A Bibliometric Analysis of Short Supply Chains in the Agri-Food Sector

Abstract

Short supply chains have recently gained increased attention because of the turbulence in the global environment caused by exogenous influences that create unstable and uncertain conditions. The emergence of short supply chains is of particular importance for sustainable development at large, but also for the viability of vulnerable communities and areas (e.g., remote and isolated, and islands). This paper aims to explore the area of short supply chains focusing on the agri-food sector from a bibliometric standpoint. Towards this end, journal articles listed in the Scopus database were analyzed using the software VOSviewer. We present a broad overview, recent developments, and fundamental ideas in the realm of short food supply chains, which may aid in our comprehension and future research on this topic.

1. Introduction

The previous century has seen significant changes in European agricultural and rural regions brought about by a variety of economic, environmental, policy, and social factors, including market globalization, rising global food demand, changes in climate, and industrial and economic upheavals [1]. The fragility of global supply systems, particularly the possibility for the disruptions of international food trade, has been brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the midst of this, the need for alternatives to the current food system that are more dependable and sustainable has rapidly increased. Both the need for direct food provision from regional sources that are environmentally sustainable, and the use of alternative food techniques, have increased dramatically [2]. While the worldwide conventional food system has helped to increase production, it has also created economic uncertainty and had detrimental consequences on the environment, the economy, and society. Land usage, energy consumption, fresh water use and pollution, climate change, soil degradation, and eutrophication are some of the environmental issues. The activity also challenges social and economic difficulties, in which small producers are often the most affected. There are allegations of rural migration, social and economic isolation, the reduction of production for self-consumption resulting to increasing food insecurity, the loss of autonomy, the regional disarticulation of development processes and ill health conditions owing to the usage of agrochemicals [3]. It is difficult to define sustainability in the context of an agri-food chain, since the term has a very broad meaning. Typically, the environmental, economic, and social concerns are considered. The economic part specifically relates to economic expansion, expenditures on human and social capital, modifications in consumer habits, price stability and transparency, and the expansion of farmers’ roles. The social dimension, on the other hand, is concerned with issues such as food safety, human health and nutrition, animal welfare, job growth, equity conditions, and moral standards. So, sustainability may be seen as the ability to preserve favorable environmental, social, and economic conditions across time; it can also be interpreted as a specific characteristic displayed by the supply chain [4].

Large-scale, highly automated, and highly industrialized agriculture is the foundation of conventional food supply networks. They are frequently referred to as long food supply chains with several nodes. The global industrialization of food supply chains has changed the way that food is produced, accessed, and consumed. Because of the emphasis on economic efficiency, food producers have persistently battled to remain in business despite lower financial returns, while also exerting significant pressure on ecosystems to supply the market for cheap food. As a result, ecosystems have suffered from a loss of biodiversity, deforestation, soil degradation, and water pollution, and rural regions have experienced socio-economic problems. Food producers have started new initiatives, which promote the creation of “reconnections” between producers and customers and make an effort to elucidate the ethics and duties associated with food production [5]. A system of economic organization marked by a general decline in product pricing and the consolidation of extensive production chains in which food loses its identity and cultural importance has been created as a result of the industrialization and globalization of the food markets [6].

Since it is the main provider of food for the global population, agribusiness is essential to the global economy. An agri-food supply chain is made up of a number of supply, production, post-harvest, storage, distribution, and processing stages, and integrates them. This system is in charge of getting agricultural goods from the early stages of production to the last stage of consumption. Although agri-food supply chains have parallels to normal manufacturing supply chains, they have characteristics that make their management more complicated. This is a result of influences such as governance, fluctuating food prices, climate-controlled variability, and food waste, as well as secure access to food and nutrition [7].

An endeavor has been made to embrace more sustainable business models because of worries about the detrimental effects of global food supply chains. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [8] have tried to engage the global community towards this objective. The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices into our food consumption paradigm poses difficulties on the social, economic, and ecological fronts. Today, eating habits and food choices are seen as crucial components of sustainability. The production of food is responsible for more than a quarter of all national greenhouse gas emissions. Consumers are forced to make decisions every day that might have a negative influence on the environment. Consuming seasonal food, particularly fruits and vegetables, can help consumers lessen the environmental impact of their dietary decisions by reducing long-distance imports and out-of-season local production, both of which are energy-intensive [9,10,11].

For reaching the sustainable development objectives, reducing food losses and waste poses a significant challenge. At every stage of food production, processing, retail, and consumption, losses and waste are produced. These factors include farmers’ training and experience, harsh weather circumstances, illnesses, pests, access to equipment, financing, and markets, among others [12].

Short food supply chains (SFSCs) have gained wide acceptance lately as paradigms that could help tackle the concerns discussed in the previous paragraphs. Moreover, they may prove of particular importance in global crises and disruption occasions, but also in the case of vulnerable regions, such as remote and isolated areas, including islands. In the literature there may be found a few review papers on:

• Alternative agri-food networks and SFSCs (2013) [13];
• Sustainability and SFSCs (2014) [14];
• Alternative and sustainable food systems for cereals [15];
• Sustainability and SFSCs (2020) [16];
• Local food systems (2021) [17];
• The logistics of the short food supply chain (2021) [18];
• Theoretical frameworks of food system governance (2022) [19];
• Issues and challenges in SFSCs (full-text content analysis) (2022) [20];
• Climate-smart agriculture as a means to assure food security through short supply chains (systematic bibliometric and bibliographic literature review) (2022) [21].

This paper aims to explore the area of SFSCs from a bibliometric standpoint. To our knowledge there has not been any similar attempt in the recent literature, and we aim at contributing towards this direction. Bibliometric analysis is an established and efficient technique, which allows us to explore the subtleties of a particular field’s evolutionary history while illuminating its frontiers. Towards this end, journal articles listed in the Scopus database were analyzed using the software VOSviewer. We present a broad overview, recent developments, and fundamental ideas in the realm of SFSCs, which may aid in the comprehension and future research on mainstreaming the concept and practice of SFSCs in the case of vulnerable areas. In the remainder of the paper a broad overview of contemporary issues on SFSCs is presented. Next, the methodology adopted is discussed, along with the results. The paper comes to an end with a discussion and some concluding remarks.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Supply Chain Considerations in Regional Development

It is difficult to encounter literature on local and regional sustainable supply chain management. Typically, it is challenging and demanding to meet the logistical demands of the isolated and rural areas residents. Therefore, it is necessary to develop suitable and sustainable mechanisms to connect these places to the global supply chains but also to adopt alternative practices, such as short supply chains, that may provide solutions to many of their requirements. In such a case, achieving local connections requires the development and operation of suitable networks.

