*Article* **Di**ff**erences, Constraints and Key Elements of Providing Local Sharing Economy Services in Di**ff**erent-Sized Cities: A Hungarian Case**

#### **Katalin Czakó 1,\*, Kinga Szabó 2, Marcell Tóth <sup>2</sup> and Dávid Fekete <sup>1</sup>**


Received: 30 June 2019; Accepted: 14 August 2019; Published: 17 August 2019

**Abstract:** The business models of sharing economy services can differ from each other in different-sized cities. This paper provides a deeper understanding of the implementation of locally operating services for car, bicycle and office sharing in the urban environment. Our goal is to reveal the differences between the capital city and an economically well-developed city in order to provide beneficial findings to the development of the presently operating services, or to the possible implementation of future services. Methodology of the paper applies the Business Model Canvas approach (BMC). We introduce a comparative analysis using data from the Hungarian database, which records details of all the publicly visible sharing economy services countrywide. The results show that BMC can reflect the main differences, constraints and key elements in the business models of sharing economy services. We can say that, in the case of a bike sharing service operated in the non-capital city, there is more segmentation than seen in the same service in the capital. There are significant price differences, especially in the case of long-term tickets. The number of inhabitants and private capital remain the biggest constraints in the case of car-sharing services, but there is also a possibility of implementation in the non-capital cities by applying small-scale services with a good value proposition and segmentation.

**Keywords:** service-based economy; sharing economy; car-sharing; bike-sharing; shared office; Business Model Canvas

#### **1. Introduction**

The rationale of this research is to highlight the importance of supporting the currently increasing trend in sharing economies. Available comparative analyses in the literature that focus on the differences between capital and non-capital cities (the latter having smaller populations) in having the economic potential to give a place for sharing economy services, are rarely available. Our basic assumption is that while there are effective sharing economy service models in capital cities, due to the modern concept of sharing economy, it is also crucial to implement and improve services in other cities. Applying the Business Model Canvas (BMC) approach in the analysis of local cases enables this comparison and will find differences, constraints, and key elements, especially in the strategies of the service provisions.

We formulate the comparative analysis of some local cases around three research questions:

(Q1) What are the main differences in the business models of those sharing economy services which are represented in both the capital and in the chosen city?

(Q2) Besides the number of inhabitants, what are the main constraints in implementing a sharing economy service in a chosen city, which is operating well in the capital?

(Q3) What are the key elements of implementing a sharing economy service in the chosen city, which is operating well in the capital city?

Hungary is an interesting case for analyzing sharing economy services, because the sharing economy services in Budapest (the capital) are in their upcoming trend. There are more and more opportunities available each year, which means the market of sharing economy services and the taste of customers toward the sharing economy are not saturated. Besides adapting some European business models, there are many unique ways for sharing economies, which can provide customized business model elements that can be valuable input into sharing economy practices. In this paper we analyze local sharing economy services: Only those ones that have no national, European or worldwide coverage. This step contributes to the comparative analysis, in which we focus on services which are represented both in the capital and in the chosen city, and services which are presented only in the capital. The "chosen city" is Gy˝or, located in the western part of Hungary. In terms of economic output, it is the richest city after Budapest. The world's biggest engine factory operates in the city, and the car manufacturing industry is the most important economic strength of Gy˝or [1]. Due to the so-called Gy˝or Cooperation Model, the stakeholders (local government, local companies, university and civil organizations) of the city are working together successfully on the development of the city [2]. We introduce the multifaceted application of the Business Model Canvas with the goal of revealing the main differences between the business models of presently operating sharing economy services in the capital and in the chosen city. We also reflect on the key elements and constraints in implementing sharing economy services, which are present in the capital city and not present in the chosen city. We focus on bike-, car- and office-sharing services. Although the sharing economy has been part of human society for a long time, it has taken a new form and has grown considerably during the last two decades. With transformations in technology and the increase in per capita income, the transport industry has registered phenomenal growth in the last few decades, with the number of passenger cars reaching over 1.2 billion in 2015 for the first time ever [3]. Increasing numbers of cars and massive migration into cities have resulted in congestion, traffic jams, parking problems, increased accidents and deaths, as well as growing pollution in cities. These have given birth to new ideas in car sharing in a variety of ways, such as shared taxies, single rides, carpools, ride-sourcing and many more. Implementation of bike sharing is less costly than car sharing. It is interesting to look at how it is shaping its market in a city which lacks the attributes of a capital city.

The first part of this article highlights the modern concepts of the sharing economy and gives a short summary of the evolution of car-sharing services in Europe, the largest car-sharing region based on membership data. After that, we introduce the research concept, comparing the local sharing economy services in a capital and a chosen city, which could also be appropriate for making multi city comparisons. Findings in the article are presented in the last section. The main differences, key elements and constraints are highlighted as practical contributions. The application of BMC is presented as a theoretical contribution.

#### **2. Theoretical Background**

The modern concept of the sharing economy has evolved not only based on a variety of quantifiable factors. The theoretical framework of the paper firstly highlights the concepts which are the closest to our understanding of sharing economy services. After this, there is a short collection of statistical data represented in order to underline the rationale of the analysis.

#### *2.1. Modern Concepts in the Sharing Economy*

With massive growth of cities, lack of parking space, traffic congestion and air pollution, sustainable urban transport has become a modern necessity. According to Suchanek and Szmelter-Jarosz, growing cities and their populations have become a challenge for today's researchers, local authorities and business decision-makers. One of the problems troubling the current politics is meeting the requirements of sustainable transport, especially when urban residents present the opposite needs [4]. This has given birth to car and bike sharing in urban and semi-urban areas. A variety of models of the sharing economy have emerged based on local conditions and the needs of customers. Growth of cities and populations are not the only increasing factors of a sharing economy. Consumer behavior, like new aspects in sustainable mobility or changing working habits, are also strengthening the need of sharing economies. These aspects include the weakening desire for ownership, economic stagnation and economic crises, reduction in disposable income due to growing unemployment, urbanization, evolution of new innovative sharing concepts, environmental considerations and availability of new technological tools and platforms [5]. Consumption can be based on time, space or at a fixed price. The consumer chooses such access when they are not able to afford the objects in question, or they do not wish to own them for reasons of maintenance, space, cost and so forth. The consumer is acquiring consumption time with the item and, in market-mediated cases of access, is willing to pay a premium price for use of that object [6]. Thus, the consumer–object relationship in access-based consumption may be different from that in ownership. The owner has the right to regulate or deny access to use, sell and to retain any profits yielded from the object's use, as well as to transform its structure [7].

According to Grondys, the sharing economy is treated as an alternative consumption model, aiming to increase the efficiency of the resources used and create a new value for society [8]. Development of new technologies, particularly Internet, IT platforms, social media and IT applications have facilitated the evolution of this model. Fransi et al. hold the view that the sharing economy has become a new socioeconomic activity that allows the co-creation, production, distribution and consumption of goods and services between individuals, driven by Web 2.0 and e-word-of-mouth [9]. Access-based services have emerged as an alternative and/or complementary to traditional ownership-based services and they are enabled by means of Smart Product–Service Systems (SPSSs) that integrate smart products and e-services into a single solution [10].

According to Rifkin [11], although a property continues to exist, it is less likely to be exchanged in the market. Instead of buying and owning properties and goods, consumers want access to goods and prefer to pay for the experience of limited and temporary access. As stated by Chen [12] and Marx [13], ownership is no longer the ultimate expression of consumer desire. During the last decade we have seen a proliferation of access systems in the market place that go beyond traditional forms of access. For example, access can be gained through memberships to clubs or organizations, where multiple products owned by a company can be shared [14,15].

Modernity characterizes the current social conditions in which social structures and institutions are increasingly unstable and are undergoing change and therefore they cannot serve as frames of reference for human actions and long-term life strategies [16]. Increasingly, institutions, people, objects, information and places considered solid during the last century have tended to dematerialize and liquidize [17]. Similarly, consumer identity and ethics are also becoming more fluid. Values are constantly changing. Emotional, social and cultural ownership embedded in a property is becoming flexible, transient and liquid. Access has emerged as a way to manage the challenges of a liquid society [18].

The increase in the costs of acquisition and maintenance for ownership over time, the instability in social relationships, as well as the uncertainties in the labor markets have rendered ownership a less attainable and more precarious consumption mode than it once was [19]. Many people have started wondering why they should own when benefits could be enjoyed at a fraction of the total cost with easy access and no storage and maintenance requirements. With density as a major concern of the re-urbanization movement, sustainable development, apartments and condos have increased in city centers, offering alternatives to the long commutes and the reliance on cars that dominate suburban living [20]. Urban settings have created a new set of problems that can be addressed by the sharing economy. Unlike earlier generations of information or technology-based enterprises, sharing enterprises rely on a critical mass of providers and consumers who are sufficiently close to each other or to other amenities to make their platforms work, often finding value in the very fact of the beneficial spill-overs from proximity [21]. For example, Uber transports people from one common area to another

without involving idle driving or parking requirements. The driver picks up the passenger from the nearest area and after dropping picks up another passenger where the previous passenger was dropped, almost eliminating idle driving or parking. Moreover, the passengers need not navigate the heavy traffic themselves, as is the case with self-driving.

Growing awareness of environmental issues has also played its role in the evolution of the sharing economy. Air pollution in cities due to the growing vehicular population has transformed the thinking process of at least a section of the population. This section, which is no longer environmentally conscious, wishes to add new vehicles, causing additional congestion and air pollution. According to the 2014 survey by the Center for the New American Dream, 90% of Americans believe that the way they live produce too much waste, and 70% agree that Americans consume more resources and produce more waste compared to other countries. A total of 60% agree that the sharing economy lowers environmental impact [22]. Commenting on the environmental impact the report of Demailly [23], "clothing, vehicles, furniture, telephones, televisions, toys, sporting goods, home improvement, and gardening tools are all examples of the shareable goods that represent about a quarter of household expenditure and a third of household waste, not to mention the energy used to produce them".

