal of
7 income women in the Special 2008 54 192
D. R. et al. Public Health
Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children
Systematic review of factors Journal of the Academy
Freedman,
8 influencing farmers' market use overall 2016 of Nutrition and 52 84
D. A. et al.
and among low-income populations Dietetics
Larsen, K. A farmers' market in a food desert:
9 & Evaluating impacts on the price and 2009 Health & Place 50 129
Gilliand, J. availability of healthy food
Farmers' market use among African-
Racine, E. American women participating in the Journal of the American
10 2010 50 62
F. et al. special supplemental nutrition program Dietetic Association
for women, infants, and children
Table 9 Most influential (cited) papers in the field of FM
Most cited publications of the
Years Era Keywords Characteristics
era
Sommer et al. (1980); Sommer
Not many scientific et al. (1981); Lockeretz (1986);
Early
1955-1999 Farmers' market publications about FMs Park – Sanders (1992); McGrath
stagnation
in general et al. (1993); Lyson et al. (1995);
Abel et al. (1999)
Holloway and Kneafsey (2000;
Brown (2001); Andreatta and
Farmers' market, food, Studies define the basics
Wickliffe (2002); Brown (2002);
2000-2008 Initial growth agriculture, consumer of the topic, numerous
Kirwan (2004); Hunt (2007);
attitudes, certification literature reviews
Herman et al. (2008); Smithers
et al. (2008)
Feagan and Morris (2009);
Farmers' market,
Number of publications Larsen and Grilland (2009);
vegetables, food safety,
increased, U.S. Zepeda (2009); Colasanti et al.
food access, sustainable
Post-crisis consumers' consumption (2010); McCormack et al.
2009-2013 agriculture, food,
boom of fruit and vegetables, (2010); Racine et al. (2010);
Escherichia coli,
as well as SNAP, of Alkon and McCullen (2011);
consumptions, local food
major importance Byker et al. (2012); Evans et al.
systems
(2012); Feedman et al. (2013)
Pitts et al. (2014); Dimitri et al.
Farmers' market, food (2015); Freedman et al.
Blooming Fewer topics, mostly
2014-2019 access, smallholder (2016); Savoie-Roskos et al.
stage related to food access
farmers (2016); Bryce et al. (2017);
Saxe-Custack et al. (2018)
Nutrition education, Li et al. (2020); Plakias et al.
climate change, farmers' (2020); Hansika – Wijerathn
market, food safety, local (2020); Torres et al. (2020;
food, marketing, direct Topics are very diverse, Pfeiffer et al. (2021); Richter et
Impact of
2020-2022 marketing, fruit and and the effects of al. (2021); Rummo et al. (2021);
COVID-19
vegetable consumption, COVID-19 appear Vericker et al. (2021); Cavite et
food justice, antibiotic al. (2022); Qi et al. (2022);
resistance, vegetable, Taylor et al. (2022)
Ethiopia, COVID-19
Table 10 Thematic evolution of literature related to FMs
Highlights
Highlights
 Number of farmers’ markets and related publications has grown exponentially recently
 They are policy tools for providing fresh, healthy, and nutritious food in the USA
 In Europe, their contribution to sustainable food chains is the most important
 Safety of foods purchased at farmers’ markets is still on the agenda

JOBR D 23 01047 - Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOBR D 23 01047 - Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Business Research

Understanding the relevance of farmers' markets: A bibliometric review

Manuscript Number: JOBR-D-23-01047

Article Type: Full length article

Section/Category: Research Methods

Understanding the relevance of farmers' markets: A bibliometric

4.1 Summary of quantitative results

4.2 Number of publications

4.3 Number of citations

4.4 Most productive authors

4.5 Most productive countries

4.6 Collaboration between countries

4.7 Most influential journals

4.8 Most influential papers

4.9 Journal co-citation

4.10 Bibliometric coupling

4.11 Thematic evolution

4.13 Thematic map

4.14 Collaboration network

5 Conclusions and contribution

INSERT TABLE 10 HERE

6 Limitations and further research

Removing duplicates Removing non-

Performance analysis Science mapping Network analysis

Publication- and citation- Citation analysis Network metrics

Figure 1 Research design for the study

Figure 2 Annual scientific production

Figure 3 Most productive and most cooperative countries

Figure 5 Co-citation network of journals

Figure 7 Thematic evolution

Figure 9 Thematic map

Co-Authors per doc 3.48

Table 1 Description of database

Stages Years Stage name

Table 5 Most productive and most cooperative countries

Table 6 Collaboration between countries

You might also like