Especially in the case of islands, inter-island transportation must be reasonably priced, easily accessible, and consistent, in order to promote economic progress. Transportation infrastructure may promote economic development by easing the flow of products. Inter-island domestic travel is essential for servicing economically successful industries, such as tourism, agriculture, and fisheries, as well as for reaching distant outer islands. In these circumstances, inter-island communication needs to be enhanced, particularly for islands that fall under the categories of outer and remote islands [22,23].

Currently, many remote small islands are viewed as desirable tourist locations. As a mechanism for the revitalization of such locations, governance plays a significant role in achieving a more productive, environmentally sound, socially responsible, and sustainable management structure. Each actor in the tourism network is essential to the good governance of a remote and isolated place. A new conception of the relationship between the state and society is necessary, as there are strict separations between the public and private sectors [24].

Small island populations are considered marginal because they frequently live in isolated regions that might have an adverse effect on their economics, politics, and social networks. Due to their varied geographic traits and transportation needs, most distant islands are hard to access. These islands’ populations struggle to obtain basic logistical services as a result of their poor accessibility, necessitating longer shipment lead times. On the other hand, small island communities have a great potential to deal with a variety of threats by employing their ‘traditional knowledge’. The benefits of islands in terms of their high social capital encourage good governance practices and frequently enables islanders to live in enviable conditions. Small island populations do, in fact, frequently develop distinctive civilizations and maintain a deep connection to their own land and culture. In the face of upheavals, whether they be cultural or environmental, this relationship unquestionably offers benefits. Any risk reduction approach must first determine the inherent capacity of island populations [25,26].

Island-based communities might vary greatly from one another, but because of their isolation, they are all subject to a similar set of limitations. These problems frequently involve size disparities in all aspects of economic activity, an excessive reliance on international commerce, high transportation costs, and other infrastructure constraints. Additionally, they frequently build their economies on a single or small number of economic enterprises. A common thread connecting many island communities is their reliance on the importation of goods and services. While certain things may be acquired locally, importation—either directly from overseas or through a neighboring community—is sometimes necessary [27,28].

The logistical dead-zone problem, which occurs in hard-to-reach places where the delivery demand cannot be punctually supplied by traditional transportation vehicles (i.e., ships or trucks) owing to the inherent geographical circumstances, persists despite the world’s logistics infrastructure constantly improving. The demand in distant places with limited populations may not be properly satisfied by logistics providers, especially when contrasted to more typical delivery areas. This is because governments or logistics companies may not make the necessary investments to meet the demand in these areas. Commercial businesses, especially logistics companies, concentrate in densely populated areas since the potential demand immediately increases earnings. As a result, severe competition between private enterprises in certain industries is extremely prevalent, and businesses frequently invest more to win over their competitors. Low population regions, on the other hand, typically receive less attention and investment from businesses [29].

2.2. Alternative Food Networks

By utilizing ideas like self-organization and self-management, alternative food networks (AFNs) are upending the conventional food system in an effort to reduce the length of the food supply chain and offer consumers greater control. New methods of network-wide information management and sharing are facilitated by the process of producers and customers re-connecting [30,31]. Farmers first lobbied for the creation of AFNs as a marketing tactic to avoid squeezing between actors in the supply chains (upstream and downstream) and to eliminate the imbalance in farm-to-retail marketplaces, enhancing the profitability of agricultural operations and their market strength. Their success, however, is mainly attributable to the shifting consumer demand, which shifted to a stronger focus on quality and a better understanding of the environmental and social challenges tied to traditional food systems [32,33]. In contrast to the agro-industrial paradigm, embeddedness has been used extensively to define AFNs, which have been endorsed as nurturing intimate, real, trustworthy, and equitable relationships, whereas the former is associated with anonymous, sometimes unfair relationships. In contrast to the agro-industrial paradigm, which reflects the decoupling of the food business from social structures, they are therefore strongly rooted in social interactions [34,35].

As a result of worries about the long-term viability of globalized retail trade and the increased prevalence of health-conscious consumer behavior, governments, and groups of conscious consumers around the world are placing more of an emphasis on the promotion and development of local food systems, small-scale retail chains, and the production of high-quality local food products, to boost the market. Trust is the cornerstone of food purchases, but it seems to be eroding due to factors including the impact of constantly changing and “non-personalized” retail commerce, frequent food scandals, and environmental sustainability concerns, etc. [36,37].

Poças Ribeiro et al. [38] classified six different types of AFNs according to their rationale and features using a multi-actor viewpoint framework: consumer-led; producer-led; third-sector led; community supported agriculture; public-led; and business platforms. Key challenges and facilitating conditions varied according to AFN type, and depended on AFN specificities.

2.3. The Emergence of Short Food Supply Chains

Supply chains are intricate systems that are typically made up of several businesses and other economic actors, all of whom contribute to getting the finished product to the consumer. They fall under the wide category of “hybrid institutions”, which are complicated organizational structures with several stakeholders working together to complete tasks that neither the market nor a single enterprise can complete alone [39].