Our understanding of the sharing economy highlights that it is an economic model which allows optimum use of individual and social assets and resources. The sharing economy in its present form is a relatively new phenomenon. Previous business models were based on the idea of complete ownership of assets and processes. Such ownership many times resulted in underutilization of assets and capacities which led to increased costs for the business enterprises and wastes of resources. The sharing economy is a highly flexible economic network that allows people to exchange tangible and intangible goods with one another in different forms of business models. Social, economic and environmental considerations are the driving force behind sharing economy models in the recent years. Socially, the desire for ownership has weakened; economically, individuals want to earn some income through temporary use their assets; and environmentally, such use helps in mitigating congestion and pollution. These models have taken a variety of forms depending on the needs of the people in different-sized countries and cities.

#### *2.2. Evolution of the Sharing Economy through Car Sharing in Europe*

Integration of digital technology with transport systems has further enhanced the transformation. Motor vehicles have provided mobility to people, goods and services in a way never seen before in the history of mankind. Today, almost 80% to 90% of the global population uses automobiles in one way or another. This movement has given birth to interactions between civilizations, cultures and customs. The tourism industry and businesses have expanded globally, across national borders. Products and services produced in any part of the world can have ingredients from many countries and continents. Similarly, finished products—agricultural as well as industrial—move rapidly across national borders. Even short shelf-life items like fruits, flowers and vegetables produced in one continent can be found in markets on another continent. The growth of the tourism industry has given rise to mélange and assimilation of cultures and customs. In short, the globalization process has been possible because of the growth of the automobile industry and its integration with digital technology. This has given birth to what is called smart transportation.

As the social status associated with car ownership became diluted and the problems of traffic jams, parking space, accidents and high operating costs (price of fuel, insurance cost, toll charges and parking fees, local air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions leading to climate change, noise pollution and road damage) started getting worse, people were forced to rethink car ownership. Moreover, there are millions who cannot afford to own a car but wish to use and experience car ownership for a limited duration on a payment basis. Environmental considerations due to very high CO2 emissions also played a role in reshaping the concept of car ownership. Another significant problem with the car ownership model is the inefficiency of their utilization. Most cars are designed to seat five people, however the normal occupancy is only one or two. Moreover, most cars are only utilized during a small

part of the day, leaving them idle most of the time. All these considerations gave birth to what is known as car sharing. Many car sharing organizations (CSOs) or transport network companies (TNCs) were established in the 1990s, mostly in Europe. These car sharing organizations were initially supported by governmental grants. Their system was quite simple—a few vehicles were involved in shared usage by a group of individuals. Due to the lack of technology and the grassroots of the car sharing system being neighborhood-based programs, it was very difficult to transfer them into a business venture model. Urbanization, congestion and modern technology gave a boost to car sharing companies.

Historically, the first commercial car sharing can be traced to a cooperative known as "Sefage" (Selbstfahrergemeinschaft), which initiated services in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1948 and remained in operation until 1998 [24]. This early effort was mainly motivated by economic reasons, since there were individuals who could not afford to purchase a car and instead preferred to share one. However, this was a limited experiment confined to a small area. Gradually the carsharing concept became popular in many European countries for the reasons given in the previous paragraph. New concepts and companies came into existence with different concepts of car sharing, including "Procotip" in France, 1971 to 1973; "Witkar" in Amsterdam, 1974 to 1988; "Green Cars" in Britain, 1977 to 1984; Sweden's "Bilpoolen" in Lund, 1976 to 1979, "Vivallabil" in Orebro, 1983 to 1998; and a "bilkooperativ" in Gothenburg, 1985 to 1990 [25,26].

According to Figure 1, a BCG report shows in 2016, that car sharing in Europe will expand relatively quickly and widely. It is estimated that the number of people living in large urban areas will grow further, and this number will be around 81 million people in Europe and 385 million globally by 2021. About 46 million people in Europe will have a valid driving license and about 14 million people will be registered with a car sharing service. About 1.4 million people will be active users, who use the car sharing service several times per month.

**Figure 1.** Expected growth of global car-sharing services by 2021. Source: Adapted from Bert et al. [27].

A growing concern regarding climate change and a yearning for social embeddedness by localness and communal consumption has made the "collaborative consumption"/"sharing economy" an appealing alternative for consumers [28,29]. The chart below (Figure 2) provides a bird's-eye view of the growth of car-sharing services in Europe.

Today, Europe is considered to be the largest car-sharing region based on membership, accounting for 46% of worldwide membership and 56% of global fleets [30]. In recent years, the big automakers and car rental companies in Europe have joined hands to form car-sharing companies, to keep their hold on the market.

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

As it was mentioned before, the modern concept of the sharing economy has evolved not only based on a variety of quantifiable factors. Applying the elements of BMC in local cases will find differences, constraints and key elements, especially in the strategies of the sharing economy service provisions. Comparative analyses in the literature, which focus on differences in the aspects of use of sharing economy services between the capital and big cities in non-capital positions, are rarely available.

Classically, the use of BMC has targeted creating new businesses and projects or implementing new activities within a company or organization. In our case, we apply BMC as an analytical tool in two ways:


#### *3.1. Database, Data Collection and Research Boundaries*

Our continuously refreshed and enlarged data base serves national data from eight big cities, and the capital of Hungary, since 2016 from Hungarian sharing economy service providers. It involves the following data used in the study:


These data input were nominated as general data.

As it was mentioned in the introduction the chosen cities are Budapest and Gy˝or. We followed some basic approach in demarcation of the research field:


As a link to the general data, we collected the elements of BMC in the case of Budapest, along with Gy˝or:


For the data collection of the elements of BMC we used publicly available websites, news and other documents (marketing brochures, service maps, annual reports and other reports). With this step, we show in this study that BMC elements have good functions for analyzing present services in order to consider their further development, or implementation of replicas in other economic and social environments.

#### *3.2. Steps and Phases of the Comparison*

Following the approach of comparing services in the capital and the other city, it was easy to compare the 15 above-listed fields of data. This detailed comparison gave the main differences, and key elements and constraints, of implementation. Following this concept of analyses gives the opportunity to compare sharing economy services on the basis of the capital–noncapital dimension, but also in a city to city context. Involving more and more service providers in this context can give important input to the further development or more effective operation of sharing economy services. In our opinion, screening value propositions are a special input in the comparison of sharing economy services. They can show how environmental protection, or "thinking green", is presented in the services.

Figure 3 shows the above-detailed steps as the concept of analysis applied in this paper.

**Figure 3.** Concept of analysis. Source: Self-made.

#### **4. Results and Discussion**

#### *4.1. Screening the Cities: Number and Type of Sharing Economy Services*

Shared motor bicycles + Shared scooters + Shared small transportation bike +

In the case of a survey undertaken in Budapest and Gy˝or, it was revealed that the number of enterprises and service providers in the area of sharing economy is transparent. They show an increasing tendency towards participation in the sharing economy, based on data from 19 service providers in Budapest (capital) and 4 in Gy˝or (city). The survey also revealed that the local sharing economy enterprises are primarily concentrated in the areas of transportation and shared office space.

Based on the available information presented in Table 1, common services in the capital and the city are car sharing, shared bicycle services and co-working offices. There are no shared bicycle networks without a dockage, shared motor bicycle or scooter services, or shared small transportation bike services in Gy˝or. There are specialized social movements or activities based on the principle of the sharing economy in both cities, mainly presented in social media platforms. As we focused on recovering the main differences and constraints of the implementation of sharing services, we did not involve social media-based sharing activities or movements. Firstly, we detailed services which can represent the main differences between the two cities: Car sharing, shared bicycle and motor sharing services, as well as co-working offices. Next, we highlighted the main differences in BMC of these type of activities.


Other sharing economy activities + +

**Table 1.** Services of the sharing economy in the surveyed cities (Explanation: + service is presented in the city, ++ service is present in the city with more providers, and (+) there is a system in town but

#### 4.1.1. Car Sharing

The following five companies occupy important positions in this market in Budapest: GreenGo, MOL Limo and Drive Now in Budapest follow the traditional business-to-customer model of car sharing services. Another car sharing company in Budapest, Avalon Carsharing, is undergoing an internal transformation. The company will phase out traditional customer services and confine itself to consultancy services on car sharing. BeeRides, an airport car sharing service, has been providing services at Ferihegy Airport since 2015. Although it is a Hungarian-owned company, since 2018 it has been expanding at several airports in Germany. Of the services analyzed, this is the only peer-to-peer (or in other words C2C) service. GreenGo was the first of the city car dealerships in the capital. The number of vehicle fleets based on available, refreshed data are:


In Gy˝or there is a car sharing activity, namely Audi 1.2 GO, which is an internal business-to-employee car sharing service of Audi meant for employees for their movements on official duty and for movements within the factory premises. Audi has devised this online system as a perk to employees to earn their loyalty, and to make their work more efficient by facilitating their movements. Under this sharing economy model the maintenance cost of cars is borne by Audi. Given the small size of Gy˝or and large number of Audi employees who are served by the above-mentioned car-sharing system, an independent car-sharing enterprise has not been able to launch car-sharing services in Gy˝or yet. There is only one car-sharing enterprise, namely Up! City, in the Slovakian capital, Bratislava, which is three times larger than Gy˝or, and this enterprise operates with a fairly small fleet of cars.