Traditional supply chains, which include many stages and a number of middlemen, suffer from several well-known inefficiencies and flaws. Such supply chains typically experience severe post-harvest losses and product waste in addition to the increase in market price brought on by repeated marginalization. In this context, SFSCs have lately been put up as alternative systems capable of producing goods of a higher caliber, while fostering efficiency and sustainability [40,41,42]. Actually, Marsden et al. [43] first introduced the concept of SFSCs in reaction to agro-industrial food systems, which are associated with a high number of intermediaries. In contrast to AFNs, the SFSC idea is more narrowly focused and takes into account the relationships among the many players that are directly engaged in the creation, processing, distribution, and consumption of novel food products [44]. Charatsari et al. [45] defined SFSCs as food production and distribution channels, where the number of agents or actors that mediate between the producer and the final consumer of a product is minimal or zero, and where their structure permits the seamless, two-way flow of information between the endpoints of the chain. Such systems have the potential to redistribute power in the agri-food sector, promote cooperation within rural communities by bringing producers and consumers closer together, and mitigate the negative environmental effects of conventional food distribution networks. Therefore, the purpose of SFSCs is to effectively establish localized direct relationships between producers and consumers, separating them from the intermediary actors and constructs that make up traditional supply chains. In a nutshell, the ultimate goal is to enhance the efficiency of the networks that support agriculture and food. Therefore, the dissociation serves as the impetus for the market innovation process [46]. In reaction to the various economic, environmental, and social problems of the traditional agri-food systems during the past 30 years, rural development methods that represent alternatives to the industrial mode of food production and distribution have arisen. The “re-territorialization” or “re-localization” of food supply networks or chains into shorter structures is one of these approaches [47]. The European Union defines short supply chain as: “a supply chain involving a limited number of economic operators, committed to co-operation, local economic development, and close geographical and social relations between producers, processors and consumers” [48]. Moreover, the European Union later clarified that a short supply chain is: “a supply chain involving a limited number of economic operators, committed to co-operation, local economic development, and close geographical and social relations between producers, processors and consumers” [49].

2.4. Short Food Supply Chains Typologies

SFSCs have attracted a lot of academic interest, especially in Europe, where producers’ creative organizational activities, altering consumer demand, changes in food legislation, food safety issues, and people’s skepticism of the globalized agri-food system, have all led to an increase in the renewal and reconfiguration of SFSCs. SFSCs include a broad range of market-based initiatives, such as on-farm direct sales, community-supported agriculture (CSA), farmers’ markets, farmer shops, direct farmer-to-retailer, artisan, canteen or restaurant procurement schemes, as well as online marketplaces that offer well-known farmers’ products [16,30,50,51,52,53,54].

SFSCs have been conceived based on a variety of considerations and many relevant typologies have been presented. First of all, the terms “face to face”, “proximate”, and “spatially extended” SFSCs were introduced to indicate a focus on proximity [43,44]. Geographical and organizational proximity, which might be weak or strong, can be used to distinguish among four different types of supply networks [53]: supply chains with loose ties; indirect relations; distance relations; and direct relations. Short supply chains are the last three, whereas the first scenario, which involves loosely connected supply channels, is comparable to traditional long supply chains. Malak-Rawlikowska et al. [55] proposed a similar strategy for defining short supply chains based on the three “proximity” dimensions: physical (geographic) proximity; organizational proximity; and social proximity.

According to Wubben et al. [56], there are three distinct business models for SFSCs, as a SFSC might be initiated by a stakeholder with the goal of boosting its company’s economic viability, assisting producers, or fostering producer-consumer connections. Therefore, there are many alternative channels that bring together producers with consumers: on-farm and off-farm; with or without one intermediary; and with or without the Internet [57].

3. Materials and Methods

For the purposes of this paper the Scopus database was used in order to find relevant papers to be included in the analysis. Initially, two different searches were carried out on 13 August 2022:

• (TITLE-ABS-KEY (agricultural) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (agrifood) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (agrofood) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (food) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“short supply chain”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) (138 results)
• (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“short food supply chain”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“short agri-food supply chain”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“short agro-food supply chain”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) (238 results)

That is to say, we looked for journal articles written in English without any time limitations, based on the titles, the abstracts, and the authors’ keywords. By merging the above searches, a set of 352 documents was formed. After analyzing this set, 24 articles were excluded either because they were not written in English or because they examined and regarded as irrelevant to the topic studied. Finally, a set of 327 papers was formed, which is presented in Appendix A. The 327 results were exported from Scopus in csv format. They range from 2000 to 2022 (until 13 August) and their distribution in time is presented in Figure 1.

Next, the csv file was imported in VOSviewer (version 1.6.18), which is a software program for creating and representing bibliometric networks [58,59,60]. VOSviewer offers various analysis modes; for the purpose of this paper the following were used:

• Bibliographic coupling (by authors and by documents);
• Co-authorship (by authors and by countries);
• Co-citation (by cited sources);
• Co-occurrence (by author keywords);
• Text data (title and abstract fields).

In the latter, binary counting was used, which addresses the occurrences of a word/phrase at least once in the respective fields. When full counting is used, the total number of times a phrase appears across all documents is addressed. For all other analysis modes, fractional counting was used. The objective of fractional counting is to limit the effect of articles with several authors. In all cases, for the clustering of nodes a minimum cluster size was defined, which was calculated as the rounded value of the 7% of all items displayed in the network of nodes. Other limitations and choices will be presented for each individual analysis mode.

4. Results

In all the analysis modes the following cluster colors are used:

• Cluster 1—red;
• Cluster 2—green;
• Cluster 3—blue;
• Cluster 4—yellow;
• Cluster 5—purple;
• Cluster 6—cyan;
• Cluster 7—orange;
• Cluster 8—brown.

Total link strengths were chosen as weights. More significance is attributed to an item having a higher weight than one with a lower weight. Items having a greater weight are displayed more prominently in a map’s representation than items with a lower weight. Clustering resolution, which is the level of detail of the clustering, was set to 1.00. In all analysis modes, network and density visualizations are presented. In the latter, cluster density was chosen where the color of a point is produced by mixing the colors of the clusters involved. In addition, the tables with the information presented in the visualizations are presented in the Appendix B. The tables’ cells are colored according to the clusters in which items belong.

4.1. Bibliographic Coupling

A link between two sources that both cite the same source is known as a bibliographic coupling link.

4.1.1. By Authors

Three (3) documents were set as a minimum number of documents of an author, while the minimum number of citations of an author was 0. Of the 983 authors, 44 met the thresholds and participate in the bibliographic coupling network: one big; one medium; and one small cluster, were created. Cluster 1 contained 30 authors on the marketing and strategy aspects of SFSCs. Cluster 2 contained eight authors focusing on sustainability. Cluster 3 had six authors addressing local agri-food networks. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and isolated. Cluster 1 seems to be disintegrated. The results are presented in

Table A1. Bibliographic coupling (by authors)—results.

Author	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
Charatsari C.	3	72	299.53
Lioutas E.D.	3	72	299.53
Benedek Z.	4	41	214.06
Demartini E.	4	79	207.35
Gaviglio A.	4	79	207.35
Fertő I.	3	30	200.33
Elghannam A.	4	65	188.14
Mesias F.J.	4	65	188.14
Del Giudice T.	4	209	157.00
Aubert M.	3	27	154.35
Enjolras G.	3	27	154.35
Marescotti M.E.	3	43	148.60
Finco A.	3	201	137.05
Giampietri E.	3	201	137.05
Canavari M.	4	62	117.31
Mundler P.	3	94	92.00
Petropoulou E.	3	0	84.74
Hyland J.J.	3	26	76.84
Ruszkai C.	3	42	73.69
Fricz Á.S.	3	0	61.85
Kujáni K.	3	0	61.85
González-Azcárate M.	3	18	51.22
Aouinaït C.	3	0	48.71
Kizos T.	3	35	42.01
Maye D.	3	293	40.21
Colantuono F.	3	16	38.00
Delgrossi M.E.	3	28	21.96
Levidow L.	4	239	20.00
Lawrence G.	3	88	20.00
Kapała A.M.	3	3	3.00
Donati M.	3	121	271.85
Török Á.	6	145	261.38
Lecoeur J.-L.	3	133	231.24
Majewski E.	3	133	231.24
Malak-Rawlikowska A.	3	133	231.24
Tocco B.	3	133	231.24
Vittersø G.	3	133	231.24
Mancini M.C.	3	120	154.01
Migliore G.	7	156	455.08
Schifani G.	5	142	436.99
Crescimanno M.	4	19	330.96
Galati A.	4	19	330.96
Testa R.	4	90	305.77
Di Trapani A.M.	3	80	229.87

(Appendix B) and in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The larger the circle in Figure 2, the more the publications a researcher has. The stronger a relationship between two researchers is based on bibliographic coupling, and the closer they are situated to one another [59]. Of course, when two or more researchers are co-authors of the same papers, they have the same values in all columns of Table A1.

4.1.2. By Documents

The minimum number of citations of a document was set to 20. Of the 327 documents, 83 met the threshold and 81 of them participate in the bibliographic coupling network. Two medium and six small clusters were created, signifying groups of publications citing the same documents. Cluster 1 contained 18 articles and cluster 2 contained 17 articles. Cluster 3 and cluster 4 had 10 and nine articles, respectively, whereas cluster 5 and cluster 6 had eight and seven articles, respectively. Clusters 7 and 8 had six articles each. All clusters are characterized by proximity. All clusters, but the green and the brown, seem to be disintegrated. The results are presented in

Table A2. Bibliographic coupling (by documents)—results.

Document	Citations	Total Link Strength
Mancini M.C. (2019)	31	44.00
Mundler P. (2016)	86	41.00
Tudisca S. (2014)	47	37.00
Tudisca S. (2015)	27	36.00
Lombardi A. (2015)	42	33.00
Migliore G. (2015)	84	31.00
D’Amico M. (2014b)	67	28.00
Malak-Rawlikowska A. (2019)	76	25.00
Vittersø G. (2019)	43	25.00
D’Amico M. (2014a)	27	22.00
Benedek Z. (2018)	20	19.00
Syrovátková M. (2015)	24	17.00
Mastronardi L. (2015)	37	16.00
Aubry C. (2013)	133	14.00
Bimbo F. (2015)	23	9.00
Thatcher J. (2008)	22	8.00
Jarzebowski S. (2020)	55	6.00
Carbone A. (2017)	35	4.00
Forssell S. (2015)	152	48.00
Bazzani C. (2013)	51	32.00
Ilbery B. (2005)	213	28.00
Ilbery B. (2004)	80	17.00
Renting H. (2003)	1008	14.00
Galli F. (2015)	51	13.00
Aguiar L.C. (2018)	23	13.00
Conner D.S. (2008)	25	10.00
Marsden T. (2000)	616	9.00
Friedmann H. (2007)	128	8.00
Gaviglio A. (2016)	30	8.00
Blanc J. (2009)	28	8.00
Dupré L. (2017)	20	7.00
Deselnicu O.C. (2013)	100	3.00
Padel S. (2005)	58	3.00
Guzmán G.I. (2013)	44	3.00
Herold P. (2010)	37	3.00
Chiffoleau Y. (2020)	35	52.00
Berti G. (2016)	152	40.00
Yuna C. (2016)	53	28.00
Chiffoleau Y. (2019)	35	27.00
Charatsari C. (2018)	20	26.00
Albrecht C. (2018)	27	22.00
Al Shamsi K.B. (2018)	27	13.00
Levidow L. (2014)	132	7.00
Ely A. (2016)	31	4.00
Levidow L. (2012)	94	2.00
Borsellino V. (2020)	45	58.00
Giampietri E. (2016)	61	37.00
Giampietri E. (2018)	119	23.00
Giampietri E. (2015)	21	23.00
Smith K. (2016)	54	11.00
Aggestam V. (2017)	31	11.00
Dos Santos M.J.P.L. (2016)	57	2.00
Lagerkvist C.J. (2013)	37	1.00
Nchanji E.B. (2021)	21	1.00
Todorovic V. (2018)	43	16.00
Schmutz U. (2018)	27	16.00
Elghannam A. (2017)	21	15.00
Elghannam A. (2020)	31	14.00
Matzembacher D.E. (2019)	31	14.00
Pölling B. (2017)	25	10.00
Barska A. (2020)	33	6.00
Pulighe G. (2020)	78	1.00
Thomé K.M. (2021)	29	52.00
Kiss K. (2019)	30	46.00
Lioutas E.D. (2020)	39	11.00
Butu A. (2020)	67	9.00
Barbosa M.W. (2021)	21	7.00
Filimonau V. (2021)	33	3.00
De Paulo Farias D. (2020)	29	3.00
Paciarotti C. (2021)	46	71.00
Sellitto M.A. (2018)	65	34.00
Nakandala D. (2019)	29	22.00
Tasca A.L. (2017)	73	7.00
Besik D. (2017)	29	7.00
Battini D. (2016)	36	6.00
Demartini E. (2017)	36	29.00
Annunziata A. (2018)	21	24.00
Wubben E.F.M. (2013)	23	19.00
Gruchmann T. (2019)	25	17.00
Lehtinen U. (2012)	65	9.00
Karg H. (2016)	36	5.00