#### 4.1.2. Bike, Motorcycle and Scooter Sharing

Besides car sharing, sharing of other transport vehicles, particularly bikes, motorcycles and scooters, is also important. Gy˝orBike was the second of the towns with county rights, and started operating in 2015 in Gy˝or. Among the cities of similar size, bicycle sharing appeared later in Debrecen (2016) and Pécs (2019). Among the rural systems, Gy˝orBike is the largest in the country in terms of the number of bicycles, docking stations and stations. MOL BuBi has been in operation since 2014 and is the largest domestic system in every respect, maintained by the Budapest Transport Center (BKK). Additionally, MOL, which is one of the largest Hungarian companies, steps up as a sponsor for the promotion of service and mode of transport.

Donkey Republic is a Danish-owned company. The docked smartphone application was launched in 2017 in the Hungarian capital. It currently operates 200 bicycles.

BlinkeeCity is a Polish company and has launched its electric scooter-sharing service in Budapest in 2018 with 77 vehicles. Although it is not yet present in Gy˝or, it has begun its expansion in the countryside, and since summer 2019, there are also scooters in Pécs. Lime, an electric scooter, started operations in Budapest in 2019 with 200 scooters. The US-owned firm is not planning a rural expansion yet.

Among these, the most popular and common in the two surveyed cities is bike sharing, which has a tradition going back several years. Bike sharing operates both in Budapest and Gy˝or; thus, we can see the correlation between the number of infrastructural elements and population of the two cities (Table 2).


**Table 2.** Correlation in bike sharing systems: Infrastructural elements and population.

If we look at the per capita ratios, we can see that there are closing values in the number of bikes. The number of bikes available is 0.08–0.1% for one citizen. Considering the population, there are relatively more stations and dockages in Gy˝or than in Budapest. From this data we can see that the number of bikes can depend on the local population, and the number of stations and dockages are mostly infrastructural elements which are implemented based on other approaches than number of inhabitants. We consider this fact in the BMC analysis.

In addition to the bike sharing, Budapest has enterprises providing electrically operated scooters and motorbikes. Both of these enterprises are new in the Hungarian market. BlinkeeCity started its services in 2018 and deals with electrically operated motorbikes, while Lime started its services in spring 2019 and deals with electrically operated scooters. Transport bike provider, Cargonomia, which started its operation in 2018, operates transport bike services in Budapest. These transport bikes must be dropped at the same place they are picked up from. In the price comparison, we observed significant differences:

From the price differences in Table 3 we can observe that prices show big differences, especially prices of long-term tickets. We include in this comparison only those prices which are presented in both cities.


**Table 3.** Price differences in bike sharing. Source: Self-made based on available data.

#### 4.1.3. Co-Working Offices

Co-working offices involve the use of the same office space by different enterprises on a time-sharing basis, when these enterprises do not require any specialized equipment. Such co-working offices could also facilitate networking and sharing of experiences, in addition to the cost savings. Freelancers, home-office workers and start-ups were mainly using this type of facility in both the surveyed cities. We found nine examples in Budapest and one in Gy˝or. Same examples have also been found in other towns in Hungary. On the basis of BMC there are no significant differences among the users of co-working offices. They are working on the same model. Their principal aim is to access the structured market with minimum cost on infrastructure, as most of their business activities and documents are online. The exception in their business model is that they are providing a different variety of connected services: Buffet services, cafés, libraries, computers, consultations and workshops. The biggest co-working office in Hungary is Loffice, which also provides co-working offices at Lake Balaton during the summer months for those who wish to work during their holidays.

#### *4.2. Business Model Canvas of Service Providers*

We highlight information here from the above selected service providers, observing their communication through their websites and news connected to them. With the goal of recovering the main differences between the capital and the chosen city of Hungary, we represent the elements of BMC. To do so, we focus on main differences, in order to implement or improve service models working well in smaller cities.

#### 4.2.1. Key Partnerships

Sharing economy models also provide solutions to ecosystem problems of large cities and not only in capitals. The selected services enter into partnerships with a variety of local players, such as municipal corporations, local people and other economic and social players and institutions. For car-sharing companies the partnerships with local municipalities and social organizations are important, since the cars are parked in public spaces and car sharing helps in reducing pollution and congestion in cities. There are private service providers behind MOL Limo, GreenGo and BeeRides. In the case of Gy˝or Audi is the biggest engine producer and exporter in Hungary. Therefore, a car sharing service in a closed system is provided for its 12,000 employees in order to decrease the usage of cars and infrastructure of the industrial district of Audi. We can observe that, in the case of the capital, there are more private players behind bike sharing. The partnerships evolve in a variety of ways. In the case of MOL BuBi, which is a traditional bike-sharing enterprise, there is a direct partnership with the MOL Company and the state-owned Budapest Transport Company (BKK), and indirect partnerships with municipalities of the districts. In the case of Gy˝orBike there is a direct partnership with the municipality of the city, which founded the project. There are partnerships in Gy˝or with Széchenyi István University and ETO FC, which is a local football club. These are not financial partnerships but are mostly important due to the placing of stations. At the university campus and student hostels, local football stadium and other sport-related venues there are several dockages. The survey revealed that the dockage at the university campus is the most-used service station in Gy˝or. This close linkage with the university is not visible in Budapest, where there is not a concentration of dockages close to student hostels. The survey revealed that the bike-service providers who do not have dockages do not seem to have similar partnerships with local institutions. Lime, an American electrical roller-sharing company, which entered the Hungarian market in 2019, does not have partnerships with local institutions presented on their website. On the contrary, this company has many partnerships with US universities, where it has been operating for some time. For transport bikes, partnerships are very important as the users are expected to provide parking at pick-up and drop-off points. In the case of co-working offices, interaction happens naturally with other users of the office space, which leads to some sort of networking with the local enterprises.

#### 4.2.2. Key Activities and Resources

In the case of bike-sharing companies, on the basis of BMC there is no difference between the service providers in Budapest and Gy˝or. In both cases the bikes, the dockages, the stations, the IT applications and their maintenance are the most important elements for the bike-sharing enterprises.

#### 4.2.3. Value Proposition

In the case of car sharing we could reflect the following value propositions:

Environment protection: According to the survey there are many differences in the value proposition of different car-sharing enterprises. GreenGo, which entered the market first, places maximum emphasis on environment protection. Its entire fleet of cars is electric operated.

Having a car: The motto of MOL Limo is simple. It says: You have a car. DriveNow, which is the latest entrant into the market, has a completely different motto. It provides only luxury vehicle BMW and Minis to the richer segment of society.

Parking: Parking fees are involved in most car-sharing services. It is therefore important to secure free parking spaces from the local authorities, as this is an important element of the overall cost of car sharing. As a result of such initiatives, electrical cars with green number plates have been allowed free parking facilities in Budapest. The fleet of GreenGo is 100% electric-operated cars, while the fleet of MOL Limo has a mixture of petrol-driven and electric-operated cars.

Short visits: BeeRides is trying to enter into a partnership with Budapest Airport for free parking spaces, as the main profile of the company is to utilize the cars of those who are leaving the city on short visits, from when they leave the airport until their return. Under this system the car owners do not have to pay a parking fee at the airport. Moreover, they earn some money by renting out their cars during their absence on visits abroad. In the case of bike-sharing services, the most important value propositions are health and the environment. Therefore, the model of a sharing economy is based on sustainability and environmental considerations, against the traditional ownership of assets. Thus, the value proposition is the main focus for all players participating in the sharing economy. In the case of co-working offices, the main focus is reduction of cost.

#### 4.2.4. Customer Relations

Based on their respective market segments, service enterprises are focusing on their customers through their websites and other online communication channels. Since car-sharing services are still confined to a comparatively small segment of the population, communication within the segment is comparatively easy.

#### 4.2.5. Distribution Channels and Segmentation of Customers

In the case of car-sharing services in these two cities, there is a clear market segmentation. On the contrary, in the case of bike sharing services, the customers are primarily confined to the student community, young sport lovers, and hospital visitors.

#### 4.2.6. Cost Structure and Revenue Streams

For car-sharing enterprises in Budapest, the car rental fee is the most important source of revenue. On the expenditure side, maintenance of the cars, operation of the system and the salaries of employees are the most significant costs. DonkeyRepublic, a bike-sharing company in Budapest, does not have any linkage with docking places. Their bikes could be picked up and dropped at any place in the city. On the basis of the Business Canvas Model its business model is very similar to the traditional bike-sharing systems with dockages, but they do not incur any expenditure linked to the dockages. Their income is from the donations of users. In the case of other bike-sharing service providers, the main costs are the operation of IT platforms and cost of dockages. In co-working offices, the renting fee is the most obvious revenue stream for providers.

#### *4.3. Di*ff*erences, Constraints and Key Elements*

Our goal was to reveal the differences between a capital city and an economically well-developed city by leaning on the modern concept of a sharing economy, which is led by not only the quantifiable factors like population, but also by aspects of consumer behavior. Social, economic and environmental considerations were the driving forces behind sharing economy models in the recent years, e.g., the desire for ownership is not so high anymore and there is obviously a financial motivation behind sharing.

#### 4.3.1. Main Differences

While there is only one big service provider with dockages and stations in bike sharing in each city, there are several smaller providers in Budapest that are competing for their market share and use alternative ways to handle the cycles or collect the fee of service.

On the basis of BMC, in smaller towns there is a tendency toward segmentation, as observed in Gy˝or. This segmentation is obvious in the car-sharing market. In the case of sharing of bikes, the segmentation is more in terms of specific groups such as students, hospital visitors and sport persons. The direct partnerships are more visible in Gy˝or in terms of the groups of users, while the partnerships are clearer in Budapest service providers.

In the case of the capital, private ownership is more behind bike sharing. There are more service providers. Prices in Gy˝or are significantly less for long-term tickets.

Through the analysis the role of key partners and the ownerships could be reflected. There are two general results from this: We can see the presence of foreign direct investment in the case of services in the capital, and we can see university and sport clubs as dominating key partners in the case of the chosen city.