(Appendix B) and in Figure 4 and Figure 5. In all cases, the first author is shown. In the red cluster, the paper [61] has the highest link strength. In this paper, the authors analyze the producers’ and consumers’ perceptions of two SFSCs for Parmigiano Reggiano PDO cheese, in a rural area and in a peri-urban area, in Italy. In the green cluster, the paper [62] has the highest link strength. Through a methodical examination and an emphasis on the relationships between AFN traits and sustainability, the authors want to offer readers a better grasp of the sustainability potential of AFNs. They define and summarize their major traits by analyzing the conceptualizations of AFNs that are mirrored in the literature. They then combine assertions about how these traits could translate into sustainability. In the blue cluster, the paper [16] has the highest link strength. This literature review gives a current assessment of the definition, description, and sustainability of SFSCs. In the yellow cluster, the paper [63] has the highest link strength. The study tries to comprehend the developmental routes of sustainability challenges within agri-food markets by evaluating their drivers and trends, and is based on a thorough analysis of the current international literature. In the purple cluster, the papers [37,64] have the highest link strength. Todorovic et al. demonstrated how SFSCs could be designed from the perspectives of cutting-edge logistics modes and modern information and communication technologies, based on two distinct conceptual models, with the ultimate goal of outlining and evaluating various food distribution scenarios in the direction of greater sustainability. Schmutz et al. present the results of exploratory research that used examples of SFSCs from London to obtain a more thorough knowledge of various urban SFSC types, and their comparative effectiveness. In the cyan cluster, the paper [18] has the highest link strength. In contrast to the existing polarization of the supply chain approach literature, this paper tries to establish and define the coexistence conceptual framework of food supply chains and SFSCs. In the orange cluster, the paper [65] has the highest link strength. The purpose of this literature review is to further enlighten researchers and practitioners on the potential and role of logistics in enhancing the efficacy and sustainability of SFSCs. In the brown cluster, the paper [66] has the highest link strength. The motivation of farmers and the perceived impacts of their involvement in SFSCs were investigated by the authors. Along with their size, output, selling channels, relative market share, and the adoption of quality certifications, farm locations were also examined.

4.2. Co-Authorship

When two or more scholars collaborate to write a publication, a co-authorship link is created.

4.2.1. By Authors

Two documents were set as a minimum number of documents of an author, while the minimum number of citations of an author was 0. Of the 983 authors, 173 met the thresholds and 30 participated in the co-authorship network: one big; one medium; and two small clusters were created. Cluster 1 contained 13 and cluster 2 contained eight authors. Cluster 3 and cluster 4 contained five and four authors, respectively. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and cluster 4 is rather isolated. Clusters 3 and 4 seem to be disintegrated. The results are presented in

Table A3. Co-authorship (by authors)—results.

Author	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
Kujáni K.	3	107	3.00
Fricz Á.S.	3	0	3.00
Reipurth M.	2	13	2.00
Alfaro B.	2	0	2.00
Chang B.P.I.	2	0	2.00
Cruz E.S.	2	0	2.00
Gawlik D.	2	0	2.00
Hegyi A.	2	0	2.00
Hieke S.	2	0	2.00
Hüttl-Maack V.	2	0	2.00
Massri C.	2	0	2.00
Lameris M.	2	16	1.00
Braun S.	2	0	1.00
Petropoulou E.	3	13	3.00
Theodorakopoulou I.	2	90	2.00
Xhakollari V.	2	33	2.00
Antonelli A.	2	0	2.00
Benos T.	2	0	2.00
Castellini A.	2	0	2.00
Iliopoulos C.	2	0	2.00
Petruzzella D.	2	0	2.00
Aouinaït C.	3	0	3.00
Massar B.	2	1624	2.00
Carlen C.	2	0	2.00
Christen D.	2	0	2.00
Frederiks M.	2	0	2.00
Canavari M.	4	62	3.00
Vilalta-Perdomo E.L.	2	161	2.00
Michel-Villarreal R.	2	65	2.00
Hingley M.	2	16	2.00

(Appendix B) and in Figure 6 and Figure 7. In all cases, the total link strength within clusters are rather small. Moreover, there are articles with many authors that facilitate links between different clusters. This finding, combined with the fact that only 17.34% of the authors who met the threshold participated in the co-authorship network, indicates that the cooperation among scholars is rather fragmented.

4.2.2. By Countries

Three documents were set as a minimum number of documents of a country, while the minimum number of citations of a country was 0. Of the 53 countries, 32 met the thresholds and 31 participated in the co-authorship network. Two thirds are European countries: two medium, and five small clusters were created. Cluster 1 contained nine countries and cluster 2 contained six countries. Cluster 3 and cluster 4 contained four countries each, whereas cluster 5 and cluster 6 contained three countries each. Cluster 7 contained two countries. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and seem to be disintegrated. The results are presented in

Table A4. Co-authorship (by countries)—results.

Country	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
Italy	88	1737	19.00
Hungary	29	309	10.00
France	29	592	9.00
Belgium	10	203	8.00
Poland	15	252	7.00
Norway	4	148	3.00
Ireland	4	26	3.00
Vietnam	3	84	2.00
Finland	4	239	1.00
United Kingdom	35	2860	21.00
Netherlands	17	1086	12.00
United States	22	320	6.00
Austria	6	96	4.00
Serbia	3	43	2.00
India	3	15	2.00
Portugal	9	92	4.00
Czech Republic	3	32	2.00
Romania	7	90	1.00
Slovakia	3	9	1.00
Spain	35	345	16.00
Egypt	5	65	5.00
Mexico	4	16	3.00
Colombia	4	16	2.00
Germany	19	186	12.00
China	6	56	4.00
Croatia	3	40	1.00
Switzerland	6	15	6.00
Greece	10	115	3.00
Brazil	15	196	2.00
Australia	8	129	3.00
Canada	14	422	2.00

(Appendix B) and in Figure 8 and Figure 9. In this case, it is evident that geographic proximity and/or the same language have a role to play. In addition, the mobility of researchers is to a certain degree responsible for these results. Moreover, there are countries with a pioneering role in SFSCs, such as the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. Last, but not least, funded programs, especially in the EU, facilitate international co-operations.

4.3. Co-Citation (by Cited Sources)

A link between two sources that are both referenced in the same source is known as a co-citation link.

The minimum number of citations of a source was set to 30. In all, 70 journals with articles in English met the threshold and participated in the co-citation network: one big, two medium, and one small cluster, were created. Cluster 1 contained 25 journals and cluster 2 contained 22 journals. Cluster 3 contained 15 journals and cluster 4 contained eight journals. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and contain journals from various disciplines. Cluster 1 mostly contains journals about agriculture and food science. The “British Food Journal” and “Food Policy” have a dominant presence in this cluster. Cluster 2 mostly contains journals focused on sustainability and environmental protection. “Sustainability” and the “Journal of Cleaner Production” are by far at the forefront in this cluster. Cluster 3 has journals about rural development and geography, while the “Journal of Rural Studies” is the leader, not only of this cluster, but of the whole set of journals; three other journals, namely “Sociologia Ruralis”, “Agriculture and Human Values”, and “Environment and Planning A”, have a remarkable presence in this cluster. Cluster 4 has journals about operations and supply chain management, but none seem to have an influential presence. In any case, the clustering presented in this subsection is an excellent indication of the concerns that have led to the emergence of SFSCs. The results are presented in

Table A5. Co-citation (by cited sources)—results.

Source	Citations	Total Link Strength
British Food Journal	287	256.42
Food Policy	240	219.85
Renewable Agriculture And Food Systems	173	164.34
Food Quality and Preference	155	142.62
American Journal of Agricultural Economics	111	103.82
Appetite	108	101.39
International Journal of Consumer Studies	91	87.84
Agriculture	76	73.69
Journal of Food Distribution Research	77	72.40
Agribusiness	74	70.97
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review	69	67.59
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics	66	64.28
Agricultural Economics	63	61.04
New Medit	63	59.20
Quality—Access to Success	74	52.83
Agricultural and Food Economics	52	49.58
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture	45	43.94
Economia Agro-Alimentare	41	39.72
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review	38	36.97
Journal of Food Products Marketing	37	36.65
Studies in Agricultural Economics	33	31.67
Journal of Agricultural Economics	32	31.34
European Review of Agricultural Economics	33	31.07
Italian Journal of Food Science	30	29.82
Food Control	33	29.78
Sustainability	566	475.61
Journal of Cleaner Production	290	256.03
Agricultural Systems	85	80.13
Ecological Economics	63	61.81
Trends in Food Science and Technology	62	57.95
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems	54	49.49
Journal of Peasant Studies	49	47.26
Journal of Environmental Management	48	46.87
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment	57	43.20
Agronomy For Sustainable Development	46	43.00
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health	43	37.97
World Development	40	37.33
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics	40	36.46
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture	33	32.86
Global Food Security	34	32.67
Ecology and Society	32	31.25
Science	32	30.50
Resources, Conservation and Recycling	33	30.33
Research Policy	33	30.25
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment	31	29.84
Technological Forecasting and Social Change	31	29.39
Science of the Total Environment	30	29.13
Journal of Rural Studies	855	696.54
Sociologia Ruralis	467	404.09
Agriculture and Human Values	387	345.65
Environment and Planning A	251	241.93
Land Use Policy	155	142.23
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development	93	84.70
Geoforum	76	74.46
Local Environment	75	73.41
International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food	73	69.33
Progess in Human Geography	70	67.34
Economic Geography	49	48.76
Journal Of Economic Geography	32	31.96
European Urban and Regional Studies	33	31.51
International Planning Studies	33	29.72
Community Development	35	25.76
International Journal of Production Economics	79	73.04
Supply Chain Management	62	56.70
Agriculture And Agricultural Science Procedia	50	48.08
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management	49	43.74
Sustainable Production and Consumption	38	37.09
International Journal of Production Research	33	31.15
International Journal of Operations and Production Management	34	31.01
European Journal of Operational Research	37	29.84

(Appendix B) and in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

4.4. Co-Occurrence (by Author Keywords)

A link between two sources that both contain the same term (e.g., keyword) is known as a co-occurrence link.

The minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was set to four. Of the 993 keywords, 52 met the threshold and 44 participated in the co-occurrence network. Keywords related to methodological issues, as well as geographic regions and countries, were excluded. We also decided to exclude the keyword “short food supply chains” due to its evident dominant presence; two medium, and five small clusters, were created. Clusters 1 and 2 contained 10 and eight keywords, respectively. Clusters 3, 4, and 5 contained six keywords each, whereas clusters 6 and 7 contained four keywords each. Although the clusters are quite clearly shaped, only the small ones seem to be more consistent. Alternative food networks, sustainability, local foods, local food systems, food supply chains, farmers’ markets, COVID-19 pandemic, food security, and consumers, have the higher total link strengths, indicating major research focus priorities. The results are presented in

Table A6. Co-occurrence (by author keywords)—results.

Keyword	Occurrences	Total Link Strength
trust	5	5.00
agroecology	7	4.00
organic farming	6	4.00
social innovation	5	4.00
logistics	4	4.00
urban agriculture	5	3.00
urban food systems	4	3.00
family farming	4	2.00
indicators	4	2.00
transitions	4	2.00
local foods	30	21.00
farmers’ markets	18	13.00
consumer behavior	10	9.00
food systems	8	8.00
organic food	6	5.00
life cycle assessment	6	2.00
sustainable development	5	2.00
environmental impacts	4	2.00
local food systems	24	21.00
rural development	12	5.00
consumer attitudes	5	4.00
food hubs	5	4.00
theory of planned behavior	6	3.00
local products	5	2.00
COVID-19 pandemic	17	13.00
food security	15	12.00
resilience	8	8.00
governance	5	4.00
food policies	4	3.00
food	4	2.00
alternative food networks	37	31.00
sustainability	33	24.00
local	5	4.00
territory	4	4.00
innovation	4	3.00
information and communication technology	4	2.00
food supply chains	30	14.00
community supported agriculture	8	7.00
direct marketing	5	4.00
quality	4	3.00
consumers	11	11.00
farmers	9	8.00
direct sales	11	5.00
small and medium enterprises	4	3.00

(Appendix B) and in Figure 12 and Figure 13.

4.5. Text Data (Title and Abstract Fields)

The minimum number of occurrences of a term was set to 20. In all, 87 met the threshold and 42 participated in the text-data network. Nouns/phrases related to geographic regions and countries, methodological approaches, as well as trivial noun/phrases, were excluded: two big, and one medium cluster, were created. Clusters 1 and 2 contained 15 nouns/phrases each, and cluster 3 had 12 nouns/phrases. The clusters are quite clearly shaped and they are characterized by proximity in some of their parts. Nouns/phrases about agri-food supply chains, the food sector, and market relations, are found in all clusters. Sustainability (over the years) and the COVID-19 pandemic (over the last 3 years) seem to have a significant impact in the research around SFSCs. The results are presented in

Table A7. Text data (title and abstract fields)—results.