#### 4.3.2. Constraints

Although the car-sharing economy is expanding globally, what still really matters is the size of the cities and towns. Population remains the major factor for expansion of car-sharing services. As mentioned earlier, even in Bratislava, which is a smaller town compared to Budapest, there is only one car-sharing enterprise. The value proposition of environmental protection is linked to a wider target of possible users. As this type of service has private owners in the capital, profitability is also an important factor, which is dependent on the size of the local population. Publicity is also important to make people aware, and to create demand for these services. On the other hand, obstacles in sharing economy services can be overcome if the services are confined to a specific segment of people, as in the case of the car-sharing service to and from the airport, and for employees of a big enterprise in Gy˝or.

Based on this, we can suggest that in case of cities with a smaller population, implementing car sharing to specific customer segments can be less risky, as it is operating in a different business model in the analyzed cases. A small-scale, segmented service supports and motivates users in their environmental consideration. We can see a trend of diversification in the analyzed bike-sharing services of the capital. This is also visible in the business models or strategies of different car-sharing service providers.

As a significant difference, it could be observed how between the capital's and the city's business models that population as a constraining factor is not the only one behind. Not having the critical mass of possible users of the services leads us to the finding that instead of following a capital's route, the creation of smaller, segmented services can be more successful than implementing widespread ones. In case of the capital the motivation behind the diversification were market-related factors like saturation. In case of an economically well-developed city with a lower population, the motivation behind the segmentation can be linked more to the modern concept of a sharing economy, which is based not only on quantifiable factors like population. Due to this, in our opinion, the optimal strategy for smaller cities is to support small-range, segmented services with a proper value proposition.

#### 4.3.3. Key Elements

Value propositions are an important and well-presented factor of the analyzed sharing economy services. In the case of car sharing there are different value propositions, such as environmental protection, using premium category cars, having a car and designated travel routes. In the case of bikes, scooters and rollers, the main value position is predominantly environmental protection and health.

In the case of bike-sharing services, the number of bikes can depend on the local population. The number of stations and dockages is mostly infrastructural and are implemented based on other approaches than number of inhabitants. We consider this fact in the BMC analysis.

Best practice could be recovered in the transportation bike-sharing service, because in Budapest, apart from infrastructure, partnership is also a key element. The bikes can be picked up and dropped at the place of the designated partner or organization. The maintenance of the bikes and the operation of the online application are the two important cost factors. The system runs on a non-profit basis. Based on the voluntary donations received, the system is maintained. The main value proposition is sustainability and environmental considerations, and to help with last-mile connectivity.

The BMC approach was appropriate to reflect the key elements of the different value propositions in car sharing: Environmental protection, having a car, parking, short visits, health and environment, as well as a reduction of cost.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Based on the survey it is clear that the number of sharing economy enterprises is on the rise in Hungary, but they are still primarily confined to the capital. Amongst all the cities, Budapest remains the principle arena of their activities. The aim of this article was to examine various sharing economy models and their differences in Budapest and Gy˝or, based on the BMC. The article also examined the

obstacles in further expansion of sharing economy models in Gy˝or, and the key elements for successful operation of this models. On the basis of the above we have come to the following conclusions: From the above-reflected differences we can conclude, especially in case of bike sharing, that the number and type of users are the key factors in implementing sharing economy services, and not the population. We can see that despite the fact that Gy˝or has a smaller population, it can operate sharing services successfully, with key partnerships for the strategic placement of dockages, like the local university or sport clubs. Additionally, it is important to note that car sharing is presented in a given segment, so despite the fact that the population of Gy˝or is not critical in terms of car sharing, the biggest corporation there is creating its own green solution for decreasing the usage of cars in its area. The abovementioned conclusions do not mean that service improvement in both cities is not needed. There are constraints and key elements which need to be considered in order to increase the number of these services.

We can say that BMC elements had good functions for analyzing the present services in order to consider their further development or implement their replicas in other economic and social environments. BMC could reflect the main differences, constraints and key elements in the models of sharing economy services. We can say that, in the case of the bike-sharing service operating in Gy˝or, there is more segmentation than for the same service in Budapest. There are also significant price differences. In Gy˝or, long-term tickets prices are more than 50% less than in Budapest. We can conclude that Gy˝or would like to attract more long-term users than Budapest. The number of inhabitants and ownership are the biggest constraints in implementing car-sharing services, but there is also a chance for implementation by applying good value propositions and segmentation.

**Author Contributions:** K.C. and D.F. had the initial idea of the manuscript and undertook the conceptualization; K.S. performed the literature review; K.C. designed the research methodology and analyzed the data; M.T. collected the data and provided the database; K.C. and K.S. wrote the paper with the supervision of D.F.; funding acquisition and administration was provided by D.F.

**Funding:** Preparation of the paper was supported by Count Istvan Bethlen Research Centre.

**Acknowledgments:** Data collection to the database applied in the study was supported by the "Center for cooperation between higher education and the industries at Széchenyi István University (FIEK)" under grant number GINOP-2.3.4-15-2016-00003.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors of the above presented research declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## *Review* **Examination of Short Supply Chains Based on Circular Economy and Sustainability Aspects**

**Konrád Kiss 1,\*, Csaba Ruszkai <sup>2</sup> and Katalin Takács-György <sup>3</sup>**


Received: 30 August 2019; Accepted: 23 September 2019; Published: 26 September 2019

**Abstract:** The sustainability of global food chains and intense agricultural production has become questionable. At the same time, the consumers' interest in short supply chains (SSCs) and direct sales from producers has increased. SSCs are connected to sustainability by researchers. Their (supposed) positive sustainability attributes are based mostly on extensive production methods and short transport distances. However, from other points of view, the economic and environmental sustainability of the short chains is questionable. Our research aims to cast light on the SSCs' role in circular economy and sustainability. By deep literature review and content analysis, we determine the sustainability aspects of short (local) chains and their effects related to economy and environment. Short supply chains are connected most widely to circularity and sustainability by the subjects of environmental burden (transport, production method, emission), health, food quality, consumers' behavior, producer-consumer relationships, and local economy. According to our experience, these factors cannot be generalised across all kinds of short chains. Their circular economic and sustainability features are dependent on their spatial location, type, and individual attitudes of the involved consumers and producers.

**Keywords:** short supply chains; local food; food waste; environmental burden; consumer behavior; producers

#### **1. Introduction**

Generally, it can be said that agricultural food producers have to struggle for their (successful) operation—or even their survival—at low returns. The emphasis is on economic efficiency; for this reason, the ecosystem is under severe pressure [1]. Global food systems have a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions at all stages of the food chains: production, processing, marketing, sub-sale, home preparation and waste phases [2], and they can be one of the main causers of environmental harm like climate change, eutrophisation or loss of biodiversity [3]. In this way, the sustainability of traditional agri-food systems has been questioned over the last decades [4]. In developed countries, food consumption can contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 15–28% (based on national studies between 2007 and 2010) [5,6]. Increasing population; increased food demand, inadequate use, and distribution of food resources and high levels of food waste in the food systems are predicting the need for more sustainable practices [7]. Furthermore, consumers may be sceptical or distrustful of the intensive agricultural systems. The environmental and health effects of certain widely-used chemical substances are debated. For example, Toretta et al. (2018) [8] presented a scientific debate on the effects of glyphosate as the most sprayed and most used herbicide in the world.

Short food chains (SFSCs) have increasing popularity nowadays [9]; however, their role in the food trade of developed countries is limited [10]. They are unable to "replace" the global food systems in the lives of consumers [11,12]. They have the potential of supporting local and regional development and contributing to food quality for consumers [9] and job creation [13]. There are indications in the literature that these chains are capable of contributing to sustainability, due to their particular characteristics and small scale, although some aspects that are considered to be beneficial are also disputed by the experts' opinions [14].

Widespread dissemination of sustainability [15,16] and circular economy [17] is a priority of the European Union. Sustainable municipal solid waste management in a circular economy view has become an important goal in EU and non-EU countries [18]. Moreover, short supply chains (SSCs) are also supported in the EU budgetary period between 2014 and 2020 [19]. The objectives of the circular economy model overlap with the aims of sustainable development [20]. This overlap refers to the environmental and resource-saving nature of economic systems and their economic and social sustainability. In September 2015, the United Nations (UN) adopted an ambitious Agenda for 2030, setting 17 sustainable development goals for economic growth, social integration, and environmental protection. Goal 12 refers to "Responsible Production and Consumption" and relates to food loss and waste management [6]. The purpose of the subpoint 12.3 is: "By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses" [15] (p. 22). In the "Closing the Loop—An action plan for the Circular Economy" [21], there are five main priorities identified regarding circular economy, and "food waste" is one of them [22]. Worthy of mention is that sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goal 12 are related to other Goals like "Good Health and Wellbeing" (Goal 3) and "Life on Land" (Goal 15) [23].

The purpose of the current article is to systematize and consider the aspects whereby short trade chains can contribute to a circular and sustainable economic and environmental system. The sustainability of food chains includes three dimensions: economic, ecologic, and social [24–26], which can be complemented by personal health or well-being [25]. In connection with some of the objectives of the European Union circular economy package [17] and the Sustainable Development Framework [16], in our article we reviewed the following subjects: Food- and package-wastes in the (short) food chains, the environmental impact, economic and social characteristics and sustainability of the short supply chains, and short food chains. Within social characteristics, we specifically dealt with consumer welfare and health issues. Our main research question is that whether the belief in short supply chains is true that they are considered environmentally friendly compared to multi-actor retail chains and they can contribute to the development of the local economy and the well-being or satisfaction of consumers.

Our literature review was conducted by reviewing 128 sources (120 articles and 8 European Union professional materials). The most important source of our research was the Scopus database, where we searched for articles based on searching term "short food supply chain", started from the year 2011. We narrowed the search fields to agriculture, energy, environmental science, business, management, and economics. We sought to obtain information dealing with the relations of short supply chains, sustainability, and circular economy. We also used other databases such as EBSCO Discovery Service, ScienceDirect, AgeconSearch, Google Scholar, and searched for additional articles on the topics of circular economy and sustainability in general.