Term	Occurrences	Relevance Score
short food supply chain	178	2.0314
actor	45	1.9193
community	44	1.3276
alternative food network	29	1.3009
chain	79	1.1073
initiative	40	0.9982
sustainability	82	0.8758
agriculture	55	0.8599
development	110	0.7902
practice	62	0.7667
network	59	0.7579
food system	79	0.6734
system	81	0.6473
role	76	0.6174
process	48	0.3492
short supply chain	86	1.6539
farm	58	1.3312
producer	125	1.3113
intermediary	26	1.2354
local food	27	1.2021
consumer	155	1.1840
product	123	1.0997
farmer	127	1.0936
supply chain	75	0.9778
market	106	0.9758
demand	40	0.8804
relationship	55	0.7428
value	88	0.7067
quality	56	0.6732
production	74	0.6499
COVID-19 pandemic	30	2.4711
consumption	42	1.2554
impact	74	1.0536
food	104	0.9499
food supply chain	63	0.9094
strategy	61	0.8347
food production	33	0.8054
challenge	44	0.7847
distribution	33	0.7066
benefit	52	0.5100
opportunity	41	0.5096
need	41	0.4691

(Appendix B) and in Figure 14 and Figure 15.

5. Discussion

From the bibliometric analysis performed, there are various emerging areas of interest.

There is a conflict between alternative food models and the globalizing industrial food model. Commitment to more sustainable and socially equitable agriculture production has increased among the alternative ideas in recent years [67]. It has become vital to analyze the new production, distribution, marketing, and consumption models, or what we might collectively refer to as “local food”, in light of these two principles. Even the local food industry may be seen as a reaction against the dominant industrial agri-food paradigm, which is governed by market pressures. In turn, it might be considered that industrialized markets regulate our food, which is increasingly disconnected to customers’ immediate environments. As a result, the significance of our culinary traditions, which frequently revolve on the consumption of fresh and seasonal foods, is decreasing.

The rising divide between producers and customers in the conventional food sector is the primary issue that the establishment of SFSC attempts to solve: geographically, as evidenced by the growing physical distance between the places where food is produced and consumed; culturally, cognitively, and organizationally, as confirmed by a lack of knowledge about and a sense of anonymity surrounding the origins of food; and cognitively, as evidenced by the rise in the number of large and globalized corporations managing their operations [45,68].

Shortening food supply chains is currently thought to be carried out primarily to increase transparency, lower costs, and improve producers’ income. The reasons for putting sustainable development concepts into practice are equally crucial, particularly in terms of reviving the rural economy [69]. From a business perspective, SFSCs allow farmers the chance to cut out middlemen and merchants, internalize bigger profits, and have direct access to customers, who are more prepared to pay for locally produced commodities. Participating in SFSCs may help farmers withstand economic downturns, since they stand to keep a larger portion of revenues than they would in a conventional supply chain. The involvement of farms in SFSCs appears to have positive spillover effects on society. For instance, shopping at food markets improves customer satisfaction because of the quality and freshness of the products; it re-connects people to their local community; and it facilitates social interaction, which in turn fosters the growth of social capital [52]. The SFSC could prove to be a successful marketing strategy for small farmers because it would give them the opportunity to compete with large-scale distribution companies. In order to pursue the integration between the worlds of production and consumption, the short supply chain would therefore constitute a strategy to remove the concentration of economic power from the major links of the agri-food chain, and restore it to agricultural producers and consumers [70].

Regardless of their place of origin or intended goals, all of these initiatives—from AFNs that challenge the dominant agro-industrial paradigm to traditional SFSCs that are reviving in Europe—present a promise of eminence when contrasted to long supply chains: an alternative way to organize food production, trades, and consumption, as well as the advantages that go along with it [71].

Many current and potential stakeholders need the support of local, national, and international authorities to have access to infrastructure, financial resources, training, and networking opportunities, in order to engage in SFSCs and increase their supply capacity. Through policy reforms, policymakers also have a significant impact on the ability of SFSCs to operate [20,72]. The discussion revolving around SFSC is the most significant aspect of food geography at the regional level. According to this viewpoint, geographic proximity within local supply chains has the potential to result in the so-called “values of proximity”, i.e., reduced transportation costs, higher value added, the preservation of the cultural landscape, a stronger sense of regional identity, and employment development. The freshness and quality of produce, environmental protection, social justice, organic production, the dissemination of sustainable agricultural practices, support for local and regional farmers, and seasonal eating, are some examples of the positive associations, symbolic meanings, or qualitative associations that can be attached to a region’s food [73,74,75]. The development of synergies between agriculture and other rural pursuits, such as tourism and handicraft, is another significant outcome of SFSCs [57,76]. The benefits of SFSCs are also seen in every aspect of their operation and presence. They strengthen the idea of social capital by fostering greater interaction and ties between producers and customers. They also strengthen knowledge and behavioral change, while enhancing the sense of community. As a result, they strongly emphasize values such as trust as identifiable producers, and consumers take center stage in the supply chain and reflect a greater sense of political and market governance relevance [55,77,78]. Moreover, consumers can assess a food item’s genuine worth thanks to SFSCs. Therefore, they may better understand how and where food is produced, leading to the development of a deeper trusting relationship between consumers and producers [5,79].

Naturally, producers with limited production and logistics capacities are frequently involved in SFSCs. They identify adequate marketing channels that allow them to start their own businesses by taking part in SFSCs. On the other hand, producers frequently find it difficult to scale up their operations through narrow distribution channels because of their constrained access to markets and financial resources. In some instances, the inability of SFSC stakeholders to scale up their production and distribution in the face of rising consumer demand for SFSC products results in a mismatch between demand and supply [20,64]. AFNs typically face three different types of challenges [80]: choosing actors and building relationships to form the supply chain; establishing relationships with the mainstream; and the requirement to raise awareness and keep a close relationship with consumers. Testa et al. [81] highlighted various criticism issues on AFNs. These include barriers to access such products due to economic inequality and poverty, structural problems of the networks, which affect product distribution, especially in areas with low population density, and the fact that food products can scarcely be absorbed completely by local demand.