#### **2. Literature Review**

#### *2.1. Conceptual Approach*

In our article, on the basis of European Union subsidy policy (Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013), we consider a short supply chain (SSC), where producers sell their products to consumers directly, or through one intermediary [27]. Researchers dealing with this topic can find numerous alternative concepts, such as "short supply chain" (SSC), "short food supply chain" (SFSC) "alternative food

network" (AFN), "local food system" and so on. These terms generally refer to the spatial proximity of production and (final) sales and consumption, to local food products and a low number of participants in the chains. In our article, we made no distinction in content between such names; they were used alternately based on the different source works. (The spatial aspects of short supply chains' determination are not addressed in this article.) Direct sales and direct marketing have several types [12]. The most well-known are farm shops, farmers' markets, delivery of vegetable boxes by subscription, mail-orders, producer co-operatives, solidarity purchasing groups, and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). The popularity of certain models varies from county to country.

It is widely believed that short supply chains (SSC) are suitable for the trade of high-quality products while promoting sustainability and efficiency [28]. The literature of this subject examines aspects like the reduction of food waste, eating healthier and more sustainable food, and ethical considerations. Participants of short food supply chains have increased knowledge and information on food and its origin [29]. However, many researchers are sceptical about the general optimism towards SFSC channels. Their supporters believe that local production is more sustainable than multi-actor retail chains, but this is less quantifiable. It would be dangerous to accept the disputed or disputable issues as absolute truths [30]. Further empirical research is needed to explore the sustainability impacts attributed to the certain alternative food chains [14].

The circular economy is one of the most popular research areas in the field of sustainability [31]. The concent of circular economy aims circular flows in the economy (opposed to the "linear flows" are dominant currently) [32]. It represents an economic model based on the recycling, reuse, repair, sharing, and leasing of existing materials and products [17]. The model of the circular economy can be interpreted in food chains regarding waste reduction (and minimization of surplus), food reuse, nutrient recycling, and the promotion of more varied and effective dietary patterns. It can affect the different levels of production and consumption [7].

In the case of new EU member states (joined in 2004), sustainability easily falls into the background due to the cost-efficiency of global food chains and their high level of influence [33]. The examination of "sustainability performance" of supply chains is still in an early stage, and it is definitely true in the case of short food chains [34].

Sustainability of food chains can be measured by the following indicators: Life cycle analysis (LCA), carbon accounting, material flow analyses, ecological foot-printing, food miles, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) studies, stakeholder dialogue and surveys and converting impacts into financial analysis [25,35]. In terms of environmental impact, the importance of the water allowance coefficient (WAC)—as an indicator based on water footprint—is also increased [36].

Examinations of local food systems' sustainability are made difficult by the fact that even consolidated approaches like a Life Cycle Assesment [37] cover only a small part of sustainability factors. Many aspects of sustainability are not yet fully measurable in a complex way. From the indicators mentioned above, our study focuses mostly on the analysis of food miles, because in this respect, the most striking difference between short chains is the shorter transport distance compared to the multi-actor chains.

#### *2.2. Waste Originates from Food Chains*

The amount of waste generated at various levels of food systems is huge, even by the most optimistic estimates. This means a very serious problem. According to FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) data, nearly a third part of all food destined for human consumption is "lost" or wasted every year [38]. It is estimated that in the United States [39], or the European Union [7], this proportion can be as high as 30–50%. In terms of quantity, Buisman et al. (2019) [40] estimate the annual food waste in food chains in the EU at 89 million tonnes. According to the estimation presented by Corrado and Sala (2018), [41] the food waste means 194–389 kg per person per year at the global scale, and 158–298 kg per person per year at the European scale. (Worthy of mention is that according to the "Closing the loop- an EU action plan for the Circular Economy" [21], there is no harmonised, reliable method to measure food waste in the EU. In this way, it is not surprising that the estimates are different. The "Food Waste Atlas" is a freely accessible online tool, where data about global food loss and waste from the food supply chain can be examined together [42].

An important element in achieving sustainable consumption and production is to reduce food waste [43]. Certain conventional treatments of food waste can lead to environmental, economic, and social problems. However, there are more sustainable or profitable management options. Reuse is possible, for example, in the chemical industry; consumers chemicals, acids, sugars can be synthesized from food waste, for instance. They can also serve as feedstock for biofuels and can be used in other ways [44]. However, the general, "linear" (non-circular) supply chain structures basically do not focus on reducing the negative aspects of production systems [26].

Composting, anaerobic digestion (AD) or innovative treatments as hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) are examples of food waste management. Anaerobic digestion seems to be one the most suitable solution for food waste treatment [45] and it has great potential for the disposal of the organic fraction (consequently food) of municipal solid waste [46]. This is a renewable energy source with low emissions [45]. Using products (e.g., fertilizers) created by hydrothermal processes like supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) or hydrothermal conversion (HTC) can contribute to large environmental savings [47].

Nayak and Bhushan (2019) [48] present the four basic approaches of valorization techniques of food wastes. The first is the conversion of food waste to generate biofuels; the second is to extract and (efficiently) recover various value-added components (e.g., proteins, pectins) from food waste; the third is "the conservation of food wastes via microbial activity to develop various bio-materials, in the form of bio-chemicals, bio-polymers, enzymes, single-cell protein, and bio-fertilisers" [48] (p. 364); and the fourth is to develop "effective absorbents from various bio-based food wastes for wastewater treatment" [48] (p. 365).

As food-waste can be generated at all stages of the food chain [39], efficient management for waste reduction requires the system approach of supply chains. The following methods of reducing food waste can be comprehensive and environmentally friendly: redistribution of unsold and surplus food, improving in-store promotion and stockpiling, reducing package sizes and stimulating or improving consumer perception and different consumer habits [49]. Waste reduction methods like food redistribution may have economic, infrastructural, and legal barriers [12]. For example, especially in rural areas, the network of food rescue organizations is often not tight enough to organize the transport of food surpluses from the point of origin to the food bank in an economically feasible way.

It should be noted that the primary approach of direct marketing is not based on waste reduction but on fostering community, preserving local food production, revitalizing the local economy, and protecting the environment. Furthermore, there are very few empirical studies on the impact of direct marketing on food waste generation. In the case of SSCs, the food chain is shorter and has fewer stations. The decrease in the number of intermediaries and traders—for various reasons—can significantly contribute to the reduction of food waste. In this way, losses caused by wholesale or retail may be decreased or zero. Such losses can be, for example, when they force producers to overproduce or refuse products that do not meet their standards [12].

According to a Swedish household survey, 20–25% of household food waste is related to packaging [6,50]. The sustainability of food packaging can be judged through three aspects: its direct impact on the environment, the quantity of food-losses and wastes related to packaging, and the circularity of packaging (reusability, recycling). On the other hand, food packaging also contributes to food protection; prevent it from being wasted early, becoming unfit for human consumption [51]. The role of food packaging varies in this way. Packaging minimization does not necessarily mean a complete solution to reduce the overall environmental footprint of foods [6,52]. In developing countries, much of the food loss is more likely to occur during the pre-consumer stages of the food chain, so the packaging can play a major role in protecting food. In the food chains of developed countries, waste is generated in a high proportion in the consumer phase (due to wasteful behavior) [7,38]. For this

reason, the behavior of individual households must also be considered to assess the environmental impact of packaging. It is significant how the consumers transport and store food, and how food waste and packaging waste are collected by them [3]. The objectives of the circular economy model include, for example, the use of recyclable packaging and the promotion of appropriate consumer attitudes, for example, by information, labeling [17], in order to prevent or reduce the generation of household waste [21]. In short supply chains, producers use less or zero packaging material. This is due to the nature of their economic and sales activities. The amount of sold products is less, and the purchasing process is less regulated than, let us say, in large chain-stores.

Food waste can also be linked to the appearance of the products. Consumers, or the chain-stores themselves, are reluctant to buy foods that, although just externally, differ from the optimum. It is possible to increase demand for such products through price discounts, or sustainability, quality and originality campaigns and positioning [53]. We have not found a reference to this in the literature, but in our experience, aesthetically defective vegetables and fruits are easier to sell in short chains, whereas they can not be placed on the shelves of large retail chains.

Consumer attitudes towards circular products are mostly still unexplored aspects of research. For example, it may be interesting to consider how many consumers are willing to return or dispose of used products [54]. The influence of social norms can provide opportunities for healthier, more sustainable diet patterns and habits [55]. At the same time, systems such as subscribed vegetable boxes can generate more waste than a common supermarket purchase; if consumers get some products they do not like or do not know how to prepare [6,12].

Customers' decisions are greatly influenced by where, how, and under what conditions their purchased products were made [56]. In multi-actor (global) chains, it is very difficult to trace the origin of food. As the supply chains become shorter (regarding the vertical phases), the traceability of products and related transactions are improved. Consumers can make more sustainable purchasing decisions if they have sufficient (usable) information [57,58]. Del Giudice et al. (2016) [56] examined the impact of food labeling on consumers' behavior. Waste-prevention-based labeling influenced consumers' willingness to pay positively. It was more affected by the carbon footprint frame of the reference (and not so much by the water footprint). According to this result, customers were interested in buying products that cause less environmental damage. In short food chains, the consumers and the producers get closer to each other; in this way, customers get accurate information on where the products originate [59].

Regarding food package, the large-scale plastic waste (including single-use plastic bags) is greatly responsible for the environmental burden. Generally, the shops provide a great amount of plastic bags for the customers. Offering eco-friendly reusable bags is a possible solution to reduce plastic waste [60]. The successfulness of these reusable bags is also dependent on the individual customers (or shops and sellers), who can be influenced by concerning campaigns. The authorities may also take actions, for example, banning, extra fees or taxes on plastic bags [60]. In terms of circular economy, the European Union set goals for 2030, in order to reduce plastic wastes, e.g., all plastic packages on the EU markets have to be either reusable or cost-effectively recyclable [61].