To help meet the societal difficulties connected to freight transportation, which is a core issue in food supply chains, the logistics industry must transform in terms of sustainability. Unfortunately, the focus of legislative solutions to reduce traffic and emissions is mostly on human mobility. The introduction of distribution centers that promote the use of light commercial vehicles, as well as the use of electric vehicles to carry out the distribution, are two of the most highly valued opportunities to reduce the negative effects of freight delivery in order to meet the EU policy goal on CO₂ free urban logistics by 2030 [82]. Moreover, the viability of utilizing unmanned delivery drone services to sparsely inhabited areas has been tested by many national or public postal businesses from various countries. These tests are primarily focused on consumer convenience and reducing the logistical challenges associated with delivery to isolated islands and mountainous regions. Governments or public companies began to investigate this kind of delivery as a decent alternative to deal with the logistical dead-zone issues [29].

Developments in urban logistics could possibly be adapted in the case of remote areas. It can be stated that the rationale around urban logistics has been applied for years in remote areas. In particular, the terms, logistics pooling, resource sharing, and mixed passenger and freight transport planning, are introduced when discussing urban logistics. Innovative methods of urban mobility include mixed passenger/freight transit networks and cargo hitching, which are connected to the sharing economy and broader smart city paradigms. Passenger and freight movements and systems coexist in the urban environment to form the intricate system of urban mobility. The development of integrated people and freight synchromodal transportation networks, and the accompanying planning and scheduling strategies to ensure the efficient and dependable delivery of each package and retail delivery, are the main goals of mixed/cargo hitching solutions. In order to increase the efficiency and efficacy of the total urban mobility system, with reference to both central and peripheral locations, freight, and passenger movements, as well as urban network resources, are combined [83].

6. Concluding Remarks

Global food systems are under tremendous strain from factors such as population expansion, growing incomes, urbanization, trade liberalization, policy changes, dietary changes, technology advancements, and environmental deterioration. It is obvious that we must move toward food systems that are more diverse, robust, and sustainable. The SDGs state that this transition should provide consumer access to healthy food, increased farmer income, the mitigation of climate change, and the protection of natural resources [17,63].

Farmers are encouraging direct sales to customers in an effort to lessen their reliance on retail and opaque supply networks. Public agencies and advocacy groups take the lead in assisting and innovating agricultural and food industries toward more sustainable practices. Businesses in the retail, foodservice, or intermediate wholesale sectors, work to expand the availability of regional foods or source more locally. Following a number of food-related incidents, NGOs and concerned citizens seek to more actively advance their interests in the food supply chain [56]. Through cutting-edge models capable of enhancing local economic sustainability and social cohesion, the EU plan seeks to promote the reorganization and relocalization of food systems. The amount of product value maintained by the farmers has decreased as a result of the division between consumer and producer, and the addition of several levels of intermediary. On the other hand, growing consumer interest in food transparency and recognized concerns contributes to a degree to a readiness to pay more for locally produced goods, with a large premium going to the farmers [84].

Food supply chains are undergoing a reinvention process. The unanticipated COVID-19 pandemic, the recent war conflict in Ukraine, and the SDGs have caused consumer behavior to alter and further strained conventional food supply chains. Although the COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented problems for food systems, consumers, business managers, and researchers, continue to focus on increasing food supply chains’ resilience to deal with sources of unexpected instability [85]. Today’s SFSCs represent a more endogenous, territorialized, ethical, and environmentally conscious approach to food products. These channels are regarded as the most suitable for local, small-scale, and organic production families. Food is also re-socialized and re-spatialized in SFSCs. In fact, local cuisine may be a manifestation of cultural capital and rural embeddedness, and serve as an engine for territorial development in both rural and peri-urban communities [86].

Remote and isolated communities, especially islands, face various problems related to the supply of goods, both from the production and the consumer side. In particular, food supply chains are of major importance for such areas since they are responsible for the well-being of populations; but they are also connected with other important industries, such as the tourism. SFSCs are the de facto solution in various problems that these communities face. In some cases, there is really no alternative for both producers and consumers (residents). Thus, in this case, it is important to enhance the relationship among stakeholders so that it is based on the mutual trust and understanding of what they can, want, and will do. Comprehending that they have to collaborate in building win-win relationships is crucial even for the existence of such communities, given the scarcity in resources. Hence, the study of sustainability in remote and isolated communities requires holistic approaches in a multi-dimensional context, since their natural and constructed environments should be considered as dynamic ecosystems, taking into account the different types of stakeholders who interact in these domains. Across this line of reasoning, investigating the cases of the Greek remote islands’ communities, a “place-based” multi-layered approach in stakeholder analysis has been proposed, enriching human activities and the wellbeing of remote communities with several factors, such as natural environment, critical infrastructure, regulatory frame, remoteness, connectivity, cohesiveness, equity, and eco-efficiency, as well as stakeholders’ multi-identity [87].

Moreover, many such areas in Europe offer premium agri-food products with geographical indications (protected designation of origin—PDO, protected geographical indication—PGI, geographical indication—GI). The value enclosed in such products is perceived to be higher when they are bought or consumed close to the place of production, and in direct connection with the producers. This value conservation is improved when the SFCS paradigm is adapted. Consumers feel that they get the best out of this experience, while producers feel that they have the desirable control over their products. There are cases when seasonality in production is associated with high season tourism. This brings excellent opportunities to producers and consumers, since they are actually brought together on an occasion which facilitates trade: producers have adequate quantities to sell, and consumers may seek local products to enhance their tourism experience.

Despite the obvious connections of SFSCs with remote and isolated communities, including islands, the relevant body of research is extremely limited, as shown in the bibliometric analysis presented in this paper. The experience gathered in the field of SFSCs can be utilized in the case of such communities after the deep study and analysis of the particular traits of such areas. Since interpersonal relations are a pillar of SFSCs, human geography can also provide insights on such interactions.

The research presented in this paper has some limitations due to the methodological choices made. Firstly, a single database (Scopus) was used, while there may be relevant papers which are not listed there. Moreover, during the elaboration of the csv file it was noted that several calibrations and adjustment had to be made. This means that there is ground for the development of more robust approaches and tools associated with knowledge management and bibliometric analysis.