#### *2.3. Economic Sustainability of Short Supply Chains*

In terms of economic sustainability, in optimal cases, short trade chains can support local and regional development and contribute to the consumers' food quality [9] and job creation [13,62]. Experiences from several case studies show that SSC channels are mostly used by relatively small farms [63–65] (or are most profitable for them). They integrate supply chain functions in this way, but they also need to connect horizontally [66]. In many cases, producers' participation in SFSC is motivated by interdependence, self-employment [13], or by selling directly to the consumer at better prices, avoiding retail and wholesale trade [67]. In this way, they can receive a higher return on the value of the products [68]. Short chains have the opportunity to offer more value-added from producers [9]. Non-financial motivations of participating can be preserving tradition, establishing and

maintaining relationships with customers, protecting local, values, and environmental factors (such as sustainability and the natural or cultural environment) [69]. Limited local demand and seasonality of production mean drawbacks. According to Zhang et al. (2019) [70], in a wieder sense, SSCs can have a positive impact on local economic regeneration. Income generated by SSC participants may remain in the local economy [68]. In the case of the (orgainc) farms examined by Al Shamsi et al. (2018) [71], there was a strong correlation between the producers' preference of local markets and high performance in terms of sustainability.

The positives mentioned above come into being in the "ideal case" of course. Reduction of distances and the numbers of intermediaries may increase production earnings in short food chains, but in itself, it does not secure a long-term position in the food market [59]. The economic efficiency of the short supply chains depends on the particular situation and is highly dependent on the presence of solvent demand. There are consumers who are fully committed to local foods, but the numbers of such consumers are probably low. Other consumer groups are willing to give preference to local food, but only in a case of reasonable prices [72]. On a verbal level, there are many statements that certain forms of circular economy and short supply chains can play an important role in sustainable rural development, but on the other hand, these systems hardly exist in the newly acceded EU Member States (joined in 2004). In these new Member States, the relatively low willingness to pay for local products hampers the development opportunities for short supply chains [33]. Schupp (2016) [73] examined the location of producers' markets in the United States. According to his experiences, producers' markets are unlikely to appear in rural areas. As his results show, producers' markets affect almost exclusively the middle and upper classes, and they occur very rarely in areas with below-average socio-economic status. Also, in the American study of Low and Vogel (2011) [64], local food trade provided opportunity for economic development mostly in urban areas.

#### *2.4. Connections between Short Chains, Sustainability, and Healthy Eating, Consumers' Well-Being*

Unhealthy eating habits often develop during childhood and also persist in adulthood. Many young people do not have sufficient daily quantities of vegetables and fruits, as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) [74].

Nutrition habits are based on complex decisions and have a significant impact on the environment and society [75]. From a consumers' perspective, several studies on SSC highlight aspects of freshness and "healthy eating" generally and specifically regarding fruit and vegetable trade (e.g., [76]). One of the main reasons for the preference of short chains is that consumers who choose SSCs perceive that small producers' wares are fresh, healthy, and of good quality. (e.g., [11]). Also, in the case of organic products' SSC-trade, healthy eating is the most motivating factor [77]. Ethical factors, such as traceability or environmental impact, can also have a significant influence on consumers' purchasing habits [78]. According to Leglise and Smolski (2017) [79], it is important for customers who prefer SFSCs to produce these goods with the best environmental practices, specific techniques, without agri-chemicals or industrial methods. In this way, product quality is also an attraction for customers [34]. At the same time, reliability, reputation, and respect of a (bio) producer may have a greater influence on consumers' behavior than the perceived bio-classifications on food [80]. In the traditional multi-actor chains, it is difficult to make good consumers' decisions regarding sustainability. Consumers are unaware of the entire food chain and its factors [7]. Consumers can be motivated or influenced by various campaigns to raise awareness of food waste and its environmental impact [53,81]. Del Giudice et al. (2016) [56] noted that by providing information on the carbon footprint of the given bread production, it was possible to motivate consumers to buy lower-carbon-footprint bread [53,56].

In the case of short chains, consumers are more aware of the place of foods' origin, the mode of production, and the identity of producers [70]. In the study of Giampietri et al. (2016) [82] where Italian students were surveyed, aspects like sustainability, and local development (as well as comfort) played a key role in short-chain shopping. Consumers who are spreading health awareness, expect healthy, fresh products. After harvesting, the quality of the products deteriorates continuously [83]. This is

very much related to the time between harvesting and getting to the table [55]. Stahlbrand (2015) [84] describes the food sector as a sector of "relentless deadlines". Food is perishable, and consumers demand "immediate service".

It is assumed that consumers attributing high value and good quality to producers' goods behave more consciously, and do not accumulate unnecessary surplusses that become waste later.

However, empirically, it is difficult to substantiate that local food would universally surpass non-local or imported food in terms of its impact on the environment or consumers' health. According to Edward-Jones (2010) [85], there is no known (or there was no known) publication examining the nutritional differences between local and non-local products or the health effects of a completely local diet. The positives attributed to SSC products can be attributed to the transport and storage characteristics that are different from conventional (multi-actor) sales channels. The quality and content of the products change differently compared to long delivery. Based on the study of Verraes et al. (2015) [86], SSC-products may have different microbiological quality parameters and different food safety aspects than food traded in conventional chains. According to their research on dairy products, SSCs are slightly more exposed to food safety concerns. This opinion is supported by the results of Jancsó et al. (2017) [87], who examined the quality of raw bovine milk sold directly to consumers in Hungary.

#### *2.5. Environmental Aspects of Short Supply Chains*

The idea of the circular economy can be interpreted in the food systems, as reducing losses, wastes, and avoidable environmental damage caused by the food chains [55].

The topic of sustainability has been gaining relevance in land use studies. The bibliometric analysis (of articles from the period 1988–2017) by Aznar-Sánchez et al. (2019, p. 13) [88] shows that research on sustainable development and land use "focuses on a new form of agrarian management, such as organic farming, permaculture, and multifunctional systems." The authors suggest that future lines should address the development of circular economic systems in agriculture.

Furthermore, extensive production methods may affect nutrition and (in this way) human health. For example, organic products of plant origin are grown without chemical-synthetic pesticides or without readily soluble mineral fertilisers or sewage sludge and waste compost. It is widely believed that organic foods are healthier than conventionally produced ones. (Absence of pesticide residues has great importance in this term.) However, the actual effect of agricultural techniques on nutrient composition is still not clear according to Gennaro and Qualia (2003) [89]. It is difficult to give a final answer due to uncontrollable factors (like rainfall and sunlight that have influence on nutrient content.) According to Popa et al. (2019) [90] (still) more research is needed to draw unwavering conclusions about the superiority of organic food (compared to conventional ones.) Relatively more environmentally sustainable production methods may be associated with SSCs, resulting in less input use, including pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, animal feed, water, and energy [10]. Applying a shorter supply chain can, in financial terms, facilitate the application of more sustainable practices. Such practices may include feeding the farm-animals by local feed or grazing, using organic, or biodynamic cultivation methods, or using on-farm production of renewable energy [68].

The lower negative environmental impact attributed to short supply chains (e.g., [9]) can be explained by the reduction of the food-miles (distances between the place of production and consumption) due to lower CO2 emissions or noise pollution [67].

However, in itself, the food mile as an indicator is not sufficient to asses the environmental impacts of food chains [14,91]. It is not enough to measure transport emissions because it is difficult to assign certain kilometers to particular foods. Furthermore, different modes of transport, equipment, and different types of fuel also should be taken into account [25]. Some authors equate shorter transportation with less energy use, while others consider that short chains basically have poor energy performance.

Many consumers seek to reduce harmful environmental effects by consuming locally produced foods [92]. However, the benefits of "eating locally" and energy use are being challenged in several studies [93], and for the right judgment, the effectiveness of SSC distribution and the distances travelled by consumers for purchasing, must be examined. According to Weber és Matthews (2008) [94], the "buying local" behavior of an average American household could reduce greenhouse gas emissions proportionally only by 4–5%, since the majority of gas emissions occur during the food production phase.

From a consumers' perspective, the more the consumers have to drive for purchasing, the greater their environmental impact and CO2 emissions [34]. Local food means an opportunity for sustainability if production, distribution, and consumers' shopping trips are sufficiently energy- and cost-effective [57]. Mancini et al. (2018) [34] suggest that buying in a specialized dairy shop (investigated by them) is less environmentally effective than going to a larger grocery store, where a wide variety of foods can be found. On the other hand, one of the drawbacks of SFSC-s in terms of logistics is the less concentrated transport, which also results in lower efficiency (small freights, that are time and money demanding, especially for longer distances, and to less populated areas with specific delivery conditions) [95]. This suggests that energy- and cost-effective mass delivery systems can be even more sustainable than local production and distribution [6,57]. However, sustainability cannot be measured with a single indicator (travelled distance, or greenhouse gas emission). Energy efficiency is not the only measure of sustainability [93].

Industrially produced meat consumption in Western nutrition is a critical factor for sustainability in food consumption [7]. Van Huis and Oonincx (2017) [96] state that due to the growing population, growing consumer demands, and limited land-areas, there is an increasing need to replace traditional meat products. Changing over to a more plant-based diet is a possible solution [7]. Small farmers selling in SSC can play a role in this process. A very important product category for short supply chain trade is the purchase of vegetables and fruits from producers. Vegetarianism, as a consumer choice, is often associated with its positive environmental effects. A vegetarian meal has a less environmental impact than a pork-based meal (with about 40% lower emission) [56]. In the case of livestock rearers, regional (local) feed supply can also have a positive environmental impact, but it can also significantly increase the consumers' price of meat and dairy products. The socio-ecological impact of price increases can be significant; on the one hand, it can contribute to the change of dietary habits, for example by switching to plant-based foods; however low-income consumers may not be able to effectively change their buying habits [97].

It is difficult to draw a comprehensive conclusion on the sustainability of SSCs because the farms involved and the production methods they use are very different. Truly sustainable food systems should have a low environmental impact and, according to Al Shasmi et al. (2018) [71], organic production is one of the best ways to achieve this. However, even SSC-trade and organic farming are not automatically considered environmentally friendly [30], nor can it be generalized that conventional supply chain farming systems would in all cases be environmentally more intensive than SSC-oriented ones [98]. Sustainability and product quality performance of SFSC-s are closely linked to the local context and market situation in which they operate [28]. Organic farming and integrated farming are often described as they can reduce the environmental impact, but for the production of various vegetables (such as salads and leaves), there is just a little scientific evidence on the relative environmental impact of such alternative production methods [99].

Local food systems using organic methods increase worldwide, but little is known about their carbon footprint. Vitali et al. (2018) [100] examined the production of greenhouse gases in short supply chains related to the marketing and sale of organic beef. They found that farm activities and home consumption had the greatest global warming potential in the product path. As a conclusion, the environmental impact of SSC transport was considered to be relatively low, compared to production and consumption.

Based on "arbitrary rules" [85], it can be said that in the case of seasonal fresh products, such as fruits and vegetables, the carbon footprint is lower, or at least comparable to non-local fruits and vegetables. The short travelled distance and the avoidance of intermediary actors and quality preserving processes mean shorter shelf-life and freshness [28]. But, for example, if fresh products are stored and consumed

out of season, the above-mentioned "arbitrary rules" may fail [85]. According to Frankowska et al. (2019) [101], green vegetables imported to England produced in unheated greenhouses have a lower environmental impact than vegetables produced locally in heated greenhouses in England (despite the transport). Operations during the processing phase like freezing, pasteurisation, baking, use of added materials (e.g., oil), also result in high(er) environmental impacts. Because of agro-ecological and socio-ecological differences, it is not certain that the environmental impact of local food is lower, for example, if a given production site is more suitable for producing a certain type of food, compared to other (closer) areas [102]. Because of these facts, in agreement with the words of Depperman et al. (2019) [97], one has to be very careful about statements that call local food equal to sustainable food. Consuming local food is not always an environmentally beneficial option. It also should be noted that many products cannot be raised or produced in local systems because of climatic conditions [103]. In this way, consumers have to purchase them in conventional trade chains, regardless of sustainability considerations.

According to Gatimbu et al. (2018) [104], the relationship between environmental and economic performance is not clear. Both positive, negative, and insignificant examples can be found in the literature. According to their [104] research with small-scale tea factories in Kenya, environmental efficiency reduced the economic efficiency of business. According to Lehtinen (2011) [25], cost-effectiveness is not necessarily opposed to sustainability, and local food systems are not necessarily sustainable, but there are several facts that support the view that local foods can be more sustainable than other alternatives.

#### *2.6. Social Sustainability of Short Supply Chains*

Regarding the sustainability of supply chains, research on social aspects is still underrepresented, and this fact offers further research opportunities for the future [105]. Examining societal aspect may be recommended directly in the field of Circular Economy too [106]. According to Taghikhah et al. (2019) [107], it is impossible to talk about sustainability without extending the supply chain to consumers' behavior itself and its impact on system performance. In their work, they show how a supply chain can increase its socio-environmental and economic performance by motivating consumers towards green consumption, and how consumers motivate producers (and suppliers) to change the way they operate in this regard. Consumers' campaigns [81] may be able to reduce consumers' waste production by highlighting harmful environmental impacts.

Production ways and methods can greatly influence consumers' decisions [56]. Supporting local producers can be an important motivating factor for consumers' participation in SSCs (besides their various attitudes towards food quality) [77,108]. Producers with strong consumer relationships can be greatly supported by the community [109]. The sustainable operation of SSCs strongly depends on the (producer and consumer) community that operates it. The success of farmers' work depends on the support of the community [110]. The long-term viability of SSC-channels such as CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) is highly dependent on customer satisfaction [111] because if producers establish long-term relationships with consumers, CSA can operate cost-effectively and optimally [11]. The social and environmental side of farming can also be a motivation factor for consumers. Promoting and sustaining other people's well-being is in line with the basic goals of short supply chains [112]. Even antipathy to the dominant consumer culture can motivate customers to buy in SSCs [113]. The visibility of food production and its natural and seasonal limitations may encourage customers to a sparing and responsible handling of food [12].

In general, determining the market price of new "green products" related to the circular economy is an important optimization problem. Substitute—and possibly cheaper—products on the market, make it difficult to develop optimal pricing and advertising strategies [114]. Customers generally have a positive attitude towards the locality of production, but this does not mean in itself that they are able and willing to pay premium prices for local products [30]. Local food is usually more expensive than conventional chain products due to low production volume and high (specific) transport costs [25]. In the case of premium-priced products, consumer willingness to pay is a major issue. D'amico et al. (2014) [115] investigated consumer habits in Italy, in the directly sold wine market. According to their results, prices did not have a decisive role in the selection of local products. Based on the results of Carpio and Isengildina-Massa (2009) [116], it was found that the willingness to pay was higher among responders who attributed a higher quality to local products (than to products from outside South Carolina, where the research happened). Consumers were willing to pay an average surplus of 27% for local products. However, it should be noted that the willingness to pay for local products may vary in space and time. Results from other studies may draw attention to a lower willingness to pay. It is worthy to emphasise the possible demand-stimulating effects of tourism. Local-, agro- or gastro tourism may have positive effects on local community and economy. (Local) food has an important role in (gastro)tourism, and according to an older research on American tourists [117,118], up to 25% of total tourist expenditure is accounted for by food. Agrotourism can play also an important role in protecting and preserving the environment [119].

On the topic of local communities, it is worth mentioning that according to Bavec et al. (2017) [120], the current literature on SSCs has not yet paid sufficient attention to the economical organisation of SSCs. They were not studied extensively from a business perspective [121]. The importance of trust and community awareness also comes to the fore in the organisation of short chains, because according to Van Oers et al. (2018) [65], they are essential for a high level of acceptance of organisational activities (e.g., in the cases of CSA-s). Trust between producers and consumers is based on the personal relationship of the participants [66], and their relationships have a mutual role [122] in community building. Loyalty and trust can contribute to the progressive development of SFSC-s [123]. They can create community bonds, but not under all circumstances [109]. Consumers of SFSC-s may also require that (local) products be associated with a local (cultural) identity [79,124]. Demartini et al. (2017) [30] also drew attention to the possible drawbacks of producer-buyer relationships, that direct contacts with consumers do not necessarily lead to higher profits or "fair" transactions. A profiteering farmer may exploit the consumers' confidence.

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

Very significant literary works have been created before in the term of circular economy, for example, the bibliometric network and survey analysis of Türkeli et al. (2018) [106], or the bibliometric analysis of 743 articles made by Ruiz-Real et al. (2018) [125] Sustainability and short supply chains are also widely researched topics. In this article, we relied on our experiences we gained from the articles of a literature review.

To systematize the information material, we selected aspects, expressions, and factors from the literature that were most decisive for the content of our article, in a brainstorming manner way. These terms or topics were examined in the reviewed articles on short supply chains. Fifty-three terms were collected in this manner (Appendix A). The purpose of this collection was to select factors related to the circular economy and sustainability aspect of short supply chains in terms of environmental, economic, social and consumer welfare (based on Lehtinen (2011) [25]), in a comprehensive way. All of these terms are connected to each other in a broad sense, to a certain extent. We endeavored to explore the more important relations based on the above-mentioned terms.

The 55 aspects we selected that are closely related to those "50 most common words" were collected by Tseng et al. (2019) [126], from articles on the subject of green supply chain management. According to our subjective judgment, our list covers approximately 70% of the 50 most common words in the content, while the word-for-word or close-to-word ratio is approx. 38%. The differences come from the fact that short supply chains differ in some characteristics from conventional trading chains, so some features, such as "management" or "technology" were not used in our analysis, while others (such as "trust", "employment") were used.

Takács and Takács-György (2019) [127] presented a list of the most mentioned terms of English language articles published in the "Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists" between 2009 and 2019 (It is one of the most important Polish scientific journals in the field of agricultural economics). From the 17 terms, eight occur in our list in an almost literal match, and 14 overlap in content.

#### **4. Results**

The 55 sustainability, circular economy aspects we collected were grouped according to four conceptual classes. They relate to the categories identified by Lehtinen (2012) [25], which cover the sustainability aspects of food chains. These are the "ecological", "economic", "social", and "consumer" dimensions. Then, we searched for relationships between the four dimensions formed in this way. This is how "Environmentally Conscious, Sustainable Production" and "Lifestyle; good community and healthy eating" dimensions arose (Figure 1) (A list of the identified aspects and the system of their connection can be found in the Appendices A–C, and in Figure A1).

**Figure 1.** Grouping of the aspects of short supply chains related to sustainability and the circular economy (based on 55 concepts/aspects). Source: own editing, connected to Lehtinen (2012) [25], Tseng et al. (2019) [126] and "Appendices A–C".

Finally, we identified the general dimension which is related to both of the environmental, economic, social and consumer dimensions: "Environmentally and socially sustainable production and consumption". Among the concepts underlying the grouping, the following were comprehensively related to the "Environmentally and socially sustainable production and consumption": Carbon (-emission, -foodprint); circular economy; consumer (purchasing); cooperation; cost (producers'); education (producer and/or consumer); environment; environment friendly production; health; marketing/advertisement; package/packaging; policymakers/government; pollution; producer; price (consumers') rural; rural development; social/social embeddedness; sustainability; tourism/tourism destination; urban; waste; wellbeing (Appendix C).

From a sustainability perspective, these conceptual classes imply that people's well-being and (physical and mental) health is closely linked to the state, cleanness or pollution of their environment, home and to the quality of the food they consume, and their relationship with their community. The basic aim of the circular economic model is to use resources sparingly and considerately and to reduce the environmental burden in this way. Its successful operation requires the right attitude of producers, and shifting consumers' food purchasing habits towards sustainability, for example, by favoring low carbon footprint or food mile distance products, with a conscious behavior to avoid food waste and reduce waste generation.

By this means, the circular economy (waste reduction) and sustainability aspects of short supply chains form a close link with the environment, economy, and society. In Figure 2, we systematized our experiences, creating an "ideal, model-like" system where all of the presented aspects contribute positively to the goals of sustainability and the circular economy. It is "ideal" and "model-like" because—as we presented in the "Literature review", these aspects may also have their lacks and downsides, and their positive impacts cannot always be realized. It can be said that they are dependent on the given situations, for example, when the production methods used by small producers are not environmentally friendly, or if SSC-logistics is not efficient enough, or consumers' willingness to pay is low, or their behavior is not environmentally conscious (in greater detail, see the Literature Review chapter).

**Figure 2.** Possible positive effects of short supply chains on the circular economy and sustainability goals. Source: Own editing (used "coggle.it"), based on the literature review

#### **5. Discussion and Conclusions**

In our article, we reviewed the sustainability and circular economy aspects of short supply chains (SSCs) through a literature review.

The sustainability of food chains is linked to the dimensions of the environment, economy, society, and consumers' welfare [25]. We collected 55 concepts or factors that well describe the sustainability and circular economy implications of short supply chains along these four dimensions. On their base, the cross-section of the four dimensions is the "environmentally and socially sustainable production and consumption". This term indicates that, in our experience, supply chains generally can be brought into connection with sustainable production and consumption by the aspects of health, well-being, community, producers and consumer behavior, reduced waste and pollutant emission. Furthermore, the organisation and efficiency of short chains can be fundamentally affected by governmental support or regulatory policies. The effective operation of circular economic aspects requires the supporting behavior of producers and individual consumers.

The principles of the circular economy regarding food chains include minimising waste and surplus, reusing food, nutrient recycling, and promoting more varied and effective dietary patterns [5]. Although the concept of short supply chains is not based on waste reduction, in our experience, they can contribute to the prevention of food waste, and in this way, to the objectives of the circular economy. The trade of fresh products, with shorter shelf-lives, moderate packaging usage, flexible package sizes, and possibly more conscious customer behavior may contribute to the waste reduction. However, it should be mentioned that, as the role of SSCs in modern trade is very limited, these aspects have a less important role in large-scale waste reduction.

Reduced carbon emissions from short transport distances is an important fact for assessing the environmental impact of SSCs. Furthermore, food goes through fewer processing steps, with less or zero packaging, and the small-sized producers are likely to use extensive production methods. However, these findings are depending on the given situation: it is not regular that small producers always use extensive production methods and SSC transport may be less (environmentally) efficient due to its possible deconcentration (with numerous small freights [95], and greater distances travelled by customers.) Besides, the distance of transport and food miles—as indicators, in themselves—are not sufficient to assess the environmental impacts of food chains [91].

It is undisputed that there are many potentials for sustainability in short supply chains—provided that they meet the appropriate economic, environmental, and social conditions. However, following Born and Purcell [128], we agree that "local traps" should be avoided, which means local systems should not be automatically declared as "good practices", based solely on proximity. As Depperman et al. (2019) [97] suggested, one has to be very careful with statements that call "local food" equal to "sustainable food".

Finally, we need to mention the limitations of our research. We have endeavoured to collect a sufficient amount and quality of the literature as a sample, but it is more than likely that there is information that our research does not cover. We studied English-language journal articles, and this excludes the presentation of case studies and experiences from non-English journals. Assessing the sustainability of short supply chains and their role in a circular economy can be a more complex and multi-faceted task, to which our article sought to contribute.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, K.K., C.R. and K.T.-G.; methodology, K.K.; software, K.K.; validation, K.K., C.R. and K.T.-G.; formal analysis, K.K.; investigation, K.K.; writing–original draft preparation, K.K.; writing–review and editing, K.K. and K.T.-G.; visualization, K.K.; supervision, K.T.-G.; project administration, C.R.; funding acquisition, C.R.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the project entitled: "EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00001 Complex rural economic development and sustainability research, development of the service network in the Carpathian Basin." (In original, Hungarian language: "EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00001 Komplex vidékgazdasági és fenntarthatósági fejlesztések kutatása, szolgáltatási hálózatának kidolgozása a Kárpát-medencében.")

**Acknowledgments:** The Authors wish to express their gratitude to the Szent István University for providing access to the necessary databases (e.g., Scopus). The Authors also thank their colleges and friends from the Szent István University and Eszterházy Károly University for their advice and encouragement contributing to this study.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A**

"Aspects describe the relation of short supply chains and sustainability and circular economy"

Accessibility; bio/organic; carbon (-emission); child; circular economy; consumer; cooperation; cost (producers'); delivery; education; employment; energy consumption; environment; environment friendly production; fairness; fair trade; family; food safety; food security; food quality; food-mile; handmade products (small amount); health; income; marketing/advertisment; nutrition/nutritional value; package/packaging; policymaker/governemnt; pollution; poverty; price; process/processing; producer; producer-consumer relationship; rural development; rural; social/social embeddeddnes; supplying with food; sustainability; traceability; tourism/tourism destination; transport; trust; urban; waste; wellbeing; zero-kilometres (-distance -products).

#### *Appendix A.1 Environmental Protection and Environmental Sustainability*

Bio/organic carbon (-emission); circular economy; consumer; cooperation;cost (producers'); delivery; education; energy consumption; environment; environment friendly production; food-mile; handmade products (small amount); health; marketing/advertisment; package/packaging; policymaker/governemn; pollution; price; process/processing; producer; rural development; rural; social/social embeddeddnes; sustainability; traceability; tourism/tourism destination; transport; urban; waste; wellbeing; zero-kilometres (-distance -products).

#### *Appendix A.2 Economic Development, Sustainable Economic Growth*

Accessibility; bio/organic; carbon (-emission); circular economy; consumer; cooperation; cost (producers'); delivery; education;employment; energy consumption; environment; environment friendly production; fairness; fair trade; food quality; food-mile; health; income; marketing/advertisment; package/packaging; policymaker/governemnt; pollution; poverty; price; process/processing; producer; producer-consumer relationship; rural development; rural; social/social embeddeddnes; supplying with food; sustainability; traceability; tourism/tourism destination; transport; trust; urban; waste; wellbeing; zero-kilometres (-distance -products).

#### *Appendix A.3 Social Development*

Carbon (-emission); child; circular economy; consumer; cooperation; cost (producers'); education; employment; environment; environment friendly production; fairness; fair trade; family;food safety; food security; food quality; handmade products (small amount); health; income; marketing/advertisment; nutrition/nutritional value; package/packaging; policymaker/governemnt; pollution; poverty; price; producer; producer-consumer relationship; rural development; rural; social/social embeddeddnes; supplying with food; sustainability; tourism/tourism destination; trust; urban; waste; wellbeing.

#### *Appendix A.4 Healthy Eating and Consumer Well-Being*

Accessibility; bio/organic; carbon (-emission); child; circular economy; consumer; cooperation; cost (producers'); delivery; education;employment;environment; environment friendly production; fairness; fair trade; family; food safety; food security; food quality; food-mile; handmade products (small amount); health; income; marketing/advertisment; nutrition/nutritional value; package/packaging; policymaker/governemnt; pollution; poverty; price; process/processing; producer; producer-consumer relationship; rural development; rural;social/social embeddeddnes; supplying with food; sustainability; traceability; tourism/tourism destination; trust; urban; waste; wellbeing; zero-kilometres (-distance -products).

#### **Appendix B**

#### *Appendix B.1 Environmentally Conscious, Sustainable Production*

Bio/organic; carbon (-emission); circular economy; consumer; cooperation; cost (producers'); delivery; education; energy consumption; environment; environment friendly production; food-mile; health; marketing/advertisment; package/packaging; policymaker/governemnt; pollution; price; process/processing; producer; rural development; rural; social/social embeddeddnes; sustainability; traceability; tourism/tourism destination; transport; urban; waste; wellbeing; zero-kilometres (-distance -products).

#### *Appendix B.2 Lifestyle; Good Community and Healthy Eating*

Carbon (-emission); child; circular economy; consumer; cooperation; cost (producers'); education; employment; environment; environment friendly production; fairness; fair trade; family; food safety; food security; food quality; handmade products (small amount); health; income; marketing/advertisment; nutrition/nutritional value; package/packaging; policymaker/governemnt; pollution; poverty; price; producer; producer-consumer relationship; rural development; rural; social/social embeddeddnes; supplying with food; sustainability; tourism/tourism destination; trust; urban; waste; wellbeing.

#### **Appendix C**

#### *Appendix C.1 Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Production and Consumption*

Carbon (-emission); circular economy; consumer; cooperation; cost (producers'); education; environment; environment friendly production; health; marketing/advertisment; package/packaging; policymaker/governemnt; pollution; price; producer; rural development; rural; social/social embeddeddnes; sustainability; tourism/tourism destination; urban; waste; wellbeing.

**Figure A1.** "Aspects describe the relation of short supply chains and sustainability and circular economy, and they possible\*way of connections". Source: Own editing, (used "gliffy.com"). All of these terms are connected to each other to a certain extent, but this system focuses on supply chains, and reflects the opinions of the authors.

#### **References**


© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

*Project Report*
